Reggiana 2005 Vs. Bf 109F

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

This makes sence as the standard G55 had 3 x 20 plus the 2 x HMG and the centre 20mm had a huge amount of ammunition (up to 380 rds) so weight and space wouldn't have been a problem

... The report notes the following guns for the G - 55 they tested :

1 x 20 mm (Mauser MG 151/20) with 200 rounds
4 x 12.7 mm with 380 rounds

Correct me if I am wrong, I don`t know much at all about Italian fighters, but this is not at all that different from what LW fighters had at the time (ie. the G-6 was just being introduced at the time with 1x20mm/200rpg + 2x13mm/300rpg). In fact they note a new G-55 version in development, with 3x20mm (1 in engine, 2 wings) and 2 12.7mm guns in the fuselage.

Note though that this is exactly the same armament as a G-6 with gondies - and that is 'off the shelves' and not just on paper yet in February 1943 ...

It appears to me that the Germans were rather interested in potential developments of the G 55 with a massively increased armament AND a DB 603 engine rather than it`s actual form. It puzzles me otoh why they would need one, if they wanted a heavily armed aircraft with a DB 603... well there`s the FW 190, already in production.

I think the 'German interest' is a bit overstated - alternate 'Plan B's were constantly considered in the Luftwaffe, they had the Bf 109K-14 and the DB 605L in works just in case the Ta 152 / Jumo 213E fails to deliver - and you shouldn`t make too much of a conclusion from those rather regular 'brainstorming' meetings in the RLM. But, I haven`t seen any the other papers about those meetings myself telling about what Goering, Milch and Galland had on mind about the 'Italian connection'. I`d love to see those.

Oh, and I happy that could contribute my bit to this story, it`s always the best to reach down to the 'source'. I am glad you found it interesting.

[Civettone]

Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered.

Also, the Germans were not interested in the G.55 with a 20mm gun and four MGs but in the G.55/II. That bird had the amazing armament of 5 - that is FIVE - 20 mm guns! Later the motor engine cannon would have been replaced by a MK 108. That would have made an amazing bomber destroyer for 1944.

It puzzles me otoh why they would need one, if they wanted a heavily armed aircraft with a DB 603... well there`s the FW 190, already in production.

What do you mean, already in production??

Kris

[Parmigiano]

Kurfust,

My info says that the G55 was armed with 3xMg151/20 + 2x Breda 12,7.

One possibility is that they tested one of the 4-5 pre-production models (so called series zero) that sported 4x12,7mm in the nose + 1x20mm engine mounted.

But in that case, also consider that the first DB605 made in Fiat were restricted to 2600rpm instead of 2800, and the performances were directly impacted by that.

The normal production G55 (about 200 produced, 110 delivered) had 380 rounds for the engine cannon, 200 rounds each for the wing-mounted 20mm and 300 rounds each for the 12,7.

Anyway, even 2 x12,7 extra is a good 30% more firepower vs the 109G6, that also had the 12,7 pasted in a 'band-aid' way requiring the infamous bulges to accomodate the weapons.
Besides, this would be the same armament of the P38, that is generally considered 'extremely potent'.

FW190 with DB603: can you give more detail? I know only the 190C prototype that was discarded for the 190D, and was anyway 1944.

.. sorry, have to run , will be back later

[Glider]

The prototype G55 had 1 x 20 and 4 x HMG two in the nose and the two in the wing later replaced by 2 x 20 giving the normal load of 3 x 20 and 2 x HMG.

[HoHun]

Hi Kris,

>Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered.

Hm, in any procurement decision involving Messerschmitt aircraft, one has to take into account that Milch was a personal enemy of Messerschmitt.

Obviously, a DB-603-engined Fiat fighter would be a direct competitor to the DB-603-engined Me 209 ...

Here is a timeline I based on Irving's Milch biography (so be cautious about its accuracy):

xx.02.1943 German comparison report is prepared
xx.04.1943 Milch considers Me 209 and Me 410 to be the most important next-generation aircraft
22.05.1943 Galland test-flies a Me 262 prototype and reports to Milch
25.05.1943 Milch decides to cancel the Me 209 in favour of the Me 262, and not to build a new generation of piston-engined fighters at all
02.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims high fuel usage and doubtful altitude performance as disadvantages of the jet fighter
27.06.1943 Messerschmitt repeats comment on jet fighter fuel usage to Hitler
xx.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims Me 209 is 95% production-ready
xx.08.1943 Me 209 cancellation is revoked
07.09.1943 Messerschmitt suggests to Hitler to produce the Me 209 as fighter and the Me 262 as bomber
xx.09.1943 RLM staff and Galland oppose Me 209 after asked for opinion by Milch
27.09.1943 US troops occupy Foggia, Milch regrets that this ends his hopes of building the Fiat G.55
21.11.1943 Me 209 cancelled by Göring.

I wouldn't be surprised if the report on Italian fighters was at least partially motivated by Milch's desire to collect arguments for stopping the Me 209. If he thought it was best to skip the next generation of piston-engined fighters entirely, why his continued interest in the Fiat G.55 as next-generation piston-engined fighter just when he was battling Messerschmitt over Me 209 production?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Milos Sijacki]

I choose Bf-109F because it was combat proven. That's it.

[Civettone]

Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture. I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft.
Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209. If he really was against the Me 262 he would have gone for the He 280 or Fw 190. Yet there is no mention of this in Irving's biography.

I do agree however that the licence production of the Fiat was not top priority. There are only a very few projects which can have top priority and I can understand why planes like the Me 262 or He 177 would have gotten this instead.
Kris

[HoHun]

Hi Kris,

>Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture.

If you're dealing with historical accounts, critical assessment of sources is standard operating procedure. Milch was no disinterested observer, and his account would require caution even if it were published by a historian with a better track record than Irving

>I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft.

Do you have more details? That might be interesting ...

>Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209.

Oh, but it still was a battle for the control over Messerschmitt's plants and engineering capacity. Would Messerschmitt get it his way, or would Milch prevail?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Civettone]

Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Milch wasn't serious about the 5-series and that it was just to obstruct Messerschmitt. It's conjecture to me.

And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times. And particularly this part:
Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.

And don't forget that Milch actually came to Rechlin to see the tests of the G.55.

Kris

[HoHun]

Hi Kris,

>Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so.

I'm afraid critical assessment is exactly what I'm doing. You have to understand that I'm not saying that the G.55 production scheme was a tactical move against Messerschmitt's Me 209 production scheme for certain - I'm just saying the possiblity exists and cannot be ruled out. You have to consider Milch's motivation for a critical assessment, and he certainly was not impartial towards Messerschmitt.

This is not a consideration that leads to a definite conclusion, it's a consideration that warns against drawing conclusions.

>And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times.

Hm, I have to ask: where did that text come from? (If the source was already posted, I fear I have missed it.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Civettone]

I'm not saying that the G.55 production scheme was a tactical move against Messerschmitt's Me 209 production scheme for certain - I'm just saying the possiblity exists and cannot be ruled out.

If you say it like that, then YES, it is indeed a critical assessment.

It is indeed possible...
Kris

[Parmigiano]

There seems to be another reason why the LW finally abandoned the idea of producing the G55: the quoted text is taken from:

G55 - Aircraft History


"On 4 August 1944 a test pilot of Aeritalia, using one of the G55's ready to be delivered (MM91156), picked up an Allied spy in the narrow G55 cockpit and escaped beyond the front line. The aircraft (shown in fig. 3) was then captured by the Allied and shipped in England to be used for evaluations. This episode was relevant for the German authorities to decide to stop the Aeritalia production that definitively ended in September 1944."

There is also a picture of a G55 with English roundels, it would be interesting if anybody could confirm this from some other source (for cross-comparison)
Also it would be interesting to find the outcome of this 'evaluation tests' performed in England...

[HoHun]

Hi Parmigiano,

>There seems to be another reason why the LW finally abandoned the idea of producing the G55:

Hm, if the G.55 would have been produced in Germany, there should have been no special concerns regarding the reliability (or lack thereof) of the factory workers.

>Also it would be interesting to find the outcome of this 'evaluation tests' performed in England...

Very good point - it's probably there, buried in some archive ... fascinating thought!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Kris,

>If you say it like that, then YES, it is indeed a critical assessment.

Glad we reached agreement again

A friend who is a psychologist once told me that "negative knowledge" - to know what one doesn't know - is one type of information that is difficult to handle intuitively for the human brain.

I think this transfers to the language - there is a clear term for "certainty", but there is none for "confirmed uncertainty" in the sense that we know with certainty that we are missing an important bit of information.

This makes "negative knowledge" difficult to communicate at times :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Parmigiano]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Parmigiano,

>
Hm, if the G.55 would have been produced in Germany, there should have been no special concerns regarding the reliability (or lack thereof) of the factory workers.


Henning (HoHun)

I think that fear of mass desertion was not the main point: my interpretation is that if I have to develop and deploy a new fighter I also count on a surprise effect. If the enemy already can evaluate this machine even before I can field it in numbers, I lose this advantage and this can influence my decision to invest on the project.