# Italian Aircraft of WWII



## Ghostdancer (Oct 8, 2007)

One thing I've never seen much written on are the Aircraft of the Italian AF in WWII. I have heard that Italy did produce some fighters that were comparable to the best that Germany and Britain had at the outbreak of the war, I'm just not familiar with any of them.


----------



## Jank (Oct 8, 2007)

In December 1942 a technical commission of the Regia Aeronautica was invited by Luftwaffe to test some German aircrafts in Rechlin. The visit was part of a joint plan for the standardization of the Axis aircraft production. In the same time some Luftwaffe officers visited Guidonia where they were particularly interested in the performances promised by the Serie 5's. On December 9 these impressions were discussed in a Luftwaffe staff meeting and rised the interest of Goering itself.

In February 1943 a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters. The commission was led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officiers and pilots nad by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans carried with them also several aircrafts included a Fw190A and a Me109G for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.

The tests began February 20. The German commission, not without a certain surprise, was very impressed by the Italian aircrafts, the G55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G55, "good" for the Re2005 and "average" for the MC205. Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.

The interest of the Germans, apart from the good test results, derived also from the development possibilities they was able to see in the G55 and in the Re2005. For the Re2005 the German interest resulted in the provision of an original DB605 with the new WM injection. This engine and a VDM propeller were installed on the MM495 prototype that was acquired by Luftwaffe and tested in Rechlin. The aircraft reached 700 km/h during a test with a German pilot, but the airframe was not judged sufficiently strong for these performances.

The G55 was bigger and heavier and was considered a very good candidate for the new DB603 engine. Other visits were organized in Germany during March and May 1943 in Rechlin and Berlin. The G55 was again tested at Rechlin at the presence of Milch. Gabrielli and other FIAT personalities were invited to visit German factories and to discuss the evolution of the aircraft. The specifications of the German G55/II included the DB603 engine, five 20 mm guns and a pressurized cockpit. The suggestion of weapons in the wings, limited to one 20 mm gun for each wing, originated the final configuration of the Serie I, while the 603 engine was succesfully installed in the G56 prototypes.

As a concrete results of the German interest in the G55, the Luftwaffe acquired three complete G55 Sottoserie 0 airframes (MM91064-65-66) for evaluations and experiments giving in change three DB603 engines and original machinery for the setup of other production lines of the DB605/RA1050 RC58 I. Two of the Luftwaffe G55's remained in Turin, at the Aeritalia plants, where they were used by German and Italian engineers to study the planned modifications and the possible optimizations to the production process. Later these two were converted to Serie I and delivered to the ANR. The third one was transferred to Rechlin for tests and experiments in Germany. The DB603 engines were used to build the G56 prototypes.

The interest in the G55 program was still high after the Armistice: in October 1943 Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G55 in Rechlin, was in Turin to discuss about the G55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe. Early produced G55's required about 15000 manhours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9000 manhours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf109 in only 5000 manhours.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2007)

I've read that story so many times that I almost know it by heart  To me it's my favourite what-if story. Having Luftwaffe Fiat G.56s fighting Mustangs over Germany.

But to comment on Ghostdancer's post, Italy definitely had no good fighters at the outbreak of war. They had good ones at the end but couldn't produce them in significant numbers. They did have some good three-engined bombers at the outbreak of war though. 

I think most is known of the Italian part in WW2 but there is a lack of statistical data. I have never seen monthly loss reports like the ones I have from the Luftwaffe.
Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 10, 2007)

Civettone said:


> But to comment on Ghostdancer's post, Italy definitely had no good fighters at the outbreak of war. They had good ones at the end but couldn't produce them in significant numbers. They did have some good three-engined bombers at the outbreak of war though.
> Kris



Good summary Kris, I fully agree. 
PS: you were temp working in Italy, are you still there?


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 10, 2007)

The wikipedia article is somewhat optimistic regarding the capabilities of Italian fighters... Here`s the actual German tactical trial :

Kurfürst - Bericht über Jagdflugzeug-Vergleichsfliegen bei der ital. E-Stelle Guidonia.

The opinion was positive, but also mixed. The Italian aircraft, amongst their good qualities, also had a number of important drawbacks. On the whole I`d say the G-55 and other DB-powered versions were largely comparable to the LW`s fighters, but in the end they also proved far more difficult to produce, which killed any serious consideration about producing them.


----------



## Jank (Oct 10, 2007)

Civettone said, "_They had good ones at the end but couldn't produce them in significant numbers_."

Keeping in mind that the "end" was September 8, 1943. Although fielded in pitifully small numbers due to Italy's industrial defects, the Series 5 machines were among the very best fighters in the world at the time. Perhaps only the lates Spitfire variant was superior.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Good summary Kris, I fully agree.
> PS: you were temp working in Italy, are you still there?


No man, I came back a couple of weeks ago. I had a blast!
Will be going back for a week at the end of the month. Hopefully I'll go back next summer.
Where do you live again?



Jank said:


> the Series 5 machines were among the very best fighters in the world at the time. Perhaps only the lates Spitfire variant was superior.


I love those 5 series but when I think about it, they were about a year behind ... which is still a step forward to the C.200 and C.202 which were even more behind. I think the 5 series were comparable to the following aircraft: Spitfire IX, Bf 109G, Yak-9, Fw 190A and P-38F, all aircraft which were around in 1942.

Kris


----------



## Ghostdancer (Oct 10, 2007)

And...

I think that France had some good fighter aircraft as well at the outbreak of the war, but only in small number and were quickly destroyed.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 11, 2007)

Performance wise series 5 was equal or better to the contemporary fighters, that is the 109G series before the enhancements of the DB605 and so on. 
In two words, they could replace the Bf109 at high altitudes with equal or better performances and far superior armament, while at low-medium altitudes in 1943 the 190A was still a troublesome customer for every foe.

Construction wise the series 5 was more expensive to build than the German counterparts. I don't think they were more expensive than the Spitfire, but the problem was that whereas the Spit could be mass produced in a big factory in a safe environment (like all American crafts) the axis fighters needed to be produced in a dispersed environment to escape bombing. 
If you could have built the Fiat G55 in Republic or North American plants, the industrial cost would probably be comparable with P47 and Spit.
Add to this the 'not invented here' factor that was common everywhere and the decision of the Luftwaffe is perfectly understandable.

Kris, I am living 40Km from Milan and work there, PM or mail me if you are in the area and want toi have a drink together.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 11, 2007)

Well, if you read that Guidonia report on Kurfürsts site it seems clear that the 5 series were comparable to the Bf 109G: in climb and roll rate similar, in handling better, in speed worse. BUT! the Bf 109G was from 1942. And that's my point. 
And I don't think the 5 series were better than the Spitfire IX which dominated the scene until 1944 with great handling, climb rate, speed and maneouvrability. The IX was to the Spitfire what the Bf 109F was to the Bf 109s.
A similar story for those other fighters of 1942 which I mentioned.

Of course you're absolutely right about the problems with dispersion of production and continuous air raids. But the Spitfire costed (in manhours) about as much as the Bf 109 before production was dispersed in 1944. As such the 5 series would still have been more difficult to build. And I only know of the G.55 being designed with ease of production in mind. I suppose the other 5 series were more complicated to produce. 
But the G.55/56 was definitely worth the effort, I don't see it replacing the Bf 109 but complementing it. I think it should have replaced the Fw 190A/D...

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 12, 2007)

Civettone said:


> BUT! the Bf 109G was from 1942. And that's my point.
> 
> Kris



.. but the DB605 installed in the 'series 5' was the 1942 version... and that's my point: in case of full scale production the G55 would have been fitted with the most recent 605s

About a comparison of the 3 machines, I agree that the G55 was the best (and only possible) choice: the Macchi 205V was more a "series 2,5" than a series 5: just a 202 with the DB605 and 2xMg151 (the real Macchi 5 was the 205N, built only in 2 prototypes), the Reggiane 2005 was also in the infancy (tail structural problems to be ironed out, similar to the early Bf109F) and would have required time before being ready for mass production.

On the possible 'replacement' of LW fighters I disagree instead: the G55 could have been a kind of BF109 with more punch (firepower was the main problem of the 109F and G, only partially solved with the K) and MAYBE would have made not necessary the development of the Dora. 
The combination of high performances as fighter at low-mid altitude plus the versatility as Jabo, bomber destroyer etc. of the 190A could not have been matched by a G55 as they were not matched by the 109. 


Btw: I was in Reggio Emilia for a meeting yesterday, so here is a picture of the 'Officine REGGIANE' as they can be seen today from the railway station...


----------



## Glider (Oct 12, 2007)

I think its worth mentioning that the G55 operated in some units with the 109G's and K's but the pilots preferred the G55.
The main advantage being the G55 handled better at high speeds plus the better weapons.
No one is denying that the 109g's and K's had a higher top speed, but the controls were heavy above 350mph and close to impossible at much over 400mph. The G55 was still easy to handle at these speeds.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 12, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> .. but the DB605 installed in the 'series 5' was the 1942 version... and that's my point: in case of full scale production the G55 would have been fitted with the most recent 605s


? It was still the DB 605A from 1942 till 1944...




> the Reggiane 2005 was also in the infancy (tail structural problems to be ironed out, similar to the early Bf109F) and would have required time before being ready for mass production.


Perhaps that's a bit exaggerated. The Re.2005 was designed and flew around the same time as the G.55 so was definitely not in its infancy.
The tail problems grounded the fighter in the Summer of 1943 for a very short tome and after that it was solved. By the time the Reggiane would have been in German production (1944) those problems would have been long ironed out. 



> On the possible 'replacement' of LW fighters I disagree instead: the G55 could have been a kind of BF109 with more punch (firepower was the main problem of the 109F and G, only partially solved with the K)


The Bf 109G-6/R6 was a sufficient bomber destroyer. The gun gondolas giving a reduction in speed of - what was it again Kurfürst? - 8 km/h? And one should look beyond this, only half of the fighters were used against the bomber fleets and even then they had to fight the escort fighters as much as the bombers. So in most cases the standard armament of the Bf 109 sufficed, especially once they had the MK 108. 
So for sure, the G.55 had an advantage in armament and was definitely the better bomber destroyer. But my point is that it doesn't warrant it completely replacing the Bf 109 because the Bf 109 was sufficient for most tasks and could be build in twice the numbers of the G.55. 




> and MAYBE would have made not necessary the development of the Dora.






> The combination of high performances as fighter at low-mid altitude plus the versatility as Jabo, bomber destroyer etc. of the 190A could not have been matched by a G55 as they were not matched by the 109.


I agree on the Jabo bit. But as a low altitude fighter or as a bomber destroyer it didn't have advantages over the Bf 109 or G.55.
As such I would continue the production of the Fw 190F/G. 



> Btw: I was in Reggio Emilia for a meeting yesterday, so here is a picture of the 'Officine REGGIANE' as they can be seen today from the railway station...


Cool!
Why didn't you go in and ask some information about the tail problems of the Re.2005. I'm sure they would have loved that!  

Glider, I also have accounts which say that the Bf 109G was still controllable (though barely) at all speeds. I suppose it depends on who's telling the story...
Kris
Kris


----------



## 16KJV11 (Oct 12, 2007)

I was reading in a book about the Macchi 205V and it said that was the best Italian fighter of WWII. 
It was so good, that the Luftwaffe formed one gruppe of these fighters.
I am curious what the gruppe's name was, where did they serve and what was their success rate?


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 12, 2007)

Kris,

about DB 605 being the same....
Early DB 605 were restricted in RPM, and it seems that restricted version was the Fiat manufactured one fitted in the 'series5' of the test. 
and the DB AM, AS, ASM, ASB, ASC, D, D-2, DB and DC not to mention MW50and GM1? 

Reggiane 2005 : yes, design was contemporary but G55 was in a more advanced development, so if you have to pick one in a hurry the G55 should be the natural choice. Even in the most favorable approach there was no option to develop 2 models.

Bf109/R6 (Gondolas): by reading the reports, impression is that it was not only the 8 kmh in speed but mostly the worsening of flight behavior due to 300kg added to the wings. 
G55 and 190A had already this extra-weight in the standard configuration used for evaluation.
Probably in pure climb rate and speed the 109k would had retained a slight edge (as it had vs the Dora) but probably a G55 with up-to-date engine could have been more effective in 44-45

Fw190A : with standard armament of 4x20mm + 2x12,7 (A7&A8) or 4x20+2x7,9 (A4,5,6) it had about 3 times the firepower of standard Bf109, it seems logically arguable that it was more effective as bomber destroyer.
At least until the versions of 109G10 and K were available with the Mk108 in the nose, but still you were limited to 60 rounds.
Trading performances for firepower, the 109 could add 2x20mm in gondolas, the 190A had 2x30mm in the wings and almost no added weight (ecluding the extra-armour, but then to keep comparison fair you should add it to Bf109 too)

Reggiane: the aeronautical division ceased to exist in 1945, it is a dead story and there is nothing left....
here is what they are producing now:
FantuzziWorld Online

the only dedicated historical site I know is this, but seems not updated since 2002

Reggiane! Reggiane!


16KJV11 

Maybe the correct statement should be 'best Italian fighter deployed in reasonable numbers'  
The 205V was a MC202 with DB605 instead of DB601 (and the 202 was basically a MC200 with DB601 instead of the crappy radial): it was a fairly good fighter and able to fight on par with all opponents but still from an older generation.
Many parts (tail, gear etc.) were interchangeable between 200,202 and 205V, several MC202 who needed engine overhaul were fitted with a DB605 and started a second life as MC205V.

later...
sandro


----------



## Glider (Oct 12, 2007)

Civettone said:


> ?
> Glider, I also have accounts which say that the Bf 109G was still controllable (though barely) at all speeds. I suppose it depends on who's telling the story...
> Kris
> Kris



Near Impossible and Barely Controllable sound pretty close to me. Either way the G55 scores over either description.


----------



## Juha (Oct 13, 2007)

16KJV11 said:


> I was reading in a book about the Macchi 205V and it said that was the best Italian fighter of WWII.
> It was so good, that the Luftwaffe formed one gruppe of these fighters.
> I am curious what the gruppe's name was, where did they serve and what was their success rate?




IIRC it one of the JG 77 Gruppen used Macchi 205 briefly in Italy, didn't shoot anything down and lost some Macchis in accidents.

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Oct 13, 2007)

The G-55 along with the Re-2005 and other italian fighter A/C were tested againsz a Bf-109*G4* and turned out to be slower.
The G4 itselfe had larger and more sturdy landing gears (with a wing modification to accomodate them), a necessarity orginiating from improvised, muddy airstrips in Russia. Therefore, the G4 top speed in clean fighter configuration is with ~640 Km/h (398 mp/h) at optimal altitude actually slower than a G2! If the G55 indeed was slower than a G4, it is not competetive to modern allied fighter A/C appearing late in 1943 from a german perspective.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 13, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Bf109/R6 (Gondolas): by reading the reports, impression is that it was not only the 8 kmh in speed but mostly the worsening of flight behavior due to 300kg added to the wings.
> G55 and 190A had already this extra-weight in the standard configuration used for evaluation.



Nope, the G-55 was lightly armed version had 4x12.7 guns, plus a Mauser in engine with the same amount of rounds in the engine as in the 109G-4; the 190A-5 was a lightened version with only the two (syncronized) root MG 151s retained. It could add two MG FFs in the wings which would bring up weight to 4 tons or about +150 kg extra. This firepower would be matched exactly by the gondies on the 109G on added 215 kg, with the advantage of superior ballistics but the weight penelty for adding the same 2 Mausers for the 190A wing was very similiar: + 200 or so kg.



> Fw190A : with standard armament of 4x20mm + 2x12,7 (A7&A8) or 4x20+2x7,9 (A4,5,6) it had about 3 times the firepower of standard Bf109, it seems logically arguable that it was more effective as bomber destroyer.



Yup, but in that configuration tthe A8 would weight over 4.3tons, about _500kg_ heavier than the lightened A-5 version tested in Italy.. similiarly, the upengined, 'five-twenties' G-55 would be a much heavier beast than what was compared at Guidonia.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 13, 2007)

Glider said:


> I think its worth mentioning that the G55 operated in some units with the 109G's and K's but the pilots preferred the G55.



Would it be Steinhoff`s book..? I haven`t seen such quote yet. Anyway, a few days ago I was reading this entry from the JG 77`s Kriegtagebuch (the unit flew both Macchis, G-55s and 109Gs, later Ks) :

*27.05.44*_

Display for the Air Fleet ([… …])

Macchi a good plane against fighters, FIAT G.55 a tired ship. Despite that, Macchis are running out and the G.55 will continue to be built!_

In any case, the only thing those guys are crying out loud for was more 109Gs with AS engines..




> The main advantage being the G55 handled better at high speeds plus the better weapons.
> No one is denying that the 109g's and K's had a higher top speed, but the controls were heavy above 350mph and close to impossible at much over 400mph. The G55 was still easy to handle at these speeds.



The 109 was perfectly controllable at high speeds, there are tests showing 900kph dive recoveries from vertical dives in about 1000 meter altitude..

As for the G-55, at Guidonia they seemed to like the weapons of ship, and the possibility for a DB 603, otherwise it`s not so uniformly flattering IMHO (my quick translation :

_The flying properties are not as good as the Bf 109 G 4 and the Fw 190 A 5 The visibility is not as good as the Bf 109 G 4 and the Fw 190 A 5. A significant drawback of the Fiat G 55 in comparison to the German fighters is that it`s unsuited for the _Jaboeinsatz. _This should not be overlooked, as on all fronts the the fighter-bomber missions are moving to the foreground._

...

_*The aileron forces are high. The rudder effectiveness could have been somewhat better. Roll rate is slightly lower than with the Bf 109 G.* The aircraft turns well and very tightly. In neutral position _ (firing solution/Schießflug) the plane is a little restless and fahrthängig. (some comment on snaking qualities I think? (Abkippmöglichkeit/verhalten). Could not be tested, similiar to the Spitfire)... _Moderate visibility at take off. View in flight is limited to forward and above, good to the sides and rear. Take off and landing is very simple. Aircraft is in series production.

Not usable for Jabo-Einsatz with fuselage-mounted ordonance, since the underfuselage radiator and the landing gear retracts inward. The radiator sufficiently sized for tropical operations._


----------



## Glider (Oct 13, 2007)

I am afraid that I must disagree with parts of this posting.

Re the handleing of the 109 at high speed, I have read a number of reports detailing how heavy the control forces become on the 109 at high speed and have never read one that says that it is easy or even acceptable at speeds over 400mph. I am happy to be proved wrong if you can supply an example.

one example is as follows - _These air battles took place at high altitude and very high speed, and at these speeds the control forces of the Gustav grew very heavy, the responsiveness and effectiveness of the control surfaces became very poor as did directional stability. Maneouverability was lost and the Gustav became a poor gun platform_. There are others as well.

Re the preference for the G55 my sources state
i) Two pre production examples were delivered to Guidonia in spring 1943and flown against the 109G and 190A proving superiour in most respects and better manoeuvrability than either aircraft.
ii) The ANR unit equipped with G55 and 109 the pilots universally preferred the G55 and the decision to stop production was extreamely unpopular
iii) The G56 with the DB603 was tested against the 109K-4 and late model 190A and shown to be superior. Max speed was 436mph and climb to 1000m in 48 seconds, 4000m in 3min 33 sec and 7000m in 7min with better manoeverability than either German aircraft. However, production was expressly forbidden by the German authorities. Again a decision that was not well received.

Re the ground attack role. I don't have information about this specifically but I do know that a G55 was fitted with a 2050lb torpedo, carried this at 354mph, dropped it accurately at a target and proceded to demonstate what a German observer decribed as 'an astonishing low level aerobatic display that illustrated forcibly that the modifications had in no way impared its capabilities as a fighter.' 
The aircraft (M.M.91194) also climbed to a height of 6000m in 8min 15sec carrying the torpedo. There can be little doubt that this would have been a very effective strike plane. The germans forbade the future development of this version as well.

Spot the trend

PS you keep saying that the G55 only had 1 x 20mm and 4 x HMG as standard. Where do you get this idea from?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 13, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> The 109 was perfectly controllable at high speeds, there are tests showing 900kph dive recoveries from vertical dives in about 1000 meter altitude..


I have read of some Finnish pilots who came out of high speed dives which they thought they would not have. 'By the Grace of God' comes to mind.

We don't hear about the pilots who did not come out of high speed dives because they didn't survive.

_Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is impossible.
Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.

Maximum diving speed 750 km/h (under 3000m). Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out. Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch. _

How much altitude did it take a Ju-87 to pull out of its vertical dive of 350mph (563kph)?


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 14, 2007)

Glider said:


> I am afraid that I must disagree with parts of this posting.
> 
> Re the handleing of the 109 at high speed, I have read a number of reports detailing how heavy the control forces become on the 109 at high speed and have never read one that says that it is easy or even acceptable at speeds over 400mph. I am happy to be proved wrong if you can supply an example.



There are dozens of such, Hanna, Southwood, Lukas`s dive trials could be and were quoted dozens of times... you can read the 109G TTs on my site in the Middle East.

As for the relative control forces of the G-55, the report notes the G-55 aileron forces are higher and it`s roll rate is lower compared to the test 109G.



> one example is as follows - _These air battles took place at high altitude and very high speed, and at these speeds the control forces of the Gustav grew very heavy, the responsiveness and effectiveness of the control surfaces became very poor as did directional stability. Maneouverability was lost and the Gustav became a poor gun platform_. There are others as well.



I don`t know where this comes from, nor do I believe it has much basis - the logic seems flawed since control forces are generally less and less of a problem on any aircraft as altitude increases..



> Re the preference for the G55 my sources state
> i) Two pre production examples were delivered to Guidonia in spring 1943and flown against the 109G and 190A proving superiour in most respects and better manoeuvrability than either aircraft.



Why don`t you just read the _actual test report itself_ and see how much wishful thinking this description has, ie. 'superior on most respects'.. I have already posted some translation...



> ii) The ANR unit equipped with G55 and 109 the pilots universally preferred the G55 and the decision to stop production was extreamely unpopular



See JG 77 war diary. I have not seen those pilots myself (I presume they are in Italian books, I've never read one myself). Perhaps you can share some?




> iii) The G56 with the DB603 was tested against the 109K-4 and late model 190A and shown to be superior. Max speed was 436mph and climb to 1000m in 48 seconds, 4000m in 3min 33 sec and 7000m in 7min with better manoeverability than either German aircraft. However, production was expressly forbidden by the German authorities. Again a decision that was not well received.



I have never heard about these tests, and frankly, I am sceptical about there has been a test performed at all (at least not in Germany). Perhaps specs were compared - and BTW these specs shown with the 'DB 603' (which?) do not look superior to me at all. Competitive, yes, superior, no.



> Re the ground attack role. I don't have information about this specifically but I do know that a G55 was fitted with a 2050lb torpedo, carried this at 354mph, dropped it accurately at a target and proceded to demonstate what a German observer decribed as 'an astonishing low level aerobatic display that illustrated forcibly that the modifications had in no way impared its capabilities as a fighter.'
> The aircraft (M.M.91194) also climbed to a height of 6000m in 8min 15sec carrying the torpedo. There can be little doubt that this would have been a very effective strike plane. The germans forbade the future development of this version as well.
> 
> Spot the trend



Sorry, based on simple physics, I am sceptical about such descriptions.. I am sure the G55 was modified later to carry a torpedo, and I am sure it could pull out nice stunts with it - uneffected after being added a ton of extra weight and drag, no way in our physical world. I agree it would have been an excellent strike plane, based on this description. As for German decision, it would be interesting to see the reasonig behind it - perhaps that they already had a FW 190 torpedo variant capable of carrying an 1400 kg aerial torpedo? Why run two similiar projects at the same time?



> PS you keep saying that the G55 only had 1 x 20mm and 4 x HMG as standard. Where do you get this idea from?



Read the Guidonia test report. The G 55 tested had this much armament. I don`t say it`s standard, merely that all conclusions of that report are based on an aircraft with this much armament.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> There are dozens of such, Hanna, Southwood, Lukas`s dive trials could be and were quoted dozens of times... you can read the 109G TTs on my site in the Middle East.


Glad you mentioned Hanna. I did read his *full* report on a comparision between the 109 and the Mustang. He summed it up as below 250mph, the 109 had a clear advantage, between 250 and 350 there was nothing in it, but above 350 the Mustang had a clear advantage because of the control forces on the 109.

Another example follows:- _The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. As there is no rudder trimming device, it is necessary to apply right rudder for take-off and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons become increasingly stiff with the increase in speed especially at speeds in excess of 350 I.A.S. At speed below 180 I.A.S. the ailerons are not positive and as the stall is approached they are almost non-effective. The elevators also become increasingly difficult to operate as the speed increases. Above 350 I.A.S. this unpleasantness is accentuated as the elevator trim is practically impossible to operate._ 

I am awaiting any example from yourself about how easy it is to handle the 109 at high speed.



> I have never heard about these tests, and frankly, I am sceptical about there has been a test performed at all (at least not in Germany). Perhaps specs were compared - and BTW these specs shown with the 'DB 603' (which?) do not look superior to me at all. Competitive, yes, superior, no.


The details are in an article from Air Enthusiast a number of years ago. The tests were undertaken by the Germans and I don't know why you should doubt them. The aircraft serial numbers are M.M.536/7 and two prototypes were used. You have the plane numbers, performance details and the other changes to the aircraft are as follows (compared to a standard G55). Length increased by 19cm. Additional weight was 340lb and the two engine mounted MG's were removed and internal fuel was increased to 131Imp Gallons. 



> Sorry, based on simple physics, I am sceptical about such descriptions.. I am sure the G55 was modified later to carry a torpedo, and I am sure it could pull out nice stunts with it - uneffected after being added a ton of extra weight and drag, no way in our physical world. I agree it would have been an excellent strike plane, based on this description. As for German decision, it would be interesting to see the reasonig behind it - perhaps that they already had a FW 190 torpedo variant capable of carrying an 1400 kg aerial torpedo? Why run two similiar projects at the same time?


Again you have the details of the planes performance and the the airframe number. Why you are sceptical I don't know, it happened, I have a poor photo of the aircraft which will not prove anything and a quote from an official observer. A lot more has been claimed with less to support it than that.
The point was to prove that the G55 could easily have been a very effective strike aircraft which was one of the key reasons why the Germans said development should be stopped.


----------



## Jank (Oct 14, 2007)

I can't speak to the validity of the matter discussed but I can spot a misunderstanding as good as the next chap.

Kurfurst said, _"Sorry, based on simple physics, I am sceptical about such descriptions. I am sure the G55 was modified later to carry a torpedo, and I am sure it could pull out nice stunts with it - uneffected after being added a ton of extra weight and drag, no way in our physical world."_

You misread. Glider said,* "I do know that a G55 was fitted with a 2050lb torpedo, carried this at 354mph, dropped it accurately at a target and proceded to demonstate what a German observer described as 'an astonishing low level aerobatic display that illustrated forcibly that the modifications had in no way impared its capabilities as a fighter.'"*

Where did he mention an aerobatic display with the torpedo present (with the added ton of extra weight)? Note that the claim is that the torpedo was dropped and *then* the aircraft "proceeded" to perform the aerobatic display.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 14, 2007)

The aircraft in question..


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 14, 2007)

Glider said:


> Glad you mentioned Hanna. I did read his *full* report on a comparision between the 109 and the Mustang. He summed it up as below 250mph, the 109 had a clear advantage, between 250 and 350 there was nothing in it, but above 350 the Mustang had a clear advantage because of the control forces on the 109.



As a matter of fact Hanna does not say anything like that, it`s entirely your fabrication or you have misread it. I advise you to re-read it.



> Another example follows:- _The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. As there is no rudder trimming device, it is necessary to apply right rudder for take-off and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons become increasingly stiff with the increase in speed especially at speeds in excess of 350 I.A.S. At speed below 180 I.A.S. the ailerons are not positive and as the stall is approached they are almost non-effective. The elevators also become increasingly difficult to operate as the speed increases. Above 350 I.A.S. this unpleasantness is accentuated as the elevator trim is practically impossible to operate._



What plane is this about and from whom ? I don`t quite see how it supports your claims that the 109 was 'near impossible' to control at high speed.



> I am awaiting any example from yourself about how easy it is to handle the 109 at high speed.



Oh, I see. After I've answered your quesion and pointed you to a sources about a matter that had been discussed hundreds of times, you keep pretending you have not seen anything and keep repeating the same claim. 

Sorry, I don`t play this kind of game. You`re welcome to actually read the sources I have gave. They are all available online.



> The details are in an article from Air Enthusiast a number of years ago. The tests were undertaken by the Germans and I don't know why you should doubt them.



Because no author mentioned them so far, which is quite odd don`t you think..? 



> The aircraft serial numbers are M.M.536/7 and two prototypes were used. You have the plane numbers, performance details and the other changes to the aircraft are as follows (compared to a standard G55). Length increased by 19cm. Additional weight was 340lb and the two engine mounted MG's were removed and internal fuel was increased to 131Imp Gallons.



You said it was tested against the 109K and the 190A, why no WNr. for the LW planes then...? Could it be the G-56 was tested alone and then the author of the article claimed it was superior to this and that aircraft?

I`d like to see the article itself or the details. Does the article state reference to that test?



> Again you have the details of the planes performance and the the airframe number. Why you are sceptical I don't know, it happened, I have a poor photo of the aircraft which will not prove anything and a quote from an official observer. A lot more has been claimed with less to support it than that.



You answered it with the last sentence. See what has been claimed about the Guidonia trials and _what`s actually stated_ in that report in comparison... lots of wishful thinking there. It`s always good to be careful with such statements.



> The point was to prove that the G55 could easily have been a very effective strike aircraft which was one of the key reasons why the Germans said development should be stopped.



I don`t quite get it then.. why would the Germans object having an effective strike aircraft - apart from having two effective strike aircraft, complicating matters...?

Sorry but that sounds like a lame conspiracy theory.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 14, 2007)

Jank said:


> Where did he mention an aerobatic display with the torpedo present (with the added ton of extra weight)? Note that the claim is that the torpedo was dropped and *then* the aircraft "proceeded" to perform the aerobatic display.



Oh I see then the misunderstanding... but then I don`t quite get what does it prove, a clean fighter G-55 was capable of nice aerobatic manourvers...?


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> As a matter of fact Hanna does not say anything like that, it`s entirely your fabrication or you have misread it. I advise you to re-read it.


Actually yes he did and I stick to it.



> What plane is this about and from whom ? I don`t quite see how it supports your claims that the 109 was 'near impossible' to control at high speed.


Do you recognise this one (its from your site) _The elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the trim wheel hardens up and becomes almost sold in a dive. Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on.
The ailerons are satisfactory up to a moderate dive, and after that were used charily owing to the warning in the handbook of their weakness. Comparative combat trials are needed to complete this section of the report.
_


.


> Oh, I see. After I've answered your quesion and pointed you to a sources about a matter that had been discussed hundreds of times, you keep pretending you have not seen anything and keep repeating the same claim.
> 
> Sorry, I don`t play this kind of game. You`re welcome to actually read the sources I have gave. They are all available online..


Give me the link and I will read them. I have tried your 109 site and couldn't find them but I did find the one mentioned above. There are other examples I can give.


.


> You said it was tested against the 109K and the 190A, why no WNr. for the LW planes then...? Could it be the G-56 was tested alone and then the author of the article claimed it was superior to this and that aircraft?.


I don't have that detail (and don't make that type of thing up) it was an article in a magazine and I quoted what I had, no more, no less. Its good detailed information and I have no reason to doubt it.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

If you can translate it here is a link to the G56 and its trials with the Me109K-4
FIAT G-56


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

As a result of this and the fact that the high altitude performance was much better than that of the Fw 190, the Gustav primarily took on the american and british escort fighters. These air battles took place at high altitude and very high speed, and at these speeds the control forces of the Gustav grew very heavy, the responsiveness and effectiveness of the control surfaces became very poor as did directional stability. Maneouverability was lost and the Gustav became a poor gun platform.
The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
The Best of the Breed: The Me-109 and Fw-190A

“A shortcoming was the lack of any rudder trimming device. This meant that is was necessary to apply moderate right rudder during the climb and considerable left rudder during a dive. Thus, although the Bf-109G pilots tended to bunt into a steep dive as an escape manoeuvre in dogfights, they had some very heavy rudder and elevator control forces to contend with as speed built up and pull-outs at low level had to be made with considerable circumspection
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/bf109-ruder-trim-9866.html

I truely am looking, but have yet to find one posting that says the 109 handled well at high speed. As mentioned earlier I am happy to change my position if evidence is supplied


----------



## Jank (Oct 14, 2007)

"*Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis"* and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany."

Oberst Edgar Petersen was the Chief Officer of the Luftwaffe's experimental aircraft testing facility at Rechlin and he was there for the testing. 

The 65 year later armchair quarterbacking from a bunch of WWII nerd/geek pansies with P.C.'s is amusing to say the least.


Here's Kurfurst being awarded the "Oberst Petersen didn't know jack. I know what really happened" merit badge:
.





.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 15, 2007)

Glider said:


> Actually yes he did and I stick to it.



If Mark Hanna would say anything you claim, you`d simply quote him.

In fact this what Hanna tells :

_Pitch tends to be heavy above 400km/h, but* it is still easy to manage up to 500km/h, and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 550km/h and below.* Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a slight nose-down trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a slight tucking sensation-a sort of desire to get down to ground level. This is easily held on the stick, or it can be trimmed out, but it is slightly surprising initially.

When you maneuver above 500km/h, two hands are required for a more aggressive performance. Either that or get on the trimmer to help.* Despite this heavying up, it is still quite easy to get 5G at these speeds.* 

The rudder is effective and of medium feel up to 500km/h. It becomes heavier above this speed, but regardless, *the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with this airplane.*_

So where`s the problem...? It seems you can impose high G loads on the plane without particular problems.




> Do you recognise this one (its from your site) _The elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the trim wheel hardens up and becomes almost sold in a dive. Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on.
> The ailerons are satisfactory up to a moderate dive, and after that were used charily owing to the warning in the handbook of their weakness. Comparative combat trials are needed to complete this section of the report.
> _



_"the trim wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive."_

_
"Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on."_

_"The ailerons are satisfactory up to a moderate dive"_

I don`t see a problem here either. It seems to say the ailerons are satisfactory and you are not limited at all by the stick forces in pitch but the pilot`s (in)ability to sustain the G-loads the aircraft can impose on him in dive.

Not quite the story you were telling before about the 'lawn dart 109s'...?



> I don't have that detail (and don't make that type of thing up) it was an article in a magazine and I quoted what I had, no more, no less. Its good detailed information and I have no reason to doubt it.



Perhaps you can translate the relevant part for us? I do not speak/read Polish.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 15, 2007)

Glider said:


> As a result of this and the fact that the high altitude performance was much better than that of the Fw 190, the Gustav primarily took on the american and british escort fighters. These air battles took place at high altitude and very high speed, and at these speeds the control forces of the Gustav grew very heavy, the responsiveness and effectiveness of the control surfaces became very poor as did directional stability. Maneouverability was lost and the Gustav became a poor gun platform.
> The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605



You`re not serious about this page..? I mean, it`s a fine page, but certainly not presenting someone`s view who had flew the plane. See Erich Brown below.




Glider said:


> The Best of the Breed: The Me-109 and Fw-190A



The Carson article; it has been debunked a 1000 times already.



> “A shortcoming was the lack of any rudder trimming device. This meant that is was necessary to apply moderate right rudder during the climb and considerable left rudder during a dive. Thus, although the Bf-109G pilots tended to bunt into a steep dive as an escape manoeuvre in dogfights, they had some very heavy rudder and elevator control forces to contend with as speed built up and pull-outs at low level had to be made with considerable circumspection
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/bf109-ruder-trim-9866.html



This is Erich Brown being quoted. It`s a bit strange, since he also comments this (solidity of control) :

_"However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (ie. above 25,000 ft / 7 620 m) it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations."_

It`s a bit funny though, since Brown flew the same 109G-6/U2 as was tested earleir by CENTRAL FIGHTER ESTABLISHMENT.. it`s funny to compare their comments : 

Brown mentions _'the rudder being light, the ailerons moderately light'_
CFE : _'The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. '_

Again, exactly the same plane.



> I truely am looking, but have yet to find one posting that says the 109 handled well at high speed. As mentioned earlier I am happy to change my position if evidence is supplied



This is what a UK 109F test has to say :






Frankly, I do not see what the problem is, if even at such extreme speeds they comment that 'fairly tight turns are possible'. It certainly does not seem the plane is limit the pilot`s manouveribility, quite the contrary, the pilot can`t sustain the high G loads the plane can pull.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 15, 2007)

BTW I don`t quite understand why this is so important in a Italian fighter aircraft thread.. Perhaps Adler can move this to the 109 thread...?

After all, whatever the control forces the 109 were, the Guidonia report is quite clear that the G-55 aileron forces were higher than the 109, as well as the roll rate lower, for example, and the plane tested there was found turnining 'somewhat better' than the 109G-4(/trop? given the weight) tested.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

Jank, I don't think there was much reason to insult Kurfürst...

Perhaps it's difficult to accept things of which you have always been told that they were different. The Bf 109G flew like a pig at high speeds. Right? No!

You need some more accounts? Well, let's check out this virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

_Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above? 
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version). 

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up? 
Nnnooo, they don't lock up. 
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over. 
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association. 


Me 109 G-2/G-6: 
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds? 
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help. 
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. " 
- Did the roll capabilites change? 
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank. "
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h? 
"Yes. "
- How about slow and medium speeds, could you do stunts? 
"Yes, but it was heavier than the earlier planes (Fokker D.XXI, Curtiss Hawk 75). But better in combat. I got to fly the Hornet simulator last summer. That stick moved only little. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä. 

Me 109 G-6: 
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then. 
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. _

There also used to be an article called "Why Col Kit Carson was an idiot". Couldn't find that one anymore. Now I see it's because the author changed the title into "Why Col Kit Carson was wrong." 
Why Carson was an idiot
He makes it clear that the rudder and aileron forces were similar to the Spitfire which no one would claim was difficult to handle...

Here's a translation of that Polish G.56 site. I used poltran.com for it but translation is horrible. So I'm just summarizing it. And do remember that I love the G.56. Until a month ago I had a G.56 in my signature

Prototype of the G.56 showed good result during the tests. Indeed it was less responsive than the G-55 production series, but it has turned out with a maximum speed of 685 km/h the fastest fighter aircraft of Italian construction. 

Training battles with german fighters Messerschmitt Bf 109G, Bf 109K-4 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190A show superiority of the Italian aircraft. Expected is a further correction in performance after the employment of a new 4 bladed VDM propellor. But tests had been interrupted because of heavy allied air raids on the plants in northern italy carried out on 25 april 1944. 
I think it says then that there was damage to the first prototype but that the second prototype, the MM 537 would continue flight in October 1944. This aircraft was later taken by Fiat to fly test different engine types. 
It also goes on by saying that Speer and Saura ordered further work on the G.56 and production of the G.55 to be stopped. 

This makes perfect sense to me as Speer wanted to concentrate on fewer types of aircraft to increase overall production, and succeeded in doing just that.
So it's not that the Germans were unwilling to accept a non-German aircraft, it was the rationalisation of the German war economy which led to its cancellation. The G.56 was definitely an amazing aircraft.

Kris


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 15, 2007)

_Training battles with german fighters Messerschmitt Bf 109G, Bf 109K-4 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190A show superiority of the Italian aircraft. Expected is a further correction in performance after the employment of a new 4 bladed VDM propellor. But tests had been interrupted because of heavy allied air raids on the plants in northern italy carried out on 25 april 1944._

There were no flying Bf 109Ks in April 1944... perhaps they tested against an /AS aircraft...?

Thanks for the translation. And BTW, I don`t think any of us doubts the G-55/56 series were wonderful aircraft with high potential.


----------



## Glider (Oct 15, 2007)

Civittone
Many thanks for the link, its what I have been looking for. Re the Hanna observation, considering I was going from memory I had it pretty close.

_So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109_


----------



## Norman Dubeski (Nov 28, 2009)

Hello. I am quite interested by this online community's commitment to exploring the answers to questions of eras that we often take for granted, having been so accustomed to secondary sources. I am familiar with the heated debates involving Kurfurst and the relative performance of the BF-109 versus contemporary fighters. However, I just would like to make a few observations of my own. Upon perusing the Guidonia technical evaluations of the Italian fighters versus the German, from the file that Kurfurst has posted on his site, I am struck by various details that I think were overlooked regarding the Centauro G.55 in particular and the Italian fighters in general. 
A) All of the Italian fighters Re. 2005, MC 205, and G.55 carried heavier armament and fuel loads than did the FW-190a-4 and Bf-109g-4. Yes, the G.55 was not superior to the Bf-109g in most ways (from the German point of view) but it was carrying a substantially heavier load. Comparing it with the Bf-109g-4 is like comparing the Bf-109f-4 with the Bf-109g-6/R6 "gunboat" or "three-pointer."
B) Despite how Bf-109g partisans argued that the Italian and German engines would have had exactly the same power as the Bf-109g in Feb. 1943 was not flying with as much power as it would that summer in terms of a.t.m. boost, I notice that the German translation DOES indeed state that the G.55 was slower but had a weaker engine by 100 h.p. Yes, Kurfurst is quite right about many things, that we would have assumed they had equivalent engines, but it was the PROTOTYPE that was tested: a production Centauro would have had an even heavier armament. So, if it had been manufactured in Italy in May 1942 no wonder its engine was inferior to that of a Bf-109g-4 that was manufactured at the start of 1943.
C) It does indeed say that the G.55's rate of roll was apparently inferior to the BF-109g-4. The German expression used is unknown to me, but it suggests "smaller" rather than "slower." However, one would assume the German fighter was being flown to its peak performance with its wing slats deployed.
D) In summary, the report does indeed suggest to me that the G.55 was a superb design. Carrying 40% more fuel and twice the munition load of the Bf-109g-4, its speed and maneuverability was almost as good. Its take-off and landing behavior was benign, unlike that the Bf-109g. I suppose you could have filled up the P-51B/D to the brim of its fuselage tank and put on a few rocket tubes and found out that it, too, was inferior to a lightly-loaded Messerschmitt.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 29, 2009)

What is more striking to me is that the C.205 and Re.2005 seem to get a better evaluation but in the end the G.55 is considered to be the best. It seems to me that the easier production was the main reason for this...


Kris


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 29, 2009)

I agree Kris, especially the Re.2005


----------



## madrebel (Sep 6, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> I have never heard about these tests, and frankly, I am sceptical about there has been a test performed at all (at least not in Germany). Perhaps specs were compared - and BTW these specs shown with the 'DB 603' (which?) do not look superior to me at all. Competitive, yes, superior, no.













superior to the K4 .. not really but the tests did occur in sept 43.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 17, 2010)

good stuff


Kris


----------



## krieghund (Sep 22, 2010)

I have a slightly clearer G56 datasheet and G55 data and RC1050 engine graph

enjoy


----------



## Civettone (Sep 25, 2010)

great stuff!

Kris


----------



## billswagger (Sep 25, 2010)

Those 109 comparisons are interesting. 
I still hold my reservations about the 109 responsiveness because of the commonalities found in every account or description, even those posted here. I wouldn't hinge my views on one pilot's thoughts but rather several sources including the tactics used by the aircraft in combat and defensive tactics used to avoid attacks by the aircraft in question. Sometimes those can be more telling than what pilots have to say. 
In all likelihood, a trained pilot learned to avoid scenarios that would challenge his limits in the cockpit. 
That is to say that a trained pilot isn't likely to use his plane or put himself in a situation where he would not be able to control his aircraft, or allow him to maneuver to a better position. 
You don't hop in a 109 and fly it like a P-51, or vice verse. Every plane has its strengths and weaknesses. 

You might also look at the Ki-61 seeing as it was based on the 109, and what the Japanese had to do to it so it was a better fit for their needs. 

In some reading i've also found that many Italian fighters out performed their contemporary 109 counterparts, at least in speed and in some cases climb, however those factors are not the only considerations for a combat ready aircraft. 

Example: the Re-2000 was shown to outperform the Emil however was determined unfit for combat because of lack of self sealing tanks.


----------



## madrebel (Sep 27, 2010)

the Re-2000 was a good deal slower than the Emil so not sure what you mean there. Fairly sure ti turned much better.

Does anyone have chart data on the Re.2005 by chance? I've looked everywhere and haven't seen anything like the previously posted g.55 and g.56 data. I have some similar charts for the mc.202 as well somewhere I can post. I'll try to remember tomorrow, iirc its from a wright field test of a captured mc.202.


----------



## krieghund (Sep 27, 2010)

billswagger said:


> Those 109 comparisons are interesting.
> I still hold my reservations about the 109 responsiveness because of the commonalities found in every account or description, even those posted here. I wouldn't hinge my views on one pilot's thoughts but rather several sources including the tactics used by the aircraft in combat and defensive tactics used to avoid attacks by the aircraft in question. Sometimes those can be more telling than what pilots have to say.
> In all likelihood, a trained pilot learned to avoid scenarios that would challenge his limits in the cockpit.
> That is to say that a trained pilot isn't likely to use his plane or put himself in a situation where he would not be able to control his aircraft, or allow him to maneuver to a better position.
> ...



I believe you will find the Ki-61 was based solely on the He-100 from the export models sent to them fortunately the manufacturing capability was sunk in route ...they even made an experimental model Ki-61 with the evaporate cooling system of the He100 to test it for the Ki-64.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 27, 2010)

krieghund said:


> I believe you will find the Ki-61 was based solely on the He-100 from the export models sent to them fortunately the manufacturing capability was sunk in route ...they even made an experimental model Ki-61 with the evaporate cooling system of the He100 to test it for the Ki-64.


I remember having discussions about this before. What does "based on the He 100" mean? Clearly it was not a copy. A source of inspiration? Well yeah, but so was the Bf 109. 
But when you are saying that the manufacturing capability was sunk what does that mean? That the He 100 was supposed to be licence produced but the ship with jigs and tools were sunk? But the Japs did have a complete He 100, why start with a new design even if you lose this capability??




madrebel said:


> the Re-2000 was a good deal slower than the Emil so not sure what you mean there. Fairly sure ti turned much better.
> 
> Does anyone have chart data on the Re.2005 by chance? I've looked everywhere and haven't seen anything like the previously posted g.55 and g.56 data. I have some similar charts for the mc.202 as well somewhere I can post. I'll try to remember tomorrow, iirc its from a wright field test of a captured mc.202.


There is some info to be found on the Re.2005 but it is very difficult to interpret. Which version? Which engine and prop? Italian or German tests? Which altitude? Very confusing. For instance, one often comes across the maximum speed of 678 kmh which was attained by diving at altitude and leveling out. 
Max speed to me is 644 kmh at optimum altitude, which is 6500 m.

Also interesting is that the Re.2005 carried all its fuel in its wings, in integral fuel tanks. There were plans to expand these fuel tanks to the outer wings which would have given the Re.2005 an impressive range.

As to the Re.2000, it was definitely not faster than the Bf 109. There are many stories of 1939-1940 fighters being more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109. This is definitely true but it's also the reason why the Bf 109 was better than all of them: if you want a manoeuvrable fighter, stick with a biplane and see how much your loopings and turns which help you against a power fighter you can't touch.

Also the Re.2000 had an unreliable engine. Pity those Swedes and Hungarians who had to fight with them.

Kris


----------



## madrebel (Sep 27, 2010)

I would like to see any and all information surrounding the Re.2005. If you have it link or post it .


----------



## Civettone (Sep 27, 2010)

Look no further than this very forum: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/maximum-speed-reggiane-2005-a-3267.html

In fact, I had forgotten that I got my info from here as well. Too bad people like Dogwalker didnt continue that discussion furrther. A lot of questions remain!

Kris


----------



## krieghund (Sep 28, 2010)

First: three He100 were delivered to Japan if one compares the line drawings and construction techniques you will discover many similarities with the He100 not the Bf-109

Second: Heinkel had long association with technology transfers to Japan long before the war started

Third: The U-boat and surface ships carrying the jigs, engineering data and specialized tooling for the production of the He100 and He-119 were sunk en-route to Japan

At present I am on temp duty in the middle of the sand box with an acceptance team accepting the next two Avionics Modernized C130s. There are now four C130s with the most advanced glass cockpit in the world (better than the C130 AMP or the current C130J) (See CMC Electronics "Cockpit 9000")

When I get back to the compound I will provide copies of source data.

I will also start a new post


----------



## Civettone (Sep 28, 2010)

Looking forward to it. I would also like to see a nice comparison between Ki-61 and He 100. I have looked at the plans before and saw nothing but differences. Especially one has to consider the Ki-60 as well. The Ki-60 and Ki-61 were very similar, except for in size. I don't see how the He 100 would have been the source for the Ki-61 but not for the Ki-60. And there is clearly no line between the Ki-60 and the He 100: http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/kawasaki_ki-60.gif
I know that the chief designer of Kawasaki used to work under Vogt from Heinkel and that Kawasaki licence produced some Heinkel designs. But that in itself is no proof that the Ki-61 was derived from the He 100. The only connection I see is the surface cooling which was soon discarded by both companies. 

But well, I await your return  be safe!
Kris


----------



## madrebel (Sep 30, 2010)

civettone, you wouldnt happen to have naca airfoil numbers for the Re.2000(1/2) and the Re.2005 would you? what about flap info and or rate of roll data?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 1, 2010)

sorry M  
also not my cup of tea


Kris


----------



## madrebel (Oct 1, 2010)

yeah i'm starting to think a trip to a few museums in italy are in my future. its italy so i need to go just for that alone but i haven't found much detailed information on some of these italian fighters. i'm hoping the museums have some stuff that just hasn't surfaced due to a general disinterest with anything italian and related to ww2.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 1, 2010)

I wouldn't hold my breath  And of the Re.2005 not much remains, except for a piece of the landing gear. 

And how good is your Italian? That seems essential if you're planning on finding info as you would probably have to go through archives. 
There's a nice book on the Re.2006 btw, also in English. "Re.2006, La storia vera" iirc

Kris


----------



## madrebel (Oct 2, 2010)

my italian isn't good but my uncle benjamin can probably help with that . i've seen enough technical docs that i could probably find some decent info given enough time. the only tech docs that i get very little from are russian ones with their crazy alphabet.

idk i think it would be fun, now, all i need to do is find the time to get out there for a month or so.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 2, 2010)

Good luck mate!


Kris


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 8, 2010)

This may be a silly question, but WHY do any of you believe that the Ki-61 was based on either the Me 109 OR the He 100? Seems to me that they are quite different designs in a lot of ways other than the similarity of the power plants. I don't see the other similarities.

The Me 109 always had leading edge slats and a tiny wing. The Ki 61 has considerably more wing area and different shapes and proportions.

The He 100 has a radically different shape in most places, but especially in the shape of the wing, dihedral break, arrangement of flaps, etc. it was also quite fast on the installed power. The Ki-61 was closer in speed to a Me 109E on similar installed power.

- Ivan.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 8, 2010)

I don't think the Bf had anything to do with it, but there is a thread here that shows the engine mount of the Hi 61 vs He 100 and they are nearly the same. I think if the He 100 was an influence, it was probably more on the inside then outside.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 9, 2010)

Agree with VB.

Also, I don't think anyone ever said the Ki-61 was a copy of a German fighter. But "based on" is a very broad term. Also used for the Grumman F-8F, which was based on the Fw 190 though really shows no resemblance. Instead, it was more of a "source of inspiration". Just my 2 cents.

Kris


----------



## zoomar (Oct 12, 2010)

In general, the principal monoplane fighters Italy entered the war with (Fiat G50, Mc200) were slower and much less powerfully armed than British, German, and even French aircraft, without being noticeably better in any other traits. Italy also entered the war with many CR42 biplanes still in front line service. Beginning in 1942, the Italians began to adapt existing airframes to take German DB engines (MC202, Regianne 2001, etc), but in comparison with comparable German, Allied, and Japanese types they were pitifully undergunned. The only Italian service fighter that really matched the best German, Allied, and Japanese types was the Fiat G55, and this came into service just as before the Italian collapse.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 12, 2010)

The CR.42 was coming into service in numbers when the war started. You should have said that the old CR.32 was still in service.

The two Mgs were no problem if gunnery training was sufficient: the Finns did ok with it 

Kris


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 12, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> ... but there is a thread here that shows the engine mount of the Hi 61 vs He 100 and they are nearly the same.



Really? I was always under the impression, from what i have read, that the engine mounts for the He-100 were integral to the fuselage (ie part of the fuselage) as a weight saving measure. In fact that the plane had pretty low growth potential because it was custome tailored for the engine it had. I would really like to see those pictures because I have seen a Ki 61 "naked" and it looked pretty standard engine mount wise. But, I have been known to have blackouts that I attribute to either alien abductions or glue sniffing...


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 12, 2010)

Capt. Vick said:


> I would really like to see those pictures because I have seen a Ki 61 "naked" and it looked pretty standard engine mount wise. But, I have been known to have blackouts that I attribute to either alien abductions or glue sniffing...



Oh snap! I'm totally wrong! I found the comparison! Spot on. I must have been thinking of the "other" Ki 61.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 13, 2010)

Civettone said:


> The CR.42 was coming into service in numbers when the war started. You should have said that the old CR.32 was still in service.
> 
> The two Mgs were no problem if gunnery training was sufficient: the Finns did ok with it
> 
> Kris



Oops, sorry about the CR32/CR42 confusion. But it's scary that a so-called major western airforce would just be bringing a biplane into service when the war started! Yes, I know the Soviets were late with the I-153 as well.

Regarding gunnery, Finns might have done well in the Winter War with G50's, but they were shooting at equally armed and not particulrly heavily protected late 1930's Soviet planes. Later, they were very much happier with Bf-109Gs.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

That's exactly what I wanted to hear: were the allied fighters in North Africa heavily protected?


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 13, 2010)

Civettone said:


> That's exactly what I wanted to hear: were the allied fighters in North Africa heavily protected?
> 
> 
> Kris



Define "heavily protected"? 
The Italian 12.7 mm ammo was about 5/8 as powerful as US or Soviet 12.7mm ammo or even a bit less. lighter bullets at lower velocity. The Italians did use explosive ammo but with only about 1 gram of explosive per bullet
the effect isn't going to be great. 
Penetration is obviously going to be rather less than American or Soviet 12.7 ammo. 
All British and American fighters in North Africa after 1941 are going to have at least some armor and self sealing tanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2010)

Re. Italian 2 HMGs: 

Those 2 HMGs were to be applied against all flying hardware, not just fighters. I do imagine them as being ineffective vs. A-20s, B-25/26s, Beaufighters, Marylands, Baltimores - and plethora of those were employed above Mediterranean.


----------



## Juha (Oct 14, 2010)

Soviet planes during the Winter War were not Il-2s but at least their fighters had back armour for pilot and DB-3 bombers had armour and fuel tanks with fire suppression.

Juha


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

All the criticism I have read on the Breda's were post-war, mainly based on British and American studies. RA pilots were in general satisfied with their guns, until they had to engage heavy bombers over Italy.

I don't think the weakness in armament is the Breda but the fact only two were carrried. For instance, British fighters had 8 .303s but none of them could penetrate armour. The Breda was twice as powerful and had - although not as much as the American Browning - better armour penetration. Surely enough to penetrate 4-5 mm of back armour a Spitfire carried. I suppose the Hurricane and P-40 armour was also not up to the job of effectively stopping a Breda-SAFAT 12,7 mm. 




Juha said:


> Soviet planes during the Winter War were not Il-2s but at least their fighters had back armour for pilot and DB-3 bombers had armour and fuel tanks with fire suppression.
> 
> Juha


Juha!!Nice to see you again man! 
Yeah the Russians were pioneers in aircraft armour. But again, the question arises if that armour was stopping 12,7s. Or even 7,92s?? Bf 109 armament with LMGs was apparently sufficient until 1943.

Slightly related this wonderful account of a Finnish pilot, great read:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/lampi.htm

Kris


----------



## Elmas (Mar 17, 2011)

Something said by the enemies: Group Captain W.G.G. Duncan Smth, D.S.O., D.F.C., in “Spitfire into battle”, John Murray (Publishers), Paperback edition 2002, pag. 173-4:

_“I returned to Lecce, as this airfield was only slightly damaged and I tought it would do very well as a second string, in case Grottaglie became overcrowded. After a pleasant meal of spaghetti with the Italian pilots, I took the opportunity of inspecting the Macchi 205s and a couple of Re 2001/5s (sic) I found parked near the flight offices. The Re 2001/5 s were fairly new to the Italian Air Force, and only a handful had been built. They had a wing shape very similar to the Spitfire, a powerful engine and were armed with four cannons (sic). Having had a dog-fight with one of them, I am convinced we would have been hard pressed to cope in our Spitfires operationally, if the Italians or Germans had had a few Squadrons equipped with these aircraft at the beginning of the Sicily campaign ot in operations from Malta. Fast, and with an excellent manoeuvrability, the Re 2001/5 was althogeter a superb aeroplane. Tough I didn’t get a chance to fly one, I did manage to fly the Macchi 205 and the Me 109G. Neither of these aircraft measured up to the capabilities of the Re 2001/5 series in manoeuvrability or rate of climb. (omissis) It is a pity, however, that no Re 2001/5 survive to this day, because they were fine examples of the Italian engineering craftmanship.”_

and ”They gave me a Seafire” Cap. 7 – Cmdr R. “Mike” Crosley, pag. 42

“_There were still two Gladiators at Yeovilton. There was also a captured Italian CR 42. Wiggy and our CO, Rodney Carver, had a doghfight over the airfield and the CR won. That was rather glossed over later, and no one would admit it; but it was true.”_


----------



## al49 (Mar 17, 2011)

Hi, for sure the above report refers to Reggiane Re 2005 Sagittario, a very nice machine developed around the German DB605A engine and armed with three MG 151/20 cannons and two 12,7 Safat m.g.





For more info, you can go here:
Reggiane Re.2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Re 2005 belonged to the so called 5 Series of fighter that also included the Fiat G55 and the Macchi C 205.
All were more than a challenge for all allied fighters, but they had very little influence on air war over Italy because they were developed too late and produced in a too small number.
Just to give an idea, these are some rough numbers:

RE 2005 built 36 pcs
Fiat G55 built 105 pcs
Macchi C 205 built 250 pcs

against:
Spitfire: built over 20,000
P 51 built over 12,000
P 47 built over 12,000

or
BF 109G (same engine) built over 27,000 

Cheers
Alberto


----------



## Crimea_River (Mar 17, 2011)

Sleek bird, not previously known to me.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 17, 2011)

For all the justifiable criticisms that can be levelled at the MC 200, it still was an effective aircraft. In Russia the single group sized unit operating in Russia with mostly C200s managed to shoot down something like 90 Soviet Aircraft for the loss of only 15 of their own number. RAF considered the Macchi to be effective against the hurricane, which was the dominant type used by the RAF until mid 1942. Moreover, throughout 1941, it was mostly the old Hurri 1s that were sent to the theatre. So Allied technical superiority was actually a lot less in that period 1940-2 than might otherwise be supposed.

The CR 42 was outclassed as a fighter, though it continued to be useful over Malta, and on second line duties like convoy escort. It was also quite effective as a ground attack aircraft. And though it was hard pressed to shoot anything down, this did happen and moreover, it was so manouverable it could often evade its more capable attackers.

Italian bombers were somewhat effective, but they were vulnerable to damage, being poorly protected and armoured. SM79s were effective torpedo bombers.

All italians formations suffered from very poor levels of serviceability after only a few months of the war. I not at home right now, but I am sure that I have read somewhere that at some point they retained 1800 frontline aircraft at some point in the war, but of this number, less than 400 were serviceable

If you want to look at reasons for the lacklustre performace of the RA, the failres of its technology is not the primary reason. Neither is there anything wrong with their manpower. Their most serious failure was in the area of logistics. Here they failed miserably


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2011)

The Italians did have a problem with technology, or a technology/manufacturing /supply combination. The Fiat engine used in the MC 200 and many other Italian aircraft was a bit behind the times and too low powered for the job. It is no good claiming the Italians only had 87 octane fuel, they did, but other countries managed better results using 87 octane. Comparing the Fiat engine to a pre war R-1830 shows the Fiat engine was slightly larger at 1906-7 cu in. It was about 180 lighter than the R-1830 but it ran 200rpm slower. The R-1830 on 87 octane fuel was good for 1050hp at take off, 900hp continuous or climb to 11,000ft at 2550rpm and 1000hp emergency continuous (a commercial rating?)at 2600rpm, hight not specified. Why the Italian engine could not be made to give more power I don't know, casting/forging problems with the cooling fin depth pitch, bearing material/design preventing higher rpm, needed redesigned crankcase-crankshaft for higher rpm, other reasons? Again I don't know but the Italians seemed to like designing new engines rather than improving old ones.
The Italians had 3 different 14 cylinder radials of about the same size and performance but the Piaggio was licensed Gnome-Rhone and of little help. There seem to have been about 5 (or more?) 18 cylinder radial engine projects that resulted in little flyable hardware. Large displacement engines of low weight and low rpm but also low power. 
It also seems that no Italian production engine ever used a two speed drive on it's supercharger. Not a huge technology leap, but perhaps the Italian gear cutting industry was already stretched thin? 
A 1050-1100hp 14 cylinder radial with a 2 speed supercharger could have gone a long way in closing the gap between the 870hp radial Italian fighters and the DB601 powered ones. And/or been available a bit quicker?


----------



## al49 (Mar 18, 2011)

Hi, what you are saying is very interesting but if we want to try to understand why Italian air-force was for many aspect inferior let say to the British one we should step back and consider the political aspect.
When WW2 begun, Italy was still recovery from the efforts (industrial and financial) did to support Nationalist in Spanish civil war.
When he decided to declare war on France and UK, Mussolini knew very well that Italy wasn't prepared for a long war against other European powers, as he was been told by generals that Italy wouldn't be ready before 1942. But Germany was winning almost everywhere and, expecting the war to end in few months, he wanted to have "a few casualties" in order to seat on the willer side on the pace-talk table. 
And for a war just lasting a few months our Fiat CR 32/42 or our very light tanks were more then enough.
Not only when later on it was clear that the war will continue for years, not just months, the government (a dictatoship, not a democracy) wasn't strong enough to compel Italian industries to work together an standardize production.
Last but not least and returning to the air war, the experience in Spain, where our little Fiat Cr 32 biplanes were able to successfully fight against monoplanes like the Russian Rata, convinced our top brass that the WWI style "dog-fight" was still the right approach that didn't changed until 1943.
Alberto


----------



## parsifal (Mar 19, 2011)

Italy in fact was suffering from the effects of league sanctions imposed after the invasion of Abyssinnia. The league had imposed trade sanctions on the Italians that, whilst being totally inneffective against italy 9with respect to their ability to halt the invasion), did cause deep dislocation to italian Liquidity and access to foreign capital, by forcing her to call upon her own gold and cash reserves to purchase essential imports. this was further exacerbated by the italian wastage of capital on her overseas empire.....investments were made on roads, oil exploration (which was never found) and the building of various capital works programs, that were out of all proportion with the colonies as ecomic assets. In short, italy wasted her investment capital, and allowed her international politics to suck her economy dry, as it were. 

Looking again at the Ethiopian situation, the sanctions only lasted from November 1935 to June 1936. They consisted of: Proposal I which imposed a ban on arms trade to both Italy and Ethiopia; Proposal II which "asked States to *render impossible all loans to or for the Italian Government, or banking or other credits to or for that Government or any public authority, person or corporation in Italian territory, and all issues of shares or other capital flotations in Italian territory or elsewhere, made directly or indirectly for the Italian Government or for public authorities, persons or corporations established in Italian territory*";2 Proposal III "related to the *prohibition of importation into the territory of State Members of all goods (other than gold or silver bullion and coin) consigned from Italy or Italian possessions*";3 Proposal IV which "prohibit[ed] the exportation or re-exportation to Italy and her colonies of a certain number of articles...necessary for the prosecution of war, ...[and] mainly exported by States Members of the League".4 In addition, a suspension of all the bilateral clearing agreements with Italy was declared. The sanctions came into force on 18 November 1935. A further Proposal No. 4A, adding coal, oil, pig iron, and steel to embargoed exports, was discussed by the League on 2 November 1935. The decision was deferred to a later discussion, which took place in January 1936, at which Proposal 4A was finally abandoned on the grounds of its probable ineffectiveness. A new proposal to implement oil sanctions was made on 2 March
1936 by the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, which was blocked by fierce opposition inside the British and the French cabinets. in large measure the oil and coal embargoes were abandoned, because the US was the chief producer and exporter of these commodities, and was not a league member. The other major problem facing the league was germany. As a nett exporter of coal, the Germans would easily circumvent the league sanctions. 

Whilst the league did not impose sanctions on so-called strategic materials (oil, steel or coal), and its embargoes did not stop the subjugation of Ethiopia, they did seriously drain Italy's capital reserves, which in turn forced her to reduce her stocks of strategic materials anyway. As you say, Italy's heavy involvement in the Spanish Civil War (and in the eyes of the democracies, on the wrong side at that matter) produced the situation of a depleted Italy. Her industrial complex was short of strategic materials, was short of machine tools and cried out for modernization. She entered the war short of cash reserves, short of strategic reserves, and with a military that was rundown and in need of modernization. However, according to Overy,far from recovering from this situation, and being in a better position to fight from 1942, italy was more or less forced to enter the war as she did, not least of which was to even up her national balance sheet. italy, like germany in 1939-40 were countries that were technically financially insolvent.


----------

