Author Topic: SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007 (Read 8285 times)

brady · « **Reply #105 on:** July 27, 2003, 06:20:34 PM »

If they paint it to look like a Cant Z 1007 will it be faster and cary more bomb's?, like the Cant can...

Arlo · « **Reply #106 on:** July 27, 2003, 06:28:47 PM »

No ... but it'll withstand more damage and stand up to extreme weather better like the Sparviero could.

brady · « **Reply #107 on:** July 27, 2003, 07:23:44 PM »

Realy, I read whear the Z 1007 was very tough.

Arlo · « **Reply #108 on:** July 27, 2003, 08:17:09 PM »

Hmmm .... scanned around looking for the site that mentioned the 1007's structural deficiencies but didn't run across it. All I get are some sites that mention how the Sparviero flew more missions than all the other Italian bombers put together.

ShruG ... eh, maybe I crossed mental channels on the structural deficiencies with another Italian bomber I was comparing to the Sparviero.

brady · « **Reply #109 on:** July 27, 2003, 08:35:30 PM »

Ya my Z 1007 book(s) mention how very strong the airframe was, and that it could asorb a lot of battle damage.

Arlo · « **Reply #110 on:** July 27, 2003, 08:38:56 PM »

Did anyone ever reply to your online request back in October for internal pics of the gunner stations?

brady · « **Reply #111 on:** July 27, 2003, 09:53:48 PM »

I have some, now. Wait I will post them.

The Ali'D Italia book also has a lot of very detailed line drawings showing the placement of the guns cover arc's and details of the turet, the Z 506 book also has some shots and details of common parts as well.

Be nice to see more pic's thought .

Arlo · « **Reply #112 on:** July 27, 2003, 09:59:21 PM »

I don't want the pics ... I want your source. If he has interior Z.1007 shots he's bound to have interior Sparviero shots.

brady · « **Reply #113 on:** July 27, 2003, 10:54:00 PM »

Their from the Ali D Italia series which I know Pyro know's about I beleave he mentioned he had some of them.

If your looking personaly for some SM 79 picks their SM 79 book is a good one I am shure the Squadron Signal book on the SM 79 has some decent pick's, and their are some other sources, I can post if you want.

Sakai · « **Reply #114 on:** July 28, 2003, 08:06:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmm .... scanned around looking for the site that mentioned the 1007's structural deficiencies but didn't run across it. All I get are some sites that mention how the Sparviero flew more missions than all the other Italian bombers put together.

ShruG ... eh, maybe I crossed mental channels on the structural deficiencies with another Italian bomber I was comparing to the Sparviero.

The 79 survived more encounters because of wider use so became somewhat more legendary in its toughness but there's a couple of things to recall:

The SM79 flew against earlier plane and AA types that were less efficient/deadly through much of the building of its reputation.

I have never heard or seen anything that indicated the Cant 1007 was any less tough than the Sparveiro structurally, but the SM79 was, like the B-17 (and the German's said the same of their 111s) known within the RA as being exceptionally hard to down.

To my mind the planes known for toughness should get something factored in. Seems awfully easy to kill, say, P-47s in this game.

Sakai

brady · « **Reply #115 on:** July 28, 2003, 11:51:20 AM »

Saki has a point that realy aplies to both, later in the war When the SM 79 was being phased out and only the SM 82 and the Cant Z 1007 were in servie in Southern Italy in a Bomber capacaity they were doing prety much just Night time sorties, while they were tough planes they could not handel being intercepted by large numbers of daytime fighters, one account I read was whear a Z 1007 was intercepted by a Beaufighter and managed to get home after being wraked with 20mm Hispano fire.

HoHun · « **Reply #116 on:** July 28, 2003, 01:06:12 PM »

Hi Brady,

>When the SM 79 was being phased out and only the SM 82 and the Cant Z 1007 were in servie in Southern Italy

Actually, the S.M. 79 was employed against Malta alongside the Cant. The S.M. 82 was a transport trimotor, I guess you're thinking of the S.M. 84, which seems to have been a low-production development of the SM79. With the same three 1000 HP radial engines in each of these bombers, their tactical capabilities probably were very similar.

With regard to their ability to withstand fire: The S.M. 79 had a steel-tube fuselage frame that made explosive shells relatively ineffective. (The Hurricane was famous for its ruggedness for the same reason. It shouldn't be forgotten, though, that both aircraft still had full-metal wings.)

Wood on the other hand was very vulnerable to explosive shells, so my money would be on the S.M. 79 rather than on the Cant every time.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

brady · « **Reply #117 on:** July 28, 2003, 01:32:01 PM »

Yes your right it was a typo, I was refering the SM 84, and I was refering to 1943 when I mentioned the fact that in the South of Italy the sicialy Bomber comand (in may) consisting of 4 groups were disbanded and reformed into 3 groups of 2 Cant Z 1007 and one SM 84, I was not refering to the early war period and the Batles over Malta which as you say had both bombers flying side by side.

Their were of course other bomber units in different parts of Italy, and other areas.

After rereading several pasages from a couple of different book's I again will reaterate the confidance that the men who flew this plane (Z 1007) had in the strength of the airframe, being constructed with overlaping and woven layers of wood that were very strong, althought susceptable to extream cold, which undoubtdly contrubuted to the type seing little service in Russsia, they like all other woden planes (mossie) had a slightly greater tendancy to catch fire than their Metal counter part's. It has been my experance that in AH their is very fine line between taking damage suficient to catch fire and damage suficient to cause a faliure in the wing anyway so this not a real big issue.

HoHun · « **Reply #118 on:** July 28, 2003, 02:42:24 PM »

Hi Brady,

>It has been my experance that in AH their is very fine line between taking damage suficient to catch fire and damage suficient to cause a faliure in the wing anyway so this not a real big issue.

I wouldn't consider fire the increased hazard for wooden aircraft, but actually the tendency of the skin to crack when hit by explosive shells. A stressed-skin metal structure would be destroyed at the point of the impact, but a wooden structure would additionally develop cracks that broke up the skin far from the impact point.

With regard to the Mosquito, the type of cracks I described can be clearly recognized in one famous photograph of a Mosquito that returned with a large part of the wing tip missing. The cracks spread across the undersurface of the wing, being stopped only by the massive drop tank supports.

While this shows that wood was a lot tougher than usually believed, it also showed that the damage spread in a way alien to metal designs.

>After rereading several pasages from a couple of different book's I again will reaterate the confidance that the men who flew this plane (Z 1007) had in the strength of the airframe

Don't give too much for airmen's stories, legend has it that the B-17 was a lot tougher than the B-24 while loss ratios show that in fact the B-24 had a noticable advantage :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Sakai · « **Reply #119 on:** July 28, 2003, 02:55:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Don't give too much for airmen's stories, legend has it that the B-17 was a lot tougher than the B-24 while loss ratios show that in fact the B-24 had a noticable advantage :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I wonder if this takes into account the wider early opertaional deployment of the 17s with their reduced defenseive capability? I mean, it wasn't uncommon early on for the US to think that 17s needed no escorts. The 24s likely were the beneficiaries of lessons learned by the B-17 crews.

The numerous 17 "small tailed" models shot down in the Pacific (no tail gunner) or destroyed on the ground, for example, count against the 17s.

Did B-24s ever sortie without Tail Gunners?

Sakai