P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50.

[krieghund]

Sure here are the detailed itemized weight pages from the FM

 

[krieghund]

I was just wondering which version of the P-40 are we comparing to the Italians, the Tomahawk or the Kittyhawk ?

 

[parsifal]

If its one of the later marks, theres no contest.
I thought this had been agreed at the beginning of the thread

Even so, the lower powered less well armed Tomahawks are going to be a handful for any of the Italian aircraft

 

[Ioshic]

If its one of the later marks, theres no contest.
I thought this had been agreed at the beginning of the thread

Even so, the lower powered less well armed Tomahawks are going to be a handful for any of the Italian aircraft

Hello everyone,
newbie here, but a long-time reader of this great forum.

I know this discussion has its roots from... 2005, but I would like to contribute a little with some interesting infos.

I would like to attach here a great article taken from the book "What were they like to fly?" by RAF Pilot P.O. Clarke, who flew also in North Africa with P-40s.

I've read in this thread that so few people considered the Macchi C.200 a good fighter. The reality was that the 200 was a great fighter,
which had a very good weight/power ratio (same as a Spitfire V, better than the Hurricane and the P40F) and could easily outclimb and out-turn either P-40s and Hurricane II.
It had its limits in its low armament, but 12,7mm machinegunes had quite a punch anyway.

It's always nice to read from someone who really flew the plane and not from someone like us who just love aviation but couldn't get the chance to test the real planes (oh... how I would have loved to!! Dreaming...)

Anyway, here's the read. I hope you'll enjoy it.

"Acid Test"
As soon as Rommel began to retreat from Alamein, nearly every pilot in 239 Wing was determined to find a serviceable German or Italian aircraft to play with. It was not long before a Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 - "Desert Lily" - and later a Heinkel 111, were making regular Cairo runs taking Wing personnel on leave and returning loaded with luxuries of food and drink to share around the five squadrons (Nos. 450,250,3,260 and 112).
Bf.109's,Fiat C.R.42's and Stukas became commonplace; a Bf.108, Fiat G.50, Fieseler Storch and a Henschel 126 were amongst the rare acquisitions; but the one type which everybody wanted to fly remained elusive until the Italian capitulation in 1943 - the exceptional, but to us, accursed, Macchi C.202.

Sleek, supremely fast - the sight of their high, white-crossed fin would have struck fear into our hearts had the Italians pressed home their attacks. The odd pilot proved that the 202 was capable of mixing it in a dogfight - out-turning our P-40s with ease; but the majority would pull away effortlessly into a climbing roll or a roll off the top when things became at all hectic. There is nothing more exasperating, when you are caning fifty-four inches of boost out of an engine, than to see your enemy indulge in carefree aerobatics; but although we did our damnedest to get near enough to shoot at them,we seldom succeeded. Their aircraft was superior to ours on all counts. No wonder we wanted to fly one.

Throughout the advance I made a point of being the first to arrive at any captured airstrip, but the 202's had always been systematically destroyed: axes, sledge-hammers - even acid was used. There were always plenty of other types left in serviceable condition, but the Italians seemed to know that we wanted a 202 and they destroyed the lot! As far as I know only one was found - by the SAAF's - but they kept it to themlselves and I never had a chance to fly it.
Still, I did discover the next best thing - a Macchi C.200.

I found it at Sorman, an attractive palm-surrounded aerodrome on a hard-surfaced salt lake, halfway along the coast between Tripoli and Zuara. There were some 30/40 C.R.42's and Macchi 200's parked around the two white stucco hangars, every one badly damaged; but a 200 stood in solitary splendour, apparently newly delivered, and the only damage was a smashed windscreen, as though the pilot had childishly heaved a spanner at it before fleeing with the rest of the ground staff. Happily I chalked the squadron markings - LD - on its shiny fuselage, organised a fitter and rigger to give it a thorough check, and three days later I ferried it to our temporary airstrip at El Assa: Macchi C.200 MM 5285 was mine!

And what a beauty she was! Although in the end she tried to kill me, it was not her fault, and even now I look back on the few hours I flew in her with considerable pleasure.
The cockpit was roomy and open, with no sliding roof to obstruct vision. Instead, two Perspex flaps closed on each side so that when you were shut in it seemed as if your head was part of the external fittings, and that the rest of you was entirely separate inside.
With only a slim headfairing behind, visibility was perfect: without effort you could see right under the tail - a feat which could only be accomplished in a P-40 by sxcessive weaving or by opening the hood.
There was no bullet-proof windscreen, and although the seat of moulded armour-plate looked pretty it did not give the protection we had in British aircraft. Armament was poor, too: only two machine guns, which were concealed in the fuselage and fired through the airscrew - but ammunition indicators in the cockpit (a useful luxury), registering up to 370 round per gun, showed that a poor shot would have plenty of chances. The finger trigger to fire the guns was on the simple stick-type control column.

There were two airspeed indicators, with a pitot head on each wing-tip; rather confusing, but very interesting during a gliding turn. The rest of the instruments were efficient, but not so elaborate as in our fighters, and the only real peculiarity was the throttle lever which worked in reverse: a difficult point to remember when taxying! The engine, an 840 hp Fiat A.74 RC38 radial, was a joy of a sewing machine. I remember being astonished when, at only 1,700 revs, the indicator speed was 365 kms/h - nearly 230 mph! My impression was, and still is, that she was as fast as a Hurricane I, and certainly more manoeuvrable.
The take-off run was fantastically short after being used to our heavy P-40's. The handling qualities were finger-light under all conditions. I had some practice dogfights with Hurricane IIs, Kittyhawk III's and Spitfire V's and found I could turn inside all of them.
Although they were faster - the Hurricane only just - the Spitfire was the only one which could outclimb the Macchi 200.

The only bad habit I found in her was the way she dropped her starboard wing - suddenly, without warning - just before touch-down. It was odd, because she did not do it when test-stalled in the air. But it was her only vice, and the wide undercarriage prevented damage providing the hold-off was not too high. Otherwise it was best to make a wheel landing - a performance I have never liked.
Summing up, if the 202 bore any resemblance to my 200, then the Eyeties should have been knocking down our Kittyhawks like ninepins; and , earlier on in the war, the 200's should have done much better than they did.
I lost my Macchi on March 5th, 1943.

I taxied out for an exhibition dogfight, turned into wind, pulled the throttle open and eased the stick forward. The tail bumped once, twice, but instead of lifting as it should have done, it suddenly dropped and the nose cocked high into the air. I slammed the throttle forward and switched off, thinking I had hit a soft patch of sand.
But when I scrambled out of the cockpit and saw that the whole tail assembly had broken away from the canted fuselage I knew that I had been very, very lucky.
The Italians HAD used acid after all!

 

[tomo pauk]

MC.200 was certainly an useful fighter. Unfortunatelly for it (and for many other, especially Jpanese fighters), the good power to weight ratio is just a part of the equartion. A fighter need to be reasonaboy fast and well armed, if one wants to catch and shoot down enemy bombers. During the Spanish civil war, the SB-2s and other monoplane bombers were almost imune to biplane fighters. WW2 was full with examples when fast bombers were problematic prey for opposing fihters. Fast figher can dictate it's terms in air combat, a maneuverable fighter must use opponents mistake in order to achieve a kill.
With that said, P-40 was a better fighter - better punch, more speed, greter range.

 

[Ioshic]

MC.200 was certainly an useful fighter. Unfortunatelly for it (and for many other, especially Jpanese fighters), the good power to weight ratio is just a part of the equartion. A fighter need to be reasonaboy fast and well armed, if one wants to catch and shoot down enemy bombers. During the Spanish civil war, the SB-2s and other monoplane bombers were almost imune to biplane fighters. WW2 was full with examples when fast bombers were problematic prey for opposing fihters. Fast figher can dictate it's terms in air combat, a maneuverable fighter must use opponents mistake in order to achieve a kill.
With that said, P-40 was a better fighter - better punch, more speed, greter range.

Yes, as a pure fighter plane the P.40 was a generation ahead. And it also was in another category in relation to total weight.
The C.200 was a 1900 kg fighter, the P-40 weighted 2800 kg, almost 1 ton more.

Also we should consider one important aspect: The P-40E was in service in 1942-1943 (The B in 1941), the C.200 starting from 1939.

The good power-to-weight ratio was not the only one. As already written, the C.200 could also either out-climb and out-turn the P.40.

The P.40 had these better assets:
1) Greater armament
2) Greater speed
3) Greater acceleration in a dive
4) Range (even though IMO it is probably less important tactically in a fighter-vs-fighter engagement.)

The C.200 had:
1) It could out-climb the Curtiss (an important characteristic for a fighter)
2) It could out-turn it.
3) It was more maneuverable
4) It had better visibility

If it's true that speed is the most crucial aspect for a fighter plane (I totally agree here), once an enemy is engaged those other qualities
could have potentially a good result in an air battle, which were almost never 1-vs-1 clashes, but had squadron sized teams battling each others.

This RAF P.40 pilot had so many praises for the C.200 he tested after months and tens of missions in the North African desert with the Curtiss.
He flew about 80 different kind of planes, from Bf.109, to P.47D, to Spitfire II ,V,IX, to early biplanes etc, but at the end of the book, he ranked the Macchi C.200 as one of the first three best aircraft he ever flew in all his life (the others being the Hawker Fury and Spitfire II)

Also italian C.200 test pilots found the plane amazingly well built, totally vibration free, and very rugged and sturdy. Dives in excess of 900 km/h were tolerated exceptionally.

[as a comparison: the author also test flew a captured Fiat G.50 and said it was MUCH worse than the Macchi, and nothing special at all]
About the P-40: he stated that it was an ok plane , very good as a fighter-bomber and very sturdy, but that its engine was a little unreliable.

Very probably he's one of the very few pilots (if not the only one) to have flown in all the planes listed in this thread : P-40, C.200 and G.50.

p.s. edited

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-40 (without suffix) was in service in 1940. Being lighter than P-40E, it was a much better climber, also a tad faster. P-40s before P-40E were not as heavily armed, but were still better armed than MC.200.
There should be no wonder British pilot praised handling characteristics of the MC.200. Allied pilots also praised handling of Ki-43, Zero, but pilots also praised handling of Buffalo, CurtissHawk, CW-21 and other lightweights, yet, in combat, the heavier and faster fighters were preferred. It would be interesting to test the MC.200 and P-40, both with same fuel - P-40 carried between 50 and 90% more fuel onboard.

 

[GregP]

The MC.200 was a very good airplane that was rather lightly armed and not overly fast. If someone stuck around to dogfight, the MC.200 would give him a nasty surprise. But most other front-line fighters could engage or disengage at will by dint of superior speed.

 

[parsifal]

I think also the P-40 was better protected, and hazarding a guess, probably overall strength and ability to absorb punishment was better.

The Macchi was very simple and basic in its fitout, thouigh it had a useful feature in having ammunition counters to tell how much ammunition remained. Its my opinion that its 12.7mm MGs were slightly less effective than the the 50 cal in the P-40, though maybe no.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The Macchi was very simple and basic in its fitout, thouigh it had a useful feature in having ammunition counters to tell how much ammunition remained. Its my opinion that its 12.7mm MGs were slightly less effective than the the 50 cal in the P-40, though maybe no.

Breda-SAFAT was certainly less hard hitting than the .50 cal Browning. Even though both guns were based on the M1919, they used different ammunition and went slightly different design routes.

The SAFAT used 12.7 x 81 ammunition, based on the Vickers .50 cartridge. The rounds weighed about 34 to 38 g and left the barrel at about 730-760 m/sec. Rate of fire was about 700 rounds per sec, dropping to about 550-600/sec when synchronised.

The M2 used 12.7 x 99 ammunition, which weighed about 43-46 grams and left the barrel at about 860-890 m/sec. RoF was 750-850 rpm, dropping down to about 500-540 rps when synched.

So, for guns that weighed the same and took up roughly similar amounts of space, the M2 fired a bigger, heavier round at a higher muzzle velocity and a higher rate of fire.

Balancing the equation for the SAFAT a little was its ammunition. The Italians designed a couple of HE rounds, a pure HE and a HE/I/T round, that were considered very effective.

 

[Ioshic]

Yes, the Browning fired a longer, more powerful bullet compared to the Breda. Ballistics were generally better too.

Overall, the Breda SAFAT had the advantage of an excellent reliability (some italian fighter pilots said they never experienced a jam with them throughout the war), even though some fighters had problems with ammunition feed systems (Fiat G.50 had some tendency to snap belts, and some other fighters as well,
but with time these problems were rectified), and with the early sync. system as well .

The HEIT bullet was considered very effective.
There exists a single document, probably the only real one, showing the damage inflicted by the explosive 12,7mm bullet to a Hurricane, and it's quite impressive.

A single 12,7mm HEIT created a hole of about 30 cm in the wing surface and almost ripped open a wingspar.

Here it is.
The action happened on October 22nd 1941, over Malta. One of the first actions of the new Macchi C.202 agaisnt the island.

Some more informations for those interested.

22 October 1941. One of the first action of the Macchi C.202 against the RAF above the besieged fortress-island.
The RA and RAF units that met over Malta that day were: 249th Squadron RAF versus 73a Squadriglia RA
249th RAF lost 1 Hurricane (Sergeant Dave Owen), who was picked up in the sea. PO Matthews had his Hurricane badly
damaged (and that AAR was his).
73a Squadriglia had 1 C.202 damaged, who landed in Sicily.

The action is also written HERE, in the famous website "Hakans Aviation Page"

We should go down towards the 22nd of October 1941 to read it.
I am attaching the text here:

"...During the afternoon on 22 October, six 73a Squadriglia MC.202s, escorted by eight more, strafed Luqa twice. Nine Hurricanes of 249 Squadron were sent off to intercepts, the Macchis diving on them as they were climbing up over St. Paul's Island. Sergeant Dave Owen ('GN-R'), was shot down in flames, but managed to bale out before the fighter hit the sea. Pilot Officer R. H. 'Bob' Matthews (Z3756) was also hit, the wing of his Hurricane and the fuselage near the glycol tank suffering damage. Sergeant Alf Branch (Z4016) noted in his logbook: "Sgt Owen shot down into sea – circled him until picked up. Gave two short bursts head-on at a 202 – did not claim anything."
The 73a Squadriglia pilots claimed heavily; two Hurricanes were credited to Tenente Pietro Bonfatti and one each to Capitano Mario Pluda, Sottotenente Querci (according to some sources he was credited with two victories), Sergente Maggiore Teresio Martinoli and Sergente Mario Guerci, while probables went to Maggiore Antonio Larsimont and Capitano Carlo Ivaldi. One Macchi was damaged in the combat."

 

[pops-paolo]

Against those - P-40 all the way!!!!

Not entirely, while the g.50s were ok by the beginning of the war the c.200 was actually really good. t\it was able to compete in the climb for altitude but was a slower plane. It however could do a turn so much better than the P-40... it could actually outturn the zero in some cases. It could also handle a dive so much better than the p-40 could

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not entirely, while the g.50s were ok by the beginning of the war the c.200 was actually really good. t\it was able to compete in the climb for altitude but was a slower plane. It however could do a turn so much better than the P-40... it could actually outturn the zero in some cases. It could also handle a dive so much better than the p-40 could

Wow - this is an old thread.

The 200 could probably out turn a P-40, but it was way slower (depending on P-40 model, up to 30 mph slower), out-gunned and faster in the dive (I don't know what you mean by "handle a dive so much better". The P-40 had a waaaay better roll rate and range as well. Sorry, but in a match up the P-40 can pick and choose the fight

 

[pops-paolo]

Wow - this is an old thread.

The 200 could probably out turn a P-40, but it was way slower (depending on P-40 model, up to 30 mph slower), out-gunned and faster in the dive (I don't know what you mean by "handle a dive so much better". The P-40 had a waaaay better roll rate and range as well. Sorry, but in a match up the P-40 can pick and choose the fight

The p-40 would fall apart before the c.200 would in a dive. But by the time the P-40 came around they were outperformed by 202s. Also when was the height of this forum?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The p-40 would fall apart before the c.200 would in a dive. But by the time the P-40 came around they were outperformed by 202s. Also when was the height of this forum?

Can you show proof of this considering you're the one bring this up? The P-40 was one of the sturdiest US fighters built!

And OK - the 202 was a great aircraft, it even did well against the P-51 but in the end it was still out gunned and out performed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The p-40 would fall apart before the c.200 would in a dive. But by the time the P-40 came around they were outperformed by 202s. Also when was the height of this forum?

So I've waited with bated breath for your response. Do you realize at the P 40 was one of the best "boom and zoom" fighters of World War II? Have you read about the tactics of the flying tigers? P 40 squadrons still did quite well against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and over Italy, even though there was better equipment in the area. I think mentioned in another thread, the tactics used by the Italians weren't the greatest either!

 

[pops-paolo]

So I've waited with bated breath for your response. Do you realize at the P 40 was one of the best "boom and zoom" fighters of World War II? Have you read about the tactics of the flying tigers? P 40 squadrons still did quite well against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and over Italy, even though there was better equipment in the area. I think mentioned in another thread, the tactics used by the Italians weren't the greatest either!

ik the p 40 was a great boom and zoom but the c.200 had a raidal engine which allows the wings to be stubbier (I think) so I think it would be stronger since there is less leverage on the wings compared to a v style plane
also I don't know how the italians decided to fly their planes during ww2 so idk how to answer that

 

[FLYBOYJ]

ik the p 40 was a great boom and zoom but the c.200 had a raidal engine which allows the wings to be stubbier (I think) so I think it would be stronger since there is less leverage on the wings compared to a v style plane
also I don't know how the italians decided to fly their planes during ww2 so idk how to answer that

Errr.... no and no.

Just the appearance of an aircraft doesn't necessarily dictate it's strengths, you have to look at how it was built and what kind of loads it can take. A radial engine can be more robust than an in-line engine and doesn't have coolant flowing through the engine block or around the engine. An in-line design was more streamlined and tended to produce a faster airframe.

There are many good books out there that talk about the Regia Aeronautica and some of the top Italian pilots. Squadron/ Signal Publications have 2 good paperback magazine type books about the history and operation of the Regia Aeronautica.

The designer of the C.200 Mario Castoldi was a brilliant designer and engineer.

 

[pops-paolo]

Errr.... no and no.

Just the appearance of an aircraft doesn't necessarily dictate it's strengths, you have to look at how it was built and what kind of loads it can take. A radial engine can be more robust than an in-line engine and doesn't have coolant flowing through the engine block or around the engine. An in-line design was more streamlined and tended to produce a faster airframe.

There are many good books out there that talk about the Regia Aeronautica and some of the top Italian pilots. Squadron/ Signal Publications have 2 good paperback magazine type books about the history and operation of the Regia Aeronautica.

The designer of the C.200 Mario Castoldi was a brilliant designer and engineer.

yeah makes sense

 

[Akuma]

This thread reminded me. Many, many, years ago I knew a USAAF pilot who flew P40s in the North African campaign, early 1943 I think, and I asked if he had ever been in combat. He said he had and that they would have no qualms about mixing it up with the Italians as they were pretty evenly matched in terms of the capabilities of their respective aircraft. He went on to say that if they were in a real good position to catch the Germans unawares they would take the shot. In cases where they were not they would stay away. I then asked him how he could tell the difference between Italian and German aircraft at a distance. He said if the planes were fast movers they were German.