Douglas A-26 Invader

[Butcher]

The A-26 will not get used that much when it is added because it will be perked.  If not for that, it is pretty far up the list of aircraft that will get used a lot and have not yet been added.

Due to that, I think the G.55, Re2005, P.108, H8K2, J2M, Ki-44, Yak-3, Tu-2, Ju188, Do217, He177, Halifax and Fairey Firefly would certainly be used more often.  The others I listed might or might not get used more often.

To ease the brain of a headache: rarely the B29 gets used due to its perk value, same with the A-26 if added These choices above wouldn't be perked and flown more often.

[Tank-Ace]

the Italian planes you listed are a prime example of planes that suck. 


Semp

Holy crap you're dumb. In trials against the some of the middle G model 109's, the 5-series fighters were favorably commented on. On paper, their preformance is quite good, arguably still competative (if not top of the class) for LW. Pilots always said they had exelent manuverability.

Infact, I don't recall reading about any complaints from the pilots.

And all three of them could be added. HTC has been quoted saying they have no hard set criteria for additions, they just  want aircraft that have seen service. Even the Re.2005, with only 48 built, cannot be excluded on the basis of production numbers, since only 43-34 Ostwinds were built, and about 40 Ta-152's.

[guncrasher]

Holy crap you're dumb. In trials against the some of the middle G model 109's, the 5-series fighters were favorably commented on. On paper, their preformance is quite good, arguably still competative (if not top of the class) for LW. Pilots always said they had exelent manuverability.

Infact, I don't recall reading about any complaints from the pilots.

And all three of them could be added. HTC has been quoted saying they have no hard set criteria for additions, they just  want aircraft that have seen service. Even the Re.2005, with only 48 built, cannot be excluded on the basis of production numbers, since only 43-34 Ostwinds were built, and about 40 Ta-152's.

you calling me dumb and yet you believe that the airplane was good because they said it "looked goon on paper" not due to combat action.  did anybody ever build a plane that looked bad on paper?  out of curiosity would you care to comment on g55 activities during the war?  how many airplanes did it shoot down? where did it see combat? how long was it in service?


based on one of your sentences you only read wikipedia, didnt you.  you sure you arent confusing the g55 airplane with the g55 car?

semp

[Ack-Ack]

you calling me dumb and yet you believe that the airplane was good because they said it "looked goon on paper" not due to combat action.  did anybody ever build a plane that looked bad on paper?  out of curiosity would you care to comment on g55 activities during the war?  how many airplanes did it shoot down? where did it see combat? how long was it in service?


based on one of your sentences you only read wikipedia, didnt you.  you sure you arent confusing the g55 airplane with the g55 car?

semp

The low production numbers and short service of the G.55 had nothing to do with the quality of the plane and everything to do with Italy surrendering in the middle of 1943.

ack-ack

[Raphael]

This is a very good list of aircraft to can be, should be added LONG before the A26 should ever even be considered.   

Oh, and **smacks Karnack backside of the head** you forgot the Wellington and D520!  for SHAME!  I'll give you some slack because you said "LW", but still.   

+1 comment was spot on.

[guncrasher]

The low production numbers and short service of the G.55 had nothing to do with the quality of the plane and everything to do with Italy surrendering in the middle of 1943.

ack-ack

then how about all the other planes that had low production numbers and short service before japan and germany surrendered?  you have been against some of them just based on that.


semp

[Mitsu.]

+1

I like it.

[Butcher]

you calling me dumb and yet you believe that the airplane was good because they said it "looked goon on paper" not due to combat action.  did anybody ever build a plane that looked bad on paper?  out of curiosity would you care to comment on g55 activities during the war?  how many airplanes did it shoot down? where did it see combat? how long was it in service?


based on one of your sentences you only read wikipedia, didnt you.  you sure you arent confusing the g55 airplane with the g55 car?

semp

G.55 was a vast improvement over the C.205, It did shoot down quite a few - confirmed victories - one of the first engagements were B24's escorted by P38s on March 29th in which 20 C205s tangled with P38s and left 6 G.55s (heavier firepower) shot down 2 of the B-24s and damaged 5, two others crashed on landing.

Order of Battle Jan-September 1944

Fiat G.55 Series I Flew with:
I Gruppo Caccia - All 3 Squadriglias flew G.55s
II Gruppo Caccia - 3 Squadriglias flew G.55s and Nucleo Comando which operated as a command flight (flew g55s as well)

Montefusco-Bonet flew G.55s as well as C.205s as above, however due to loss of personel and planes, it was absorbs into I Gruppo Caccia to replenish its G.55 inventory.

Far as its victories it shot down well over 100, (unconfirmed) It was in service late 1943 and formed the backbone into 1944, 109G's and 109K's slowly replaced the C.205s/G.55s/Re2005s after numbers declined. For example III Gruppo was transfered to germany for training on the 109k when the war ended, it used 21 BF109ks, 4 BF108s and a Ki35.

On the Allies side of Italy, nobody flew the G.55, since the factories were moved to the north for production on the 205s and G.55s, they mainly flew - C.202s, C.205s, P-39s, C.200s, CR.42s, Spitfire Vs.

As for numbers concerned - Its tough to say exactly how many G.55s were built, but it was well above 200, the exact number is going to be an issue finding, as most "post war" documents are tough to come by.

I have limited information on the G.55, but from what wikipedia says - I did some research and this is a true statement -

The Germans also brought with them several aircraft including a Fw 190 A-5 and a Bf 109 G-4 for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.

Oberst Petersen defined the G.55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on 22 February 1943 voted to produce the G.55 in Germany.

What I concluded, is this statement is stretching the truth - in fact it was tested and found to out perform both the 190 and 109, in which Germany didn't want it to be known its "aircraft were second rate" - He did approach Galland about producing the G.55 in Germany, I have no idea if any were built in Germany, but what I do know is Germans took over the Factories in northern Italy that built it, so it could of been transferred and built,
from what I gather it was't which concludes the idea was probably shot down until to late.

My Sources:
All this comes from Regia Aeronauctica Pictorial history Vol. 1 and 2,  by Christopher Shores
Regia Aeronautica - the italy airforce 23-45 by Chris Dunning

And the luftwaffe comments came from Courage Alone the Italian Airforce 40-43.

Anything else?

[guncrasher]

You are talking about Italian force that flew for Germany after Italy surrender. By 1944 Italy had declared war on Germany.   The g55 would only be around 20 that Germany captured. I. Believe Germany was also interested in the g55 and build some.  Still makes you wonder if the g55 was so good why did they replaced
Them with 109's.


Semp

[Butcher]

You are talking about Italian force that flew for Germany after Italy surrender. By 1944 Italy had declared war on Germany.   The g55 would only be around 20 that Germany captured. I. Believe Germany was also interested in the g55 and build some.  Still makes you wonder if the g55 was so good why did they replaced
Them with 109's.
Semp

Quite a few reasons, first moving the factory from Northern Italy to Germany - secondly two of the main factories in north italy were routinely bombed in 1944, which halted production not once, but twice.  

They replaced them with 109s simply because of shortage of air frames, once the factories had been bombed, where else are you going to produce them? you simply cannot send blueprints across town and "build a factory and crank out air frames over night.

You don't factor in the Logistics for Air frames, engines, transportation, fuel.

Edited: Not sure how many Germany Produced, I was looking strictly at the italian factories which produced over 200, which is far more then some of the...trickier planes we have like Ta-152, Re.2005 which I would honestly shy away and ignore - mainly those had less then 50 built, where G.55 had well over 200, which only 6 I can see were Prototypes, which rules out "not enough built".

[guncrasher]

There were 200 build but most didn't see combat.  Most were built after Italy had declared war on Germany. The few that saw combat were with Germany.   So not really an Italian flown airplane.   Flown by pilots who's only other option was slave labor.

Semp

[dirtdart]

The A-26 will not get used that much when it is added because it will be perked.  If not for that, it is pretty far up the list of aircraft that will get used a lot and have not yet been added.

What makes it perkable?  It is slower than a mossie and carries a similar load to the A20.  It is likely less agile than an A20, I won't know till I try one out.  The last one I flew was back in AW.   

[Ack-Ack]

Flown by pilots who's only other option was slave labor.

Semp

The Italian pilots that flew with the Aeronautica Nazionale Republicana were not forced to fly or they'd face the prospect of slave labor or worse.  These were fascists that didn't want to surrender to the Allies and kept on fighting with the Germans until the end.

As for why the Germans didn't build the G.55, it took an estimaged 15,000 man hours to assemble a single G.55 while it only took an estimated 5,000 man hours to assemble a Bf 109.  In addition to lack of resources, it's understandable why the Germans didn't pursue the G.55 further.

ack-ack

[Butcher]

There were 200 build but most didn't see combat.  Most were built after Italy had declared war on Germany. The few that saw combat were with Germany.   So not really an Italian flown airplane.   Flown by pilots who's only other option was slave labor.

Semp

I didn't think you'd try so hard to be a troll, but sorry none of your information is near correct.

[Raptor05121]

The Italian pilots that flew with the Aeronautica Nazionale Republicana were not forced to fly or they'd face the prospect of slave labor or worse.  These were fascists that didn't want to surrender to the Allies and kept on fighting with the Germans until the end.

As for why the Germans didn't build the G.55, it took an estimaged 15,000 man hours to assemble a single G.55 while it only took an estimated 5,000 man hours to assemble a Bf 109.  In addition to lack of resources, it's understandable why the Germans didn't pursue the G.55 further.

ack-ack

I see Wikipedia's stocks are skyrocketing