So, by me saying it's ignorant that you claim the G.55 was all but absent in the war, that's an attack... Hrm..
Let me look this up in the dictionary... goes something like
Ignorant: Lacking knowledge.
You made a sweeping judgment on an aircraft you apparently knew nothing about, despite a long thread supplying the entire forum-going population with info.
That's not a personal attack, and FYI almost every post you have made on the matter has hinted at or included explicit attacks. Would you rather I used "your *****rdly knowledge" [EDIT: Won't let me type it, the word that senator got in trouble for using, similar to N-word] or "your lack of comprehension" or "your lack of information?" All of them simply imply you didn't have the info needed to say what you did.
"Can you actually really honestly believe that? 148 delivered aircraft. Doubts that half of those even saw combat!" Almost all of them, considering they served for over a year and a half without much of a production line to recoup losses. Served until late 1944 as the main front line fighter of Italy.
"I provide a factual counter argument to your erroneous statement,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ta152 saw about 50 examples produced and delivered... roughly. Thats 33% of the total number of G.55's that were delivered. The 109G6 saw roughly 11000 aircraft produced. It was the most common built 109. The G.55 total production (even counting aircraft not delivered and on assembly line) is 2.7% of the 109G6 production. The Ta152 total represents .4 % of the 109G6 production.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
You provide... random numbers? (forgive me, let me explain)
I didn't reply, because you didn't make a point. You're comparing the G.55 to the 109G6 and then comparing THAT to the Ta152 as compared to the 109G6. It's like comparing a japanese zero to a P-47. Both nations had different production capabilities. Compare the Ta152 to the 109G-6. Then compare the G.55 to the C.202. Splitting the difference on the reported numbers (from 130 to 200) say there were 150 G.55s, compared to 1500 C.202s. That's 10%. If you consider that the C202s were phased out after the armistice, and only C205s and G.55s continued, the 205s made up 250 and the G.55s used (split the difference) 150. That's 37% of the entire front line force after 1943. I only tossed in that "Ta152" reference because the Ta152 was rare. I wasn't making a direct % correlation between the two. Ta152 rare, G.55 not rare. That was my point, and it had nothing to do with total numbers, but the numbers help the G.55 when you add them up.
"My problem with you is spin. You have not provided hardly any factual statements regarding the G.55."
Every statement I've made has been fairly accurate. It seems the wing guns had 200 instead of 250. I thought only the prototype had 4 12.7mm guns, but apparently the entire Serie 0 had them. Other than that I've made no huge, boastful claims.
Re-read this thread. I've not said anything that wasn't pretty close to all the resources we've shown in this thread. Funny how when I supply you information you sh** on me, but when Gianlupo supplies you the same information you're nice. Rather hypocritical, though, if you ask me. I don't care, honestly, except you keep twisting the facts in the process. You keep saying I'm spinning the facts, keep saying you've given me counter-points, keep saying that I'm wrong wrong wrong. So re-read the thread and see what I've typed. Please point out why you've got a bee in your bonette, show me a thread where I've posted something wrong or false. We'll put this to bed once and for all.
