Italian Aircraft of WWII

[vikingBerserker]

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

 

[Civettone]

Agree with VB.

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

Kris

 

[zoomar]

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

 

[Civettone]

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

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

Kris

 

[Capt. Vick]

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

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

 

[Capt. Vick]

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

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

 

[zoomar]

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

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

Kris

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

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

 

[Civettone]

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


Kris

 

[Shortround6]

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


Kris

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

 

[tomo pauk]

Re. Italian 2 HMGs:

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

 

[Juha]

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

Juha

 

[Civettone]

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

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

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

Juha

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

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

Kris

 

[Elmas]

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

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

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

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

 

[al49]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Alberto

 

[Crimea_River]

Sleek bird, not previously known to me.

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

 

[al49]

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

 

[parsifal]

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

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

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