Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sorry for the distraction Alan. We normally don't mind threads going a bit off subject but when that's combined with imbecilic comments we quickly re-direct. It's evident this moron knew little of the subject matter so he was trying to make up for his ignorance by attempting to be a semantics troll. In any event - CARRY ON!I just love the way these discussion threads go...Start with the B-32, slip into the B-29, then down the slide to the XB-44 and eventually to the B-50 (by the way, a superb book on the B-50 from Ginter, written by Geoff Hayes - lavishly illustrated and full and lots of delicious facts), then to the F-18 and now back to the B-50. Where next?? Such fun!!
AlanG
Sorry for the distraction Alan. We normally don't mind threads going a bit off subject but when that's combined with imbecilic comments we quickly re-direct. It's evident this moron knew little of the subject matter so he was trying to make up for his ignorance by attempting to be a semantics troll. In any event - CARRY ON!The information you have shared has been fantastic!
With that said - do you know if there was any inkling or discussion to enable the B-32 to carry the atomic bomb? I would guess due to it's short life this discussion was never on the table.
Me too!I look forward to the book Alan, and will surely add it to my collection. Can't wait!
Hi Alan, while going through my model kit stash recently, found an unmade long ago bought 1:72 scale B32 Dominator by Contrail, it's a vac-form kit but all there with decals. If you are interested willing to part with it as storage room is lackingSwampyankee (Great name, by the way), your question has been asked countless times, and I'm still not sure there is a totally satisfactory answer. According the AAC, the answer was obviously "yes". And given what they knew up to the test of the atomic bomb at Jackass Flats I think the answer would still have had to "yes". The U.S. put a lot of eggs in that one basket, and even after BOTH had been dropped there was no guarantee that Japan would not have continued to fight on and thus necessitating an incredibly costly invasion. We need to look back to the time period from Pearl Harbor up until the time when the knowledge of the existence of the atomic bomb was more widely known among the command structure to truly understand the perceived need. Had the atomic bomb not existed, or not functioned properly or the Japanese hard-liners succeeded in circumventing the Emperor, the U.S. would have needed every long-range heavy bomber we could get our hands on in order to reduce Japan to a slightly hilly parking lot. Casualties in the island campaign had steadily risen in 1945 and there was no reason whatsoever to believe the actual invasion of Japan would not have followed that hyperbolic curve into the stratosphere. It is important to remember that despite the greater and greater numbers of B-29's bombing Japan, the Superfortress was still a problem-plagued aircraft in both equipment and in tactics. Not widely known were the plans to equip the B-29, B-32, B-36 and B-35 (some fairly crazy drawings if I say so myself) with both the Tallboy and Grandslam bombs with which to attack Japan. I suspect these bombs would have been used primarily to hit mountains and their tunnel systems to seal them shut. And don't forget the object floating in the punchbowl - Russia. Had push come to shove we would have needed every long-range heavy bomber would could lay our hands on. I hope that answers most of your questions.
Viking, I can assure you that our book, while it may have the occasional page taken from a manual, is based entirely on original factory, unit and AAC documents and photos. For instance, I obtained over 200 photos alone on the A-17/A-18/A-19 turrets that were designed and tested on the B-32, not to mention documentation on proposed production, tests, etc.
Varsity - I'm working on it/them!!
Donivanp, I, too, would love to see a kit of the B-32 - especially in the "One True Scale, Amen", 1/72nd scale. Given my years in the model kit industry I am sure I have appropriate data and drawings to enable a manufacturer to produce such a kit.
I hope this addresses all the questions and concerns to date. If more appear, I'll be sure to try and address them.
Alan Griffith
I don't question your knowledge of the B-32, but I think the real question -- which has probably been asked -- is whether the US needed another bomber in that category. While both the B-24 and B-17 had real shortcomings, inability to carry large bombs among them, they were adequate in Europe, and the only reason they weren't in the Pacific was because of shortcomings in range. The second question is whether the US government was beginning to wonder if the B-32 was worth the bother because of problems with its development. They may have had the same thoughts about the B-29, but that aircraft had nearly a two year head start, so they would have been wondering about its viability in late 1941/early 1942, before the B-32 had its first flight.
I hope nobody minds this, but I'm not getting younger and sometimes now this is a way that triggers some great old memories.
Great memory mate!Certainly something I never knew.
According to author Peter Brooks it could fold and reduce the height from 38 ft 3 in. to 26 ft 7 in....
View attachment 485090
Graeme,
What supported it when laid over in that manner? It appears to be "resting" on the horizontal tail?
Cheers,
Biff
At that point the USA and the UK were not even allies and hadn't been on good terms since 1776/83.FLYBOY, Thank you very much for the compliment. I'm confident the book on the B-32 will be an eye-opener to a LOT of people.
I was actually serious in my previous comment. It is like watching a party game go off the rails when this sort of stuff happens.
As for the B-32 ever carrying an atomic bomb, I've not read anything about it that I recall. Serious production got started way too late for that to be in the cards, I believe. Also, I'm not sure the bomb bay would have accommodated the early atomic bombs, but having said that they did extensively modify one B-32 to carry BOTH the Tallboy and Glandslam, so it probably could have been done. The B-29 had to be extensively modified to carry the atomic bombs, but that had started (I believe) prior to the production orders for the B-32 going into effect in early 1945. Given how few atomic bombs the U.S. had to deliver I doubt they would have bothered with the B-32 modification.
I will share one more extremely interesting tidbit about the B-32. In the very early days of the program - about the time they were approving the mockup - a rather lengthy document was written by a U.S. general sort of hammering away at the aircraft and what it needed. In that document he mentions the need to be able to fly from the U.S. to bomb Berlin and LONDON!!! At that point in the war it was not at all clear whether Britain would be able to survive and, as such, would be just another target for bombers to hit flying from the U.S.
AlanG
See US neutrality patrol.At that point the USA and the UK were not even allies and hadn't been on good terms since 1776/83.