B-32

[oakranger]

It was not in squadron strength, so far as I know.

Most importantly, however, it would be a large amount of work for a unit that is redundant next to the B-29.  There is no reason to add it.

Yep, just like the F7F and F8F, was right at the end of the war but not reconized.

[seano]

yea but at least 1 guy was killed aboard one during ww2 in air to ait combat from a ki-44. thats what i read anyways. i think f7f saw very little combat but did see some. as did p47ms. dont think the bearcat saw any combat. anyone have links to more info/ good reading?

[Noir]

the B32 would win the poll, it has a B and a number >29

[mbailey]

yea but at least 1 guy was killed aboard one during ww2 in air to ait combat from a ki-44.  

 August 18, 1945,  Sergeant Anthony J. Marchione

He was from a town about 10miles from me  Pottstown PA


Good article on the subject
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The_Last_to_Die.html

[Karnak]

i think f7f saw very little combat but did see some. as did p47ms. dont think the bearcat saw any combat. anyone have links to more info/ good reading?

The F7F saw no combat.  The P-47M saw a good bit of combat considering when it was introduced in the numbers in which it was introduced.

[Tyrannis]

it would be a nice addition to add to a "post-war" arena.

ranging from the years 1946-1949.

[olds442]

I don't know what you're smoking, but the B-32 is hideous.

so is that boxy B24

[1Nicolas]

It had 10 50 caliber MG's, 20,000lbs of bombs. He is correct it is like a B25 that can carry a B24;s worth of guns and bombs. +1

[321BAR]

The F7F saw no combat.

if only that beauty did

[Karnak]

it would be a nice addition to add to a "post-war" arena.

ranging from the years 1946-1949.

No it wouldn't.  It is absolutely redundant next to the B-29.  You're asking HTC to waste a lot of effort to make a plane that is, other than looks, almost identical to the B-29.

[moot]

Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?

[Tyrannis]

Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?

ib4noithasa50mmcannonthatgoesboom.

[AWwrgwy]

No it wouldn't.  It is absolutely redundant next to the B-29.  You're asking HTC to waste a lot of effort to make a plane that is, other than looks, almost identical to the B-29.

+1

Most B-32s were delivered from the factory straight to the bone yards of Arizona.

Only the 312th Bombardment Group, 386th Bomb Squadron was equipped with the B-32 for "Combat Evaluation". They flew four combat missions based out of the Philippines from May to June 1945. The missions consisted of three B-32s.

The 386th flew six more combat missions before the war ended. As near as I can tell, reconnaissance missions out of Okinawa.

I can find no reference to them having more than four B-32s operational.

There is a book on the 312th BG, The Roarin' 20's A History of the 312th Bombardment Group U.S. Army Air Force, World War II

If anyone at Texas A&M, a copy is available in the Sterling C. Evans Library.  Go look.

Other copies in Libraries.





wrongway

[Karnak]

Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?

No.  As fighters the differences in their flight handling matters much more.  Also, as fighters they take a lot less work to add.

[moot]

That's pretty much the best possible answer to that question.  In any other respect (anything besides unpredictable FM quirks) the 410 is set to be basically just a differently configured 110.