Italy v. England - Air to air

The one point i'd like to make and haven't seen here is that the series 5 Italian fighters were close to the best in performance of WW2 prop driven fighters but the point is they were late . by the time any significant amount had been constucted they would have been in the same position they found themselves in the beginning of the war . When WW2 started the Italians were flying what was the pinnacle of biplane technology but because they were behind the technology curve if and when the aircraft came on line in any significant numbers they would have been facing jets

I have to agree, by the time they were starting to take to the skies on a larger scale the Allies and the Luftwaffe were putting better aircraft into the air.

How can you call the 5 series of aircraf the pinical of WW2 aviation when the Germans had the Ta-152, The US had the P-51H and K almost ready to take to the skies over Europe, the British had the Spitfire XXI and the the Fury.

The G.55 and Re.2005 never took to the skies in any apreciable number, and never in any "greater numbers."

At the time of Italy's surrender, September, 8, 1943, the Allies and the Luftwaffe did not have any better aircraft in the skies, period.

Comparing Italy's aircraft to operational designs that came long after her surrender (after which further development was halted) is a bit unfair. Germany's and Japan's fighter development did not continue beyond their surrender either.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, to be fair, I don't think pbfoot said that the 5 series of aircraft were the "pinnacle of WW2 aviation." He said that the Italian biplanes at the start of WWII were the pinnacle of biplane design and that is most certainly true. Pbfoot said that the Series 5's "were close to the best in performance of WW2 prop driven fighters" which is a fairly debatable proposition as indicated by your examples of the Ta-152 and the P-51H ad K. IMHO, the Series 5's were not a match for these fighters which were not fielded much later.

calling osmething that saw so little service can be called the best in the world i mean whilst i realise they came from a long(-ish) line of fighters from which experience could be gained they saw too little service to be able to realise any faults with them, which all planes had and too little service against less than the most modern opponents to be called the best in the world...............

Lanc's point is well taken.

The only other thing I would add is that on December 9, 1942, the Luftwaffe's impressions of these new aircraft raised the interest of Goering himself. A commission was formed to evaluate the Italian fighers which was led led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officers and pilots and by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz.

On February 20th, top of the line examples of Bf-109 and Fw-190 were tested in apples to apples performance tests and simulated dogfights against all three Series 5's - the Macchi Mc.205, the Reggiane Re.2005 and the Fiat G.55.

Against the best german fighters, the Mc.205 was judged "average", the Re.2005 was judged "good" and the G.55 was judged "excellent." Oberst Petersen concluded that the G.55 was "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening to the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.


(Above Picture) First series of G.55 with Luftwaffe markings in Autumn, 1943. Armament was 3 x 20mm cannons and 2 x .50 cal machine guns.

The G.55 was determined to have greater potential for further development than the Bf-109. (The Fw-190 obviously had further promising design potential) Further study concluded that production of the G.55 could be reduced as low as 9,000 man hours per plane but in light of the fact that the Bf-109 could be churned out in as little as 5,000 man hours, the idea of the G.55 succeeding the Bf-109 was scrapped.

Jank said:

The G.55 and Re.2005 never took to the skies in any apreciable number, and never in any "greater numbers."

At the time of Italy's surrender, September, 8, 1943, the Allies and the Luftwaffe did not have any better aircraft in the skies, period.

Comparing Italy's aircraft to operational designs that came long after her surrender (after which further development was halted) is a bit unfair. Germany's and Japan's fighter development did not continue beyond their surrender either.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, to be fair, I don't think pbfoot said that the 5 series of aircraft were the "pinnacle of WW2 aviation." He said that the Italian biplanes at the start of WWII were the pinnacle of biplane design and that is most certainly true. Pbfoot said that the Series 5's "were close to the best in performance of WW2 prop driven fighters" which is a fairly debatable proposition as indicated by your examples of the Ta-152 and the P-51H ad K. IMHO, the Series 5's were not a match for these fighters which were not fielded much later.

Click to expand...

No where did I say that he was calling it the pinnacle of WW2 aviation. I was talking about so many sources that quote the Series 5 as just that. Excuse me if I was misunderstood or not making myself more clear.

However in 1943 there were better aircraft than the Series 5 being flown by the allies and the Germans. Sorry it is true. The Spit marks of 1943 were better and so was the Fw-190A's. Historical proven fact.

Summary of report on German tests at Giudonia during 1943


The G-55 was seen as most favourable of the tested Italian planes

G-55:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- High forces on the aileron.
- Effect of rudder could be better.
- Plane curves very good and narrow.
- Slightly uneasy in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Pitch to any side could not be noticed, similiar to Spitfire.
- Moderate pilot view on take off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Worse pilot view than the German planes.
- Aeronautical not as good as German planes.
- Not useable as fighterbomber with bomb under fuselage.
- Equal to German planes in climb and high altitude performance.
- Inferior in speed by 25 km/h, but Italian produced DB 605 delivered 100 PS less than the German.
- Superior in armament and range to the German planes.
- Ability to install DB 603 without bigger modifications.
- Was evaluated as best Italian plane in the trials.

Macchi 205 V:
- Armament: 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Unstable in lateral axis.
- Very high effect of rudder.
- Tendency to "Überziehen" (stall ?).
- Forces on aileron and rolling good.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Will be only produced in small numbers since it is a temporary solution.

Macchi 205 N:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Mass production variant of DB 605.
- Good rudder effect.
- Was smoothly in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Rolling good.
- Rudder forces a little smaller than for Bf 109 G-4.
- Cooler too small for constant climbing and use in tropical environment.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Wing not solid but made of three parts, plane not suited for fighter-bomber use.

Reggiane 2005:
- Armament: 3 MG-151/20 and 2 12.7 mm MG.
- Aeronautical attributes were sufficient.
- Curves well, rolling like Bf 109 G-4 with rudder forces a little less.
- Take-offs and landings easy.
- Pilot seat a little too far away from control stick.
- Not suited as fighter-bomber due to size and location of cooler.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.

The German's suggested that the G.55 become the standard fighter of the axis nations, replacing both the Bf109 and Fw190 because of its superior performance. This was not practical because of the ease of production of the Bf109 mentioned before.

However the reports by Italian pilots give the opposite view with Re 2005 being top and G.55 bottom. Really the G.55 was too heavy for the DB605 and really needed the DB603 and the G.56 to become competitive again. Production was cut short because of the end of the war in September 1943 and the bombing of Fiat and Macchi production lines.

The 5-series compare well with the P-51B and Spitfire IX and XII, having similar speed and the Re2005 and C.205 superior maneuverability. They're also more useful as multi-role types, the Re 2005 being able to carry 1320kg load on 3 hardpoints. Ammunition load for the 20mm cannon is about twice that found on other aircraft.

Even so the 5 series are not the end of the line, the 6-series was next using the DB603 engine. The C.206 prototypes were nearing completion by mid-43 before the factory was bombed. The Re2006 prototype was built, but not flown because of the surrender. The C.206 with 1750hp should go at about 700km/h and the Re2006 at 740kmh. More than competitive with the similar time Mk.XIV and P51D

Although having aircraft that were in many ways individually superior than their RAF counterparts, there was no chance of Italy being able to produce enough of them to make an impact. When GB can build 2-3 times as many aircraft, you need an aircraft 2-3times as good. The 5 or 6 series weren't that aircraft.

Thanks for the info there. That is very interesting.

Italy sure had purty aircraft to bad they weren't able to make a number of them an odd fact is that even Canada made more aircraft than Italy in WW2 that certainly does not speak well of the Italian industrial capabilities

In a little known mission, on August 4, 1944, an Aeritalia test pilot who apparently was an allied spy flew a G.55 across enemy lines. The plane was taken to England and evaluated at the Tangmere test facility. The incident apparently caused the Germans to halt further Aeritalia/Fiat production which ended in September of 1944.

I have never seen any of the test documents but I understand from others who know more about this episode that the Brits were quite impressed (one characterization I heard was "shocked") with it in relation to the Spitfire.

Below is a picture of the captured G.55 with British markings:
http://xoomer.alice.it/g55/images/G55-sI-RAF.jpg

Apparently my pictures aren't loading. Sorry.

Soren
Soren:

Griffon engined Spitfires in 1942 ? Bullockracing, you may want to re-evaluate the reliability of your source, cause there were certainly no Griffon engined Spitfire's around in 42.

Click to expand...

In 1941, spitfire mk.IV started to enter production with a Griffon motor. True, the weren't available in big numbers, about 250, I think.
One of the sources:
The History of the Spitfire Development

pbfoot said:

Italy sure had purty aircraft to bad they weren't able to make a number of them an odd fact is that even Canada made more aircraft than Italy in WW2 that certainly does not speak well of the Italian industrial capabilities

Click to expand...

This is exactly the point. In the '30-40 Italy had some very remarkable peak of technology and research, but no industrial structure to backup a real aeronautical production.

All Italian planes were designed for 'craftsmanship' production, because that was the only available method of construction in the country.

There was some industrial area that was developing and was on par or better than the rest of the world (cars, with Lancia and AlfaRomeo for instance) but nowhere existed the infrastructure for a true mass production.

Things were not much improved since 1895, when Marconi invented the radio but had to move to England to find support for the invention.

It must be credited to the marketing skills of 'Big Jaw' to have fooled everybody (Adolf and Churchill in primis) in making them believe that Italy was a real power.
And that was also the damnation of the Country, because if Hitler had known the real status of the 'Italian power' he would not had wanted Italy as an ally, and maybe we could have spared ourselves that big mess.

Marcel said:

In 1941, spitfire mk.IV started to enter production with a Griffon motor. True, the weren't available in big numbers, about 250, I think.
One of the sources:
The History of the Spitfire Development

Click to expand...

Thats just a prototype design, it never entered service, so you can forget your 250 figure .

Thats just a prototype design, it never entered service, so you can forget your 250 figure .

Click to expand...

Well, maybe you're right. I read about 229 actual being build, but this number can also count for the PR.IV which was a Merlin powered photo reconnaisance plane. Bit confusing, two versions with the same mark-number.

Here is a site with a comprehensive story of the Fiat G55

G55 - Aircraft History

Spitfires and macchi did face off , albeit not often and the macchi often came out the better of the two.

Unfortunately there were not enought Macchi 205s produced in comparison, quite often the allies had numerical superiority in almost all encounters.

pbfoot said:

Italy sure had purty aircraft to bad they weren't able to make a number of them an odd fact is that even Canada made more aircraft than Italy in WW2 that certainly does not speak well of the Italian industrial capabilities

Click to expand...

Yeah but the the Canadians weren't having their plants sabotaged by Italian Partisans and bommbed by the allies. also Italy had very few natural iron ore resources and the supply lines were virtually cut off by early 1943.

Having said that, if you dove into the history books you'd know that Italy had not yet reached full industrial capability by the time WWII broke out, if it had another 2-3 years before committing to a war then things would have been different.

The Allies can be thankful that Mussolini void of any wisdom and deaf to the voices of reason,hurled an unprepared and ill equiped Italy into the war rather prematurely.

Italian 5 series was good but like Adler said, they weren't better than the allied and German fighters. It seems Italy was also one step (one year) behind, because it took a long time for them to incorporate the new German engines and get the aircraft into production. The Macchi fighters are clear examples. The MC 202 was mainly a MC 200 with the engine of the Bf 109E. This engine dated back from 1939 but when the MC 202 entered production the Germans had already replaced these engines. The MC 205V was a MC 202 with the new DB 605 engine but it took months to get them in production and they kept their puny armament of 4 MGs until 1943. The MC 205N was to get new wings but this aircraft was still under tests at the time of the armistice.

All of these things have little to do with the Italian production capabilities. The industry had severe problems with were related to social-political problems in Italy. Italian industrialists were mainly interested in keeping their autonomy and were unwilling to make investments to restructure their factories. This is because they were already assured of their income as the Italian government was already ordering more aircraft than could be produced. Germany faced a similar problem until 1943 when industrials were encouraged to produce more and at lower costs. Those firms which managed to produce at the lowest cost were taken as a standard for the entire industry. The other firms had to produce at this cost which forced them to reorganize their production. If they failed to do this, they would lose the order. But off the record, this would have meant that their factories would have been taken away from them as Germany could not afford to have idle factories.
All these problems hardly existed in the US where this form of competition between companies always pushed them to invest in more efficient production methods.

Italy definitely had a shortage of raw materials but one can doubt to what extent this mattered. For instance, Italy had large bauxite mines which would have meant they had enough aluminium. Yet it had to turn to Germany for their aluminium, to be exact, for their duraluminium because Italy simply lacked the technology to produce high-grade metals and alloys.

Now, as to the idea that Italy would have reached this phase in time, I feel this is unrealistic. The facists were in power since 1924 (IIRC) and had changed little in terms of industrialization and its technological status. The facists had to share power with the monarchy, church and capitalist elite. As such they couldn't manage to revolutionize things like the nazis could.

Kris

7thphoenix said:

Yeah but the the Canadians weren't having their plants sabotaged by Italian Partisans and bommbed by the allies. also Italy had very few natural iron ore resources and the supply lines were virtually cut off by early 1943.

Having said that, if you dove into the history books you'd know that Italy had not yet reached full industrial capability by the time WWII broke out, if it had another 2-3 years before committing to a war then things would have been different.

The Allies can be thankful that Mussolini void of any wisdom and deaf to the voices of reason,hurled an unprepared and ill equiped Italy into the war rather prematurely.

Click to expand...

Itlaian partisans is almost as funny as as French Army advancing

Itlaian partisans is almost as funny as as French Army advancing

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that PBfoot?

Kris