Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the MC 202 but from what I know I would characterize it's performance a little differently. The two sources I looked at gave it's speed as 376 and 380. Anything in that balpark is pretty good in 42. What was the 109 f doing. About the same to slightly less I believe. Climb rate, 3500 fpm, at least from what I read. Again, can't think of any planes except maybe the p38 that were surpassing this in 42 and quite a few( most) that were behind it. I admit I have not read extensively on this aircraft but in what I have read it was always discribed as quite maneuverable by pilots on both sides. Add to that good high altitude performance and I believe it was pretty good in a dive and that sounds like one tough oponent to me.
Yes the armament was less than optimal but every plane has at least one fault and most of them several but overall it sounds pretty formidable to me.
This would seem to, unless there is something I'm missing, put to rest the inferior oposition narrative.
The point about the P-51B is that it was relatively lightly armed compared to many of it's contemporaries in 1944. Yet it was still considered almost wildly effective. In various other discussions in other threads some of the same people have made the claim that 4 x .50 cal is light armament - it's what the P-40F and L was often kitted out with in the MTO particularly when they were flying a lot of escort or fighter sweep missions. Lets also not forget that despite the opinions of some here, nose guns were widely considered more accurate (because they are) than wing guns and wing guns notably in the Mustang, Spitfire and P-40 were prone to jamming / stoppages, especially earlier in the war.
In a way, I see this as yet another example of the endless "There is only one way to make a good fighter" vs. "There are as many ways as there were battlefields".
There are a couple of approaches vis a vis armament. Quite a few of the best day fighters of WW2 had light armament:
P-51B/C - 4 x .50 cal in the wings
F4F3 - 4 x .50 cal in the wings
Ki-43 - 1 x 12.7mm and 1 x 7.7mm in the nose
Yak-1B - 1 x 20mm spinner and 1 x 12.7mm in the nose
Yak-3 - 1 x 20mm spinner and 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
La-5FN - 2 x 20mm in the nose
Bf 109F-2 - 1 x 15mm spinner, 2 x 7.92mm
Bf 109F-4 - 1 x 20mm spinner, 2 x 7.92mm in the nose
MC.202 - 2 x 12.7mm in the nose, 2 x 7.7mm in the wings (or not)
Ki-61 (early) - 2 x 12.7mm in the nose and 2 x 7.7mm in the wings
Some kind of in the middle:
A6M2 -2 x 20mm (60 rounds), 2 x 7.7mm in the wings
Spitfire I - 8 x .303 in the wings
Spit V - 2 x 20mm (60 rounds), 4 x .303 in the wings
Bf 109E - 2 x 20mm (60 rounds each) in the wings, 2 x 7.92mm in the nose
D.520 - 1 x 20mm spinner (60 rounds), 4 x 7.5mm in the wings
Ki-84 - 2 x 20mm inn the wings, 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
Ki-61 (late)- 2 x 20mm in the body, 2 x 12.7mm in the wings
MC 205 - 2 x 20mm in the wingts, 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
Fiat G.55 (early) - 1 x 20mm spinner, 4 x 12.7mm in the wings
And some heavily to very heavily armed:
Bf 109G-6, 1 x 20mm spinner, 2 x 20mm wings, 2 x 7.92 mm
Fiat G.55 (late) - 3 x 20mm in spinner and wings, 2 x 12.7mm nose
F6F - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
P-51D - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
F4U - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
Fw 190 - 4 x 20mm plus two 7.92 (or later 13mm)
P-47 - 8 x .50 wing guns
P-38 4 x .50 plus 1 x 20mm all in the nose
Tempest - 4 x 20mm in the wings
N1K1 -4 x 20mm cannon in the wings
All of the above were good to excellent fighters for their time. Some of the best of the war were in the first category, in fact I would say all in that first group with the possible exception of the F4F-3 are widely acknowledged as among the best designs of the war. . In fact many of the best and most highly regarded were in the first group and of the 'very heavily armed fighters' - probably only the Fw 190 is truly in the top tier. Maybe the P-47.
The point of laying out the above is to emphasize there were different schools of succssful fighter design in the war. Many of the types most successful in the key middle years of the war were the more lightly armed ones. Why? Because performance and / or maneuverability turned out to matter more than heavy armament. The most heavily armed fighters of the mid-war years like the Hurricane and the Me 110 did not turn out to be the most deadly, to the contrary.
Later in the war engines got so powerful as to allow heavier armament. The other reason for it is A) you have fewer fighters to contend with but must on the other hand do more strafing (which made the more heavily armed Allied fighters more useful) or B) you have to contend with hordes
True, it wouldn't tell us exactly but should give a rough idea and what it does tell us exactly is the oposition they actually did encounter regardless of what the Italians had available or sortie rates.It doesn't really tell us anything about how many MC-202's were there or how many sorties they flew.
The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!
Hello Michael Rauls,
What I am seeing is more like 373 MPH for a C.202, about 398-399 MPH for a C.205 and mostly numbers from the high 380's to about 394 MPH for a Me 109F-4.
As for climb rate, as mentioned earlier, both the FW 190A that was captured and tested and the Spitfire Mk.IX were both capable of climb rates in the 3900-4100 fpm range.
Now here's a cool thing: The manual for the C.202 claims a time of 1:28 to 2000 meters which works out to around 4400 feet per minute! Is it believable? I don't think it makes sense for the amount of weight and engine power, but you be the judge.
Hello Schweik,
A lot of the evaluation is probably context. Against a Macchi fighter with 2 x relatively light 12.7 mm Breda HMG, the P-51B/C seems very heavily armed.... And it is.
The SAME armament on a P-40N-1 was determined by the customer (US Army) to be inadequate and later P-40N reverted to 6 guns instead of 4.
There was a pretty convincing argument that a 4 x .50 cal M2 armament was probably the ideal compromise between power and weight. The problem is that no matter what WE believe, the people buying the airplanes decided they wanted 6 guns.
- Ivan.
That they were in North Africa is not disputed.
Hello Schweik,
What I was saying was that the P-40 often wasn't facing first quality opposition which is one reason it might have done so well. There are many restrictive environments in which one set of performance qualities are favored. In a tight space even Romanian IAR 80 fighters were a match for first line US fighters, but that doesn't mean they were particularly good aircraft.
The specific video I was thinking of is of an automobile that was modified for radio control and shot at with a BMG. It eventually was destroyed of course, but took quite a few more hits all over than I would have expected. There is also a couple commercial videos (I believe one of them is by Dillon Precision) which shows similar things.
Keep in mind that the first factory equipped version of Folgore with wing guns did not get produced until May 1942. Multiple sources have claimed that the majority of the operational C.202 did not carry wing guns for weight and handling reasons.
Schweik, We have been to the same point over and over again. You call it wiggling. I call it stating the facts.
Before going a whole lot further, I suggest you do a little background research on the Breda 12.7 x 81 mm HMG. In the field of HMGs, this is one of the weaker guns. It only has about 2/3 the muzzle energy of a Browning M2.
I don't have data for the Me 109F-2 handy, but for the Me 109F-1, weight is listed as 2750 KG loaded.
Thus there isn't any significant wing loading advantage for the Folgore. Where did you get this idea?
As for tailoring the armament to the mission, how long do you think it would take to completely remove and install wing mounted MG and ammunition feeds and replace fairings to block off the openings? Keep in mind that you also need to harmonize the guns. Is this the kind of thing that you would ask your ground crew to do once you hear that there is an incoming bomber attack? Oops, there are escorting fighters, "Hurry, pull the guns back out!!!" Really??
I don't think you are even reading your own post. I stated average of 30-70 Folgore in North Africa in 1942.
Your one data point that "didn't match" showed 55 Folgore by your count. Seems in agreement to me.
In what way do you think Hayabusa was that sophisticated?
It certainly was agile and easy to fly and that was probably the best that could be said about it.
What characteristics do you believe made it "excellent in combat" but "not so good for attrition warfare"?
By my count, that is 18 Folgore shot down over two months versus 16 other types shot down.
As you commented, Commando raids and bombing victims really don't count the same.
That doesn't sound like a great loss of aircraft over two months for the numbers involved.
Just out of curiosity, how do the Italian claims stack up against actual Allied aircraft losses during this time?
As for the A6M5c, even the first model of the A6M5 had not yet been developed by early 1943.
Engine power did not increase, so with the extra guns, this model was definitely getting too heavy.
- Ivan.
Well on that we agree. Don't think anyone is disputing that Mc202s were there. Whether or not they were 1st rate fighters for 42 and wheather they and other modern types made up the majority of Italian and Luftwaffe types seems to be what's in dispute. At least as near as I can tell.That they were in North Africa is not disputed.
Don't you own a copy of MAW II and III? You can read the rate of sorties in the text, I just posted the summaries because I think it makes it all very obvious. How many Italian fighter sorties in the period I covered do you think were by anything other than a MC.202? From looking through the book by mid 1942 99% of the fighter sorties are MC.202. The CR.42s were only being used as bombers, due to the lack of any other effective Italian light bomber, they were essentially in the same role as Stukas but only flew a handful of days a month. The MC.200 seemed to be relegated to some kind of maritime defense missions and occasionally went after B-24s. That is what I see and I'm not making anything up. What am I missing here Stig?
August 19
(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:
Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
II./JG 27- 24 x Bf 109F
III./JG 27 - 24 x Bf 109F
JaboStaffel/JG 27 - 12 x Bf 109E
III./JG 534 - 24 x BF 109E and F
10./ ZG26 7 Do 17Z
Jagdkommando /JG 27 3 x Bf 109F
III./ ZG26 46Bf 110C
165 in total
Listing 97 aircraft of these aircraft servicable)
Well on that we agree. Don't think anyone is disputing that Mc202s were there. Whether or not they were 1st rate fighters for 42 and wheather they and other modern types made up the majority of Italian and Luftwaffe types seems to be what's in dispute. At least as near as I can tell.
The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!
You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.
Something else you missed, though I don't what it has to do with the Macchi, but I have helped you out:
Yes but we are talking about North Africa and the MTO, you should check your sources for Bf 109F-4 (trop), it's not quite as fast.
The Fw 190 was only around in one squadron, from late in 1942, and the Spit IX didn't arrive in the MTO until 1943.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory!
You are again forgetting fairly obvious things here. First, guns could be and were removed in the field if needed depending on the mission. Second, by the time the P-40N came out most of the mission was for fighter bomber / strafing runs, which necessitated 6 guns.
Third, it is well known that the P-40N was configured one of two different ways, as a fighter bomber or more as a pure fighter. It always did a bit of both, but the weight and payload varied based on where the squadron was stationed and what kind of missions it flew. The N incidentally played almost no role with Americans in the MTO, it was widely used in the Pacific and CBI but came too late for fighting in the Med (or at any rate, the F/L were used instead). The British also used it in the MTO but almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber.
My understanding is that MC.202 was made with the capacity for the wing guns in place. I've read that some pilots removed wing guns (mainly to improve roll rate) which was incidentally also done with Spitfires, Hurricanes, and P-40s operating in the MTO, but that not all were.
Here is the fact - a single 'good' HMG isn't dramatically better than two 'poor' HMGs, especially when we know the latter were putting out more bullets. Both the Bf 109F and the MC.202 were lightly armed by the standards of their day. Both were very good fighters anyway. That is the reality.
As for wing loading, it doesn't take a huge difference to make a difference - MC.202 with the larger wing area had 35.7 lbs sq ft loaded (with wing guns), Bf 109F had a wing loading of about 36.6 - that is enough to give the 202 an edge in a turn. Of course the Bf 109 also had leading edge slats which could help in a slow turn fight, but the tactics used with both planes emphasized keeping the speed up and combat in the vertical. Instantaneous turn or high speed turns would matter more.
You are making an artificial distinction between stationed in North Africa to operating over North Africa. The latter is the only part that is relevant. Fighter squadrons operating from Pantelleria, which is what, 30 or 40 miles from Tunisia, so routinely engaged Allied fighters operating over Tunisia and Algeria that the Allies decided it had to be captured before they could invade Sicily. It also served as a waystation for fighters and bombers operating from Sardinia and Sicily, both about ~150 miles away from Tunisia as the crow (or MC.202) flies.
It was beautifully streamlined, with an excellent combination of low drag with large high lift wings, it had a bubble canopy with excellent visibility in all directions, it was of all metal stressed-skin construction at a time when many fighters still had some cloth or wood skin, had highly effective combat flaps, was harmoniously balanced enough to handle fairly high dive speeds and remain controllable in a dive (unlike an A6M and to a better extent than a Bf 109). It had a remarkable range for a fighter in that era.
Tomahawks oddly seemed to do pretty well against both Bf 109 and MC202 (better than the early Kittyhawks) but still not quite up to par, maybe 3/4 as good.
P-38 I would say outmatched. Not until the Spit IX arrived in 1943 did you see an Allied aircraft that clearly had an advantage over the MC.202 (this was also true of the Bf109F/G and Fw 190).
The Italians didn't cause as much of a steady attrition against the DAW as the Luftwaffe did, partly because they flew fewer missions and seemed to disengage when the fight turned against them, but when it came down to an intense fight as it periodically did, they accounted quite well for themselves. I gather the small number that went to the Russian front did well there too. I think their main problem in the North Africa zone was fuel shortages.
You missed my point, I was saying they should have made a heavily armed version like that earlier than they did. They were contending with strong Allied bombers and the new generation of radial engined fighters which were all harder to shoot down. In my opinion the A6M5c still had quite good performance and excellent maneuverability.
You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.