Fitter Italian military during WW2

Deleted member 1487

This is true, but part of me thinks 8mm Breda is really cool.
How about a 6.5mm MMG? The Breda 30 with an 18 inch barrel had an effective range of 2800m. The Breda 38 had a 25 inch barrel, which would boost muzzle velocity and range. With a more streamlined bullet that would be increased.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wouldn't that be less good at beating through light cover and chewing up engine blocks?
No, the complaint about it was that it overpenetrated rather than tumbled when it hit something. A 160 grain 6.5mm is a pretty darn heavy for caliber load.

8mm isn't that great at turning Cover into Concealment.
Depends on the cover.

Go .50 or go home for that job, oh, and the Italian 12.7mm is on the weak side....
Well, if you absolutely, positively must penetrate anything but solid rock, then yes. You can shoot through trees with an 8mm Mauser and certainly the Italian 12.7mm.
 
This is from Page 88 of the official history of the Regia Aeronautica in World War II. It shows how many combat aircraft were in the Italian Metropolitan Air Force when Italy joined the war. (It includes the aircraft in Libya and the Aegean.)

The copy that I found on the internet is in Italian. I had to use Google Translate for the English equivalents, so I apologise in advance to the Italian speakers on the Board.

Italian Metropolitan Air Force June 1940 Mk 2.png
 
Last edited:
This is from Page 88 of the official history of the Regia Aeronautica in World War II. It shows how many combat aircraft were in the Italian Metropolitan Air Force when Italy joined the war. (It includes the aircraft in Libya and the Aegean.)

The copy that I found on the internet is in Italian. I had to use Google Translate for the English equivalents, so I apologise in advance to the Italian speakers on the Board.

View attachment 497084
Was it a good idea to have so many types of bomber and fighter?

I've already suggested that it would have been better to equip the anti-shipping and maritime reconnaissance squadrons with more S.M.79s instead of the Cant Z.501 and Z.506.

Would it also have been better to build more S.M.79s instead of the Fiat B.R.20 and Cant Z.1007?

There are 3 single-engine fighters in the list (Fiat C.R.42, Fiat G.50 and Macchi M.C.200) plus the Reggiane Re.2000. Which of those four should the Italians have concentrated on?

AIUI the Fiat C.R.25 was a better aircraft than the Breda Ba.88. Would 113 C.R.25s on strength in June 1940 been an improvement on the 113 Ba.88s of OTL?

How can the S.M.85 dive-bomber be an adequate aircraft ITTL?
 
Was it a good idea to have so many types of bomber and fighter?

I've already suggested that it would have been better to equip the anti-shipping and maritime reconnaissance squadrons with more S.M.79s instead of the Cant Z.501 and Z.506.

Would it also have been better to build more S.M.79s instead of the Fiat B.R.20 and Cant Z.1007?

There are 3 single-engine fighters in the list (Fiat C.R.42, Fiat G.50 and Macchi M.C.200) plus the Reggiane Re.2000. Which of those four should the Italians have concentrated on?

AIUI the Fiat C.R.25 was a better aircraft than the Breda Ba.88. Would 113 C.R.25s on strength in June 1940 been an improvement on the 113 Ba.88s of OTL?

How can the S.M.85 dive-bomber be an adequate aircraft ITTL?
I believe the Italians should've built more S.M.79's
The Reggiane Re.200 IMO was the plane the Italians should've focused on, and then the Reggiane Re.2000 when it gets developed.
Yes the more C.R.25s would've been better than the Ba.88.
The Italians might have been better off trying to improve the Breda Ba.64 than replacing it with the S.M.85.
These are all just my opinion.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Italian aviation has three major problems. Engines, antiquated building techniques and politics.Politics was the major issue.

The SM 79 would have done fine, but Cant designs were used for Air-Sea Rescue. The Fiat RS 14 took on this role later in the war. The Breda Ba 88 worked, somewhat, in Sardinia, but had too little reserve power. The sand filters in the desert throttled the engines, literally. It was too heavy due to the antiquated tube frame.

The bomber triad resulted from the political desire to feed the three manufactures. All three were adequate. The Fiat BR 20 suffered from low power compared to the three engined types. Again engines of low power.

The Fiat fighters were obsolescent. The Macchi suffered teething issues. All suffered from insufficient engine power. Later variants of the monoplanes were fine with MB inline engines.

Twenty CR 25's would be better than 113 Ba 88's. They were able to fly regularly, and had sufficient speed and lift to do the job.

The SM 85 was not adequate by 1940, if it ever was. The Italians did not think they were. The later Reggianes were the answer.

The Italians should have required manufacturers to meet requirements or be disqualified from aircraft program. The government funneled money to industrialists, while receiving unsuitable aircraft and engines in return. The emphasis in the early 1930's on high speed record and racing liquid cooled engined aircraft was wasted upon switching to air cooled engines. The industry was developing engines from foreign designs. However, the industry was not able to provide the required power from air cooled engines before the war. In addition, their liquid cooled technology had fallen behind the rest of the world. Modern construction techniques were used by few aircraft manufacturers. Reggiane and Piaggio are the two of which I know.
 
I believe the Italians should've built more S.M.79's
The Reggiane Re.200 IMO was the plane the Italians should've focused on, and then the Reggiane Re.2000 when it gets developed.
Yes the more C.R.25s would've been better than the Ba.88.
The Italians might have been better off trying to improve the Breda Ba.64 than replacing it with the S.M.85.
These are all just my opinion.
Like this?

Italian Metropolitan Air Force June 1940 ALT.png


I was hoping that reducing the number of types would allow the factories to build more aircraft with the same number of workers and the same amount of money because larger scale production methods could have been used.

There would still be 234 S.M.81s, but they would be equipping transport squadrons instead of bomber squadrons.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Two problems. The Reggiane had not entered service yet. The Macchi M.C. 200 was still suffering from teething issues. Maybe you can get the Reggiane in service earlier if you specify a dry wing and give them money earlier. The C.R. 25 would have more serviceable/ready to use aircraft than the Ba. 88.
 
Two problems. The Reggiane had not entered service yet. The Macchi M.C. 200 was still suffering from teething issues. Maybe you can get the Reggiane in service earlier if you specify a dry wing and give them money earlier. The C.R. 25 would have more serviceable/ready to use aircraft than the Ba. 88.
Based on what you wrote in Post 68 the Italians need to develop engines equivalent to the Merlin, DB601, P&W Twin Wasp and Wright Cyclone in the middle/second half of the 1930s.

Then the 1936 specification of OTL that produced the Fiat G.50, M.C.200, Re.2000 and their competitors needs to be altered to allow fighters with enclosed cockpits and the more powerful engines available ITTL to be built instead of the OTL machines. That effectively means that the Fiat G.52 is built instead of the G.50, the M.C.202 is built instead of the M.C.200, Re.2001 instead of the Re.2000 and so on. The prototypes of the Fiat and Macchi fighters flew first IOTL so my guess is that their prototypes would fly first ITTL and one of them would be selected for production.
 
Last edited:
Like this?

View attachment 497116

I was hoping that reducing the number of types would allow the factories to build more aircraft with the same number of workers and the same amount of money because larger scale production methods could have been used.

There would still be 234 S.M.81s, but they would be equipping transport squadrons instead of bomber squadrons.
Looks good to me.
I think of the three military branches of the Italian armed forces, the Regia Aeronautica could've been brought up to date (more or less) than the army or navy but I'm no expert just a military aviation buff.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The designs included enclosed cockpits. The pilots did not like them. Only Fiat designed their own engines using Gnome et Rhone and either Wright or Pratt & Whitney design references. Bristol and Gnome et Rhone designs were licensed by the others. Alfa Romeo had a twin row variant of the Jupiter/Mercury under development at the start of the war. It was started by 1935, it may have produced a 1600-1800 hp if Giustino Catteneo had statyed beyond 1936. Fiat had the A.80, which was under powered at 1000 hp. Piaggio had their P XII, which produced 1350 hp in the P.108 bomber. It was not suitably reliable. These were all 18 cylinder radials.
I wonder if the Piaggio 14 cylinder P. XIX RC 45 could have been pushed past 1175 hp. Possibly with the 4 valve set up from Alfa, it might go higher.
 
The Italians should have had a plan for when they declared war. They squandered strategic initiative initially, which is where the other Axis powers got their flashy successes. Even if you argue that the situation evolved much faster than could be predicted, there really should have been files labeled “How to take Malta on war day 0” and “How to invade Egypt next week” in Italian HQ. Alternatively, they should have noticed they didn’t have such plans for good reasons and avoided war altogether.

Gotcha.
Actually Mussolini didn't want any real shooting war, nor did his generals, first and foremost Badoglio, imncompetenet and backward but acutely aware of the abysmal state of our military.
The Duce only wanted gains at the peace conference, which he assumed (wrongly) would be soon held.
 
Looks good to me.

I think of the three military branches of the Italian armed forces, the Regia Aeronautica could've been brought up to date (more or less) than the army or navy but I'm no expert just a military aviation buff.
Furthermore, the air force needed to be improved more than the army and navy.

IMHO, a better air force would produce a bigger improvement in Italy's performance in the war than a better army or a better navy.
 
The designs included enclosed cockpits. The pilots did not like them.

Only Fiat designed their own engines using Gnome et Rhone and either Wright or Pratt & Whitney design references.

Bristol and Gnome et Rhone designs were licensed by the others. Alfa Romeo had a twin row variant of the Jupiter/Mercury under development at the start of the war. It was started by 1935, it may have produced a 1,600-1,800hp if Giustino Catteneo had stayed beyond 1936.

Fiat had the A.80, which was under powered at 1000 hp.

Piaggio had their P XII, which produced 1,350hp in the P.108 bomber. It was not suitably reliable. These were all 18 cylinder radials.

I wonder if the Piaggio 14 cylinder P. XIX RC 45 could have been pushed past 1175 hp. Possibly with the 4 valve set up from Alfa, it might go higher.
I reverse order...

Based on what you have written it was only bad luck/bad timing that prevented the Regia Aeronautica's bombers from being fitted with adequate engines in the 1,000hp class (or better) at the end May 1940. (IIRC they were fitted with engines producing about 850hp at that time IOTL.)

And that at the same date they could have had circa 600 fighters at least as good as the Hurricane Mk I and possibly as good as the Spitfire Mk I and Bf109E instead of c.300 Fiat G.50s and c.300 Macchi M.C.200s.
 
Top