B-32 - Clearing the record a bit

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

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.

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

 

[Capt. Vick]

I look forward to the book Alan, and will surely add it to my collection. Can't wait!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks Alan!

 

[vikingBerserker]

I look forward to the book Alan, and will surely add it to my collection. Can't wait!

Me too!

 

[Chris Bucholtz]

A tip for Alan - for what but may be worth: a while ago (perhaps 10 years!), my wife dragged me camping and at the end of the trip, as a reward, she spent some time with me in the Veterans Memorial Museum in the city of Sonora: Veterans Memorial Military Museum - City of Sonora

This place was jam-packed with memorabilia, but right in the front, in a glass case, was an open photo album. Which featured personal photos of the B-32s on Okinawa.

The older gent manning the desk in this small museum was deaf as a post and couldn't answer any questions about the photos. I assume they're still there - it might be worth an email to them to see if you might be able to use them!

 

[f for freddy]

Swampyankee (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

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 lacking Only issue is I'm in the UK so shipping will need checking.

Great thread Being an English 5th Air Force fan knew about the B32. Recently read. " Kenney's reports" and would seem he put pressure on Arnold to let him have the B32's to replace his B-24's as he wasn't going to get B-29's but he still needed a better range bomber for the coming softening up of the Japanese homeland.

 

[tomplatten]

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.

 

[YF12A]

FLYBOY, I by no means am trying to hijack this thread but something you quoted brought back a long lost memory from my late Father about the B-377, which we all know where it came from. American Overseas Airlines bought a few Stratocruisers. When they went into service, one day one of them was being towed into an AOA hanger. The pilot and co-pilot walked outside to where my Dad was standing and asked how far into the hanger they were going to tow it in because of the tail was taller than the hanger. Dad said all the way in.The pilot said no way, how? My Dad said the tail folded down. Just as the mechanics were doing this the pilot looked at that and my Dad and the co-pilot seriously thought the pilot was going to have a heart attack or go into shock. He told me the poor pilot's face turned chalk white and he started gasping for air. I was told a couple of other people ran over as they thought the pilot was having a medical issue as well. When the poor guy recovered, he told my Father he never knew the tail could fold and it just shocked him senseless! It was explained to him it was safe, and I think this was brought to the attention of all the other pilots flying this plane.

I hope nobody minds this, but I'm not getting younger and sometimes now this is a way that triggers some great old memories.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

Greetings all! Lots of questions and comments to address, so here we go:

Chris - contacted them and left a message for the curator. Will hopefully be talking very shortly. I'd love to get your phone number so we can "talk airplane" some time.

f for Freddy - Thanks, Freddy! As a matter of fact, there are TWO vacform kits of the B-32 and a resin kit from PlanetModels. I have the two vacforms. Can I get some more info on "Kenney's Reports"? ISBN? Report number? Sounds like something I need to get.

swampyankee/tomplatten - There were more reasons than just range for the B-17 being favored in Europe. For one thing, the B-17's greater altitude capabilities made it a more difficult aircraft to reach by either fighters or AAA. In addition, for a variety of reasons Doolittle hated the B-24 and wanted to turn the 8AF into a B-17-only unit. I'm sure part of this was the logistics problem created by two entirely different aircraft's needs as well the problem of the Consolidated and Ford-produced aircraft lacking a lot of parts interchangeability. This actually created three different logistics trails and their inherent problems. As for the Government being concerned about the long development process for the B-32, I've often wondered that myself. To date I've not found anything about the Truman Committee putting pressure on the AAF about that, but I'm still looking.

As for the problems with the B-32 development, it is easy from 2018 to look back and question the need for two different long-range bombers. However, looking at it from 1944-45, you had the need to be able to turn the entire country of Japan into a dust cloud, as well as having enough long-range bombers to hit the various islands yet to be conquered (like Formosa) and hit China and the rest of occupied Asia in the process. I believe the AAF intended to bomb Japan and these areas in the same way they pounded Germany - thousands of bombers on a daily basis laying waste to the enemy. It is important to keep in mind that most bomber missions in the Pacific were pretty small affairs, many of them being a single bomber hitting a target - especially in the earlier parts of the war. To my knowledge, there were no "mass raids" until the B-29s were finally close enough to Japan (Guam, Tinian, etc.) and enough aircraft available to conduct them. And even then the number of B-29s were not considered completely adequate to undertake the simultaneous raids needed to do the job prior to and during the invasion.

YF12A - Wow! What a great story. I take it the vertical stabilizer was hinged in order to fold it to the side? I never heard of this before. At some point I'll need to dig into the 377 and learn more!

Looking forward to more feedback.

AlanG

 

[mcoffee]

Re: Kenney - I think he is referring to this:
https://media.defense.gov/2010/May/26/2001330291/-1/-1/0/AFD-100526-032.pdf
root:
Titles

 

[Capt. Vick]

Almost finished with this book. It's a quick read and I like it.

 

[Graeme]

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....

 

[BiffF15]

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

 

[Graeme]

Graeme,

What supported it when laid over in that manner? It appears to be "resting" on the horizontal tail?

Cheers,
Biff

Sorry Biff - no idea other than as you say resting on the horizontal tail?
Oddly, nothing at all on cutaways...

 

[Niceoldguy58]

Capt. Vick,

I have the book you posted above, as well as pretty much every other book and magazine article ever printed on the B-32. In addition, I have copies of every known document on the B-32 from the National Archives and a number of other locations as well. The smaller monographs do a nice job of providing a brief overview of the aircraft. Unfortunately, NONE of the items in print about the B-32 really tell a full story of the aircraft, its development, testing and ultimate use/planned use. I'm fairly confident in saying I have the world's largest collection of photographs of the B-32 and its various phases, although I know there HAS to be more lurking out there that I've not yet found. My co-author, Nick Veronico, and I intend to have this book finished and to the printer a bit later this year. It is our intent for this to be the DEFINITIVE book to date on this aircraft. There will be NO massive reprints of previously published documents, but all original and fascinating information about the B-32, its weapons, its near-life and ultimate death.

So very, very much on this interesting design that has never seen the light of day. We will rectify this in what is looking like a pretty big book.

Respectfully submitted,

AlanG

 

[vikingBerserker]

That's awesome Alan, I cannot wait!

 

[YF12A]

I thought I remembered taking a picture of a B-32 nose turret at the NASM's Paul Garber restoration shop a long time ago, as I live near by and have been there dozens of times, including the last ever public tour. If/when I find the pic I will post it.

Wish I remembered what my Dad told me about the mechanism to both unlock and fold the tail, but this is a lost memory.

Since we are talking about aircraft powered by the "wonderful" R-3350, I remembered another story from my Father. Dad was on the flightline when an AOA Connie taxied up to the hanger and shuts down. Crew come out to check the plane as my Dad is standing about 50 ft. in front, facing the plane. The pilot comes down the stairway, sees my Dad, and kind of storms over to Pops, obviously mad about something. Dad says is there a problem? Pilot goes, hell yes, the No. 2 engine is running rough, fix it! About that time, a mechanic looking at the No.3 engine starts motioning more techs to hurry over and sees oil coming out of the cowling, so Dad, as the mechanics are taking the cowl panels off, asks the pilot, how well was No. 3 running? The pilot responded, one of the best engines he's flown, wish all of them ran like it. Dad asks him to turn around and look at No. 3, please. The Pilot does this, and just then, a lower cylinder and head assembly just fall off the engine case onto the ramp. Dad says, really? I was told the Pilots' face turned beet red and he stormed away cursing. Turns out, No.2 just needed a little TLC but No. 3 had to be replaced! I learned a lot about engines, and assumptions, from my Father.

 

[Kevin J]

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

At that point the USA and the UK were not even allies and hadn't been on good terms since 1776/83.

 

[Shortround6]

At that point the USA and the UK were not even allies and hadn't been on good terms since 1776/83.

See US neutrality patrol.
Or see US aid to Britain in First World War.