Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: seano on October 20, 2011, 03:16:18 PM

Title: B-32
Post by: seano on October 20, 2011, 03:16:18 PM
it saw combat! nuff said!
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: gyrene81 on October 20, 2011, 03:33:56 PM
 :rofl   :rolleyes: you shouldn't hang around in wikipedia so much...there is a bigger world out there.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: MK-84 on October 20, 2011, 04:57:45 PM
^ :lol
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Pigslilspaz on October 20, 2011, 05:23:05 PM
I always did like the B-32, however it was pretty much a flop.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: AWwrgwy on October 20, 2011, 06:21:59 PM
it saw combat! nuff said!


All three of them.



wrongway
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Pigslilspaz on October 20, 2011, 07:32:07 PM
It did see squadron strength if I am right
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 20, 2011, 07:39:00 PM
The B-32 program was kept alive in case the B-29 program failed.  The B-29 program did not fail and we have the B-29 in AH.  If we ever have a scenario where we desperately need a B-32, the B-29 makes a great stand in as their performance and capability are very similar.

The B-32 is to the B-29 what the Halifax is to the Lancaster, except that 6,000 Halifaxes were built.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: colmbo on October 20, 2011, 09:28:04 PM

The B-32 is to the B-29 what the Halifax is to the Lancaster, except that 6,000 Halifaxes were built.

But the B-32 wins in the "looks cooler than poo" category.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: B-17 on October 20, 2011, 09:29:55 PM
B-32... that's the B-24 on steroids, right?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 20, 2011, 09:38:01 PM
But the B-32 wins in the "looks cooler than poo" category.
I don't know what you're smoking, but the B-32 is hideous.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: oakranger on October 20, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
I love the B-32 more than the B-29.  However, only saw three combat missions with the last one on Aug. 6th i believe. 
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Raphael on October 20, 2011, 10:08:56 PM
looks ugly as heck  :D but if it saw combat isn't it a possible candidate to be added?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: oakranger on October 20, 2011, 10:16:48 PM
looks ugly as heck  :D but if it saw combat isn't it a possible candidate to be added?

Most likly not.  I believe all the missions (could be more then three) where recons.  I will have to read up on that but i do not think not one B-32 dropped a bombed on Japan.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Raphael on October 20, 2011, 10:17:59 PM
ah I see, rgr that.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 20, 2011, 10:23:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: oakranger on October 20, 2011, 10:53:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: seano on October 21, 2011, 04:35:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Noir on October 21, 2011, 05:18:43 AM
the B32 would win the poll, it has a B and a number >29 :)
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: mbailey on October 21, 2011, 05:26:40 AM
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
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 21, 2011, 05:37:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Tyrannis on October 21, 2011, 05:58:04 AM
it would be a nice addition to add to a "post-war" arena.

ranging from the years 1946-1949.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: olds442 on October 21, 2011, 06:01:11 AM
I don't know what you're smoking, but the B-32 is hideous.
so is that boxy B24
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: 1Nicolas on October 21, 2011, 06:54:32 AM
(http://i1177.photobucket.com/albums/x347/1Nicolas/800px-B32.jpg)
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 :aok
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: 321BAR on October 21, 2011, 08:12:18 AM
The F7F saw no combat.
if only that beauty did :(
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 21, 2011, 02:23:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: moot on October 21, 2011, 02:35:20 PM
Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Tyrannis on October 21, 2011, 03:24:22 PM
Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?
ib4noithasa50mmcannonthatgoesboom.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: AWwrgwy on October 21, 2011, 04:03:56 PM
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. (http://www.worldcat.org/title/roarin-20s-a-history-of-the-312th-bombardment-group-us-army-air-force-world-war-ii/oclc/2524018)





wrongway
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 21, 2011, 05:52:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: moot on October 22, 2011, 01:54:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Ack-Ack on October 22, 2011, 03:41:14 AM
it would be a nice addition to add to a "post-war" arena.

ranging from the years 1946-1949.

There were virtually no B-32s in operation by 1947 as they were being removed from operational service as early as 1945.

ack-ack
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Tyrannis on October 22, 2011, 03:43:06 AM
There were virtually no B-32s in operation by 1947 as they were being removed from operational service as early as 1945.

ack-ack
but was it not in operation in 1946? that would qualify it to be added. since the arena would span from 1946-1949.

Same way we have EW birds that were retired flying in LW.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: AWwrgwy on October 22, 2011, 04:31:50 AM
but was it not in operation in 1946? that would qualify it to be added. since the arena would span from 1946-1949.

Same way we have EW birds that were retired flying in LW.

They were sitting in the desert in Arizona.

Oops. Internet search. They were in Arkansas.

Factory----->Boneyard


(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y198/gaviota619/tnt/B-32s.jpg)
(http://www.walnutridge-aaf.com/B-32,%20Left%20Engines.jpg)
(http://www.walnutridge-aaf.com/SW%20Ramp%20from%20Tower.jpg)
(http://www.walnutridge-aaf.com/B-32,%20Left%20Side.jpg)
(http://www.walnutridge-aaf.com/B-32%20Tails.jpg)


They're in there somewhere:

(http://www.walnutridge-aaf.com/Bombers,%20S%20&%20E%20to%20VC.jpg)

From:http://wingsofhonor.org/default.aspx (http://wingsofhonor.org/default.aspx)
Quote
It is estimated that approximately 10,000 warbirds were flown to Walnut Ridge in 1945 and 1946 for storage and sale. Some sources report the number to be over 11,000. It is reported that at least 67 of the 118 B-32 Heavy Bombers built were flown to Walnut Ridge, many straight from the assembly line. Of the remaining B-32’s, at least 37, perhaps more, were flown to Kingman.

More pics: http://wingsofhonor.org/gallery_sales1.aspx (http://wingsofhonor.org/gallery_sales1.aspx)
and http://wingsofhonor.org/gallery_sales2.aspx (http://wingsofhonor.org/gallery_sales2.aspx)



wrongway
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 22, 2011, 01:46:22 PM
but was it not in operation in 1946? that would qualify it to be added. since the arena would span from 1946-1949.

Same way we have EW birds that were retired flying in LW.
Who cares?  It is a idiotic and pointless wish.  You are asking for an airplane that is as functionally close to the B-29 as possible, same bombload, almost exactly the same speed and very similar guns.  It would take HTC about as much effort to model it as it would take them to do three or four new fighters.  All of that just so you can have a B-29 in a different skin.  That is an absurd wish.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: colmbo on October 22, 2011, 09:33:50 PM
so is that boxy B24

She's beautiful when viewed inflight from the pilots seat.  :D
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: MK-84 on October 22, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
Question:

     I see that GIANT picture of what appears to be hundreds of planes  just sitting in the desert.  Was this because they were used for parts, or to await scrapping, or because no one knew what else to do with them?  I know its kinda off topic, but why was that done?  Unlike, for example that picture you see of dozens of P38's being bulldozed down a ravine after the war.  (unless that's a SAPP thing)
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: oakranger on October 22, 2011, 10:46:54 PM
Question:

     I see that GIANT picture of what appears to be hundreds of planes  just sitting in the desert.  Was this because they were used for parts, or to await scrapping, or because no one knew what else to do with them?  I know its kinda off topic, but why was that done?  Unlike, for example that picture you see of dozens of P38's being bulldozed down a ravine after the war.  (unless that's a SAPP thing)

A lot where being used as scrap parts for other air crafts. I know that some of the WWII era bombers where scraped to make mobile homes (not sure how they do it). Other where used as targets and testing. Most of all, it was a cheap way for the military to put planes back into service when needed.

Who cares?  It is a idiotic and pointless wish.  You are asking for an airplane that is as functionally close to the B-29 as possible, same bombload, almost exactly the same speed and very similar guns.  It would take HTC about as much effort to model it as it would take them to do three or four new fighters.  All of that just so you can have a B-29 in a different skin.  That is an absurd wish.

I would not say idiotic.  The individual may not understand where AH staff stands on when it comes to developing new AC or GVs into the game.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: AWwrgwy on October 23, 2011, 01:00:26 AM
Question:

     I see that GIANT picture of what appears to be hundreds of planes  just sitting in the desert.  Was this because they were used for parts, or to await scrapping, or because no one knew what else to do with them?  I know its kinda off topic, but why was that done?  Unlike, for example that picture you see of dozens of P38's being bulldozed down a ravine after the war.  (unless that's a SAPP thing)

It's all in the Walnut Ridge website if you explored a bit:

Quote
The WWII Aircraft Boneyards

In  1945  the  RFC  established  five  large  storage,  sales  and scrapping  centers  for  Army  Air  Forces  aircraft.  These  were located at:  Albuquerque, NM;  Altus, OK;  Kingman, AZ;  Ontario, CA; and Walnut Ridge, AR. A sixth facility for storing, selling and scrapping Navy and Marine aircraft was located at Clinton, OK.

General sales were conducted from these centers; however, the idea for long term storage, considering the approximate cost of $20 per month per aircraft, was soon discarded, and in June, 1946, the remaining aircraft, except those at Altus, were put up for scrap bid. 

It is estimated that approximately 10,000 warbirds were flown to Walnut Ridge in 1945 and 1946 for storage and sale. Some sources report the number to be over 11,000. It is reported that at least 67 of the 118 B-32 Heavy Bombers built were flown to Walnut Ridge, many straight from the assembly line. Of the remaining B-32’s, at least 37, perhaps more, were flown to Kingman.

Four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one (4,871) of the aircraft stored at Walnut Ridge, primarily fighters and bombers, were sold to Texas Railway Equipment Company in September 1946, to be scrapped.  The bid price was $1,838,798.19. On the southwest corner of the ramp, two giant smelters were constructed to melt the scrap aluminum, which was formed into huge ingots for shipping.

The aircraft at Altus were put up for scrap bid in 1947, and sold on May 12, 1947, to Esperado Mining Company of Walnut Ridge. (Probably owned in whole or part by Texas Railway Equipment Company, the  company  that  scrapped the warbirds at Walnut Ridge.)

By late 1947 scrapping had been completed at Clinton and the big five scrapping facilities, except Altus, which finished by mid 1948.

The tens of thousands of proud warbirds that had survived the enemy fighter planes and fierce anti-aircraft fire could not escape the smelters at Albuquerque, Altus, Kingman, Ontario, Walnut Ridge and Clinton.   

At Walnut Ridge, the two smelters used to turn the proud Warbirds into aluminum ingots were torn down about 1951.  In 1952 the City of Walnut Ridge used the firebricks from the smelters to construct an administration/terminal building on the site of the WWII Base Operations building.




wrongway
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: MAINER on October 24, 2011, 10:08:50 AM
I would love to see that added to aces high! and yes i did see actual combat and drop bombs but mostly it was marine patrol!
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Raphael on October 24, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
that last picture is one vulch dream
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Raptor05121 on October 24, 2011, 01:00:54 PM
double post
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Raptor05121 on October 24, 2011, 01:03:01 PM
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.

386th Bombardment Sq.

I say it should see Aces High skies many moons from now. It does have a place, maybe less perks than a B-29 and not as fragile?

ibut t looks like a B-26 mated with a B-29, does it not?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Ardy123 on October 24, 2011, 02:54:25 PM
gawd, between the b-32 and the b-24 did Consolidated go out of their way to make the ugliest planes possible?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Pigslilspaz on October 24, 2011, 03:19:44 PM
That boneyard. If there were any reasons for a time machine it would be mostly to buy those up.
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: colmbo on October 24, 2011, 08:04:36 PM
gawd, between the b-32 and the b-24 did Consolidated go out of their way to make the ugliest planes possible?


You are obviously one with little aircraft aesthetic taste!   :D
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: AWwrgwy on October 25, 2011, 12:07:30 AM
386th Bombardment Sq.



But how many?

As near as I can tell, four.

Yes, it was in a squadron, but squadron strength?
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: chipr on October 25, 2011, 03:46:29 PM
Who cares?  It is a idiotic and pointless wish.  You are asking for an airplane that is as functionally close to the B-29 as possible, same bombload, almost exactly the same speed and very similar guns.  It would take HTC about as much effort to model it as it would take them to do three or four new fighters.  All of that just so you can have a B-29 in a different skin.  That is an absurd wish.

You can say that about every plane in the game. Why have all the diff types of spitfires, corsairs, and 109s if they all are basically the same plane? More is better in this case. If you dont like it, dont fly it.

chipr
Title: Re: B-32
Post by: Karnak on October 25, 2011, 06:25:53 PM
You can say that about every plane in the game. Why have all the diff types of spitfires, corsairs, and 109s if they all are basically the same plane? More is better in this case. If you dont like it, dont fly it.

chipr
No, you most certainly cannot say that about other aircraft in the game.  If they add the Halifax then you could say it about the Lancaster and Halifax.

1) Adding variants of existing aircraft is very easy in comparison to a completely new aircraft, particularly when it is a very large four engined bomber.
2) All the Spitfires, F4Us and Bf109s have greater differences in terms of gameplay than do the B-29 and B-32 or the Lancaster and Halifax.

What part of "There is no functional difference, other than graphics, between the B-29 and the B-32 and the B-32 would take huge amounts of very finite developer time to add." do you not understand? By adding the B-32 that I can just not fly they have also not added, perhaps, the J2M3, Ki-44-II or Ju188A-1 that I would fly.