# Italian Planes



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

Right, this is my attempt to bring a new topic and hopefully reduce some spam, i hope it works so here goes....

In your opinion, what was the best italian plane during WW2? ive been thinking about this for a while as i like italian lplanes and you lot dont really think much of them 

As you can probably guess, mines the P.108 8) but i want to mention the savoia Marchetti SM.81 as well, which is my favourite transport 8)

Ive included a small poll too, just because i can 8) ive probably missd out a ton of planes from it that you would have liked but oh well 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 24, 2004)

Mine's not there!

Though I like the CR 42 (Still IMNSHO, the best Biplane fighter of WW2) I do like the Reggiane Re 2000 series, the Fiat G.55 and the Macchi mc202 205.

All excellent fighters!

Kiwimac


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 24, 2004)

Macchi MC-205 ...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 24, 2004)

torpedo bombing version all the way!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

It would be a toss up between the SM.79 bomber and the Cr.42 fighter (2nd best biplane in the World)

I think really its the SM.79 -i'm surprised you haven't mentioned it in your post C.C - its widely considered to be the most important bomber in the Italian Airforce during that period


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 25, 2004)

I really like tri-motored bombers, we should have more, more I say!

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 25, 2004)

Then there's this one too!












The Ambrosini SAI 207.

And this






Ambrosini SAI 403

Two not well known Italian fighters which had excellent performance, good handling and a goodly armament.



> At the beginning of the war, the Regia Aeronautica (italian air force) had a lot of obsolete planes, most fighters were biplanes. They also had a few monoplane fighter types of excellent maneuverability, but their radial powerplants of ca. 1.000PS didn´t allow at least 530km/h.
> 
> In 1941, german DB 601 and later also DB 605 engines arrived and were built under licence for the existing monoplane fighters (some guys even tried to use a DB 601 with a CR.42 biplane), and the results were good, but the speed didn´t reach allied standards.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/sai207.htm

Kiwimac


----------



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

> Right, this is my attempt to bring a new topic and hopefully reduce some spam, i hope it works so here goes....



wow, it's a living breathing paradox....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

screw you lanc  who els went for the p-108?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 3, 2004)

Not me i'm afraid, i didn't even vote - as i said - the SM.79 was the best for me so i won't vote for the others....out of principal 

ESPECIALLY the CR.42 since Kiwi insisted that it was better than my beloved Gladiator (even though it isn't  ) i've actually grown to hate the Cr.42 whereas once upon a time it was one of my favs...you see what you've done kiwi??! you've broken a man in two!    



Only kidding


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 3, 2004)

Glad to see that my efforts have NOT been wasted!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

> the SM.79 was the best for me so i won't vote for the others....out of principal



go for the sm.81 then, same manufacturer


----------



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

it's lodgical i suppose............................


----------



## Samu (Apr 3, 2004)

I think that is the Savoia Marchetti SM79 Sparviero. It was one of the best torpedo bomber of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

one of the best looking too 8)


----------



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

i think it's ugly........................


----------



## Samu (Apr 3, 2004)

Bah... the Lancaster is ugly, not the Sparviero


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 3, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> torpedo bombing version all the way!
> 
> Reichsmarschall Batista


 
i meant Torpedo G.55, sorry!


----------



## R Pope (Apr 3, 2004)

Breda 88? probably the worst mass-produced bomber in all history! They had to take off pointed in the right direction, because they couldn't get high enough loaded to bank without dragging a wingtip. What's a dog like that doing on the list? SM79, Macchi202/205,are tops.


----------



## Crazy (Apr 3, 2004)

R Pope said:


> Breda 88? probably the worst mass-produced bomber in all history! They had to take off pointed in the right direction, because they couldn't get high enough loaded to bank without dragging a wingtip. What's a dog like that doing on the list? SM79, Macchi202/205,are tops.



In total agreement here! Piaggio 108, Sm.79, and Macchi's 202 and 205 make this top list


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

perhaps i shouldnt do polls in future  and the breda 88 was a joke option, cos of its massive engines that only produced 1000hpeach


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Ah just ignore them C.C it's just their own opinions thats all 8)


----------



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

> massive engines that only produced 1000hpeach



and he means big, THEY WERE HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

Big engines, but it looks good 8)


----------



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

not it didn't....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

it did, its a very stylish plane ill have you know 8)


----------



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

the only time it lokks good is when it flys into your crosshairs...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

> it lokks good



thankyou, it looks good 8)


----------



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

nice use of paraphrasing there 8)

i still say the best italian plane is the SM.79...........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2004)

breda 88 looks good? damn!!! i think it looks like a fat lady! best italian a/c in my humble opinion is either Fiat G-55 or SM-79... the SM-81 was seriously outdated, as were all other options in the poll...


----------



## Crazy (Apr 29, 2004)

The SM.79 is cool, see my post about it in the Regia Aeronautica thread


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

i don't see how C.C. managed to miss it off the list, which, for some reason, i still aint voted in................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

cos im thick, thats why  and vote for the p.108, go on, you know you want to


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

How did the Cr.42 make the list? And where is anything built by Macchi? I think someone stacked the list to get votes for the P.108.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

You think? I've been swayed by C.C to like it though, the whole experimental 102mm cannon swayed me


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

hey, im a thick person and i didnt know about macchi when i made this  yup, a 102mm cannon is pretty outrageous  imagine it in aa combat  8)


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

It could be pretty deadly if you fired it into a bomber formation, maybe a HE shell? That probably would do substantial damage, but the 37mm cannon on a P-39 could bring down anything with one hit, if it hit it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

The Japanese did some expirements fitting a 75mm cannon onto a Ki.67 bomber to use against B-29s. Surprise, surprise it didn't work.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

If you put a HE shell in a 102mm cannon and fired into the middle of a B-17 formation, you will cause a lot of damage. Or a Flak shell, shrapnel with accuracy, deadly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

But your performance goes to pot. Any sort of heavy bomber-destroyer like that will need to be closely escorted by single-seat fighters.


----------



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

i'd imagine a couple of shots in "quick" succession would almost bring you to a complete stop.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i can see it, a P.108A being escorted by 2 MC.205's, could work 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Of course Lightning Guy, I was simply making the statment about the gun itself not the plane. You couldn't fire a 102mm cannon awfully quick, but if an A-10 (Warthog) could fire it's cannon for more than 8 seconds it would stall..


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Yeah, the recoil on the GAU-8 equals the thrust of one of the A-10s engines! I saw something on tv tonight about the 75mm gun on the B-25G and H. According to witnesses, it looked like the plane stopped when it was fired. I can just imagine what a 102mm weapon would do.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

forward 3 metres....FIRE!...back 7 metres


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

I don't doubt it was pretty close to that.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Neither do I, if I did I wouldn't have said it.


----------



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

that's why i said "quick" in speech marks, i realise you proberly would be able to make more than one shot per pass, not that you'd have to make more than one pass, 1 hit from a 102mm would sink anything...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Sink? As in a ship? Not hardly. But if you mean plane, a direct hit probably would, a near miss probably would, but you have to remember the Germans were putting 88mm and 100mm shells right into the heart of American bomber formations and alot of those planes were able to survive the shrapnel damage.


----------



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

> Sink? As in a ship?



suppose it depends where you hit it.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Something unarmorred could be sunk with one 102mm round. A light cruiser could (theoretically) be sunk by a 102mm shell. But I seriously doubt any critical area of a heavy cruiser or battleship would have been vulnerable to a shell that (relatively) small.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I agree with Lightning, although on the German 88mm and 105mm (It was 105, not 100  ), they were Flak guns so, as you know, they blew up. A direct hit from any of them would have taken down anything. 

I very much doubt a 102mm cannon could take much down (Ship wise), the guns on the Bismarck were 15 inch, that's 380mm and it took several hits to take down the Hood.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I couldn't remember the exact caliber in mm. I'm used to seeing it referred to as a 4.1in gun. I knew it was somewhere around 100.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

You do better than most.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I appreciate that. It seems there are far too few compliments exchanged on this site.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

It's because we are always trying to destroy each others ego, not enhance it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

thats true


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I can't argue with that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

we have been dubbed anoraks by my friend


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

I still go out every Friday, Saturday and mostly Sunday night, so they can call me what they want...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

i only go out when i need car parts or to go to school


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

You never go out with your g/f? Don't take her to the cinema or anything? How have you got a g/f!?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2004)

she lives 100 miles away from me, its hard to go to the cinema with her when it take over 2 hours to get there and over 2 hours to get back  bloody annoying though


----------



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

you see, i have the sence to get a girl friend that goes to the same school as me................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

but the fact that me and my girlfriend live so far away from each other make our love grow stronger, and when we meet up its a special experience that we both enjoy


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 25, 2004)

How romantic...  
anywho, i am in the process of getting one, im just being a dramatic ass and waiting for a romantic opportunity to ask her out....


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

it took me well over a month to pluck up the courage to ask helen out 8)

just ask her cos the right moment may never come 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

How sweet, all this love being spread.  
GrG just ask her, what are you 13, right? It's not like your life is over if she says no.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

i reckon its only a matter of time before the lanc or me set up a poll saying whos g/f is best


----------



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

back on topic, i think the SM. 79 was the most successfull italian plane...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

oh i see, changing topic eh?  you just can hack that my gf is better than yours


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

oh i see, changing topic eh?  you just cant hack that my gf is better than yours


----------



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

no, i'm changing topic becasue it's time we got on topic, you should be the one getting us back on topic.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

who do you think i am; superman?  nah the best ra plane was the MC.205


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

The Mc. 205 was probably the best they produced, it just saw too little action.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

if were talking about manufacturers, then i think Savoia-Marchetti were the most successful Italian Manfacturers 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

That's not hard to get though, the Italians weren't best known for their war equipment.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

true 8)


----------



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

> the Italians weren't best known for their war equipment.



or just war in general.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

when it comes to the mafia though the italians (or to be more specific the sicilians) are the best there are 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

They aren't going to be fighting any nation on nation wars though, are they?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

not unless i have anything to do with it


----------



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

and what are you gonna do about it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

more than you are


----------



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

proberly, i aint interested in starting gang wars, the only war i wanna start is that between the French and Italains...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 29, 2004)

"Ummmm, you guys have a hairy armpits"
"Well, umm you guys have le big schnoz"
"At least we take showers"
"At least we don't eat suggestively shaped deli meats..."
It can go on and on....


----------



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

it would just be fun too see who surrenders first.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

well it would be the french obviously


----------



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

i'm not sure................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

then you are not that clever


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

You must remember that the French actually beat someone in World War 2, the Italians did not. 
The Italians would surrender and the French would run away.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

the italians at least had some good planes though


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

The French had developed some good planes as well. The De. 520 was an even match for the 109E being used at the time. The French just didn't have the numbers and the training to do much good. Still, the De.520 gave better than it got.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

wow, i knew the d.520 was good but not that good


----------



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

> the italians at least had some good planes though



exactily, some, none of their fighters were produced in big numbers................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

MC.202......


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Without going into the surrender and running away thing...I'd say the French would win if the war was fought in 1940. The French had probably the best tank in Europe (Samoa S.35) and some very good planes. They also had a very large military in terms of personel.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

that was a bold statement, i reckon you may get linched for that...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Why do you think that was a bold statement? It's not as if the Italians were an effective fighting force. 

It also depends on who was attacking who, because through land they only had one place without going through other countries. And at the French defence they had the Maginot Line, and on the Italian side they had the Alps.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

i never said the italians were an effective fighting force


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

And neither will many others...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

I think the Italians had the edge over the French in terms of their navy.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

The French certainly did, but I don't see this as a major disadvantage to the French. There really was no serious need to control the oceans for either member their supply would have been homegrown, and the British at least would have been the supplier of the French. 
The Italians wouldn't have had the capability of attacking vessels crossing the Channel.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

wouldnt it be funny if an inland country had a navy


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Switzerland is a landlocked country and it has a Navy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

only the swiss...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

It's not as silly as it sounds. They have three patrol boats, that are based in the lake that is in Switzerland but I can't remember its name.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

hmmmmmmm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

yes, in case of invasion from the swiss on the other side of the lake................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

exactly, its silly


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

No it's to stop immigrants sneaking over the lake...


----------



## rcristi (Jun 1, 2004)

My friend, I think you've gotten the wrong name for this poll, should be called which was the worst italian plane built during WW2 (with one exception).

Speaking of the Best italian planes what do you think about these?

Fiat G55
Macchi C203 and 205
Reggiane Re2000 and 2001

Cheers


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

I believe you are refering to Lake Geneva.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

the G.55 was probably the best the italians had, the 202 and 205 were pretty good as well but i dont knoew whethe the Re-2000/2001 were any good. and you're forgetting the SM.79, that was good also 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

Thank you, LG. I cannot believe I forget the name. I really should remember a name like that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

i thought it was lake geneva too but i though it was too obvious


----------



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

> lake geneva



i take it this was where the geneva convention was written up??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



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

are you sure??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

I would have to check but I believe there is a town on the lake that shares the same name.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2004)

There is the town of Geneva on the west edge of the lake. You'll find that most treaties, conventions or agreements are named after the places they were signed. If not that, they are named after what they are about, surprisingly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

fair enough...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

good 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

how can you be sure??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

i have my ways


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2004)

How can you be sure of what? Have you two got a little spamming language that normal people don't understand?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

i dont actually know what hes talking about, so im just spamming back with something totally pointless


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

that's the way spam works................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

spam doesnt have a set way lanc, if it did, it wouldnt be spam would it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

yes...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

i fail to see the logic in that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

but there is a set way, normally one of us will initiate a pointless conversation, the other will carry it on, and so on a so on..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

i was savaged by a money spider on the way to the bathroom earlier; evil satanic beasts


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 14, 2004)

OK this poll left off the Italian fighters. They were then mentioned and proptly forgotten. So the Re 2000/2001 program was not that good and built in small numbers. The Re2002 was the better of that group. But I would pick the MC 202 

But as with most of the Italian aircraft engine problums would plage them. If that were not the case the P.108 might get more thougt. But for the poll how about the Sm 79.


----------



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

you see C.C. posted this poll, so it's bound to be pretty bad...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

Well, for best in terms of performance, I would think you would have to go with the later fighters like the G.55, MC.205, and Re.2005. For success and usefulness during the war it would probably be limited to the MC.202 and the SM.79.


----------



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

the Sm.79 was the more sucessfull itailin plane in my eyes, but C.C. didn't put that in as it would be copmition for his beloved P.108, with this poll there's more chance we'll vote for it, and i haven't even voted yet


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

You two are both right, that the SM 79 and 81 were very good and adaptable from troops, to bombs and torpeados. The fighters were the MC 202 as it was one of the few produced in numbers to have an impact. I think this is a great poll and we are to often talking about RAF and USAAC stuff with German as well so why not branch out. Question any of you have information of the Italian fighters flying with the Allies after 1943? Or any of the designs going to the States for evaluation


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

I've only seen very little about Italian fighters serving with the Allies, usually just a note saying, "some of these later joined with the Allies." I've not seen anything about Allied flight tests of Italian fighters.


----------



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

i doubt the allies would want to be seen in itailian planes....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

Thanks. I see the little notes, but thought to ask.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)

it would be interesting to se a italian plane in RAF colours..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

It's hard to find much at all about the Italian planes in the war. How often have you seen a little Italian symbol painted on the side of an airplane? I can probably count the number of times on one hand.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2004)




----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

LG- you are so True!!

But what I have found I am ipressed with, the fighters and the SM79 and 81. I need to read about the G.55 more. But a lot of the planes looked good with nice lines and had some nice thought to them. And who can dislike the inverted Vee engines?


----------



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

once again, it's in a book so i can't show you but i saw a Mc.202 in german colours..........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

Yeah, the Germans did use a few MC. 202s and 205s. The Italians did have some good planes, but in general they seem to have been disinterested in the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

the thing about the better italian planes is that they weren't made in big enough numbers...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

I don't think the Italians broke the 2,000 mark on anyone design. That's just a guess and I could easily be wrong. Anyone know?


----------



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

i doubt it, they only made 1,180 odd SM.79s, and they were their most successfull...................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

LG- I have not seen numbers the MC. 202 was about 1500 units before the war ended. That was the top fighter. The 205 was next but less the 100 operational. The G.55 I was reading was even less numbers. It did seem to proform well but just came to late.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

Here are some numbers I found on Italian aircraft
G.50 Freccia - 778 plus 2 prototypes; G.55 Centauro - 289 plus 16 pre-production; MC. 200 Saetta - approx. 1,100; MC. 202 Folgore - approx. 1,500; MC. 205 Veltro - 265. That is my no means a complete list but it is clear that the Italians either lacked the industrial ability or the will to produce aircraft in numbers that would really make a difference.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

that's less than the allies would make of just one plane 

but the good thing about italain planes was that they were of a very high standard, i'm not saying they were immensly strong, just very good quality.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

Quality in what since? Everything prior to the Mc. 202 was of relatively poor performance and even weaker armament.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2004)

LG- good start, you did mis the Re 2000, 2002, and 2005, but then the numbers are similar to the MC aircraft and mostly the 2002 was the best as the 2005 was introduced in 1944. 

As for quality the MC 205 was very good and the 202 was the start of greatnes, but I wouls say it is the small production that Italy faces and as stated before the engine development programs. I think they were not ready for the war at the start and as they failed in N. Africa that set the standard.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

> Quality in what since? Everything prior to the Mc. 202 was of relatively poor performance and even weaker armament.



if you looked at my last post I said quality, but not nessisarily strengh, many of their earlier planes were mostly handmade, it's like if you by furnature, if it's handmade, there won't be many made, and they'll be expensive, but they'll be very good quality..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

In that sense maybe, but their quality as weapons of war was rather poor. I haven't been able to find numbers on any of the Re. series yet but I doubt any of them were produced in huge numbers. The Italians were having trouble well before North Africa. Look at their attempt to take back Ethiopia before the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

Abyssinia went well for them, tanks against natives with old rifles and spears. During the War, Greece beat them, then Britain did even though they were outnumbered 6 - 1 by the Italians.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

It still took them the better part of a year to complete the invasion of Ethiopia.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

What do you expect, they are Italian.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Exactly. My point was that even when they had the techonological advantage (like Ethiopia) or the numerical advantage (like Greece as you pointed out) the Italians didn't seem to be truly committed to the war. They never achieved the types of victories that they should have been able to.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

partly due to poor leadership........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

Partly due to political leadership, and mostly to do with military leadership, right down to the regimental commanders.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

And a general lack of a will to fight . . .


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

That's the excuse. You wouldn't want to fight either if you were getting beaten everytime.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

So it's a vicious circle. They don't want to fight because they also get defeated, then they get defeated lessing their will to fight even more.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

The Political and Military leadership and comunications were poor and cooperation at times was lacking. Over all the aircraft had problums with mass production.


----------



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

i think it's been mentioned before, but wouldn't a war between France and Italy be funny ........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

I don't think it was so much the planes had problems with mass production as it was that Italy lacked the industry to mass produce them.


----------



## Piaggio108 (Jun 25, 2004)

These polls get nowhere withount all the aircraft. Should I post a poll for each major catigory of italian aircraft, or would it be spam?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

No it wouldn't be spam, and I don't think anyone cares if you do spam anyway.


----------



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

but i think that people have notised that since C.C's left the spam's all but gone??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

But I do miss C.C  not the spam but the coversation, when he did talk was good. 

As for Frace and Italy and war It was in the past, before aircraft. If they were to have fought on whose ground, or would it be in the Med? 

Italia production was just not ready, the Po Valley was the best bet, but even that was small. In short they were not ready for the war and were never able to ramp it up.


----------



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

and they didn't exactily have the best aircraft to produce................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2004)

Without going into the who will surrender first it depends on ground. If Italy attacked France in 1940 France would win, the other way around Italy would win. Italy would control the seas. There was only one place to fight without going through other countries, and to defend it the Italians had the Alps the French had the Maginot Line.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

I don't know if Italy would control the seas or not. France actually had some pretty good capital ship designs and Richeleau and Dunkerque were probably better than their Italian counterparts.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2004)

The fact that the French Navy was completely obliterated off the coast of North Africa by the Royal Navy doesn't give them much credit.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

But that was in port yes? It is an interesting thought, but would it have stayed a two country conflict?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

It wasn't exlcussively the RN Plan_D. The biggest ship the Vichy had left was the 15in gun BB Jean Bart which was quickly silenced by the USS Massachusetts.


----------



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

but you'd have to remeber, the french would have the RN on their side, the italians were no match for the RN...........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 29, 2004)

The majority were destroyed by the Royal Navy, that's why it was decided the Americans land in Morocco first. The French weren't too happy with the British. 

Why would the Royal Navy be on Frances side, Lanc? If it was a two country war, Britain wouldn't be involved. If Britain did get involved then Germany would get involved on the Italians side. World War 2.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Plan_D is right, it would remain a regional war solely between France and Italy or else WWII would result. For our hypothetical situation, are we assuming France is receiving weapons from Britain and America?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

LG -You are asking a tricky question for the English and Americans to be sending arms to France? If they are for our arguments then is Germany suppling Italy? If so that sounds a lot like what the US was doing in 1939-1941 up to December. 

I would say that for out arguments that they are on there own. Or that America at least is out of it.


----------



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

i think the french had a superior tank force didn't they??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

Probably superior tanks and probably superior naval units (though in lesser numbers). I believe the RA had an advantage in terms of 'home-grown' aircraft although it is hard to say what French designers might have produced if they had simply had more time.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

The French had a superior tank force and a numercial superiority. That said, it's not hard to get better than an Italian tank. Still the French had the S.35 which was better than the German tanks of 1940 in armour, speed and firepower.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 1, 2004)

Did the Italians have any true tanks or did they simply have armored machine gun carriers? In other words, did the Italians have a tank that would be a threat to anything other than exposed infantry?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

you saying about the French Navy, the italians had a good anti-shipping aircraft in the SM.79 to which i don't think the French had an answer, and WWII proved how much easier it is to hit a ship with a plane


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

Some of the Italian tanks were: 

Carro Armato M13/40 (Built by FIAT) 

Crew: 4 
Weight: 14.3 (tons)
Speed (Km/hr): 32 
Range (Km): 200

Armament: One 4.7cm KwK47/32 
One 8mm MG38 (Co-axial)
Two 8mm MG38 (Hull) 

Armour (Max/Min): 37/6mm. 

This was a Medium tank (apparently) and compared best to the Pz. Kpfw Mk. IIIs. Amazingly 68 were still in service in 1944, in German hands. Unfortunately for the crews of Panzerabteilung Adria and the two SS Sturmgeschutz detachments using them. 

There are others but that one is the average specification of Italian tanks. It was ordered in Jan. 1940 and was in service in the second half of that year. 

There were two impressive Italian designs, that the Germans liked as well. One was a SPG based off an Italian tank (that was, to put it nicely, crap). Which was the Semovente Da75/18. 

Crew: 3
Weight: 15 (tons)
Speed(km/hr): 38 
Range (km): 230

Armament: One 7.5cm StuK 75/18 
One 8mm MG38 

Armour (Max/Min) 50/10mm. 

The impressive thing being it was only 1.85 metres tall. A very hard target to spot, let alone hit.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2004)

A very interesting thing I have just learnt on the French tank arm in 1940. It contained 2,500 FT-17 tanks. Which were designed in 1916, entered service in 1917 and saw battle in 1918. They were the oldest tank to see service in World War 2. It is almost unbelievable that the French still had a tank from World War I in their tank arm. It was a good tank though, but not by World War 2 standards. 

We also have the Char-B which was very hard for the German AT and tank guns to destroy in 1940. On top of the 500 Char S-35, the Italians wouldn't stand a chance in a tank war.


----------



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

which would have made up allot of the war......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

Bit with all that tank arm the Italian Airforc would have had a feild day!

As for French designs they did have some nice ones on the board, but the government never really liked the air arm and the army always wanted to use them as observers not mombers or to protect the observers, so indipentant missions were rare.

That said it really baffels me how France put up such a small fight? they fell faster then Poland Yes?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2004)

No. Poland lasted 5 weeks, France 6.


----------



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

not this argument again..............................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 3, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No. Poland lasted 5 weeks, France 6.



And the Warsaw ghetto lasted four! Even being encircled by tanks, flamethrowers, Stg.43/44's, SS Waffen, Sturmtigers, and other forms of stuff that would have taken a city in a week or less.


----------



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

i heard they only had 17 rifles and two sud-machine guns, is this the same one, or am i thinking of somthing different??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

I do not wish to bring up that crazy argument over France and Poland, but just wanted to make a little compairison. 

Now back to Italian planes: and the one that we al can say was good the SM 79/81  Bomber, transport, torpeado plane and all around do what ever needs done. And it was a trimotor!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

> SM 79/81



do you mean you consider them the same plane, because they were both very good, but they weren't the same plane.......................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

It is not ment to be the same plane. The SM 81 was developed from the 79 program. I wanted to use both because they were used together alot.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2004)

wow, common practice to see a transporter/bomber on anti-shipping strikes??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

Yes, but they made it work, buch better then most say other then the Ju-52


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

what i mean was the the SM.79 was primarily an anti-shipping aircraft, the SM.81 was used as a bomber, but not for anti-shipping..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 12, 2004)

Ok in that you do have something. The Sm. 79 was a bomber design that like other older designs moved to shipping. So let us take one at a time if you like.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 12, 2004)

that would be better, i would say that the SM.79 was the most successfull italian plane of the war....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 17, 2004)

ok. I could agree with you about that, as it was used in as much as they good and the only other one I could think of was the MC 202. The fighter did ok, but was not that great. The 79 did have some good kills on shipping, but it never got the fighter support or the number of planes to do great things. Also the design was getting old.


----------



## JCS (Jul 17, 2004)

I voted for the CR 42. My favorite though is the SM 79. Thats gotta be one of the best looking planes of any era! 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 19, 2004)

I am not a big Bieplane lover myself, but if you like it gosd for you. I am not shure of the "best looking" bit. As a lot of Italian craft had good lines.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

I've never really liked the looks of any tri-motor aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2004)

> Also the design was getting old



the same was true for the swordfish yet it was the most sucessfull FAA plane of the war..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 21, 2004)

Because the Swordfish rarely had to battle against enemy fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 21, 2004)

which, let's face it, was a good thing..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 23, 2004)

I think some of the trimoters are very nice. At first I did not like them that much, but they have grown on me a bit. The Do.24 is a good one and it had a very good war record.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 23, 2004)

I don't like it for a bomber as the best position for a bombardier and bombsight is being occupied by an engine.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 24, 2004)

That is true. But it did ok even with that limitation. But more as an anti-shipping role.


----------

