C.202. British pilots greatly respected it and considered it a tough and worthy opponent, the British pilots even considered it superior to the P-40 and Hurricane. Italian pilots in C.202s actually had a higher Kill to Death ratio against RAF fighters than German pilots in Bf 109s (in North Africa). The only effective and equal opponent to the C.202 in North Africa was the Spitfire.
@@nor0845 I learned to drive a stick shift on a 1971 FIAT 850 Spider--named after the 843cc powerplant. Not a durable car. A sparkplug ejected from the engine one drive.
The war ended early for Italy, before even the P51B (December 1943 first missions, Jan 1944 first combat) entered into service. Hence we can’t appreciate how advanced their aircraft were.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Its not that simple. The war continued in Italy right up to VE day. When Italy capitulated in 1943 some of its air force sided with the allies (Co-Belligerent Airforce) and others (Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana or ANR) with the German forces in Italy. They continued building italian fighters into 1944 and flew them until wars end and they would have come across P-51s. The luftwaffe also flew the Re.2005 and the Macchi 205.
I think they are overlooked generally because they were so few (counted in hundreds and not in thousands aircraft that was made). They couldn't make a big impact on the war but they could make a big impact on those Allied pilots who found themselves fighting against them.
Dear Sir, as Italian passionate for aviation, I really thank you very much for your publications, and specially this one and the other related to Fiat G55. I do recommend anyone coming to Italy to visit the Museo di Vigna di Valle not too far from Rome, is really worth of a visit, as you may see the other champions of the Schneider cup. In Italy we normally consider german technology to be the best one, so such flattering judgements are really pleasant for us. Keep going on, Bravo!
3:37 "No cockpit layout standardization" I remember reading that early on in the war, the USA suffered a lot of crashes during pilot training, mostly due to "pilot error". One of the problems identified was a lack of control layout standardization. This was subsequently corrected, and the number of accidents was decreased substantially.
It's quite staggering to think that, even during the second world war, NO prior thought has been given to s standardized cockpit instrument layout, or cockpit layout. When we consider the attention to detail exhibited by many army and navy commanders, it's always baffled me how the air forces failed to see the potential flaws in a non uniform layout.
I wonder if theGerman comment meant that there were layout anomalies within the group of Italian aircraft being tested or if they were saying the layout differed from standard German practices and norms. The old NIH syndrome.
the British invented the "Basic Six" layout which is probably the best in the world but, in the American system,manufacturers could put instruments where ever they liked, unless the customer specified a layout like the "six". Aircraft built in the US had their original instrument panels changed for the British layout and also had provision for British gunsights, oxygen systems, switch position and so on. American pilots who flew using the Basic Six preferred it and made those feelings known to higher office and American aircraft began to appear with it.
There was a G55 flying in Queensland Australia for some time till the death of the owner (Guido Zuccoli) who had a rather nice collection of warbirds. Was a beautiful plane to see in the sky.🇦🇺
Hi! In from Argentina, and I found out that the military bought a G.55 serie 1 for testing, the testing didn't go any further, but the aircraft is still on display!
I wonder why Argentina didn't copy it or create its own, if Argentina was able to produce G55s before the end of the war it would have had the most advanced air force in the entire South Americas
@@paullewis770 Ah yup I remember the Pulqui 1 and 2 although introduced a lil bit later (1950) than it really should have. Didnt Brazil get like F-80 and F-84s either before or soon after?
The main reasons the Luftwaffe didn't adopt them: -Armistice compromised the technology - Man hours to produce the BF109 was 9k hours, whereas the Italian planes required 11k man hours and upwards as well as what you mentioned with the manufacturing infrastrusture and logistics for repair and maintenance.
@@robstone4537 hahahah. Not really, they hadn't adopted assembly lines and were craftsman, their planes were more "built" they were more intricately made had more spars and rivets etc. Which is why they were rugged and tough. It's a true shame Italians are overlooked so often
@Phil Earl yea. Because Italians refused to accept assembly lines, their engines were built to tighter tolerances than the German DBs, so even with the drawbacks of the license version of the engines the Romeos were better in quality than what came off of German assembly lines. While everyone was flying Fords, the Eyeties were flying Ferraris, as I think he has mentioned before in another video. This contributed to the higher maintenance hours per flight hours.
At the end of the war an Me 109 airframe required less than 1000 man hours. They were probably at about 2000-3000 hours in 1943. Me 109F and it’s descendants such as the G/K had been extensively redesigned for mass production. The 109E was designed for production by small subcontractors who fabricated sub assemblies , a good idea if you needed 500-1000 per year. The Me 109F/G/K was designed for production using larger assemblies and large scale presses for when thousands were needed. That’s one reason the 109 was so hard to give up. It would take a year or more of effort to match its output
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs I may have gotten my numbers off. I dont recall it being that low but you may be right. I could be thinking of early, as in 1941, most of my research was on the Macchi C.202 so I could be getting mixed up.
How the tests had been performed. Five comparatives planned, four actually made. N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away. The FW190 was faster in sustained dive too. N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m). N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster. N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage. N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test. Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast. So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.
Great Video, The Italian Air Force did have some excellent aircraft. Like all of Italy’s WWII performance it tends to be under appreciated. The Macchi 202 “ Folgore” and the Savoia Marchetti 79 are two of my favorites. Thanks again 🇮🇹
Those are my two favorites as well! It’s really sad to see how overlooked Italian vehicles in ww2 were, probably as a result of the army’s at times incredible incompetency makes them overlook the entire rest of their armed forces
@@lolzers7986 The army was not incompetent at all. There are tens videos on Italian army explaining the reason of some defaults. Also it was mostly at the beginning only, because later they fought like lions being far worse weaponed than Brits who could rely on all Commonwealth and USA and Italy was not ready for a war as it was said to Mussolini by army chief. Italy has not natural resources either and so lacked many metals and of course oil as well. Plus many soldiers were not willing to fight for a fascist regime, but those who were like in the Salo' republican army who kept fighting alongside Germans, Allies still remind how though those soldiers were even with few resources. At most were some generals that were incompetent because put on charge only for being nobles or friends of Mussolini.
@@tripwire3992 The German manufacturer, Fokker, did do this. They produced a twin engined wooden" clone" of the Mosquito, that had exceptional performance. The problem they faced was that only one factory/ chemical works was capable of producing the complex glues that were needed to manufacture the plane....and before full production could start, the factory was destroyed by allied bombing. They persevered using inferior glues, and the aircraft fell apart in testing. So after a couple of prototypes, the project was shelved. So I guess the Germans REALLY liked the Mosquito !
I had the pleasure of visiting the Vigna di Valle Italian Air Force Museum in Bracciano a couple of years ago. Well worth the visit. They also have a collection of Macchi seaplanes, including the famed MC 72. :)
Capt. Eric Brown RN test-flew a Macchi C.205V at the end of the war and rated it very highly: one of the best he ever flew in fact. It's odd that the German reports state the aircraft were unsuitable for fighter-bombing: all of them had wing pylons for light bomb loads and a couple of them had centreline pylons at least designed or improvised, if not in production.
The G55 was one of the nicest looking planes of the whole war very nice lines, would've been nice if they were built in larger numbers even if they were used on the allies side against the Axis
Fascinating. I'm in my 50th year as an aviation structural mechanic. You hit the nail on the head as far as introducing a new aircraft type and the hurdles you have to overcome in order for it work.
I do know that the Germans loved the Fiat G.56. A G.55 with a DB 603 engine. One of the fastest axis aircraft of the war but Germany ended up not producing it because it cost like 12,000 man hours to make while the Me 109 was something around 5000 man hours.
When my dear uncle used to talk about war in North Africa he was an artillery gun lorry driver and supply's and talk of Italian planes dogfight the British fighters who woul try to shoot his possition up and on every occation shoot them down . I questioned him a lot about this thinking him wrong but he described the planes and he was spot on and how the Italian plains would come done above them waggle there wings and climbs up . Italian pilot s were used to there controls and were very cable and he never show one shot down ..
They wagged their wings as a way to communicate with their wingmen because they didn't have radios. Very interesting story and that is great you spent time with your uncle and listened to his stories.
I apologize, I don't understand if the Italian planes shot down the English fighters or vice versa. My father was in North Afrika too with the third fighter wing
I remember reading some secondary sources on this years ago. The conclusions were that the Italian airframes were bigger than the 109, so they lent themselves better for wartime upgrades. Some planes were on par with the 109. The source I read however said that it took 2 times as many man hours to build an Italian fighter compared to a bf109. I could be remembering the numbers wrong, but I distinctly recall that Italian fighters took many more man hours to build, even when considering that the bf109 is a smaller aircraft - to the point where it would almost be better to just export 109's to Italy instead of them building their own planes.
Italian manufacturing capabilities weren't spectacular (and probably the worst among the Big Three of the Axis powers). If the Germans did take the time to retool their own factories to build Italian designs they'd cut the production time significantly. Better still, if they directly used parts from Bf-109s on Italian airframes. Think of how much time they'd save if those Italian fighters just used Bf-109 or even Fw-190 canopies.
If you have ever gotten up close and personal with a 109 the first thing you will notice is that every component looks like it has been shoehorned in to the airframe with a very large crowbar.
Chris, I love these videos for the work you put in, the detail from the primary sources, the flavour of how it felt at the time to evaluate the machines. To be able to mediate the files of the Bundesarchiv to us who live farther away is such a vital job - we salute you! Vielen danke, kamerad.
Thank you for posting. Finland bought G50s 35 planes in all but only 14 was received to serve in winter war but by the time continuation war began in 1941 all were deliver and this plane type scored 44 enemy planes downed.
Those planes was shit in the winter, urin at the sommer. Huge freecing problems, weak guns. They byu also Terni rifles from Italy. Not work but kill Kennedy later. After those Finland has never buy Italian weapons.
@@jakkeledin4645 fiat G50 , in Finland in the beginning performed bad , because Finnish made wrong assembly end maintenance , after from Italy arrived Italian assistens,. After the fiat g 50 performed well , whis a rat ero of 33/ to 1 Oiba tuominen get 23 kills whit fiat g 50 fa-26 , on 17 -08-1941 killing four soviet bomber , getting the mannerheim cross,
@ Nothing i have ever found indicates the Ki-100 was an inferior aircraft. All the surviving Ki-61 airframes became Ki-100's. The 1500hp Mitsubishi radial engine was superior to the 1500hp in-line Kawasaki engine of the Ki-61. The weakness of the Kawasaki Ha-140 V-12 engine and related cooling system was a terribly designed radiator which resulted in significant drag (as shown by NACA tests post-war) coupled with unreliability of the engine. The Mitsubishi Ha-112 radial was far more reliable and lighter than the V-12 yielding a more maneuverable fighter. The Ki-100 was on equal footing with the Hellcat and was just about the only Japanese fighter that could reach the operating altitudes of the B-29's
@ Everything I read state Ki-100 performs better in every way except top speed because of the drag of the radial engine. Why would they waste precious resources to transition production to the Ki-100 if it was inferior?
Great video. Your translations were flawless! Your conclusion also is spot on. I am now a subscriber. I had a Fiat as my first car, electrical gremlins from day 1. I still loved it.
I was born in Frankfurt and my family is from the Ludwigshafen/Manhein area, I am a WW2 aviation buff having a American father that flew on B-17’s and my German Opa was in the Luftwaffe and I have always been interested in how different countries evaluated each others aircraft both friends and foes
From a secondary source years back I read - if memory serves me - that 22,000 man-hours were spent producing a Macchi MC.200 or 202: A Spitfire consumed 13,000 man-hours, while a Bf 109 G (in late 1944) only consumed 4,500...
The man-hours required to assemble a Macchi 202-205, determined contractually for the Breda plant, was of 18000 hours (22000 is an often repeated mistake). The Spitfire varied during the war, up to 16000 hours, depending on the variant. Mind that all those figures varied due to the scale of production and the period. In may 1944 (so more than a year after this test), when the Germans reached the peak of their manufacturing ability, to assemble a Bf109g in a German plant required 9200 hrs for 50 aircrafts per month. 6500 hours for 200 aircrafts per month, 3800 hrs for 500 aircrafts per month. Italian fighters were manufactured in a smaller scale than the Germans or British ones. With Spitfire-like scale of production, a Macchi would have had comparable, or even lower required production times than a Spitfire.
Perhaps my impressions (from what I've read) are more early war, but, the overall consensus was that the Italian airframes were very good, well handling. It was their armament and lack of powerful enough engines (surprising for the Italians) that let them down. This was why the German engines were mated to the Italian designs. Very good video, interesting viewpoint on the Italian aircraft.
The under armed Italian aircraft was early war where they only had a like two machine guns but otherwise had good performance. Forward visibility was always lacking on their planes though.
The design history of the Reggiane Re.2005 goes back to the Seversky P-35. There were 2 or 3 Italian engineers who worked for Seversky and returned back to Italy. They joined Reggiane and their first result was the Re 2000 that had many similarities to the P-35 including wing and tail surface shapes. Those similarities continued in their aircraft as well in Republic (formerly Seversky) aircraft. This makes the P-47 and Re.2005 distant cousins.
That's a beautiful aircraft, bravo Italia. Italy had a good air force and navy in WWII. Their army leadership wasn't up to scratch I suppose but other than that
That and I think the Italian Navy suffered severe fuel shortages so they couldn't really bring them out of Italian waters the same way the royal navy was able to mass their ships all over the Mediterranean.
From what I know, Germans really wanted to switch to Italian designs, since 109s met their design limitations basically at 109F series, after which its airframe was barely adequate for new engines and more firepower. Fiat G.55/56 was much better suited for further power and firepower improvement, but as it turned out, Italian manufacturing pipelines were focused on huge amounts of low-skill labor, while German designs were more sophisticated, but also more effective in production. So Italian planes being slightly cheaper to make, required 2-3 times more man-hours of labor and were nightmare to scale up production. Ironically it was something that soviets could like, since they were relying on big numbers of low-skill workers, but for Germany it just couldn't work.
@@TheArklyte Well, others didn't have much sources for german non-combatant slaves (while soldiers were protected by Geneva Conventions). Not counting soviets though, because they ignored Geneva and used german slaves for several years after the war ended. What does that prove? Also fun fact: germans didn't continue production of any french tank or warplane. Couldn't even use french facilities with all tooling and workers available. Same goes to factories in Poland. Yet austrian and czechoslovakian factories were used to full extent. And millions of slaves, of course. So what does that prove again?
@@ThorneyedWT "What does that prove?" То, что тебе Пашолока читать надо Торн, тогда и узнаешь почему умеющие считать деньги немцы не продолжили выпуск _пиз@ец насколько дорогих_ французких танков:D Not to mention the rest.
Analysis of primary historical documents is great, please keep it going. History is not just about what actually happened but what people living through an event thought was happening. Your access to the German archives, and your reading/interpretation, are very interesting. Thanks again!
I think it's interesting the Germans complain about the aircraft not being usable as fighter bombers due to the radiator placement. Makes you wonder whether they would have come to the same conclusion with the P-51, since the placement is identical (and obviously, that doesn't make sense, it was an adequate fighter bomber at the very least).
@@BobSmith-dk8nw but the landing gear of the G55 doesn't have particularly weird placement. It's perfectly comparable to that of the Fw-190 or P-51. I think what they refer to is that because you can only carry stuff under the wings rather than on the centerline, carrying one large bomb is impossible. That doesn't mean you can't carry to smaller ones like the Allies aircraft often did.
@@TLTeo OK. I listened to the video again and copied down what the Germans actually said: "A substantional disadvantage of the Fiat G. 55 compared to the German fighter aircraft is *_unsuitability_* for fighter-bombing." @ 7:15 "Aircraft cannot be used as fighter bomber *_with a central mounting_* , due to placement of radiator and gear."@ 9:59 [My emphasis] In the first sentence they don't say that it can't be a fighter bomber - they say it is "unsuitable" for a fighter bomber. So - it's not like it couldn't do it at all - but - they felt it wasn't good enough at it - to be "suitable" as a fighter bomber. In the second sentence it is commenting on the fact that because of the placement of the landing gear and radiator - it can't be used as a _fighter-bomber with a central mounting_ . Thus - they aren't saying it can't be used as a fighter bomber - but that it can't be used as one with a _central mounting_ . So - the Fiat G.55/I, did carry bombs on the wings but they were only 353 lb. bombs. The P-51 could not carry a central bomb either for the same reason but it could could carry 500 lb. bombs on it's wings. Thus the G.55 could carry about 700 lbs. of bombs total while the P-51 could carry 1,000 lbs. of bombs total. The Fw-190 A-8, could carry one bomb under on a central mounting OR 4 bombs on the wings. The Me-109 G-6, cold carry one 551 lb. bomb on a central mounting OR 4 110 lb. bombs under the wings. In contrast the P-47 could carry 2500 lbs. of bombs located on a central mounting AND on the wings AND 8 rockets. The P-38 could carry 2,000 lbs. of bombs on _each_ it's two inner hard points and 500 lb. bombs on each wing. The Hawker Tempest could carry two 1,000 lb bombs and 8 rockets. So - when it comes to your standards of _suitability_ for being a fighter bomber - neither the German and Italian aircraft nor the P-51 could measure up to the P-47, P-38 or Hawker Tempest but that didn't stop them from being used that way. .
In the great irony of ironies, it would be a FIAT (G91) that would be selected as the first standardized NATO fighter, causing some folks in London and Paris to react insulted but some people in Turin and Koln grinning.
Italy had a few good fighters and good pilot's to go with them. I always have been interested in the Regia Aronautica( Italian Air Force). @militaryaviationhistory , good shit as usual man. Would you be so kind as to bring us more on the Regia Aronautica. It's a little difficult to find any modern documentary on them. They deserve to be showcased (imo) and separated from much of the rest of Italy's fumbling military. I would be grateful and really can't think of anyone better to do it. Thank you bro.
@@abercrombieblovs2042 I haven't recently looked into the details of the differences but you might be wise to say so. I remember at the beginning of his video saying how he basically compared the Italian aircraft of WW2 to the German FW 190 and or the ME109. I personally loved the FW 190 after the year 1980 when I built a model aircraft from a kit 1:48, or 1:72 scale and it had additional machine cannons mounted under each wing. I later saw a variant of the ME-262 with one of the same (speculation) cannons mounted in the nose which I never built the kit of. I, therefore, mentioned the 190 D as it is the elongated version of the FW 190, and I have heard of superior things regarding the 152, and I believe I might agree with you on that after refreshing my memory with research. I simply picked between those two the FW 190, and ME 109 as I felt limited between the two according to the narrator mentioning those but not the 152 to my memory. I certainly feel since my childhood that the FW 190 was superior to most propellor powered aircraft and one of many reasons was the landing gear. The ME 109 looks to close regarding the placement of the extended landing gear. I would fear tipping the plane while landing should I hit a pothole. I don't know why but I consider WW2 aircraft to be the most beautiful and fascinating war aircraft. Either way, I am grateful for you expressing your opinion and commenting. I wish u all the best. Peace!
If I'm not wrong reggiane has a configuration to carry 1 250kg and 2 100kg bombs, also because the mc205 and g55 had the radiatior under the cockpit, while the re 2005 had 2 smaller on the wings. Anyway just wanted to say that it's strange the German didn't noticed the high instability of the re 2005 caused by some design error on the rudder (nothing that cannot be fixed) at high speed
Yo Bismarck. I remember playing some War Thunder with you during those Me 262 vs B-17 events. Nice to see you're doing well, and thanks a lot for the great content. Keep up your good work!
I have read elsewhere that one of the biggest disadvantages of the Italian G55 fighter was that it took substantially more man-hours to build. Very interesting video, thanks.
I have got the opportunity several years ago to speak with an Italian pilot who flew in combat the G55 and his personal comment was not so positive. He marked out that the production G55 had a definite lower performance than the one stated officially. It seems that the Italian pilots used to the Macchi 202 preferred the Macchi 205 (in practice a 202 with a different engine) to the G55. The main Macchi test pilot said that he preferred the Macchi 205 V (Veltro) to the following Macchi 205 Orione since the first one retained the brilliant flight behaviour of the 202. It may be said that the 202 and 202V gave the best at lower altitudes and were less brilliant at the B17 altitudes but a large part of the fights occurred in fact at low altitudes, in particular against medium bombers and fighter bombers as the Thunderbolt. At low altitudes the 205V was a dangerous opponent even to the Mustang and a standard practice of Italian pilots to avoid the inferior performance at high altitudes was to provoke the Allied fighters in a diving pursue of the Macchi to then find themselves in a lower or equal performance to the Macchi. The Macchi cockpit layout was made differently from the German one, it was just a matter of being used to either of the two and this is why for instance the famous ace Marseille when testing a Macchi 202 during a visit to an Italian unit ended the test in a very embarrassing way smashing the fighter when landing. Despite this difference the Italian pilot mentioned at the beginning was truly enthusiast of the Me 109 when he had to convert to it, even if in general the Italian pilots flying the Me 109 displayed a poor performance, also due to certain lacks in their training and to the huge Allied air superiority in that period. Last but not least the Re 2005 had two serious snags. The fragility at the wing root, resulting in the wings easily collapsing at the end of a dive, and the fact that the Reggiane factory could offer only an extremely limited production output. As a final detail the German engines produced in Italy had a lower output due to the obsolete and less accurate production methods. This occurred even more in Japan with the Japanese deciding to heavily modify the engine in order to adapt it to their standards and the result was disastrous affecting the future of the otherwise excellent Nakajima fighter. The main reason was the exceptionally tight tolerances of the DB 601 engine, tighter than in any other engine as even the Rolls Royce experts had to admit. Danny
It is nice to hear you call yourself Chris (your name) rather than 'Bismark' which might have fitted if you were into ships but is strange with airplanes. It is not a big deal, of course but it has always felt a bit strange when you call yourself that. I happily and gladly subscribed to your excellent channel long ago and love your content: Great video as usual again btw and I learned that the Italian planes were clearly better than I had thought before but on reflection it makes sense, they make good cars and good ships. Fascinating!
The conclusions seem very sound and reflect what you'd expect. On the possibility of a german built italian fighter, the report makes clear that the lack of fighter-bomber capability is a major issue (and increasingly so) and also I seem to recall that the italian fighters were significantly more expensive to build than comparable German designs. Perhaps the smaller nature of the Italian industry lead to the adoption of design and construction practices that lead to greater expense overall. The design of the 5 series (and earlier italian fighters) with little or no provision for bomb carrying is surely related to doctrinal differences which meant that the Italians saw the fighter essentially as an air superiority weapon system.
The Italian fighters could carry bombs, but only smaller ones in underwing pilons, I think the Germans were thinking in terms of "big bomb certerline" only.
Pretty much. The Bf.109 in many ways was optimized for mass production, while the Italian fighter aircraft were considerably less so, due to the Italian aviation industry being less advanced in such production methods. The ultimate result was that it required many more man-hours to produce. For example, the Bf.109 took 5,000 man-hours to complete. The G.55, however, took 15,000 man-hours (3x higher) in early production, and the Re.2005, 20,000 man hours. The Germans estimated that with their own production methods, they could reduce the production cost to 9,000 man-hours, but this still meant that you could build 1.8 Bf.109's for every G.55. Considering this, regardless of the performance of the aircraft, the hit to the numbers of aircraft that could be built from increased production costs, combined with the impact of having to switch over production lines and the logistic chains that supported them, meant it was completely disadvantageous at a point when the USSR and British Empire were producing more than twice the number of aircraft Germany and Italy were building, and the US by itself was out-producing even the British and Soviet figures combined. Such a hit to fighter production would be intolerable.
The Ta 152C and Ta 152H (which had nearly 60% parts commonality with Fe 190) along with the Fw 190D9 and Fw 190D12 represented a more realistic solution. since a production system already existed You need a mass production system set up to get the numbers you need. Italian aircraft had the same production issues as the Germans would have had with the Me 309. No mass production tooling. Consider that neither the DB603 or Jumo 213, which would be needed for the Italian fighters to be competitive, was coming into maturity till 1944 and were not available in numbers till the end of 1944. Obviously an Italian fighter could be given a fighter bomber capability just as the Fw 190A and Me 109 was. I would suggest the Italians be assisted as much as possible and the Luftwaffe operate a few squadrons of Italian fighters for which the Germans would trade something the Italians wanted:
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs the problem then would be in spares procurement, operating one type gives commonality, this is why the Germans stuck with the 109, when your back is against the wall a proven design, even if there are better alternatives, will take presidence, you also face retraining pilots and maintenance staff making them less adaptable for being posted elsewhere, the idea is nice but the practicalities are not.
Interesting that they brought up the spitfire for comparison, I know that they had captured and tested examples but I guess it must only be a very limited number of test pilots who would be familiar enough with a spitfire’s handling to understand exactly what this comparison meant? I assume there was a lot of information on the handling of enemy types available to frontline pilots but I’m curious how many, if any, had taken one up themselves?
Mention of Spitfire stall characteristics by Luftwaffe evaluators is interesting. That aircraft or maybe it was just some Mks of it. had a unique internal wing structure fluke vibration which acted as a pre stall warning to the pilot during tight turns. This morphed into "Spitfires could out turn ME-109s because of it" which was inexact since the very best of the Luftwaffe pilots could keep up. It was true(?) that a regular Luftwaffe pilot could not manage to do it or could lose it completely in such a close to stall situation.
I love the fact that you can read and translate German source material. I would really like to see more of how Germany compared their fighters to the competition.
Five comparatives planned, four actually made. N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away. N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m). N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster. N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage. N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test. Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast. So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.
I like these kinds of videos. One can learn a lot on what was considered important back when they really used it. I would be interested in more of these kind.
Did you find a similar document about IAR-81? I know that IAR begged the germans for a BMW engine to replicate, as they thought with that engine, the IAR-81 could achieve 600 kmh. But they were denied.
they tested one IAR 81 with a DB 601 and it was succesful but they elected to build the 109G instead. they wanted a BMW 801 but it was considered too big for the IAR airframe, which was basically a PZL 24 hull.
Would like to see such comparissions between all of the types used on both sides in as much detail as is available. Very good info and gives real world evaluations of the aircraft. Great video!
Wow your so correct I appreciate it. The 5 Series was the best and the Italian pilots I interviewed felt the 205V was the best while others preferred the G-55, this just I felt it just boils down to personal preference. With regards to the Re.2005 the few pilots I spoke to who actually flew it felt it was a beast in the air; but only a few actually made it into combat. And spot on about the Luftwaffe feeling the 55 was the best of the 5 Series. As for the Italian pilots they all loved the 205 and 55 but they absolutely loved the Me.109G-6 and other variants supplied to them in 44/45.
[the original presentation ends] "Well, with fighters that good I can't imagine how we could lose in North Africa." "There's no need for sarcasm, Sepp."
The Italian fighters were outmatched by the Hurricanes. Even the ME 109 had probs dealing with hurricanes. The spits couldnt operate in the desert. so they didnt take on the Italian planes but the Spit was no match for the ME 109 so the Italian planes would of had fun using the spits for target practice lol. My uncle was a fighter pilot during WWII. he loved the hurricane and hated the spitfire. He said the spit couldnt turn fast enough and got shot down too easy while the Hurricane could out turn any other fighter in the sky and could take a lot of damage and still get back to base while the spit only needed minor damage to make it unlandable. the Hurricane could be used as a fighter bomber the spit couldnt. the hurribomber was a hurricane that was converted to a bomber. the hurricane was also converted for carrier use which the spitfire was unable to do.. Hurricanes also worked on the convoys. they fitted launch ramps on the convoy ships and Hurricanes got fitted with rocket boosters to help them get to take off speed. Not bad for a plane that originated from a WWI plane. the hurricane was basilcy a redesigned sopwith camel. last version of the hurricane was the hawker harrier. Hawker bought out sopwith. then redesigned the camel to create the hawker hart which evolved into the hawker fury then the hurricane to the tempest and typhoon. Hurricanes were not all new builds. most were rebuilds of the fury. they just took off the top wing made the bottom wing bigger and put a bigger engine cowling on to fit in the merlin. The 1st spit didnt look anything like the spit used in WWII. that was designed before the hurricane. it had fixed undercarrige and gull wings and looked more like the stuka. could only do 100MPH but needed to do 150MPH to be able to take off so they never got off the ground.
@@cliffbird5016 Ever heard of the Seafire? It was the carrier based version of the Spitfire. I have never heard anyone claim the Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire in maneuverability (though the Hurricane could out turn the 109, as could the Spitfire). The proof is in the pudding. The Hurricane was phased out as a front line fighter while the Spitfire continued to be upgraded through the end of WW2. And the Spitfire V outfitted with the large nose air filter was operated in the desert and on Malta. Those same Spitfire Vs were flown off aircraft carriers to resupply the RAF on Malta.
@@cliffbird5016 There are so many outlandish inaccuracies and outright falsehoods in your comment that you ought to consider deleting it to avoid ridicule from everyone. I have rarely seen someone rant on so much about something without knowing the slightest fucking thing about what they are talking about.
It´s strange that Luftwaffe´s tecnicians refers "unsuitability for fighter bombing". Perhaps they didn´t know the FIAT G.55 Silurante, that could carry 1 torpedo!!! By the way The iL-2, the ultimate soviet tactical bomber has a ventral radiator too like those beautiful italian fighters... Anyway, everybody looks for his own things. Good video as always.
g.55/s was only ever a single prototype, it performed well but the armistice put paid to the planned 110 units. The g.55 itself even only had 300 fighters manufactured due to the armistice coming soon after introduction and the general interference with production caused by the war in Italy.
The Macchi C.202 had a higher K/D than the BF 109s in North Africa. Which is made even more impressive by the Italians having ditched their radios for sandbags which reduced their combat effectiveness.
Sir, 1 - Thank you for a really interesting video. 2 - I believe the allies respected the "Lightning" Saetta 3 - One reads that the Italian fighters were considered unreliable. The archives you read us don't appear to remark upon this.
The radial engines did have issues. The Piaggios were based on a French engine. The sand of North Africa made everything unreliable. And considering the Italians being Italian built handcrafted Ferraris. So parts had to be hand fit, then on top of that the Piaggios were 14 cylinder single banks; look at a print or picture of one compared to a Double Wasp, the Piaggios are crammed and gives me mechanic nightmares just looking at it. I'm sure there were things on them that would fail as with any engine, but my estimation is that the "unreliability" is more to do with the service hour to flight hour ratio alongside the need to handfit replacement parts rather than unreliability being "oh crap my engine suddenly just died." I can see how they would be finnicky and constantly needing tuning to keep all 14 cylinders running smoothly and the timing being off as a major issue.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Yeah, because several of the Italian fighters could and did carry underwing ordnance, I wonder why the Germans were so focused on centerline stores.
True, but for CAS you are often better served by smaller but more numerous loads, lack of centreline point shouldnt have been that much of a hindrance. There was even a variant of the 109 that could carry 2x300l tanks, so even a fighter that light could do it.
Not like anything like that happened with the British. No, wait. The Merlin was used in, amongst other aircraft, the Spitfire, Hurricane,Mosquito, Halifax, Lancaster, Beaufighter, and Mustang.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 There were even bigger bottlenecks at Rolls Royce re Merlin Engines in the prewar and early WW2 years. The people who got most of the mess sorted and got the engines into efficient mass production at huge new factories mostly had production backgrounds at English Ford, its peers, and the auto parts suppliers. The Mustang and assorted WW2 Canadian built aircraft used the Packard version of the Merlin.
Fascinating thank you. I was already aware of this aircraft and the backstory from winiprdia but very interesting to hear the actual report from the archives!!! Much appreciated
Interesting topic. Well researched. Presented clearly with little bias. Reasonable and helpful editorial comments. This is the second video of yours I have watched (P-39 is the other.) Both had new, true, and interesting info. WW2 aircraft is only one of seven subjects I research and model, but this video is making me more interested in WW2 planes. Thanks much.
BUT the agent had just said he'd just gotten back from being under cover sooo it would make sense he'd still be using english symbolisms. Bad writing .
American Sign Language, ASL, the form of deaf sign language recognized by the U.S. deaf culture uses the thumb in the sign for the number three. Most hearing people will use three fingers which could be confused with the letter W if signing to a profoundly deaf person.
The three original monoplane fighters (the G.50, Re.2000 and MC.200) were all designed at the same time, to respond to the same specification, with the same technology and engines available (well, with the exception of some parts of the Reggiane design), so it makes sense they would end up being similar. It's kind of like asking why the Su-27 and Mig-29 look similar. When the DB.601 and 605 became available they kept the almost same Reggiane or Macchi airframe and only changed the engine section, so the similarity remained. At the same time, the G.55 was a lot more than a revamped G.50, but it kept many similar features like the shape of the wing and tail. It's kind of similar with the Japanese Ki-61, which was also built around an export DB.601. From a distance it was so similar to the C.202 that its US reporting name was "Tony". Hope that answers it your question :)
Same engine, same propeller, same specifications for weapons load and no designer was idiot enough to design a narrow undercarriage for them. However, if you see the three-view of the Reggiane 2005 and of the P47 you'll notice how their wings and rudders are similar, because they both derives from the Seversky P35.
Very informative. Great to have someone as knowledgeable as you doing this kind of work and sharing it. Great work on the production values of the video: doesn't happen by magic. Great work all around.
If we had these in time the situation above the skys in Malta might have been different, but we were whipped by 3 biplanes! 🇮🇹💪. Nevertheless our moder airforce now has F35s! And our pilots are as good as RAF! 👍
I don’t much about it, but am quite amazed they gave them so high rating. Gonna keep my eyes open for more. Very interesting indeed. Thank you, keep on doing this! /peter
I've read that one thing the Germans considered was man hours required to build the Italian fighters. Built by the Italians the hours were quite high, the Germans calculated that if they built them they could reduce the man hours but it would still be more than building a Bf109. Glyn NZ
My father flew in a two-seater version of training when he was in the Argentine Army in the mid-1950s. Argentina had several dozen of those Italian fighters that he bought after World War II.
Which one is *your* favourite?
Re.2001 and 2005 also the description says macchi 2005 🤣
C.202. British pilots greatly respected it and considered it a tough and worthy opponent, the British pilots even considered it superior to the P-40 and Hurricane. Italian pilots in C.202s actually had a higher Kill to Death ratio against RAF fighters than German pilots in Bf 109s (in North Africa). The only effective and equal opponent to the C.202 in North Africa was the Spitfire.
The Re 2005 is such a beautiful fighter, definitely my favorite Italian plane.
Falco 42
@@rickmoreno6858 Cr. 42 for everyone! Whee!
As an owner of a vintage Italian car, I nodded when you mentioned that “the layout of the instruments in cockpit was confusing”.
I used to have an old Ducati motorcycle which had the Lights Dip Switch next to the Lights On/Off Switch……….😲
@@nor0845 I learned to drive a stick shift on a 1971 FIAT 850 Spider--named after the 843cc powerplant. Not a durable car. A sparkplug ejected from the engine one drive.
Thats why they are garbage. Everything about them. If you were a tech you would know. Horrible cars period.
The cockpit layout reminds me of that one person who always tries to sound smart when in reality it makes themself sound like a bs talker
Confusing? You guys should look at the instrum. layout in the cockpit of a Mig 23. 😁
Very nice, Italian fighters are very often overlooked and even moreso in comparison to other aircraft.
*does oliver twist impression* please sir can we have a float plane special I promise we'll be good!😂
The war ended early for Italy, before even the P51B (December 1943 first missions, Jan 1944 first combat) entered into service. Hence we can’t appreciate how advanced their aircraft were.
Re.2005 is one gorgeous airplane. Speed, firepower, and the maneuverability
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Its not that simple.
The war continued in Italy right up to VE day. When Italy capitulated in 1943 some of its air force sided with the allies (Co-Belligerent Airforce) and others (Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana or ANR) with the German forces in Italy. They continued building italian fighters into 1944 and flew them until wars end and they would have come across P-51s.
The luftwaffe also flew the Re.2005 and the Macchi 205.
I think they are overlooked generally because they were so few (counted in hundreds and not in thousands aircraft that was made). They couldn't make a big impact on the war but they could make a big impact on those Allied pilots who found themselves fighting against them.
Dear Sir, as Italian passionate for aviation, I really thank you very much for your publications, and specially this one and the other related to Fiat G55.
I do recommend anyone coming to Italy to visit the Museo di Vigna di Valle not too far from Rome, is really worth of a visit, as you may see the other champions of the Schneider cup.
In Italy we normally consider german technology to be the best one, so such flattering judgements are really pleasant for us.
Keep going on, Bravo!
Just to remember that the museo di Vigna di Valle is currently closed due to restoration work till 2023 (exact date still not known)
3:37 "No cockpit layout standardization"
I remember reading that early on in the war, the USA suffered a lot of crashes during pilot training, mostly due to "pilot error". One of the problems identified was a lack of control layout standardization. This was subsequently corrected, and the number of accidents was decreased substantially.
It's quite staggering to think that, even during the second world war, NO prior thought has been given to s standardized cockpit instrument layout, or cockpit layout.
When we consider the attention to detail exhibited by many army and navy commanders, it's always baffled me how the air forces failed to see the potential flaws in a non uniform layout.
I wonder if theGerman comment meant that there were layout anomalies within the group of Italian aircraft being tested or if they were saying the layout differed from standard German practices and norms. The old NIH syndrome.
@@randallreed9048 most likely both
the British invented the "Basic Six" layout which is probably the best in the world but, in the American system,manufacturers could put instruments where ever they liked, unless the customer specified a layout like the "six". Aircraft built in the US had their original instrument panels changed for the British layout and also had provision for British gunsights, oxygen systems, switch position and so on. American pilots who flew using the Basic Six preferred it and made those feelings known to higher office and American aircraft began to appear with it.
@@michaelbevan3285 Simply put, the americans (OP), fucked themselves up.
There was a G55 flying in Queensland Australia for some time till the death of the owner (Guido Zuccoli) who had a rather nice collection of warbirds. Was a beautiful plane to see in the sky.🇦🇺
That was not a G55, it was a G59: a post war conversion of the G55 for training purposes. the frame was motorized with a Merlin engine .
does it mean that in Australia there is still an 'alive' real G55 survivor ????
@@Johnplayerspecial23 i believe it was exported and was last registered as G-FIAT. Which suggests GB.
Guido used to keep his Sea Fury in the same hanger as the Augusta 109A I used to fly, in Mackay...The Australian warbird scene lost a nice bloke..
What region of Queensland was it? I know theres an Italian community just north of Townsville, so maybe there?
Hi! In from Argentina, and I found out that the military bought a G.55 serie 1 for testing, the testing didn't go any further, but the aircraft is still on display!
Nice...
I wonder why Argentina didn't copy it or create its own, if Argentina was able to produce G55s before the end of the war it would have had the most advanced air force in the entire South Americas
@@johncongdon7398 actually we were building our own jet fighter, but politics pretty much ruined everything
@@paullewis770 Ah yup I remember the Pulqui 1 and 2 although introduced a lil bit later (1950) than it really should have. Didnt Brazil get like F-80 and F-84s either before or soon after?
@@paullewis770 They also were flying the Meteor right after the war
The main reasons the Luftwaffe didn't adopt them:
-Armistice compromised the technology
- Man hours to produce the BF109 was 9k hours, whereas the Italian planes required 11k man hours and upwards as well as what you mentioned with the manufacturing infrastrusture and logistics for repair and maintenance.
That’s because the Italians took a lot more tea breaks than the Germans did.
@@robstone4537 hahahah. Not really, they hadn't adopted assembly lines and were craftsman, their planes were more "built" they were more intricately made had more spars and rivets etc. Which is why they were rugged and tough.
It's a true shame Italians are overlooked so often
@Phil Earl yea. Because Italians refused to accept assembly lines, their engines were built to tighter tolerances than the German DBs, so even with the drawbacks of the license version of the engines the Romeos were better in quality than what came off of German assembly lines.
While everyone was flying Fords, the Eyeties were flying Ferraris, as I think he has mentioned before in another video. This contributed to the higher maintenance hours per flight hours.
At the end of the war an Me 109 airframe required less than 1000 man hours. They were probably at about 2000-3000 hours in 1943. Me 109F and it’s descendants such as the G/K had been extensively redesigned for mass production. The 109E was designed for production by small subcontractors who fabricated sub assemblies , a good idea if you needed 500-1000 per year. The Me 109F/G/K was designed for production using larger assemblies and large scale presses for when thousands were needed. That’s one reason the 109 was so hard to give up. It would take a year or more of effort to match its output
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs I may have gotten my numbers off. I dont recall it being that low but you may be right. I could be thinking of early, as in 1941, most of my research was on the Macchi C.202 so I could be getting mixed up.
How the tests had been performed.
Five comparatives planned, four actually made.
N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away. The FW190 was faster in sustained dive too.
N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m).
N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster.
N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage.
N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test.
Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast.
So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.
Exactly!
Great Video, The Italian Air Force did have some excellent aircraft. Like all of Italy’s WWII performance it tends to be under appreciated. The Macchi 202 “ Folgore” and the Savoia Marchetti 79 are two of my favorites. Thanks again 🇮🇹
Those are my two favorites as well! It’s really sad to see how overlooked Italian vehicles in ww2 were, probably as a result of the army’s at times incredible incompetency makes them overlook the entire rest of their armed forces
@@lolzers7986 The army was not incompetent at all. There are tens videos on Italian army explaining the reason of some defaults. Also it was mostly at the beginning only, because later they fought like lions being far worse weaponed than Brits who could rely on all Commonwealth and USA and Italy was not ready for a war as it was said to Mussolini by army chief. Italy has not natural resources either and so lacked many metals and of course oil as well. Plus many soldiers were not willing to fight for a fascist regime, but those who were like in the Salo' republican army who kept fighting alongside Germans, Allies still remind how though those soldiers were even with few resources. At most were some generals that were incompetent because put on charge only for being nobles or friends of Mussolini.
@@alessandrom7181 True.
I would be interested in more of these types of comparisons, especially to allied aircraft.
P38 vs. .
@@killer1963daddy mosquito?
@@tripwire3992 the germans did build their own "moskito" kurt tank designed...boat anchors by comparison
@@tripwire3992 The German manufacturer, Fokker, did do this. They produced a twin engined wooden" clone" of the Mosquito, that had exceptional performance. The problem they faced was that only one factory/ chemical works was capable of producing the complex glues that were needed to manufacture the plane....and before full production could start, the factory was destroyed by allied bombing. They persevered using inferior glues, and the aircraft fell apart in testing. So after a couple of prototypes, the project was shelved.
So I guess the Germans REALLY liked the Mosquito !
@@ericgrace9995 my research shows me it was indeed kurt tank and fockewolf...
I had the pleasure of visiting the Vigna di Valle Italian Air Force Museum in Bracciano a couple of years ago.
Well worth the visit.
They also have a collection of Macchi seaplanes, including the famed MC 72. :)
The Fiat G-55 and Macchi C-205 Veltro, they looked liked thoroughbred race horses. And the others looked good too.
Capt. Eric Brown RN test-flew a Macchi C.205V at the end of the war and rated it very highly: one of the best he ever flew in fact.
It's odd that the German reports state the aircraft were unsuitable for fighter-bombing: all of them had wing pylons for light bomb loads and a couple of them had centreline pylons at least designed or improvised, if not in production.
The G55 was one of the nicest looking planes of the whole war very nice lines, would've been nice if they were built in larger numbers even if they were used on the allies side against the Axis
Fascinating. I'm in my 50th year as an aviation structural mechanic. You hit the nail on the head as far as introducing a new aircraft type and the hurdles you have to overcome in order for it work.
I saw the CR42 in the RAF Museum London recently. It's got to be the best looking biplane ever. Stylish.
I do know that the Germans loved the Fiat G.56. A G.55 with a DB 603 engine. One of the fastest axis aircraft of the war but Germany ended up not producing it because it cost like 12,000 man hours to make while the Me 109 was something around 5000 man hours.
When my dear uncle used to talk about war in North Africa he was an artillery gun lorry driver and supply's and talk of Italian planes dogfight the British fighters who woul try to shoot his possition up and on every occation shoot them down . I questioned him a lot about this thinking him wrong but he described the planes and he was spot on and how the Italian plains would come done above them waggle there wings and climbs up . Italian pilot s were used to there controls and were very cable and he never show one shot down ..
They wagged their wings as a way to communicate with their wingmen because they didn't have radios. Very interesting story and that is great you spent time with your uncle and listened to his stories.
I apologize, I don't understand if the Italian planes shot down the English fighters or vice versa. My father was in North Afrika too with the third fighter wing
I remember reading some secondary sources on this years ago. The conclusions were that the Italian airframes were bigger than the 109, so they lent themselves better for wartime upgrades. Some planes were on par with the 109. The source I read however said that it took 2 times as many man hours to build an Italian fighter compared to a bf109. I could be remembering the numbers wrong, but I distinctly recall that Italian fighters took many more man hours to build, even when considering that the bf109 is a smaller aircraft - to the point where it would almost be better to just export 109's to Italy instead of them building their own planes.
It depends on the reason why it took more hours: less industry? less resources? worse management? worse work methods?
Italian manufacturing capabilities weren't spectacular (and probably the worst among the Big Three of the Axis powers). If the Germans did take the time to retool their own factories to build Italian designs they'd cut the production time significantly. Better still, if they directly used parts from Bf-109s on Italian airframes. Think of how much time they'd save if those Italian fighters just used Bf-109 or even Fw-190 canopies.
@@MarvinT0606 However Italy suffered the very same problem as Germany. Chronic lack of OIL.
If you have ever gotten up close and personal with a 109 the first thing you will notice is that every component looks like it has been shoehorned in to the airframe with a very large crowbar.
@@robstone4537 qUaliTy gErmAn enGINeerinG ))))
Honestly man, keep going with videos like this! You’re sharing history with airplane geeks. I’m not going to complain about that, at all.
The Erprobungsstelle missed the main criticism: The repair cost is atrocious.
pls fix gayjin
@@SShari-bs2kx The good old "balance through repair cost" move.
And the time for build all? Too long in time of war...
Let's not overlook the number of man-hours it took to build the planes in the first place. 12,500 per Fiat G.55, versus 4500 for a BF-109 F or G type.
I play japanese airplanes and Ki 84 Hayate's repair cost is atrocious too
UA-cam recommends the most random videos, but this is probably one of the best ones.
Chris, I love these videos for the work you put in, the detail from the primary sources, the flavour of how it felt at the time to evaluate the machines. To be able to mediate the files of the Bundesarchiv to us who live farther away is such a vital job - we salute you! Vielen danke, kamerad.
Interesting to see this after so much criticism of Italian machines in print. Thanks for posting.
Thank you so much for this! I have always loved the Italian planes and they are highly overlooked
Apparently, the Macchi Fogolore was so good that the Germans used captured versions themselves.
Thank you for posting. Finland bought G50s 35 planes in all but only 14 was received to serve in winter war but by the time continuation war began in 1941 all were deliver and this plane type
scored 44 enemy planes downed.
Those planes was shit in the winter, urin at the sommer. Huge freecing problems, weak guns.
They byu also Terni rifles from Italy. Not work but kill Kennedy later.
After those Finland has never buy Italian weapons.
@@jakkeledin4645 fiat G50 , in Finland in the beginning performed bad , because Finnish made wrong assembly end maintenance , after from Italy arrived Italian assistens,. After the fiat g 50 performed well , whis a rat ero of 33/ to 1 Oiba tuominen get 23 kills whit fiat g 50 fa-26 , on 17 -08-1941 killing four soviet bomber , getting the mannerheim cross,
The turtle neck makes you look like a Bond villain
I was thinking French Resistance lol
@@shaunw9270 needs a beret and suspicious satchel to complete a French resistance outfit
@@Mr00Ted Good call lol
For the full Bond villain effect he needs to be inside an extinct volcano.
He's German. Don't blame him.
Thank you very much for this interesting and documented comparative video. Excelent!!
It would be interesting to compare the Japanese "Bf-109", the Ki-61 Tony.
I wonder especially about Ki-61 II .Due to only 99 produced theres so little known about them
Ki-100 is much better
@@hippoace
Too bad it came along so late in the fight.
@ Nothing i have ever found indicates the Ki-100 was an inferior aircraft. All the surviving Ki-61 airframes became Ki-100's. The 1500hp Mitsubishi radial engine was superior to the 1500hp in-line Kawasaki engine of the Ki-61. The weakness of the Kawasaki Ha-140 V-12 engine and related cooling system was a terribly designed radiator which resulted in significant drag (as shown by NACA tests post-war) coupled with unreliability of the engine. The Mitsubishi Ha-112 radial was far more reliable and lighter than the V-12 yielding a more maneuverable fighter. The Ki-100 was on equal footing with the Hellcat and was just about the only Japanese fighter that could reach the operating altitudes of the B-29's
@ Everything I read state Ki-100 performs better in every way except top speed because of the drag of the radial engine. Why would they waste precious resources to transition production to the Ki-100 if it was inferior?
Great video. Your translations were flawless! Your conclusion also is spot on. I am now a subscriber. I had a Fiat as my first car, electrical gremlins from day 1. I still loved it.
Italian aircraft were so good-looking. Especially the Centauro. It was the right choice as the best of the Italian fighters of World War II.
I was born in Frankfurt and my family is from the Ludwigshafen/Manhein area, I am a WW2 aviation buff having a American father that flew on B-17’s and my German Opa was in the Luftwaffe and I have always been interested in how different countries evaluated each others aircraft both friends and foes
Awesome, Ive seen several sources with contradictory statements on this regard, great video.
From a secondary source years back I read - if memory serves me - that 22,000 man-hours were spent producing a Macchi MC.200 or 202: A Spitfire consumed 13,000 man-hours, while a Bf 109 G (in late 1944) only consumed 4,500...
The man-hours required to assemble a Macchi 202-205, determined contractually for the Breda plant, was of 18000 hours (22000 is an often repeated mistake).
The Spitfire varied during the war, up to 16000 hours, depending on the variant.
Mind that all those figures varied due to the scale of production and the period. In may 1944 (so more than a year after this test), when the Germans reached the peak of their manufacturing ability, to assemble a Bf109g in a German plant required 9200 hrs for 50 aircrafts per month. 6500 hours for 200 aircrafts per month, 3800 hrs for 500 aircrafts per month.
Italian fighters were manufactured in a smaller scale than the Germans or British ones. With Spitfire-like scale of production, a Macchi would have had comparable, or even lower required production times than a Spitfire.
do the german numbers count slave labor hrs as well?
Perhaps my impressions (from what I've read) are more early war, but, the overall consensus was that the Italian airframes were very good, well handling. It was their armament and lack of powerful enough engines (surprising for the Italians) that let them down.
This was why the German engines were mated to the Italian designs.
Very good video, interesting viewpoint on the Italian aircraft.
The under armed Italian aircraft was early war where they only had a like two machine guns but otherwise had good performance. Forward visibility was always lacking on their planes though.
The design history of the Reggiane Re.2005 goes back to the Seversky P-35. There were 2 or 3 Italian engineers who worked for Seversky and returned back to Italy. They joined Reggiane and their first result was the Re 2000 that had many similarities to the P-35 including wing and tail surface shapes. Those similarities continued in their aircraft as well in Republic (formerly Seversky) aircraft. This makes the P-47 and Re.2005 distant cousins.
That's a beautiful aircraft, bravo Italia. Italy had a good air force and navy in WWII. Their army leadership wasn't up to scratch I suppose but other than that
That and I think the Italian Navy suffered severe fuel shortages so they couldn't really bring them out of Italian waters the same way the royal navy was able to mass their ships all over the Mediterranean.
@@somedrunkguy8786 la carenza più grave della Marina era di non avere il Radar.
Excellent; I really appreciate your lack of bias.
From what I know, Germans really wanted to switch to Italian designs, since 109s met their design limitations basically at 109F series, after which its airframe was barely adequate for new engines and more firepower. Fiat G.55/56 was much better suited for further power and firepower improvement, but as it turned out, Italian manufacturing pipelines were focused on huge amounts of low-skill labor, while German designs were more sophisticated, but also more effective in production. So Italian planes being slightly cheaper to make, required 2-3 times more man-hours of labor and were nightmare to scale up production. Ironically it was something that soviets could like, since they were relying on big numbers of low-skill workers, but for Germany it just couldn't work.
Germany literary using millions of slaves at this very time: are you sure about that?
@@TheArklyte They didn't get the best results from that. And anyway that further proves that they had severe shortage of working hands.
@@ThorneyedWT it only proves how low they were ready to fall and how others, who also has the same shortage, didn't. That's all.
@@TheArklyte Well, others didn't have much sources for german non-combatant slaves (while soldiers were protected by Geneva Conventions). Not counting soviets though, because they ignored Geneva and used german slaves for several years after the war ended. What does that prove?
Also fun fact: germans didn't continue production of any french tank or warplane. Couldn't even use french facilities with all tooling and workers available. Same goes to factories in Poland. Yet austrian and czechoslovakian factories were used to full extent. And millions of slaves, of course. So what does that prove again?
@@ThorneyedWT "What does that prove?"
То, что тебе Пашолока читать надо Торн, тогда и узнаешь почему умеющие считать деньги немцы не продолжили выпуск _пиз@ец насколько дорогих_ французких танков:D Not to mention the rest.
Analysis of primary historical documents is great, please keep it going. History is not just about what actually happened but what people living through an event thought was happening. Your access to the German archives, and your reading/interpretation, are very interesting. Thanks again!
I think it's interesting the Germans complain about the aircraft not being usable as fighter bombers due to the radiator placement. Makes you wonder whether they would have come to the same conclusion with the P-51, since the placement is identical (and obviously, that doesn't make sense, it was an adequate fighter bomber at the very least).
iirc - they said the problem was a _combination_ of the placement of the radiator AND the landing gear. Mustang carried it's bombs on the wings.
.
I still don’t understand, it was a fighter bomber it carried bombs. And while it didn’t carry a single huge bomb it carried a good wing load.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw but the landing gear of the G55 doesn't have particularly weird placement. It's perfectly comparable to that of the Fw-190 or P-51. I think what they refer to is that because you can only carry stuff under the wings rather than on the centerline, carrying one large bomb is impossible. That doesn't mean you can't carry to smaller ones like the Allies aircraft often did.
@@TLTeo
OK. I listened to the video again and copied down what the Germans actually said:
"A substantional disadvantage of the Fiat G. 55 compared to the German fighter aircraft is *_unsuitability_* for fighter-bombing." @ 7:15
"Aircraft cannot be used as fighter bomber *_with a central mounting_* , due to placement of radiator and gear."@ 9:59
[My emphasis]
In the first sentence they don't say that it can't be a fighter bomber - they say it is "unsuitable" for a fighter bomber. So - it's not like it couldn't do it at all - but - they felt it wasn't good enough at it - to be "suitable" as a fighter bomber.
In the second sentence it is commenting on the fact that because of the placement of the landing gear and radiator - it can't be used as a _fighter-bomber with a central mounting_ . Thus - they aren't saying it can't be used as a fighter bomber - but that it can't be used as one with a _central mounting_ .
So - the Fiat G.55/I, did carry bombs on the wings but they were only 353 lb. bombs. The P-51 could not carry a central bomb either for the same reason but it could could carry 500 lb. bombs on it's wings. Thus the G.55 could carry about 700 lbs. of bombs total while the P-51 could carry 1,000 lbs. of bombs total.
The Fw-190 A-8, could carry one bomb under on a central mounting OR 4 bombs on the wings.
The Me-109 G-6, cold carry one 551 lb. bomb on a central mounting OR 4 110 lb. bombs under the wings.
In contrast the P-47 could carry 2500 lbs. of bombs located on a central mounting AND on the wings AND 8 rockets.
The P-38 could carry 2,000 lbs. of bombs on _each_ it's two inner hard points and 500 lb. bombs on each wing.
The Hawker Tempest could carry two 1,000 lb bombs and 8 rockets.
So - when it comes to your standards of _suitability_ for being a fighter bomber - neither the German and Italian aircraft nor the P-51 could measure up to the P-47, P-38 or Hawker Tempest but that didn't stop them from being used that way.
.
@@The_0G_Chad See my reply to Matteo.
.
I want to add that the Argentine Air Force operated 15 Fiat G.55B y 30 G.55A from 1948 to 1954. The maintenance of the airplane was very complex.
In the great irony of ironies, it would be a FIAT (G91) that would be selected as the first standardized NATO fighter, causing some folks in London and Paris to react insulted but some people in Turin and Koln grinning.
😁😁
Your documentaries are first class Chris, keep them coming thanks
Thank you for this excellent look at important aircraft history!
I love seeing something "a bit off the beaten path" like this--thanks so much!
First of all, you look great in turtleneck XD
Planning the heist that's going to fund filming for 2021 :P
@@JagerLange Germans, Italians and French all suit the turtleneck... oddly the swiss do not.
He looks like Dieter from SNL. :D
@@tisFrancesfault
Because the mountain Swiss are rather stocky?
@@Chauc3r ......maybe he’ll change the shows name to “Sprocket”
Italy had a few good fighters and good pilot's to go with them. I always have been interested in the Regia Aronautica( Italian Air Force). @militaryaviationhistory , good shit as usual man. Would you be so kind as to bring us more on the Regia Aronautica. It's a little difficult to find any modern documentary on them. They deserve to be showcased (imo) and separated from much of the rest of Italy's fumbling military. I would be grateful and really can't think of anyone better to do it. Thank you bro.
My favorite still tends to stay with FW190-D. Great Channel! Peace.
Good choice!
I prefer the Ta - 152 - basically a 190 D9 but with all the best looking parts made even better.
@@abercrombieblovs2042 I haven't recently looked into the details of the differences but you might be wise to say so. I remember at the beginning of his video saying how he basically compared the Italian aircraft of WW2 to the German FW 190 and or the ME109. I personally loved the FW 190 after the year 1980 when I built a model aircraft from a kit 1:48, or 1:72 scale and it had additional machine cannons mounted under each wing. I later saw a variant of the ME-262 with one of the same (speculation) cannons mounted in the nose which I never built the kit of. I, therefore, mentioned the 190 D as it is the elongated version of the FW 190, and I have heard of superior things regarding the 152, and I believe I might agree with you on that after refreshing my memory with research. I simply picked between those two the FW 190, and ME 109 as I felt limited between the two according to the narrator mentioning those but not the 152 to my memory. I certainly feel since my childhood that the FW 190 was superior to most propellor powered aircraft and one of many reasons was the landing gear. The ME 109 looks to close regarding the placement of the extended landing gear. I would fear tipping the plane while landing should I hit a pothole. I don't know why but I consider WW2 aircraft to be the most beautiful and fascinating war aircraft. Either way, I am grateful for you expressing your opinion and commenting. I wish u all the best. Peace!
@@dub2536 Thanks for taking the time to say that!
Although I must submit the Horten 229 for your consideration...
If I'm not wrong reggiane has a configuration to carry 1 250kg and 2 100kg bombs, also because the mc205 and g55 had the radiatior under the cockpit, while the re 2005 had 2 smaller on the wings. Anyway just wanted to say that it's strange the German didn't noticed the high instability of the re 2005 caused by some design error on the rudder (nothing that cannot be fixed) at high speed
Yes please, more similar content from the German Military Archives. Thank you.
Interesting comparisons on German/Italian fighters that I had never imagined, thanks!
I would absolutely love to see a video about German opinions of British aircraft
Goering "What do you need to beat the British?" Galland "A squadron of Spitfires!"
@@damienmaynard8892 but an in depth, focused, look like this would be great!
Find and read the work of Hans Werner Lerche.
Yo Bismarck. I remember playing some War Thunder with you during those Me 262 vs B-17 events. Nice to see you're doing well, and thanks a lot for the great content. Keep up your good work!
MAH: I have a really old video...
my memory: "Jawohl, zis is german sailing."
I have read elsewhere that one of the biggest disadvantages of the Italian G55 fighter was that it took substantially more man-hours to build. Very interesting video, thanks.
Very interesting, live in Jamaica and I research WW2 US bases in Jamaica.
I have got the opportunity several years ago to speak with an Italian pilot who flew in combat the G55 and his personal comment was not so positive. He marked out that the production G55 had a definite lower performance than the one stated officially. It seems that the Italian pilots used to the Macchi 202 preferred the Macchi 205 (in practice a 202 with a different engine) to the G55. The main Macchi test pilot said that he preferred the Macchi 205 V (Veltro) to the following Macchi 205 Orione since the first one retained the brilliant flight behaviour of the 202. It may be said that the 202 and 202V gave the best at lower altitudes and were less brilliant at the B17 altitudes but a large part of the fights occurred in fact at low altitudes, in particular against medium bombers and fighter bombers as the Thunderbolt. At low altitudes the 205V was a dangerous opponent even to the Mustang and a standard practice of Italian pilots to avoid the inferior performance at high altitudes was to provoke the Allied fighters in a diving pursue of the Macchi to then find themselves in a lower or equal performance to the Macchi. The Macchi cockpit layout was made differently from the German one, it was just a matter of being used to either of the two and this is why for instance the famous ace Marseille when testing a Macchi 202 during a visit to an Italian unit ended the test in a very embarrassing way smashing the fighter when landing. Despite this difference the Italian pilot mentioned at the beginning was truly enthusiast of the Me 109 when he had to convert to it, even if in general the Italian pilots flying the Me 109 displayed a poor performance, also due to certain lacks in their training and to the huge Allied air superiority in that period. Last but not least the Re 2005 had two serious snags. The fragility at the wing root, resulting in the wings easily collapsing at the end of a dive, and the fact that the Reggiane factory could offer only an extremely limited production output.
As a final detail the German engines produced in Italy had a lower output due to the obsolete and less accurate production methods. This occurred even more in Japan with the Japanese deciding to heavily modify the engine in order to adapt it to their standards and the result was disastrous affecting the future of the otherwise excellent Nakajima fighter. The main reason was the exceptionally tight tolerances of the DB 601 engine, tighter than in any other engine as even the Rolls Royce experts had to admit. Danny
The RAF treated the Italian Air force pilots with great respect as unlike the Luffwaffe pilots they were prepared to mix it.
Italian pilots didn't shoot pilots in their parachutes, they fought with honor. Same can't be said of the RAF and P-38 pilots.
@@NeuKrofta your wrong and your on meth.
@@NeuKrofta Idiotic comment.
@@robertsettle2590 not wrong at all
@@timhancock6626 not at all. Facts
It is nice to hear you call yourself Chris (your name) rather than 'Bismark' which might have fitted if you were into ships but is strange with airplanes. It is not a big deal, of course but it has always felt a bit strange when you call yourself that. I happily and gladly subscribed to your excellent channel long ago and love your content: Great video as usual again btw and I learned that the Italian planes were clearly better than I had thought before but on reflection it makes sense, they make good cars and good ships. Fascinating!
The conclusions seem very sound and reflect what you'd expect. On the possibility of a german built italian fighter, the report makes clear that the lack of fighter-bomber capability is a major issue (and increasingly so) and also I seem to recall that the italian fighters were significantly more expensive to build than comparable German designs. Perhaps the smaller nature of the Italian industry lead to the adoption of design and construction practices that lead to greater expense overall. The design of the 5 series (and earlier italian fighters) with little or no provision for bomb carrying is surely related to doctrinal differences which meant that the Italians saw the fighter essentially as an air superiority weapon system.
The Italian fighters could carry bombs, but only smaller ones in underwing pilons, I think the Germans were thinking in terms of "big bomb certerline" only.
@@trauko1388 Indeed so - or a more substantial bomb armament on three hardpoints; the Italian fighters tended to carry two small wing mounted points
Pretty much. The Bf.109 in many ways was optimized for mass production, while the Italian fighter aircraft were considerably less so, due to the Italian aviation industry being less advanced in such production methods. The ultimate result was that it required many more man-hours to produce. For example, the Bf.109 took 5,000 man-hours to complete. The G.55, however, took 15,000 man-hours (3x higher) in early production, and the Re.2005, 20,000 man hours. The Germans estimated that with their own production methods, they could reduce the production cost to 9,000 man-hours, but this still meant that you could build 1.8 Bf.109's for every G.55.
Considering this, regardless of the performance of the aircraft, the hit to the numbers of aircraft that could be built from increased production costs, combined with the impact of having to switch over production lines and the logistic chains that supported them, meant it was completely disadvantageous at a point when the USSR and British Empire were producing more than twice the number of aircraft Germany and Italy were building, and the US by itself was out-producing even the British and Soviet figures combined. Such a hit to fighter production would be intolerable.
The Ta 152C and Ta 152H (which had nearly 60% parts commonality with Fe 190) along with the Fw 190D9 and Fw 190D12 represented a more realistic solution. since a production system already existed You need a mass production system set up to get the numbers you need. Italian aircraft had the same production issues as the Germans would have had with the Me 309. No mass production tooling. Consider that neither the DB603 or Jumo 213, which would be needed for the Italian fighters to be competitive, was coming into maturity till 1944 and were not available in numbers till the end of 1944. Obviously an Italian fighter could be given a fighter bomber capability just as the Fw 190A and Me 109 was. I would suggest the Italians be assisted as much as possible and the Luftwaffe operate a few squadrons of Italian fighters for which the Germans would trade something the Italians wanted:
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs the problem then would be in spares procurement, operating one type gives commonality, this is why the Germans stuck with the 109, when your back is against the wall a proven design, even if there are better alternatives, will take presidence, you also face retraining pilots and maintenance staff making them less adaptable for being posted elsewhere, the idea is nice but the practicalities are not.
I enjoy this video because it is a view point not discussed and it is factual. Thankyou
Interesting that they brought up the spitfire for comparison, I know that they had captured and tested examples but I guess it must only be a very limited number of test pilots who would be familiar enough with a spitfire’s handling to understand exactly what this comparison meant? I assume there was a lot of information on the handling of enemy types available to frontline pilots but I’m curious how many, if any, had taken one up themselves?
Grest stuff Bismark.. keep them coming
Mention of Spitfire stall characteristics by Luftwaffe evaluators is interesting. That aircraft or maybe it was just some Mks of it. had a unique internal wing structure fluke vibration which acted as a pre stall warning to the pilot during tight turns. This morphed into "Spitfires could out turn ME-109s because of it" which was inexact since the very best of the Luftwaffe pilots could keep up.
It was true(?) that a regular Luftwaffe pilot could not manage to do it or could lose it completely in such a close to stall situation.
Very interesting and thanks for your excellent historical work!
I love the fact that you can read and translate German source material. I would really like to see more of how Germany compared their fighters to the competition.
Five comparatives planned, four actually made.
N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away.
N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m).
N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster.
N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage.
N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test.
Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast.
So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.
I like these kinds of videos. One can learn a lot on what was considered important back when they really used it. I would be interested in more of these kind.
Did you find a similar document about IAR-81? I know that IAR begged the germans for a BMW engine to replicate, as they thought with that engine, the IAR-81 could achieve 600 kmh. But they were denied.
they tested one IAR 81 with a DB 601 and it was succesful but they elected to build the 109G instead. they wanted a BMW 801 but it was considered too big for the IAR airframe, which was basically a PZL 24 hull.
Thanks Bis, It's great to hear from primary source materiel from the German side. That stuff is really hard to find.
The Macchis are very handsome machines
Would like to see such comparissions between all of the types used on both sides in as much detail as is available.
Very good info and gives real world evaluations of the aircraft.
Great video!
I'd also like to see German opinions of the Romanian IAR80 and IAR81. Any chance?
Whilst a superb plane at the start of the war, it had lost a lot of its shine by 1943. it certainly looked a modern plane in its day.
@@PassportToPimlico that plane was built on a fuselage of the polish PZL P.24 parasol monoplane.
Comparable to Fw-190A in firepower and (better) agility. Slightly slower speed and climb.
@@swenhtet2861 I know but I think that the bubble canopy makes it look much more recent that it was.
iar80
Wow your so correct I appreciate it. The 5 Series was the best and the Italian pilots I interviewed felt the 205V was the best while others preferred the G-55, this just I felt it just boils down to personal preference. With regards to the Re.2005 the few pilots I spoke to who actually flew it felt it was a beast in the air; but only a few actually made it into combat. And spot on about the Luftwaffe feeling the 55 was the best of the 5 Series. As for the Italian pilots they all loved the 205 and 55 but they absolutely loved the Me.109G-6 and other variants supplied to them in 44/45.
Fully expected the video to be just "yes" and thirteen minutes of credits
Your in depth comparison is very concise and to the point as usual. Good video.
[the original presentation ends]
"Well, with fighters that good I can't imagine how we could lose in North Africa."
"There's no need for sarcasm, Sepp."
The Italian fighters were outmatched by the Hurricanes. Even the ME 109 had probs dealing with hurricanes.
The spits couldnt operate in the desert. so they didnt take on the Italian planes but the Spit was no match for the ME 109 so the Italian planes would of had fun using the spits for target practice lol.
My uncle was a fighter pilot during WWII. he loved the hurricane and hated the spitfire.
He said the spit couldnt turn fast enough and got shot down too easy while the Hurricane could out turn any other fighter in the sky and could take a lot of damage and still get back to base while the spit only needed minor damage to make it unlandable.
the Hurricane could be used as a fighter bomber the spit couldnt.
the hurribomber was a hurricane that was converted to a bomber. the hurricane was also converted for carrier use which the spitfire was unable to do.. Hurricanes also worked on the convoys. they fitted launch ramps on the convoy ships and Hurricanes got fitted with rocket boosters to help them get to take off speed.
Not bad for a plane that originated from a WWI plane. the hurricane was basilcy a redesigned sopwith camel. last version of the hurricane was the hawker harrier.
Hawker bought out sopwith. then redesigned the camel to create the hawker hart which evolved into the hawker fury then the hurricane to the tempest and typhoon.
Hurricanes were not all new builds. most were rebuilds of the fury. they just took off the top wing made the bottom wing bigger and put a bigger engine cowling on to fit in the merlin.
The 1st spit didnt look anything like the spit used in WWII. that was designed before the hurricane. it had fixed undercarrige and gull wings and looked more like the stuka. could only do 100MPH but needed to do 150MPH to be able to take off so they never got off the ground.
@@cliffbird5016 Ever heard of the Seafire? It was the carrier based version of the Spitfire. I have never heard anyone claim the Hurricane was superior to the Spitfire in maneuverability (though the Hurricane could out turn the 109, as could the Spitfire). The proof is in the pudding. The Hurricane was phased out as a front line fighter while the Spitfire continued to be upgraded through the end of WW2. And the Spitfire V outfitted with the large nose air filter was operated in the desert and on Malta. Those same Spitfire Vs were flown off aircraft carriers to resupply the RAF on Malta.
@@cliffbird5016 never read so many bullshit in a single post. Better if you Try to learn somethingh about aviation history.
@@cliffbird5016
There are so many outlandish inaccuracies and outright falsehoods in your comment that you ought to consider deleting it to avoid ridicule from everyone. I have rarely seen someone rant on so much about something without knowing the slightest fucking thing about what they are talking about.
It´s strange that Luftwaffe´s tecnicians refers "unsuitability for fighter bombing". Perhaps they didn´t know the FIAT G.55 Silurante, that could carry 1 torpedo!!! By the way The iL-2, the ultimate soviet tactical bomber has a ventral radiator too like those beautiful italian fighters... Anyway, everybody looks for his own things. Good video as always.
g.55/s was only ever a single prototype, it performed well but the armistice put paid to the planned 110 units. The g.55 itself even only had 300 fighters manufactured due to the armistice coming soon after introduction and the general interference with production caused by the war in Italy.
The Macchi C.202 had a higher K/D than the BF 109s in North Africa. Which is made even more impressive by the Italians having ditched their radios for sandbags which reduced their combat effectiveness.
Sir,
1 - Thank you for a really interesting video.
2 - I believe the allies respected the "Lightning" Saetta
3 - One reads that the Italian fighters were considered unreliable. The archives you read us don't appear to remark upon this.
The radial engines did have issues. The Piaggios were based on a French engine.
The sand of North Africa made everything unreliable. And considering the Italians being Italian built handcrafted Ferraris. So parts had to be hand fit, then on top of that the Piaggios were 14 cylinder single banks; look at a print or picture of one compared to a Double Wasp, the Piaggios are crammed and gives me mechanic nightmares just looking at it. I'm sure there were things on them that would fail as with any engine, but my estimation is that the "unreliability" is more to do with the service hour to flight hour ratio alongside the need to handfit replacement parts rather than unreliability being "oh crap my engine suddenly just died." I can see how they would be finnicky and constantly needing tuning to keep all 14 cylinders running smoothly and the timing being off as a major issue.
@@NeuKrofta Thank you.
G.55 is my favorite in War Thunder! I spent extra to get it! Maybe that is why I have owned 3 Fiat automobiles? Lol!
Very interesting and informative comparison!
So what exactly do they mean in reports, by not suitable for fighter-bomber usage, due to radiator placement? Too vulnerable to ground fire?
Radiator is in the way and prevents a centreline bomb.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Yeah, because several of the Italian fighters could and did carry underwing ordnance, I wonder why the Germans were so focused on centerline stores.
@@trauko1388 Bigger bombs for bigger bangs.
@@trauko1388 The centerline stores could probably carry heavier bombs than 2 wingmounted pylons together.
True, but for CAS you are often better served by smaller but more numerous loads, lack of centreline point shouldnt have been that much of a hindrance.
There was even a variant of the 109 that could carry 2x300l tanks, so even a fighter that light could do it.
This was excellent. Great breakdown. Thanks for posting. So few thorough breakdowns on Italian WWII aviation.
Bf-109's italian cousin
This is the first of your videos I have seen and I really enjoyed it.
The information is really unique. Loved it.
Cheers
no wonder they were short on engines everyone was using the same lol
Not like anything like that happened with the British. No, wait. The Merlin was used in, amongst other aircraft, the Spitfire, Hurricane,Mosquito, Halifax, Lancaster, Beaufighter, and Mustang.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Except the Mustang used a Merlin Engine made in the U.S. under license mostly by Packard.
@@Titus-as-the-Roman except that didn't start until August 1941.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 There were even bigger bottlenecks at Rolls Royce re Merlin Engines in the prewar and early WW2 years. The people who got most of the mess sorted and got the engines into efficient mass production at huge new factories mostly had production backgrounds at English Ford, its peers, and the auto parts suppliers. The Mustang and assorted WW2 Canadian built aircraft used the Packard version of the Merlin.
@@t5ruxlee210 never said there weren't problems with supplying the Merlin, just that it was a popular choice of engine.
Fascinating thank you. I was already aware of this aircraft and the backstory from winiprdia but very interesting to hear the actual report from the archives!!! Much appreciated
War Thunder G55s: absolute legend
Interesting topic. Well researched. Presented clearly with little bias. Reasonable and helpful editorial comments. This is the second video of yours I have watched (P-39 is the other.) Both had new, true, and interesting info. WW2 aircraft is only one of seven subjects I research and model, but this video is making me more interested in WW2 planes. Thanks much.
When you held up the thumb, index finger and middle finger to indicate 3, I thought: Damn, Inglourious Basterds was right!
BUT the agent had just said he'd just gotten back from being under cover sooo it would make sense he'd still be using english symbolisms. Bad writing .
I'm all American with German ancestry. I use the thumb as well. Would have to re-train if I was WW2 soldier.
American Sign Language, ASL, the form of deaf sign language recognized by the U.S. deaf culture uses the thumb in the sign for the number three. Most hearing people will use three fingers which could be confused with the letter W if signing to a profoundly deaf person.
These are excellent with their emphases on primary sources and empirical data. Thanks!
I have a question Chris, "Why does the Italian fighters look so similar to each other?
Italians like British fighter draughtsman like French Curves. Im date stamping myself here, do kids these days even know what a French curve is?
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Nein
The three original monoplane fighters (the G.50, Re.2000 and MC.200) were all designed at the same time, to respond to the same specification, with the same technology and engines available (well, with the exception of some parts of the Reggiane design), so it makes sense they would end up being similar. It's kind of like asking why the Su-27 and Mig-29 look similar.
When the DB.601 and 605 became available they kept the almost same Reggiane or Macchi airframe and only changed the engine section, so the similarity remained. At the same time, the G.55 was a lot more than a revamped G.50, but it kept many similar features like the shape of the wing and tail.
It's kind of similar with the Japanese Ki-61, which was also built around an export DB.601. From a distance it was so similar to the C.202 that its US reporting name was "Tony".
Hope that answers it your question :)
@@TLTeo Thanks man
Same engine, same propeller, same specifications for weapons load and no designer was idiot enough to design a narrow undercarriage for them.
However, if you see the three-view of the Reggiane 2005 and of the P47 you'll notice how their wings and rudders are similar, because they both derives from the Seversky P35.
Very informative. Great to have someone as knowledgeable as you doing this kind of work and sharing it. Great work on the production values of the video: doesn't happen by magic. Great work all around.
Most People: Italy sucks hahahaha
Italy's Air Force: Hold my Pizza
If we had these in time the situation above the skys in Malta might have been different, but we were whipped by 3 biplanes! 🇮🇹💪. Nevertheless our moder airforce now has F35s! And our pilots are as good as RAF! 👍
I don’t much about it, but am quite amazed they gave them so high rating. Gonna keep my eyes open for more.
Very interesting indeed. Thank you, keep on doing this!
/peter
When Romans were building acqueducts Germans were praying to the moon nude, so i'm not that amazed-
I've read that one thing the Germans considered was man hours required to build the Italian fighters.
Built by the Italians the hours were quite high, the Germans calculated that if they built them they could reduce the man hours but it would still be more than building a Bf109.
Glyn NZ
Cr. 42 for everyone! Whee!
My father flew in a two-seater version of training when he was in the Argentine Army in the mid-1950s. Argentina had several dozen of those Italian fighters that he bought after World War II.