Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: seano on October 20, 2011, 03:16:18 PM
-
it saw combat! nuff said!
-
:rofl :rolleyes: you shouldn't hang around in wikipedia so much...there is a bigger world out there.
-
^ :lol
-
I always did like the B-32, however it was pretty much a flop.
-
it saw combat! nuff said!
All three of them.
wrongway
-
It did see squadron strength if I am right
-
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.
-
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.
-
B-32... that's the B-24 on steroids, right?
-
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.
-
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.
-
looks ugly as heck :D but if it saw combat isn't it a possible candidate to be added?
-
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.
-
ah I see, rgr that.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
the B32 would win the poll, it has a B and a number >29 :)
-
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
-
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.
-
it would be a nice addition to add to a "post-war" arena.
ranging from the years 1946-1949.
-
I don't know what you're smoking, but the B-32 is hideous.
so is that boxy B24
-
(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
-
The F7F saw no combat.
if only that beauty did :(
-
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.
-
Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?
-
Wouldn't you say the same for the 410 and 110?
ib4noithasa50mmcannonthatgoesboom.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
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
-
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.
-
so is that boxy B24
She's beautiful when viewed inflight from the pilots seat. :D
-
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)
-
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.
-
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:
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
-
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!
-
that last picture is one vulch dream
-
double post
-
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?
-
gawd, between the b-32 and the b-24 did Consolidated go out of their way to make the ugliest planes possible?
-
That boneyard. If there were any reasons for a time machine it would be mostly to buy those up.
-
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
-
386th Bombardment Sq.
But how many?
As near as I can tell, four.
Yes, it was in a squadron, but squadron strength?
-
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
-
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.