« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Say NO to the G.55  (Read 3020 times)

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« on: March 28, 2007, 12:52:58 PM »
Quote
148 G.55 were delivered to the ANR, 15 more were destroyed by US bombing raids and, when the factory was captured, 37 more exemplars were ready, while 73 were still on the production line, at various degree of completion.



148 total aircraft... come on, this is a waste of time for HTC to be considering.  There are far more variants that need representation than a very limited hardly standardised fighter!
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2007, 01:00:00 PM »
G.55 thread (already on this forum, see it there?)

Before you go posting ignorantly as such, please see the G.55 thread. There's quite a bit of information in there.

Depending on your source, the numbers go from minimum 150 or so to maximum 250 or so. Probably around 200 or so. It, along with C2s, was the main front line fighter for Italy after 1943. Enough were in use to represent a sizable % of the entire IT fleet.

If about 250 C205s were made, and about 200 G.55s were made, and 1500 C202s were in use since 1941, the G.55 made up almost 50% of the modern 1943 fighters, and made up over 10% of the total 1900 "modern" fighters (1500 c202s, 250 c205s, 200 g.55s). Keep in mind the IT air force as a whole rarely boasted over 2500 aircraft max, and 1700 of these were retired Cr.42s, turned to trainers in 1942/43 after a long career of obsolescence.
Logged

VWE

  • Guest
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2007, 01:03:47 PM »
LOL no  :D
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2007, 01:08:51 PM »
Even with 250 aircraft, it is a waste of time.  (and if you care to look at the numbers cited they add up to aabout 250 aircraft)

As for calling me ignorant, I have a much better tendency to back up my statements with facts than your assumptions.  So tread lightly.
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline quintv

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2007, 01:14:06 PM »
I agree 10000000000000000%.

Say NO to the eyetalians.
Logged

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2007, 01:15:37 PM »
"tread lightly" might be good advice for all concerned. You included.

Bodhi, I've backed all of this up in the other thread (link in previous post). You can't compare 200 as "not important" based on Soviet production numbers, or German production numbers, or US production numbers, where they turned out more in 1 day than the entire ITs did in the war.

In the context of IT production numbers, the C.205 and G.55 were the most important fighters being produced in 1943 and later. The G.55 was the better of the two, and was kept in production after the Italian surrender, probably the only aircraft to be kept in production.

It wasn't "too late", arriving in 1943. It was really "too little" because it was over 10% of the post-1941 fighters, and 50% of the 1943 fighters in service, but that's only in Italy. Half the top-of-the-line fighters produced were G.55s. Compare the 190A8 with the 109G-14. Both very important. Similar comparison to C205 and G55, IMO.

You can go on posting "bashing" threads for the planes you don't want folks to vote on. Nobody's going to stop you (unless maybe Skuzzy?). Just don't blow the claim in that post out of proportion too much. I'll confine my posts to the real thread, with all of the information posted (link in previous reply).
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2007, 01:21:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
"tread lightly" might be good advice for all concerned. You included.

You can go on posting "bashing" threads for the planes you don't want folks to vote on. Nobody's going to stop you (unless maybe Skuzzy?). Just don't blow the claim in that post out of proportion too much. I'll confine my posts to the real thread, with all of the information posted (link in previous reply).


I am not bashing, instead, you chose to bash with your ignorance comment.  I consider the G.55 to be an insignificant part of the war especially when there are already two Italian aircraft in game (one of which amounted to around 75% of the total serving with the Italians), There are many other aircraft that proved a far more significant contribution to the war effort from multiple sides that should be represented before the side show of the G.55 is considered.
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Ball

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1827
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2007, 01:22:44 PM »
Bodhi... didnt you realise: -

Quote
Originally posted by humble
Actually the G55 was the single most important fighter of the entire war....


Quoted for education...

Quote
Originally posted by Ball
What if? the Fiat G.55 made a huge impact.

Here it is raising the flag over the Reichstag in 1945: -



When the USAF wanted to test the F-22, in a little known test they flew a squadron of them against a Fiat G.55.  I have managed to secure the test film from this amazing event: -



Also, many things have been heavily influenced by the design of the Fiat G.55, i think you will agree that the similarities between these and the Fiat are incredible - it is almost impossible to tell them apart: -

 



« Last Edit: March 28, 2007, 01:26:15 PM by Ball »
Logged

Offline Major Biggles

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2987
      • 71 Squadron Website
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2007, 01:32:21 PM »
LOL furbs
Logged

71 'Eagle' Squadron RAF
Member DFC

Offline Buvian

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2007, 01:36:22 PM »
lol -.- give teh bks another spit
Logged

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2007, 01:41:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Buvian
lol -.- give teh bks another spit


lol, nope that'd be for Lev.

I'd prefer to see an F6F-3 or SB2C but that is not a choice now is it.

Although I'd rather not see the G.55 because of it's relatively small part of the war.
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2007, 01:44:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Buvian
lol -.- give teh bks another spit


Like this one : http://doiamuseyou.typepad.co.uk/do_i_amuse_you/images/spitfire_9_2.jpg

?
Logged

Offline Buvian

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2007, 01:46:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
lol, nope that'd be for Lev.

I'd prefer to see an F6F-3 or SB2C but that is not a choice now is it.

Although I'd rather not see the G.55 because of it's relatively small part of the war.



Last time i checked this was a world war two flight sim. So that includes any and all world war two planes. Last four years i've been here HTC has tried to avoid adding planes that would cause conflicts like this. IMHO i think its time for a change.
Logged

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2007, 01:52:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty


Before you go posting ignorantly as such, please see the G.55 thread. There's quite a bit of information in there.

 



Am I the only one that sees the irony?


ack-ack
Logged
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Say NO to the G.55
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2007, 01:55:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Am I the only one that sees the irony?


ack-ack


Exactly... why would I post in a thread supporting an aircraft if I was against it....

Guess I am just ignorant...
Logged
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »