# Italian Airforce Vs Japan



## Glider (Jul 18, 2005)

Of the main participants in WW2 the Italians and Japanese tended to have planes that were different to the VVS, USA, German and UK forces.

Both the Japanese and Italian planes tended to be: -

a) Slower 
b) More agile
c) Less well armed 

Than the other airforces (PS I know that the Zero is the exception in (C))

I was wondering what peoples views were if they had come up against each other.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 18, 2005)

Italians would trash the Japs. The G.55 was faster than anything the Japs had, more manoeverable and had great armament. And that was 1943. The Italians I believe were further ahead in jet technology too. As for the early years, I still think the Italians would have it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

I think the Italians fought better tactically although both enjoyed WW1 type dogfights. I know the Italians received extensive combat aerobatic training and would like to exploit that if they could get someone to fight on their level. With that said, the Japanese lacked teamwork and sometimes threw themselves into tactically suicidal situations!


----------



## red admiral (Jul 18, 2005)

The largest produced Italian inline fighter, the Macchi MC.202 could outfly just about anything in the ETO. Italian pilots often complained because their German allies fought in the horizontal in the 109 whilst the MC.202 fought in the vertical and won. Its slightly let down by the 2x12.7 MG, but this was augmented to include 2x7.7 or 2x20 as well. No Japanese plane could stand up to 3x20mm and 2x12.7mm for long.

CC, do you have any info on the G.55S? It was a torpedo carrying version that i'm having a few problems tracking down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

red admiral said:


> Italian pilots often complained because their German allies fought in the horizontal in the 109 whilst the MC.202 fought in the vertical and won.



Excellent point! Fighting in the vertical manages energy better and provides more options.


----------



## JCS (Jul 18, 2005)

RA Heres a a page about the G.55S. Its all in Italian though.....

http://www.giemmesesto.org/settori/aerei/FiatG55s/G55s.html


----------



## JCS (Jul 18, 2005)

Later in the war the Italians, like CC said would trash the Japanese. But earlier in the war I think it would be more of a toss up, like something say a G.50 or MC.200 vs. a Ki27....


----------



## red admiral (Jul 18, 2005)

Thanks JCS, already found that one unfortunately. Earlier in the war? The Italian planes have some armour and protected fuel tanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 18, 2005)

Yeah, the G.50, MC.200, Re-2000 were slower than stuff like the Zero (Just, well more so the G.50) but Im adamant that the Re-2000 would actually outmanouver a Zero. They were tougher too.


----------



## JCS (Jul 18, 2005)

red admiral said:


> Earlier in the war? The Italian planes have some armour and protected fuel tanks.



Yea, but I still think it'd be pretty close, the early itailian fighters had better armament and were faster but the early japanaese planes like the Ki27 and the A5M were some of the most maneuverable planes of the war and could've probably flown circles around the Cr.42s and G.50s.

I read something online a while ago about a competition bewteen an early Zero (A6M2 Model 21 I belive) and an A5M, and turns out under 300mph the Claude had the Zero every time. I'm trying to find it now but I'm not having much luck....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 18, 2005)

The Re-2000 could ace a Cr.42. Im postive it would ace the Jap planes too seen as its faster, tougher, better armed and just as/more manoeverable. Based on the P-35...

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Reggiane.html


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

The A5M had a tighter turn than the A6M - I'd like you to provide evidence that the Re-2000 could out-turn an A6M - and then an A5M! I doubt it - but feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2005)

Fiat G55
Max Speed 375mph at 6000m, 387 at 7,000m, 391 at 8000m
climb 7.2min to 6000m, 8.57min to 7000m, 10.18min to 8000m
Range (Internal) 746miles at 304mph, (2x22gal DT) 1,025miles at 354mph
Armament 1 x 20 with 380 rpg, 2 x 20 with 200 rpg, 2 x 12.7 with 300 rpg

Only one example M.M.91194 was fitted with a dummy torpedo and was fitted with a longer tailleg for ground clearence.

The thing that impressed me was the Ammo load. Most planes carried around 150rpg for the 20. The G55 could fire all day.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 20, 2005)

Oh the G.55 was a great plane - The Germans were phenomenally impressed with the examples they captured and considered producing them theirselve after the Italians signed the armistice. 41,000ft ceiling was great too.

D, id love to provide evidence on that. Sadly, I dont think many tests were carried out between them, and its pretty hard to find good data on Italian planes. That site I posted above is the best Ive found on the Re-2000  Im sure the Re-2000 could out manouver an A6M, but probably not an A5M. It wouldnt matter anyway, it would still win in a dogfight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

I think the Japs would of sh*t if they saw A G.55 with a torpedo coming at their aircraft carriers!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 20, 2005)

SM.79's with torps, escorted by G.55's with torps...DOWN boy...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

DOUBLE SH*T!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

I still don't know what makes you so sure the Re-2000 could out-turn a A6M - remember the Reisen was a nimble aircraft at low speeds. It could turn on a six pence!


----------



## Cojimar 1945 (Jan 4, 2007)

Italy does not seem to have greatly helped the axis cause in the war but some of their planes were apparently fairly good.


----------



## Jank (Jan 4, 2007)

Fairly good? 

The Series 5 fighters (Macchi Mc-205, Fiat G.55, Reggiane Re-2005) all saw combat (in pitifully small numbers) before Italy, as an Axis country, left the battlefield. At that point in time, September of 1943, the 5 Series fighters were among the very best air superiority fighters in existence for any country.

Italy's contributions were hampered not by design but by production.

Fiat G.55


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2007)

oh boy, not the series 5 debate again...... let's just say that in such small numbers they'd have done nothing to the Japs so they become all but irrelivant.........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 7, 2007)

Don't be too quick to dismiss the Japanese fighters.

While the Zero and Oscar may of been outclassed by mid-1943 (generally due to the intorduction of the F6F), there are a slew of excellent Japanese combat aircraft that were introduced in 1943 and 1944, if only produced in limited numbers.

Ki-44,
Ki-84,
Ki-100,
Ki-61-II,

J2M,
N1K2-J.

all of these would of been a handful for any opponent.

While generally 15-20mph slower than the '5 series' fighters, the later war Japanese fighters have a few advantages in the flight envelope over their hypothetical Italian opponents:

Better powerloading: the J2M, N1K2 and Ki-84 all have engines in the 1850-1,900 hp class and lower loaded weights than their opponents. This would tend to give them an advantage in turn time and rate of climb. The Ki-100 had a turbosupercharger, giving it an excellent ceiling and better speed at high altitude.

Better wingloading. The Ki-84 and N1K2-J both had larger wings than those of their opponents, combined with special combat flaps (automatic in the N1K2-Js case). This tends to mean smaller turn radii for the Japanese fighters. The J2M and Ki-44, on the other hand, had quite a small wings, and were built as Fw-190 analouges. 


I don't think this would be a one sided battle, even for the G.55 et al. In fact, I'd actually tend to favour the Japanese air forces (IJN and IJA) over the Reggia Aeronautica, if only in terms of equipment.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jan 7, 2007)

I agree with Jabberwocky about the underrated japanese equipment, particularly concerning the ki-61,ki-84,ki-100, N1k2, as these gave the americans a hard time, and I have never read anything that hints at any Italian fighter giving the USAAF a hard time. 

This also gives credit to the Japanese fighter pilots, which undoubtedly were characterized by much more dedication and fanaticism than their italian counterparts.
The Italians never became fascinated with the whole concept of war, the propaganda of their fascist government was thus to prove innefective, and the result was a poorly motivated army, that won no major victories, and which's only claim to fame was involving the Germans in a lengthy campaign against Greece , when the supposedly superior italian army couldn't do the job, ultimately delaying operation Barbarossa.

I doubt the Regia Aeronautica wasn't also representative of this incompetence.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jan 7, 2007)

In 1943 all the Japanese had were Zeros, Ki-61 Tony's, Ki-43 Oscars and Ki-44 Tojos. IMHO these were all outclassed by the Italian Macchi fighters. By late war the Japanese did have better fighter aircraft, but of course Italian aviation industry never got the chance to put up anything against it. Re.2005 and G.55 were very capable just like the Ki-84 and Ki-100.

As for torpedo bombers, the SM.79 Sparviero was clearly better than the 'flying torch' G4M Betty, and it looks better too . The Japs had D3A dive-bombers, which had considerably more success than the bulky Italian Breda Ba.65 and Ba.88s, but this was only in the early war-period.

It would really depend on when they would meet each other.


----------



## Jank (Jan 7, 2007)

Later war Japanese fighters also were the product of an evolutionary process that did not come to a halt in 1943. That's why it's important to compare fighters at the point in time that Italy's programs stopped. Why compare 1945 rice rockets to the stallions of 1943?


----------



## red admiral (Jan 7, 2007)

> and I have never read anything that hints at any Italian fighter giving the USAAF a hard time.



P-38s and P-40s getting trashed in MTO by C.202s and C.205s?


----------



## Jank (Jan 7, 2007)




----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 8, 2007)

Jank said:


> Later war Japanese fighters also were the product of an evolutionary process that did not come to a halt in 1943. That's why it's important to compare fighters at the point in time that Italy's programs stopped. Why compare 1945 rice rockets to the stallions of 1943?



Because those 'rice rockets' began operating in squadron service in:

December 1942: Ki-44-II
April 1943: Ki-61-I
November 1943: Ki-84
December 1943: J2M3
January 1944: Ki-61-II
December 1944: N1K2-J
March 1945: Ki-100 

Given a spread of about just a few more months, the everything up to the J2M3 is a valid opponent for the 5 series fighters. Later Japanese birds wouldn't necessarily be strict contemporaries, but neither were the Spitfire V and MC 205 ect, yet they were still fighting each other over Italy in mid to late 1943.


----------



## Jank (Jan 8, 2007)

Yes, the following all entered service after Italy capitulated:

November 1943: Ki-84
December 1943: J2M3
January 1944: Ki-61-II
December 1944: N1K2-J
March 1945: Ki-100


----------



## Chocks away! (Jan 8, 2007)

So this thread shouldn't actually be ''Italian airforce vs Japanese airforce'' but ''Did the Japs have aircraft as good as the Fiat G 55 in 1943''? There's more to it than that if you're gonna compare the two airforces.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 8, 2007)

Chocks away! said:


> So this thread shouldn't actually be ''Italian airforce vs Japanese airforce'' but ''Did the Japs have aircraft as good as the Fiat G 55 in 1943''? There's more to it than that if you're gonna compare the two airforces.



Yes but I would also distinguish between Japanese land and carrier based aircraft. The Japanese Army and Navy had different philosophies and design criteria. Since the Italians never had the opportunity to fully develop carrier based aircraft, I would compare Italian land based to Japanese land based.

The Italian aircraft had impressive stats but i'll put my money on the fighting spirit and skill of the Japanese even if the performance of their early birds was inferior.... and I'm half Italian!

Sounds like a great game Sim!


----------



## Jank (Jan 8, 2007)

"Italians never had the opportunity to fully develop carrier based aircraft ..."

Say what? Italy, according to Mussolini, was a giant aircraft carrier. Italy did not have a single aircraft carrier and no development whatsoever of carrier based aircraft. There was no opportunity to develop carrier based aircraft because there weren't any aircraft carriers. (They did, however, field some catapault launched fighters.)

Japanese fighter tactics sucked. Why do you think they pretty consistently got waxed by smaller numbers of F4F Wildcats and P-40's?

As far as aircraft operational in September of 1943, my money goes to the Series 5 fighters, especially the Centauro (G.55) and Saggitario (Re.2005) with their brutal firepower of three 20mm's and two .50's.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 8, 2007)

I love this thread, all the lesser talked about Axis planes getting some air time. Very nice job to all.

Nice to hear chat about Jap and Italian planes and not just UK, USA, Russian and German.

For my $0.02 I will just say it would of been a very interesting fight. Japs vs Italians

Good job everyone.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

i'd love to see some decent sources for a lot of the series 5 super figures though, were they actually pulled off in comabt?


----------



## Jank (Jan 9, 2007)

August 2, 1943 was the first engagement for the Macchi Mc-205 Veltro. Six Veltros jumped 20 P-40's and P-38's and downed six with one Veltro lost. I read that there were only 260 Veltros used during the war with the majority being built after Italy's exit and under German control.

On June 5th, a G.55 took out a B-26. I understand that there were only 12 G.55's in front line service when Italy exited. These were aircraft of the 353rg Squadrigli. By August, they had accounted for a P-40, three P-38's and a B-17. There were no losses.

Production of the G.55 continued under German control until August of 1944. Well over 100 saw combat with the ANR.

The above are Italian records and as with the records of kills / losses from any combatant nation, whether it be England, the US or Germany, are likely incorrect.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 10, 2007)

The Italians make beautiful cars and beautiful woman.

But war? Forget about it!


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

Jank said:


> "Italians never had the opportunity to fully develop carrier based aircraft ..."
> 
> Italy did not have a single aircraft carrier and no development whatsoever of carrier based aircraft. There was no opportunity to develop carrier based aircraft because there weren't any aircraft carriers. (They did, however, field some catapault launched fighters.)
> 
> Japanese fighter tactics sucked. Why do you think they pretty consistently got waxed by smaller numbers of F4F Wildcats and P-40's?



The Italians did have an aircraft carrier called the Aquila that was ready for sea trials when they surrendered. She was to carry a maximum of 51 Re 2001 aircraft which remained Air Force aircraft.

However you would be correct in keeping the comparison to the Air Forces as this is of course nothing like the Naval Airforces that Japan developed. 

Personally I would back the Italians against the Japanese as the planes had the edge and the crews were well trained. The lack of importance that the Japanese gave to tactics until late in the war relying on the individual fighter would have been a disadvantage.


----------



## Jank (Jan 10, 2007)

Aquilla - 28,500 tons under full load (a few thousand tons greater displacement than a Yorktown class carrier like the Enterprise)

I really don't think that she could have been operational before the middle of 1944 though.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 10, 2007)

That's a nice lookin ship. Looks like it was converted from something else?


----------



## Jank (Jan 10, 2007)

The newly built but never used oceanliner Roma.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

like the Graf would have been hunted down by ever ship in the Med, but the Italians didn't need an aircraft carrier, as has been said their mainland _is_ an aircraft carrier, the Med isn't a big place and there're few places she'd be useful i mean the only thing it'd be good for is protecting the convoys to Africa and back, it's unlikely she'd make it past Gibralta to the atlantic and the small Med would have made hunting her down easy, she would be able to go nowhere without the Royal Navy knowing where she is..........


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 12, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> like the Graf would have been hunted down by ever ship in the Med, but the Italians didn't need an aircraft carrier, as has been said their mainland _is_ an aircraft carrier, the Med isn't a big place and there're few places she'd be useful i mean the only thing it'd be good for is protecting the convoys to Africa and back, it's unlikely she'd make it past Gibralta to the atlantic and the small Med would have made hunting her down easy, she would be able to go nowhere without the Royal Navy knowing where she is..........



100% agree


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 14, 2007)

This ignores the questions of how the Italian aircraft are going to attack the Japanese. The Italians were operating in North Africa and the Mediterrain at the time and thus it is unsure just whether they could have had the range to attack the Japanese mainland. By the time they got there would it result in a BOB type contest where the Italian fighters are running low on fuel and only have a limited dog-fight time? Also would the Italian fighters be escorting bombers?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

yes that is a problem  i think we're literally just comparing aircraft and numbers for this one.........


----------



## Jank (Jan 17, 2007)

Yeah. It is just a comparison of the aircraft of each country. Not a 'what if' where Italy attacks Japan to secure a supply for sushi.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 18, 2007)

Out of all things we should learn from Japan, food is surely NOT one of them...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 18, 2007)

If it was a choice between living off Japanese food or Italian food for the rest of my life, I'd definately be moving back to Kumamoto instead of back to Milan.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 18, 2007)

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum


----------



## Jank (Jan 18, 2007)

Jabberwocky, 

My condolences for your dead palate.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 18, 2007)

Why?

Far more variety in Japanese food than Italian, particularly in modern Japanese cusine, which picks influences from traditional Asian cooking as well as modern European and Carribean cooking. Best Jamacian food I evey had was in a restaurant in Nagoya.

The main thing I would miss are Italian wines, breads and cheeses. Oh, and the olives.


----------



## Jank (Jan 18, 2007)

I think you are mistaken. There is far more variety among Italian actually. Soups, breads, wines, cheeses, salads, vegetables, many, many more meat dishes (beef, veal, lamb, chicken, rabbit, pork, dove, and lots of game), dozens of deli style meats and sausages, pastas (wheat and potato), fish and shellfish, dozens of sauces, stuffings, fruits, pastries, ice creams and other deserts, etc. Moreover, they have been readily incorporated into and merged with other country's cuisines far more extensively which has caused massive diversification and further variety.

Check out the "Silver Spoon," Italy's bestselling culinary "bible," Il Cucchiaio d'argento with its over *2,000 *recipies.
Amazon.com: The Silver Spoon: Books: Phaidon Press

Are you aware of a similar resource indexing the variety of Japanese cuisine?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2007)

Both are great - I could live off both of em...


----------



## Jank (Jan 18, 2007)

You've got to nip this sort of thing in the bud.

Next he'll be saying that the most beautiful Japanese women are as hot as their Italian couterparts.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 18, 2007)

I lived in Turin in late '80s while working for Ghia SpA. I hung out with Ian Callum and Chris Bangle (the 'butcher of BMW') who worked at Fiat at the time. What a blast. Food was amazing. 
I vote for Italian cuisine.  yum.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

i'd go italian too, far more traditional i can't be doing with the crazy eastern stuff, uncooked fish what's up with that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

Italinan all the way but the best foods are from Greece, and the former Yugoslavia regions. Damn that stuff is awesome. Ofcourse the best type of food is seafood....Lobster, Alaskan King Crab, Oysters on the half shell, Shrimp, Flounder, Salmon and all other kinds of fish, Muscles (the Italians make the best in the white wine sauce!!!!), Clams, Irish Seafood Chowder, Calimari, etc..


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

I think that the Italians had better aircraft than the Japanese in 1942-1943. It would be the Italians owning the Japanese in a war between the two.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

i dunno this really is a tough one to call....

RE the seafood i much prefer a more tradional meal that's much hotter throughout........


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

Agreed. Seafood and rice is a very nice meal. Curried prawns with rice makes one of the best meals...


----------



## fer-de-lance (Aug 28, 2007)

A late-comer's 4 cents worth (tuppence at the current exchange rate with rounding) ... 

As an earlier post pointed out, a comparison of the Règia Aeronautica against the Japanese should not be limited to "aircraft performance" and fighter performance at that.

Today, we talk about the importance of "command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance". That's because these "force multipliers" are critical to "winning" the whole shooting match.

The edge here has to go to the Japanese forces. Both the JAAF and JNAF placed great importance on recon planes that can fly high and fast with radio links to headquarters and even bombers in the air. The fore-runners to the Ki-16 "Dinah" or D4Y "Judy" of WWII were Ki-15 / C5M used in the Sino-Japanese War. Both the JAAF and JNAF developed some very effective tactics using this ISR capability.

During the air campaign against the Chinese in the distant Szechuan Province, pairs of these high-flying aircraft would go ahead of bomber formations and report back on the weather as well as the status of the opposition. The long range of the Japanese bombers allowed them some very interesting options. Typically, Chinese interceptors would be scrambled in response to their air raid warning net reports of incoming raids. With almost "real time" surveillance provided by the recon planes, the bombers sometimes used their great endurance to circle and wait until the Chinese fighters had to land to refuel. At that point, they would try and catch the Chinese fighters on the ground. After getting caught a couple of times, the Chinese had to develop tactics to counter this ploy. (The Ki-15 / C5M flew high and were very elusive, the Chinese were not able to intercept them on a consistent basis.) 

The aerial recon is only one component, the JAAF and JNAF routinely used intelligence from many different sources. These include special forces equipped with radio, SIGINT using radio intercept ... In a putative conflict against Italy, the Japanese would have an edge for the simple fact that they probably had more people trained to understand European languages than Italians have people understanding Japanese! (The Chinese were a better match - plus they had talented crypto-analysts that broke the JNAF tactical codes used during this period.)

This may go some way towards explaining why so many Allied aircraft were caught on the ground by the Japanese during the early days of WWII. Japanese bombing accuracy, particularly that of the JNAF, was excellent. Early in the war, JNAF divebombers consistently scored a higher rate of hits than their USN counterparts on radically maneuvring targets. They picked the best people and trained them very hard ... developing some excellent techniques and very sound tactics.

Oh, did we forget the fighters? They were pretty good too, as some RAF veterans of the ETO and MTO found to their cost when they faced JAAF and JNAF fighters for the first time. Trying to fight the more agile Japanese fighters the same way they fought in Europe or North Africa was definitely not "habit forming".

Ever wonder why the Japanese were able to achieve success using two puny synchronized rifle-caliber machine guns in their fighters? 

Training! 

Good instructions and practice, lots of it. During the early part of WWII, only the USN could match the Japanese (due to a good pre-war training program). Gunnery training, particularly air-to-air, was sadly deficient in the USAAC. The same applied to many European air forces with the exception of the Luftwaffe.

The Allies eventually caught up with good systematic "Operations Research" and development of better training as well as new equipment such as the gyro "lead computing" gun sights (Ferranti GGS, K-14, Mk 18 ). However, the Italians did not appear to have the benefit of similar organized R&D efforts.

Certainly, every force had their "virtuosi" who made a great impact. However, it takes good planning, organization and training in a large scale to achieve the level of combat readiness and effectiveness of the early war JAAF and JNAF. I think that gives Japanese a significant edge over the Règia Aeronautica. 

It took the U.S. a great deal of effort to overcome this early edge in the Pacific. This effort was clearly something that the Italians were unable to duplicate during WWII in the scale that was needed ... Without this support, even the undoubted talent and courage of Italian pilots would likely not be enough to prevail against the better prepared Japanese forces.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 1, 2007)

"Screwball Buzz Beurling", a hard guy to get along with, said about Italians: 

"The Eyeties are comparatively easy to shoot down. Oh, they're brave enough. In fact, I think the Eyeties have more courage than the Germans, but their tactics aren't so good. They are very good gliders, but they try to do clever acrobatics and looping. But they will stick it even if things are going against them, whereas the Jerries will run."



"I was flying a Spitfire." he related, "when I came smack on three Italian bombers flying in fairly tight formation. They didn't see me until I was close in behind them and then all of a sudden they spotted me. The hatches started flying open all over the bombers and Italians started popping out to hit the silk. Some of them were wearing bright-colored pyjamas! Gosh! The whole thing startled me so much I only got two of them! The third guy got away!"


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 1, 2007)

His nickname was mistakenly taken from the clinical analisys of his own brain. 
The original reading was 'Screwed all'


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 1, 2007)

Well like him or not, Beurling certainly was a great marksman. Probably takes obsessive, compulsive traits like his to become such a consumate expert in deflection shooting.

There are many brash Type "A" fighter pilots but Beurling has the wrecks on the ground, captured pilots and gun camera footage to back up his claims.

Having a Comandante di Gruppo (2° Gruppo; Re-2001), a 6-kill Comandante di Squadriglia (151a Squadriglia, 20° Gruppo, 51° Stormo; MC-202) plus his wingman amongst his 8 victories over Italian fighters, kind of lends credibility to Beurling's assessments of Italian fighter pilots. 

Beurling's battle trophies at Malta includes the "Black Cat" insignia of the 51° Stormo, probably from a MC-202 of the Comandante 151a Squadriglia, 20° Gruppo, 51° Stormo ...




...
http://www.constable.ca/beurlingmalta.jpg





http://www.eaf51.org/New_Web/IMMAGINI/Piloti/Nicl_Tar_PCT.JPG

"Screwed all"? 

Kind-a did, didn't he?


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 2, 2007)

.. There is no contradiction in being both ace and and stupid.
32 kills proves that he is an ace, the rest of biography that he is not the most reliable person. 
It happens to find characters like this in every profession, great at heir job but dissociate maniacs for all the other sides of life.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 2, 2007)

Not only is there no contradiction, often it takes that (anti-social) obsessive drive for some individuals to achieve success in battle.


----------



## Cub Driver (Sep 3, 2007)

Early in the war (that is to say, September 1937), the Chinese had Italian planes and advisor/trainers. They didn't survive long, and the Curtiss Hawk II and III became the CAF standby both as fighter and as bomber until Russian planes and pilots came in.

Given that in the winter of 1941-1942 the Japanese navy and to a lesser extent army air forces were able to whup American, British, and Dutch air forces, I doubt very much that they would have been fazed by the Italians. They were just damned good--well trained, combat experienced, suicidally brave, and equipped with very manueverable planes that they knew how to handle. Later of course these same attributes all worked against them, but when they were on the offensive they were awesome. (The reason I hedge with the JAAF is that it almost always came out second best against the AVG Flying Tigers.)

(Not only the CAF had a fling with Italian planes, so did the JNAF. As I recall, its first long-range bomber was purchased wholesale from Italy, until the G2M "Nell" was got into service.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Now available: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 3, 2007)

Ok, here my 2 cents 'on topic'

Fighters
Until the MC 202 Italians had no planes to counter the Zero in any field except ruggedness. The Zero was slightly faster and much better than the 'serie zero' in ALL other parameters. 
The 202 closed the gap outprforming the zero in some parameter, but remaining inferior in others (mainly armament, manoeuvrability and range)

The Serie 5 was better than the zero, but in 1942-43 the jap had the Raiden, in late 1943 the Ki84 and the next generation of 44-45 Jap fighters was better than the Serie 5. Could the Serie 5 have been better than them if developed after 1943? Probably yes, but there is no proof.

Bombers
The Piaggio 108 was better than any jap bomber, but was built in amateur quantity. The SM 79 although belonging to a previous generation, was roughly equal to the Jap twins (Betty etc.). But the good and bad points of the planes was opposite.

Recon
some very neat Italian 2 and 3 engined design, but nothing as advanced as the 4 engine Kawanishi. Also the range was completely different: the japs were designed for Pacific, the Italians for Mediterranean sea.

Radio + Electronics
low quality for both

So, if we limit the discussion to historical data (1940 to 1943 and actual production figures), my choice goes with the Japs: the Serie 5 fighter was not produced in enough numbers to turn the tide and the Zero would have made a huge difference until mid 1941 and hold herself until 1943 against the Serie 2 and the few Serie 5, paving the way for the bombers.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 3, 2007)

The Chinese flirtation with Italian training at the Lo Yang aviation academy and Italian aircraft ended well before the start of hostilities in 1937. The Chinese Air Force had been largely re-equipped with U.S. aircraft like the Curtiss Hawk III, Curtiss Shrike and Northrop 2E by the time war broke out in July, 1937. At that time, there was only half a squadron left of Fiat CR-32 (5) operational in the 8th Pursuit Squadron, 3rd Pursuit Group. Most of the Italain bomber aircraft had been relegated to transport duties.

The Fiat BR.20 was adopted by the JAAF as the "Type I" heavy bomber). The BR.20 saw action in China with the 12th and the 98th Hiko Sentai in 1939 but did not perform well. The Italian bomber proved vulnerable to attacks by Chinese fighters, 5 were lost over Lanchow during two actions in February, 1939. 

Another JAAF BR.20 on an experimental flight ran low on fuel in bad weather, force-landed behind Chinese lines and was captured. The crew including a Col. Watanabe and a long-range flying expert Maj. Fujita, Yuuzou were killed resisting capture by Chinese troops.

Soon after this inauspicious start to its combat career, the BR.20 was replaced by the Type 97 Heavy Bomber (Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally") in the JAAF. The high performance of the G3M in service at the time with the JNAF was one of the reasons the JAAF adopted the BR.20.


----------

