Italy v. England - Air to air

[pbfoot]

I really don't think there was much of a partisan effect in Italy until later in 43/45 so the effect on Italian war production was minimal

[Civettone]

Of course!

Kris

[Parmigiano]

The 'Serie V' was maybe not the 'pinnacle' of aviation, but in 1943 was at least on par with Allied and German machines.

In 1944-45 the other parties progressed while Macchi205 and FiatG55, because of the armistice, did not evolve: so in time they could not keep the pace.
An example? All the produced series V were fitted with the DB605A, the 109 mounted the new versions of the DB605 as soon as they were available. Of course a 109 G10/AS had more performances than a G55.
But a G55 wih the 605/AS would had more than matched the 109G10, not to speak that the Fiat frame could easily accept the DB603 (G56)

It is not surprising that the Germans in 1943 picked the G55 for production studies to replace the 109: there you had a fighter that with the same DB605A engine had equal or better performances and, very important but not remarked, carried an armament (3xMG151/22 + 2x12.7) similar to the Fw190A6 (4xMG151/20 + 2x 7.7) , much more powerful than the 109 and any other competitor. The 190 was the best at low/mid altitudes, the G55 was the best at mid/high, both had enough punch to knock down the 4 engine bomber that were the most urgent menace. The 109 simply could not carry this armament without losing too much performance (see external gondolas).

And with his 3x20mm (one with 380 rounds and 2 with 200 rounds) plus 2x12.7 the G55 was an ideal interceptor: as comparison the Fw190 had 250 rounds for the inner MG and 150 for the outer, the much heavier Typhoon had 120 rounds per gun.

It is funny that the Italians, always in trouble with the insufficient armament of their fighters, ended up to produce fighters with the best armament of their time.

Even the 'stopgap' Macchi 205V, after a few units with 7.7 mg in the wings, went in production with 2x12.7 and 2xMG151/20 with 400 rpg (.. better than the Dora9 who had only 250 rpg for the same 20mm guns)

[Civettone]

Parmigiano, don't forget that the Germans were primarily interested in the G.55/II which carried FIVE 20mm cannons!! What a bomber destroyer that must have been!

However I disagree that the extra underwing guns of the Bf 109 made it much slower. I know Kurfürst has the exact figures but I think it was around 4 km/h worth of drag. The fuselage bulges of the Bf 109G-6 caused a speed loss of 6 km/h. These bulges were overcome by the G-10.

But the main advantage the Bf 109 had was that it could be produced a lot faster than the G.55. The latter required 15,000 manhours which could have been brought back to 9,000. The Bf 109 could be produced in 5,000. I think the G.55 and especially the G.56 was more of an alternative for the Fw 190A and D.

Kris

Kris

[Civettone]

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.

That's a magnificent post! Does anybody have some more information about these tests??

Kris

[Parmigiano]

I think I had already posted somewhere this link

G55 - Aircraft History

There is a lot of info on the G55 and some more insight of the tests and on the FIAT made DB605

Some small corrections to the above post: the Macchi 205V never had 4x12.7: the first units had 2x12.7 in the cowling and 2x7.7 in the wings, the production 'Serie III' replaced the 7.7 with the MG151/20

I wonder how they could test the MC 205 N: there was only 2 prototypes built, the first (SN 499) with 1x20 and 4x12.7, the second (SN500) with 3x20 and 2x12.7: I never heard of the SN499 tested by Luftwaffe.

The MC206 'nearly complete' was designed for the DB605, Castoldi's fighter design for the DB603 was the MC207

[phouse]

Fiat, like Civettone described, had a lukewarm at best disposition to Mussolini's government. They had tested an inline engine that had equivocal output to that of the best radial engines at the time but for reasons unknown, it was dropped. Furthermore, and I'm going to quote a great article by James Sabkovich,

the Italians failed to develop the radials they were already producing. Radials proved excellent powerplants on non-Italian aircraft ... Even as they existed in 1939, Italian radials were reliable - given that they had to pass a one thousand hour test before they were accepted by the air force - and they were not inferior in performance as given by the similarity in performance of the Gnome et Rhone powered Bloch MB 152 and the Piaggio P.XI powered Re.2000. Nonetheless, Italian industry relied on licenses and one man research and development departments ...

Slightly off topic but the failure of Italy to produce capable aircraft until late in the war seems to be a head scratcher. Thought I'd give some input! If you get an opportunity, Mr. Sabkovich's "The Development of the Italian Air Force Prior to World War II" is an excellent survey of the Italian Air Force's issues leading up to 1940 and gives great indicators on their failure to perform at competitive levels.

*Edit - added Sabkovich's article name.

[Civettone]

Parmigiano, thanks for the link but I was already aware of that. It's an often quoted text but I haven't been able to find the original reports though I know the reference and where to find them (Bundesarchiv in Germany).

Phouse welcome aboard!
Note that most Italian radial engines were in fact foreign designs which they licence produced and developed further.
I suppose that inline engine you were talking about is the Isotta Fraschini Zeta engine. It proved to be unreliable and with little advantages towards the Daimler Benz engines. (Though now I'm wondering if it wasn't an air cooled inline engine...)

Phouse can you tell us some more on the findings by Sabkovich? Any remarkable observations?
Kris

[phouse]

Thanks for the welcome. Friendly lot we have here.

Other issues that he points out was the mass number of prototypes the Italians produced, with a vast majority of them never seeing production. Again, this is with respect to Italy's limited industrial capacity. It did keep all of Italy's air firms in business during the 30s, a particularly hard time for all, but during WW2 there was more "playing around" with prototypes in the high command and less focus on ensuring the best planes in the most numbers for their air force. Probably why the CR.42 Falco was the plane produced in the highest numbers by Italy.

The failure of the research and development is particularly instanced with the inability to produce a military version of the Fiat AS6. The AS6 powered the famous Macci MC.72 which held the air-speed record until mid-1939.

The much mentioned failure to appreciate the need for carrier based aircraft, especially torpedo-bombers was mentioned.

Other very import influences on production was the "wastage" of aircraft during the Ethiopian campaign; approximately 1500 aircraft or 12% of Italy's production.Furthermore, Italy had a need to export aircraft to produce hard currency to build more, you guessed it, aircraft! This created a significant bottleneck in pre-war production.

The RA made poor doctrinal decisions, mostly based off of trial and error in their military conflicts in the Spanish Civil War and Ethiopia. They failed to take into account the relative weakness of their opponents. The Italians had made a decent amount of progress into a brand of blitzkrieg but they dropped it after the fiasco at Guadalajara. Again, indicative of the trial and error approach the RA took.

The decision not to order more than 12 Re.2000s despite the fact that it bested the ME 109 in mock dogfights and order the transitionary CR.42 and the MC.200 (which had considerable problems with spinning, so much so that it delayed production by four months) is also notable. The RA also ordered a smattering of Ca.165s and G.50s. He notes this behavior as the RA's pattern of rejecting the best model and ordering a "hodgepodge of inferior types". This focus on production of outdated aircraft meant later on an unwillingness to remodel the factories to produce newer aircraft, so the RA continued to order inferior aircraft throughout WW2. Hence why the CR.42 was still in production by the the time the war ended.

His final assessment is hard to argue with. Despite the blunderings of the RA, the numerical inferiority of Italy's production meant that even if it didn't make stupid doctrinal decisions based off the Spanish Civil War and the Ethiopian campaign and they didn't fool around with prototypes and inferior models, their showing in WW2 would have only been marginally better.

[Parmigiano]

I can only substantially agree with this analisys.

The Italian aviation was technologically among the top in the '30, but the Country industrial backbone was in no way capable to generate the quantitative output necessary for a total war like WW II was.

In the late '30 - early '40 Italy lost also this technological position (blinded by the success in Spanish war? lousy planning? wrong combat strategy based on aerobatics? there are tons of explanations, all of them perfectly logical), and this delay was recovered only in 1943 with the '5' models.

The 'series 5' addressed wonderfully the performance and armament variables of the equation, but it could have been produced in significant numbers only in Germany (or UK or USA or Russia...)

The Macchi designer Castoldi knew how to design an high performance airplane, but for the '200-205' series he had to take in consideration that there was no industrial capability for 'Ford model' production: his fighters were designed to be built by craftsmen, the only way available in the Country.
Messerschmitt, Mitchell, Tank, Kartveli, Heinemann, Camm, even Yakovlev and Lavochin could rely on an infrastructure able to deal with serial production, modular construction etc.

That in a nut is why Regia Aeronautica could have never become a powerful air force.

[phouse]

What parts do you disagree with Parmigiano and why?

[Civettone]

I also agree with you gentlemen.

Perhaps you've already seen this spreadsheet: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Airplane_Orders.xls
But it clearly shows how inefficient Italian production was. Instead of ordering hundreds of fighters they continued to order small numbers (anything between 1 and 100 aircraft) at a multitude of little aircraft factories.


Just some nitpicking though: the way I understand it is that the Re.2000 was rejected because of its vulnerable wing tanks. Or at least the decision makes considered them too vulnerable. The Re.2000 showed itself to be more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 but all in all, most fighters were. The Bf 109 was the best axis fighter because it was so fast and powerful not because it could do aerobatics.

In the late '30 - early '40 Italy lost also this technological position (blinded by the success in Spanish war? lousy planning? wrong combat strategy based on aerobatics? there are tons of explanations, all of them perfectly logical), and this delay was recovered only in 1943 with the '5' models.

I think I know why they lagged behind. Up to the thirties you basically needed a good aircraft design and by god the Italians knew how to do that! Their technology wasn't that special but it didn't matter that much. But at the end of the thirties this changed with superior materials, advanced construction techniques and powerful inline engines pushing the designs forward. Italy didn't have this technology because its industry couldn't deliver. No point in designing an aircraft if you can't build it. In short, I disagree that the Italians ever had a leading technology. I think they built aircraft in a time when technology was still basic on not depending on industrialisation. That's why countries like Poland managed to build such good aircraft. The Italians never caught up and the 5 series is proof of that: it was the same C.200 and G.50 but with German engines and cannons.

Kris

[phouse]

Yes. I am sure that Italy's lack of industrialization and access to specialized materials wasn't lost on some of Italy's leadership. Italy directly competed for raw materials with Germany and we know who got the lion's share of that!

At the time, the AS6 held amazing potential as the powerplant of the future.
Perhaps the decision to drop development of the AS6 as a military powerplant was based off of the realization that Italy lacked the ability to make it happen. I'd be interested in seeing documentation one way or the other.

[Parmigiano]

What parts do you disagree with Parmigiano and why?

I do agree, it's just that I thought in Italian and translated literally... the phrase 'posso solo essere sostanzialmente d'accordo' means 'I have no other option than substantially agree', my translation in english had an ambiguous meaning...

[Parmigiano]

I also agree with you gentlemen.

I think I know why they lagged behind. Up to the thirties you basically needed a good aircraft design and by god the Italians knew how to do that! Their technology wasn't that special but it didn't matter that much. But at the end of the thirties this changed with superior materials, advanced construction techniques and powerful inline engines pushing the designs forward. Italy didn't have this technology because its industry couldn't deliver. No point in designing an aircraft if you can't build it. In short, I disagree that the Italians ever had a leading technology. I think they built aircraft in a time when technology was still basic on not depending on industrialisation. That's why countries like Poland managed to build such good aircraft. The Italians never caught up and the 5 series is proof of that: it was the same C.200 and G.50 but with German engines and cannons.

Kris

I disagree with you about leading technology until 1930's. The 1926 Macchi M39 for the Schneider cup was a breaktrough in the high performance design, leading the way to the future Supermarine seaplanes.

The MC72 of 1931 had 2 12V (Fiat AS6) coupled engines and contra-rotating propeller, again a step ahead of the competitors. Was troublesome to setup (mainly because of fuel related problems) and was late for the 1931 competition, but it still holds today the speed record for prop seaplanes.

Both had surface cooling system, not suitable for warplanes but definitely ahead of the competitor's solutions.

About Serie 5, the G55 had nothing to do with the G50, no more than the Tempest had to share with the Hurricane.

The Macchi 205V was not a 'real' series 5, was more a quick solution stopgap, just like the Spit IX was. Both proved good enough to deserve full production (although with substantially different industrial output)

The fact that the Macchi airframe remained the same from the 200 to the 205V is only a proof that the basic design was good, and could bear double the power and the payload that it was originally designed for.

It happened the same to the Spit:the basic design was excellent, and remained unchanged from MK I to V, IX/XVIII and XIV , just adding a bigger engine, some ballast to compensate the cg and the minimal changes to the frame.
Do we have then to say that the British were lagging behind because they could not improve the basic Mitchell design?!

btw, the 1940 Macchi 202/205V had a radiator duct effect similar (although not as perfectioned) to the P51.

In 1943 Italian Serie 5 definitely caught up with the very best in term of performances and armament, Italian industry never did in terms of quantity production.

About using German engines and guns, it was one of the few rational decisions made by Superaereo: there were great engines and weapons available immediately, why waste efforts in trying to develop new ones?
All in all the Americans (who surely did know how to build a good 12V) did the same by fitting the Merlin on the Mustang.