# Regia Aeronautica



## Crazy (Mar 25, 2004)

Originally written by 'robert' at the Great planes community

*The Problems With the Regia Aeronautica*

The problems with the Regia Aeronautica, the Italian air force, during World War Two were numerous. Having said that, many individual Italian fighter pilots and units *did* fight well. Private research has found that Italy produced 123 fighter pilots who reached "ace" status during the war, and their land-based SM.79 torpedo bombers were quite successful against allied shipping.

One reason the Italian pilots are not well known is that because the Italian air force was split in two after the September 1943 treaty, many of their best pilots fought with the ANR, which was allied with Germany. Pilots who fought with the ANR were _persona non grata_ after the war; virtually all were expelled from the post-war Italian air force. The Italian authorities have done little to publicize the efforts of *any* Italian pilots, because they don't want to give credit to pilots who fought with the Nazis; for example, there is no official list of Italian aces. 

Some of their later aircraft, especially the Macchi C.202/205 series, were actually quite good.

Anyway the major problems that hounded the Regia Aeronautica included the following -

1) Obsolete equipment, especially at the start of the war. Italy built up a large air arm in the early and mid-1930s, with aircraft that were acceptable for the time. Unfortunately, most of these aircraft were still in service in 1940, by which time open cockpit biplanes with fixed undercarriages had generally been replaced in most air forces. Not so in Italy - the re-armament program started in the late 1930s was slow to get moving. When Italy declared war, it had 542 operational fighters in front-line service. Over two-thirds of them (377 to be exact), were either Fiat CR.32 or CR.42s, the aforementioned open cockpit biplanes with fixed undercarriages.

Like the Soviets, the Italians also drew the wrong conclusions from their experience in the Spanish Civil War, as far as fighters were concerned. The CR.32 had been able to hold its own against similar Soviet and French fighters, leading Italian authorities to believe that the maneuverable biplane was still a viable fighter concept. The CR.42 biplane didn't go into production until 1939, at which time aircraft such as the Spitfire and Bf 109 were equipping other air forces.

They also had too many multi-role aircraft such as the Caproni Ca.311 to Ca.316, which were twin-engined aircraft supposed to fill a variety of roles, but which excelled at none.

2) Lack of standardization and outmoded production techniques. Italian authorities, instead of selecting one aircraft type for a particular role, often ordered small quantities of several different types, leading to huge problems with training, operations, and logistics. For example, at the same time the CR.42 was going into production, three monoplane fighters quite similar to each other, the Fiat G.50, Macchi C.200, and Reggiane Re.2000 were also entering production. It would have been better to concentrate production on the best design, rather than order a few of each. While countries such as the USA, which had a large industrial base, could afford to duplicate resources, a country such as Italy could not. Many Italian air units operated mixed equipment, which led to huge logistics problems.

Italian aircraft were also built very slowly compared to other countries. They were beautifully hand crafted, but while that means they look great in museums, they didn't get to the front lines in sufficient quantities. Production of the most important Italian fighter, the Macchi C.202/205, totaled a little over 1,350. Compare that with 33,000+ Bf 109s, 23,000+ Spitfire/Seafires, 16,000+ Yak-9s, 15,000+ P-47s, or even 11,000+ Zeros.

3) Lack of suitable engines and armament. While Italian airframes were often quite good, their engines were not. The lack of a high performance engine for fighters handicapped Italian designers until the German DB 601 engine was acquired in 1940, to be built under license by Alfa Romeo. When the DB 601 replaced the radial engine in the Macchi C.200, as the C.202, it immediately transformed a mediocre fighter into an excellent one.

Most early war Italian fighters were under gunned, carrying only two 12.7 mm machine guns. Muzzle velocity and rate of fire were very poor, and the ammunition was of poor quality.

4) Italian logistics were terrible. Especially in North Africa, supply lines were erratic, a problem compounded by having to provide spares for too many different aircraft types.

5) Leadership was terrible. Italian leadership at squadron level was not all bad, but the higher ups were inflexible and clung to outmoded tactics. Promotion in the Regia Aeronautica was extremely slow compared to other air forces. Unlike the RAF or Luftwaffe, successful fighter pilots were not able to impart their knowledge and experience to other pilots from command positions, lowering the overall quality of the service.

All of these factors meant that while some Italian pilots were quite successful, and well respected by their opponents, as a whole the Regia Aeronautica was not very successful.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 25, 2004)

If I remember, I think the SM.79 was one of the most succesful Torpedo Bomber's around  

Hot Space


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

It certainly was - by most standards it was a very good aircraft 8) 

That was a very interesting read Crazy - I knew the Italians had clung to alot of outdated aircraft because of the false feeling of security they gained from Spain but I didn't know how slow they were at building planes (but it doesn't surprise me! like you said they look lovely in museums!  ) nor how poor they're ammunition quality was. As a point of interest, did they ever use cannons?? i don't think they did but they might of I suppose


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 26, 2004)

They couldn't even Build an Engine over 1,200hp............in the end they use German Engines  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

> They couldn't even Build an Engine over 1,200hp



the p.108 had 4x 1,350hp engines 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

> They couldn't even Build an Engine over 1,200hp............in the end they use German Engines



it's like the Japs, the A6M2 only had a pitifully small 940Hp.............


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 28, 2004)

Yes, but what that 940 hp could do!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

> If I remember, I think the SM.79 was one of the most succesful Torpedo Bomber's around



does anyon have more info on the sm.79, im interested in it cos it loos nice and now you lot are saying its a good plane, and also cos its italian 8)


----------



## Crazy (Mar 31, 2004)

Specifications: 
Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 Sparviero 
Dimensions: 
Wing span: 69 ft 6 1/2 in (21.2 m) 
Length: 53 ft 1 3/4 in (16.2m) 
Height: 13 ft 5.5 in (4.1 m) 
Weights: 
Empty: 16,755 lb (7,600 kg) 
Operational: 24,192 lb (11,300 kg) 
Performance: 
Maximum Speed: 270 mph (434 km/h) 
Service Ceiling: 23,000 ft (7,000 m) 
Range: 1,243 miles (2,000 km) 
Powerplant: 
Powered by three 559 kW (750 hp) Alfa-Romeo 126 RC.34 radials. Later three Piaggio P.XI RC40 1,000 hp 14-cylinder radial. The twin-engined S.M. 79B variety. Romania built the 79JR under license with two 894 kW (1,200 hp) Junkers Jumo 211Da liquid-cooled engines. 
Armament: 
It carried a 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun firing ahead from the roof of the cockpit humpback that enabled bullets to clear the nose propeller; a second firing to the rear from the hump; a third aimed down and to the rear from the gondola under the rear fuselage; and often a 7.7 mm firing from each beam window. this needing a crew of at least five. The bombardier occupied the gondola with his legs projecting down in two retractable tubes during the bombing run. Up to 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) of bombs were carried in an internal bay; alternatively two 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedoes could be hung externally.






It was the most important Italian bomber of World War II, this tough three-engined aircraft established a reputation that contrasted with most Italian weapons of the day, and it was flown with courage and skill. SM.79s served widely in the normal bombing role; but it is as a land-based torpedo bomber that the type deserves its place in military aviation history, being regarded by many as one of the finest torpedo bombers of the war. 

The prototype appeared in late 1934 and subsequently had a varied career, setting records and winning races with various engines and painted in civil or military markings. The basic design continued the company's tradition of mixed construction with steel tubes light alloy wood and fabric (this being the only way to produce in quantity with available skills and tools); but compared with other designs it had a much more highly loaded wing which demanded long airstrips, 

The prototype SM.79 had flown on 2 September 1935, powered by three 750 hp AlfaRomeo 125 RC.34 engines, and so following the Regia Aeronautica's preferred tri-motor formula. About 1,300 production models were built over a nine year period. They had internal provision for 2,750 lb (1,250 kg) of bombs, supplemented by under fuselage racks for a pair of heavy bombs, or two torpedoes in the case of the SM.79-II and SM.79-III. 

The SM.79 had a distinctive 'hump' on the upper forward fuselage, which housed both the fixed forward-firing heavy machine-gun and the dorsal gunner's position. Its appearance earned the aircraft the nickname 'Gobbo Maleditto' ('Damned Hunchback'). In spite of its cumbersome appearance and outdated steel tube/wood/fabric construction, the S.M.79 was a rugged, reliable multi-role medium bomber which did quite a bit of damage in the face of heavy opposition. 

Developed from a civil airliner, the first Sparvieros entered service with the Regia Aeronautica in late 1936, just in time to fly combat over Spain with the Aviacion Legionaria, the Italian contingent fighting in support of the Nationalists. The SM.79-I established an excellent reputation in combat with the Aviacion Legionaria in Spain in 1936-1939. Its performance drew favorable comments from both sides, leading to a succession of export orders. The SM.79-I served with the Italian Aviazione Legionaria in support of Franco in the Spanish Civil War. 

In October 1939 the Regia Aeronautica began to receive the 79-II with 745.2 kW (1,000 hp) Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines (one batch had the Fiat A.80 of similar power) and this was the dominant version in action subsequently. About 1,200 served with the Regia Aeronautica including a handful of the III sub-type with forward-firing 20 mm cannon and no ventral gondola.






When Italy joined the war in 1940 its air force had nearly 1,000 bombers, of which well over half were Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 Sparviero (Hawk) medium bombers. These trimotors, were thought by many to be among the best land-based torpedo bombers of the war. They could carry 1,250 kg (2,750 lb) of bombs internally or two torpedoes. Also active as a medium bomber around the Mediterranean and on anti-ship duties was the Cant Z.1007bis Alcione (Kingfisher) ,production of which began in 1939. It also was a trimotor, powered by 1,000 hp Piaggio radials, and it carried four machine guns for self-defence as well as up to 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) of bombs or two torpedoes. 

In the summer of 1942, Allied efforts to relieve beleaguered Malta culminated in 'Operation Pedestal', when 14 merchantmen with heavy Royal Navy escort left Gibraltar on August 10. Among the enemy aircraft sent against them were 74 Sparvieri (Sparrow Hawks), a number of which had already scored hits on the battleship HMS Malaya and the carrier HMS Argus. 'Pedestal' eventually got through to Malta, but at the cost of one carrier, two cruisers, a destroyer and nine merchant ships, many of them having been hit by torpedoes from the S.M.79s. 

The more powerful SM.79-II served in North Africa, the Balkans, and Mediterranean during the Second World War, while other units called Aerosiluranti (aerial torpedoes) pioneered use of these large fast bombers in the anti-shipping role. When the Italians surrendered on September 8,1943, it did not end the combat record of the SM.79, and a new version, the SM.79-III torpedo-bomber, was placed in production by the RSI, the fascist government in northern Italy. 

An effective torpedo bomber as well, the S.M.79 served in the air forces of Brazil, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Romania and Spain, some right up to the end of the war. The Romanians flew them on the Russian front from 1941 to 1944, an unprecedented record for an aircraft designed in the early 1930s. Though known as a tri-motor, several versions were built as twin-engined aircraft using a number of different powerplants, including Junkers Jumo 211 D 1,220 hp inlines. Regardless of the version, its handling pleased most pilots and its ability to come home with extensive damage endeared it even more. Used throughout North Africa and the Mediterranean until the Italian surrender in September 1943, the Sparviero remained flying with both the Italian cobelligerent forces fighting alongside the Allies and the surviving pro-Nazi units. 

About 100 were exported to Brazil Iraq and Romania - all of the twin-engined S.M. 79B variety. Romania built the 79JR under license with two 894 kW (1,200 hp) Junkers Jumo 211Da liquid-cooled engines. These were used in numbers on the Eastern Front; initially as bombers with visual aiming position in the nose and subsequently mainly as utility transports. 

Post-war surviving SM.79s were converted into various versions of utility transports during the last phases of the war and survived in that role until 1952.



You ask, I giveth


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

that's a hell of a pic, I've heard of close formation flying, but that's taking the piss......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

not really 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's a hell of a pic, I've heard of close formation flying, but that's taking the piss......................



They aren't flying as close as they seem to be - its an old photogrpahy trick...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

> not really



go no then, amaze us with another story of REALLY close formation flying..................


----------



## nutter (Apr 4, 2004)

a very interesting post crazy


----------



## R Pope (Apr 4, 2004)

Actually, they ARE flying that close-- The Eyties had some of the finest formation fliers in he world. They also made very powerful racing engines,trouble is, they didn't suit mass production. Thoe Italians are lovers, not fighters---oh---wait-----


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> go no then, amaze us with another story of REALLY close formation flying..................



i dont have a story, they just arent that close really


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> If I remember, I think the SM.79 was one of the most succesful Torpedo Bomber's around
> 
> Hot Space



It needs to be said that the Italian antishipping squadrons were better at hitting Allied ships than any German unit except for Fliegerkorps 10. No one who made the Malta convoy runs ever laughed at the Regia Aeronautica.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Nor should they have. The RA and the Italian Navy were both bloody excellent fighting forces

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

what's the RA?


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what's the RA?



Regia Aeronautica 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

oh, i thought it was RAF without the F........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

use your initiative lanc 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

i did.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

really? where


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

on my previous post....................

anywho, back on topic, the best RA plane had to be the SM-79


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 28, 2004)

Crazy, that was a great post on the SM.79. I have loved tri-moters and that info was just want I needed. Thanks for the bit about the bombadier with his legs hanging out of the gondala, or well the tubes. That sound a bit stange, but it was a 1930s design.

Kiwi- what aircraft is that? It is a german 4 engin bomber I think, almost looks like the He-111, well the nose, but the 111 waws a twin with different wing position.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

it's a ME-264, and i think it looks like a B-29, but shorter.............


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 28, 2004)

Lanc, thanks. I will try to look it up to make shure.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

it's stats are in one of the topics somwhere if you've got the time to look through them all, and what are you saying, you don't trust me??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

> anywho, back on topic, the best RA plane had to be the SM-79



funny, the topic wasnt about that  if it was though, it was obviously the P.108 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

read the title of the topic, it clearly sais "Regia Aeronautica"...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

look at the first page though...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

and quess what, it's about the RA!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

not discussing best plane of the RA though 8) was a passage about the history of the RA 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it's stil about the RA though isn't it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

yes 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

the return of spam......................

trying to avoid spam, the best RA plane was the SM.79................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

no i think MC.205 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I agree with C.C. The MC.205 was a terriffic performer, good firepower, pretty good looks (as Italian planes go). It was the RA's best plane of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

99% of italian planes look good, i aint sure what one doesnt, but im sure there is 1 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The Italians had plenty of ugly planes. Here's one the Fiat G.50.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

The Italian Navy and RA was a big thorn in the RNs side, the loss by Italians to the RN alone (Not Merchant Shipping) was: 

6 Cruisers
15 Destroyers
37 Submarines

58 in Total. 

Which doesn't seem much as the RN had 332 vessels in 1939, and 885 vessels saw service in World War 2. They did only lose 278 vessels, that's 1/5 to the Italians  .


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i dunno, i wouldnt call that ugly


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I've read alot of that had to do with the Taranto raid (ah, that wonderful Stingbag!). After that the Italians moved their main anchorage further north and were extremely cautious in deploying their capital ships.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

and can you blame them when they say the stringbag coming towards them they must have been terrified.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

the lanc was telling me the other day, swordfish pilots werent scared of being jumped by 109's cos they can easily outmanoever them and lose them, it was the flak they were scared of


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I imagine the crew of the Bismarck were not ashamed of saying they were scared by the Swordfish.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

The Bismarck had half the Royal Navy chasing them. They were probably scared by a lot of stuff.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

'Hol-y krap, a bean'


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

> They were probably scared by a lot of stuff.



apart from attack from the french, obviously................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Especially considering the French had already surrendered . . . 
But even if the French were in the war, I doubt very much that the Germans would have feared them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

i hope the french used deoderant, their arms were up an awful lot...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

i can't belive the french have a word for victory, i can't imagine they use it much................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

i asked that in french once, i could barely contain my laughter


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

we should ask our teacher if they've a way of saying "we win, we win"..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

Nous Gagnons 8)

ha, werent expecting that were you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

surely you would have to say "we have won" which aint nous gagnons....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

we have won would be Nous Avons Gagné 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I know almost no French. But I know it would have to be past tense since it doesn't look like they'll do it ever again!


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

If the French got into another war Nukes will be flying everywhere. The French ships were all off the coast of North Africa (We saw and sunk them) so they wouldn't have been anything for the Bismarck to worry about.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

, i doubt they say it anyway...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

the french actually WON something this weekend


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Won what? Let me guess it's something to do with sport. 

I wonder how the French are doing in Haiti, they were working with the US Marines.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

yup, renault won the monaco grand prix, ok it was an italian at the wheel but renault still won


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

France make some decent cars.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

renault make crap tractors though..................


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

I'm not going to be driving around in a tractor though. My Citroen is good enough for me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

being a farmer i will however, we have a 20 year old tractor that'd be better than a renault.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

yup, french cars are good, until they get bigger and bigger and you end up with a peugeot 607, then you have a bad french car


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

Is that the one in the advert with the toy cars? Because that one is just U-G-L-Y, ugly. Modern car designers are mental, look at the Fiat Multipler (Or however you spell it) it's God damn ugly, all though I've heard good things about everything else on it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

i dont think they bothered with a 607 advert because it was so rubbish  the Multipla is a fine looking car and i will have no arguments 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

is it just me or is everyone's first car a peugeot 205???


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

its just you. my dad had an old hillman husky for his first motor, mine was a mini, my cousins was a mini.... i


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

The Multipla is damn ugly. 

The Pug 206 sells a lot. 

My dads first was a Hillman Imp.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

now the hillman imp is a car on my wishlist  yore right, the 206 does sell a lot, but its uglier than a multipla. the looks of the multipla are an aquired taste i suppose


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

If by aquired taste you mean ugly, then yes it is.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

well in that case C.C.'s an aquired taste.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

youre just jealous


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

of what, why comb it back when you can comb over...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

because my hair isnt suited to combing over


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

and mine was??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

it did look really 80's, i just watched a tears for fears music video and the lead singers hairstyle was a kin to yours


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

The Multipla is ugly. 
And what's this with hair styles? I have had so many over my time, it's crazy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

me and the lanc both have abnormally messy hair, on friday we messed em up for charity. im having mine styled tomorrow though so i'll look half decent


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

sure, whatever you say.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

no really i am, the appointments for 11am


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 2, 2004)

Just thought you might like this page I'm posting C.C., what with you rambling off about the Germans not using the Piaggio 108...
http://www.luftarchiv.de/beute/italien/ital21.jpg


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

i presume thats a captured one, they didnt actually use it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

why would the germans need to capture one, they were on the same side.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

after the italians surrendered i mean


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

well lets face it, nothing ever really happens before they surrender.............


----------

