Author Topic: SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007  (Read 8127 times)

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #75 on: July 24, 2003, 07:21:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
Well if you had read the above Lengthy thread you would of Noticed that the two planes were in service prety much throught the whole war, from beging to end, so the only reasion you want the 79 is because you think it looks good which is cool by me I think it's but ugly but that just me:)


The Cant is a wonderful plane but the Sm79 had wider use for a longer period of time and edges us back towards the SCW.  The Cant is the better plane one to one, but the SM79 embodies the Regia Aeronautica better.  Using your logic dear Brady, we'd only fly 163s and 262s.  We'd never fly the P-40B or Hurricane I or A6M2.  The Cant is basically a Sparveiro on 'roids.  Model the SM79 first and use it as base for the Cant and we get both.  It is doubtful HT would model the '79 after the Cant though, you know?

Sakai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #76 on: July 24, 2003, 01:10:41 PM »
Their entirely different Airplanes so you couldent model the Cant on the SM 79.

  All I am saying is that the Cant was in service at the same time, was intended to replace the Sm 79, did so in many units, and is of course the better plane, they both served throught WW2, and since at present this is Just a WW2 sim the argument that the SM 79 was in spain as well doesent hold a lot of watter for me, and were likely to just get one Italian Bomber if were ever in fact get one, I would Just rather have the better Machine than the less capapable one, It would be a better choice for playbalance issues in the CT and the SEA.

 Like I said if your just after the SM 79 because you like it's looks that's cool with me, this debate is realy just a big "what if" anyway were likely never to see either of these planes.

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #77 on: July 24, 2003, 01:32:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
Their entirely different Airplanes so you couldent model the Cant on the SM 79.
 


Really?

All this time I thought they were both derivatives of the Spitfire.

;-)

Saying they don't use the base data from one plane to model another?  

I reckon they likely do, especially for bombers and since there are currently no 3-engined planes available, well . . . .

If you get the Cant, you'll never get the SM79, no they did not have the same service dates, 79 had much broader and earlier service and equipped more Squadriglia early on across a wider range of theatres.

The 79 is, as noted, the most representative craft for the Italian bomber fleet.  As such, I'd take it first.   The Alcione is a fine, fine plane and I would love to see it, but really, why not argue for the Piaggio using your standards for inclusion?  I mean, you're talking the same length of operation as the Alcione and its a far better Buff, why not ask for it?  If "better" is the sole standard, the P108 is your AC--no question.  Can't argue numbers, neither were numerous (110 P108s, 550 Cant Alciones).  I mean, hell, who cares?  Make the 108 and the 79, that's your Axis bomber planeset.  I'd still love the 1007, but later.

The SM79 was built for a decade (1934-1944).  It had far broader use and is the most representative craft of its type in the RA arsenal.  

Brady we know what the planes were, we're simply saying the SM79 is a more representative craft. It has ample capacity, good qualities and it's cool (although the Alcione is also very, very cool looking).  

Sakai
« Last Edit: July 24, 2003, 01:41:24 PM by Sakai »
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #78 on: July 24, 2003, 05:10:00 PM »
Refering to the Cant Z 1007 from the Ali D'Italia seris:

 p.35 "1942..."by now the aircraft formed the backbone of the reconnaissance and bomber units."


 The SM 79 was more numerious espichaly early on in the war , but by 42 this had started to change as evidanced above, the Cants first started operation during the Albaina/Greak Campagine and were in action from their on out in ever incerasing numbers on prety much every front Italy was comited to in some way or another, The P 108 was very limited in it's deployment, and from a CT set up prespective their is prety much no theater that Italy served in that the Cant Z 1007 could not be included in, this is not true for the P 108, and the P 108 is not realy representative of the Italian Bomber units, the SM 79 and the Z 1007 are. The Cant was also in service for longer than the P 108 was, it served with Italy During and way after the war.

 I realy dont want to see Italy saddled with an inferiour type of plane when a clearly better one exists that is just as worthy of inclushion, espichaly since were likely to just get one if we ever in fact get a Buff for Italy. Much like the Curent case with the Japanese plane set and a large number of types modeled for it.


 From Above:

 "After the armistice, the Germans and the allies made use of the Cant Z 1007 howeaver the alies seam to of made greater use of the type suporting operations in Italy and in suport of Titos paratisans. In various forms/ and in varing roles the type saw service untill the end of the war on both sides and the last of it's type was finaly withdrawn from service in November 1949."
« Last Edit: July 24, 2003, 05:13:35 PM by brady »

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #79 on: July 25, 2003, 07:09:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
Refering to the Cant Z 1007 from the Ali D'Italia seris:

 p.35 "1942..."by now the aircraft formed the backbone of the reconnaissance and bomber units."


Well, you have good points Brady but the Italians won't be saddled with an inferior plane, the SM79 was anything but.  The only poor choice for a "first Itai buff modeled" IMO is the Br20 (though I'd like it to be modeled some day).  I would take anything else including the Pipistrello.

The SM79 carried enough ordinance and was credited with sinking/damaging a great number of ships with its Fiume torpedoes.

The SM79 flew on the eastern front through 1944 and the Series III 79s (with 20mm guns) were built and used after the armistice.  

The 108 was only an example of the "bigger is better" argument that often predominates in plane requests.  The problem with the Alcione is that it started to takeover, they wanted it to, but it could not because the productive capacity of Italy did not have the gusto required so 79s were flown through the end of the war.  By the time the Alcione came into bloom, the war was over for Italy and they knew it.   It was designed early enough, but it came online late.  It was a fine plane, but in 1940 well over 50% of all bombers in Italy were SM79s and this percentage probably did not go below 50% through the war much, if at all.  For the three years the Italians were in the war then, most of their bombing capability was handled by SM79s.  

I'd love any new Italian plane, especially an Alcione, I simply think the most representative plane for the Italians was the SM79--this is particularly true given the Mediterranean campaigns shipping needs and the '79s stability and accuracy as a torpedo delivery vehicle.  

If we ever get either an Alcione or SM79, it will be a great day, but I would bet that if we got the SM79 we'd get an Alcione later.  I cannot say I have any hope for the obverse.

Brady, I will go through Dunning's comprehensive piece on the RA this weekend and give you his appraisal.  He writes highly of both AC, noting the technical superiority of the Alcione as do we all, but as far as sorties flown, impact on war effort, I think the 79 likely is the hands down winner.  

Hey, if we get an Alcione, I won't be squeaking, ok?

Sakai
« Last Edit: July 25, 2003, 07:11:26 AM by Sakai »
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #80 on: July 25, 2003, 12:31:47 PM »
The Br20 would be cool, since it could be used in a number of theater's including China, but I would bot want to see it before Either the Cant Z 1007 or the SM 79.

  From Ali D' Italia:

 p.24 "In September 1940 the 172nd Stratigic reconaissance Squadrigilai was deployed to southern Belegum to take part in operations aganst southern England.

 p.18 "The Z 1007 begain it's opertional carier at the end of 1939"
   
    These were the early models which did not see service, and were used for training so when the 'bis" became available they were ready to go.

 In late July 1940 the 50th Gruppo, begain to receave it's first bis models.

 In October 1940 and then in Febuary 41 Two full Gruppo were active in Greace.

 Later the entire 41st Stormo was commited to operation is Greace equiped with the Cant's, and a futher Gruppo the 41st and the 95th.

 Now this is in the very Beging of the war and their numbers increased of course as the war progresed, and SM 79 units converted to the type as more planes became available.


  I would be happy to see any new plane for Italy although I would be disapointed to see the SM 79 instead of the Cant Z 1007 because I would be fairly shure we would never see the Cant, or it would be a long time coming. FOr whats it wort I wish you luck in geting your favorate plane though:)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2003, 12:46:03 PM by brady »

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #81 on: July 25, 2003, 12:45:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
For whats it wort I wish you luck in getting your favorite plane though:)


Well, my "favorite" plane would likely be a Gloster gladiator or Fiat CR42.

I also think we need an He-111, Pe-2 and early Jap twin.  Start of War Russian fighters would also be nice.  As it is we simply cannot do an early eastern front scenario.  

akai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #82 on: July 25, 2003, 12:46:08 PM »
SM-79 Sparviero (Sparrow Hawk)[/size]

It was the most important Italian bomber of World War II, this tough three-engined aircraft established a reputation that contrasted with most Italian weapons of the day, and it was flown with courage and skill. SM.79s served widely in the normal bombing role; but it is as a land-based torpedo bomber that the type deserves its place in military aviation history, being regarded by many as one of the finest torpedo bombers of the war.

The prototype appeared in late 1934 and subsequently had a varied career, setting records and winning races with various engines and painted in civil or military markings. The basic design continued the company's tradition of mixed construction with steel tubes light alloy wood and fabric (this being the only way to produce in quantity with available skills and tools); but compared with other designs it had a much more highly loaded wing which demanded long airstrips,

The prototype SM.79 had flown on 2 September 1935, powered by three 750 hp AlfaRomeo 125 RC.34 engines, and so following the Regia Aeronautica's preferred tri-motor formula. About 1,300 production models were built over a nine year period. They had internal provision for 2,750 lb (1,250 kg) of bombs, supplemented by under fuselage racks for a pair of heavy bombs, or two torpedoes in the case of the SM.79-II and SM.79-III.

The SM.79 had a distinctive 'hump' on the upper forward fuselage, which housed both the fixed forward-firing heavy machine-gun and the dorsal gunner's position. Its appearance earned the aircraft the nickname 'Gobbo Maleditto' ('Damned Hunchback'). In spite of its cumbersome appearance and outdated steel tube/wood/fabric construction, the S.M.79 was a rugged, reliable multi-role medium bomber which did quite a bit of damage in the face of heavy opposition.

Developed from a civil airliner, the first Sparvieros entered service with the Regia Aeronautica in late 1936, just in time to fly combat over Spain with the Aviacion Legionaria, the Italian contingent fighting in support of the Nationalists. The SM.79-I established an excellent reputation in combat with the Aviacion Legionaria in Spain in 1936-1939. Its performance drew favorable comments from both sides, leading to a succession of export orders. The SM.79-I served with the Italian Aviazione Legionaria in support of Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

In October 1939 the Regia Aeronautica began to receive the 79-II with 745.2 kW (1,000 hp) Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines (one batch had the Fiat A.80 of similar power) and this was the dominant version in action subsequently. About 1,200 served with the Regia Aeronautica including a handful of the III sub-type with forward-firing 20 mm cannon and no ventral gondola.

 
The SM.79 had a distinctive 'hump' on the upper forward fuselage. Its appearance earned the aircraft the nickname 'Gobbo Maleditto' ('Damned Hunchback').  [/i]


When Italy joined the war in 1940 its air force had nearly 1,000 bombers, of which well over half were Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 Sparviero (Hawk) medium bombers. These trimotors, were thought by many to be among the best land-based torpedo bombers of the war. They could carry 1,250 kg (2,750 lb) of bombs internally or two torpedoes. Also active as a medium bomber around the Mediterranean and on anti-ship duties was the Cant Z.1007bis Alcione (Kingfisher) ,production of which began in 1939. It also was a trimotor, powered by 1,000 hp Piaggio radials, and it carried four machine guns for self-defence as well as up to 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) of bombs or two torpedoes.

In the summer of 1942, Allied efforts to relieve beleaguered Malta culminated in 'Operation Pedestal', when 14 merchantmen with heavy Royal Navy escort left Gibraltar on August 10. Among the enemy aircraft sent against them were 74 Sparvieri (Sparrow Hawks), a number of which had already scored hits on the battleship HMS Malaya and the carrier HMS Argus. 'Pedestal' eventually got through to Malta, but at the cost of one carrier, two cruisers, a destroyer and nine merchant ships, many of them having been hit by torpedoes from the S.M.79s.

The more powerful SM.79-II served in North Africa, the Balkans, and Mediterranean during the Second World War, while other units called Aerosiluranti (aerial torpedoes) pioneered use of these large fast bombers in the anti-shipping role. When the Italians surrendered on September 8,1943, it did not end the combat record of the SM.79, and a new version, the SM.79-III torpedo-bomber, was placed in production by the RSI, the fascist government in northern Italy.

An effective torpedo bomber as well, the S.M.79 served in the air forces of Brazil, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Romania and Spain, some right up to the end of the war. The Romanians flew them on the Russian front from 1941 to 1944, an unprecedented record for an aircraft designed in the early 1930s. Though known as a tri-motor, several versions were built as twin-engined aircraft using a number of different powerplants, including Junkers Jumo 211 D 1,220 hp inlines. Regardless of the version, its handling pleased most pilots and its ability to come home with extensive damage endeared it even more. Used throughout North Africa and the Mediterranean until the Italian surrender in September 1943, the Sparviero remained flying with both the Italian cobelligerent forces fighting alongside the Allies and the surviving pro-Nazi units.

About 100 were exported to Brazil Iraq and Romania - all of the twin-engined S.M. 79B variety. Romania built the 79JR under license with two 894 kW (1,200 hp) Junkers Jumo 211Da liquid-cooled engines. These were used in numbers on the Eastern Front; initially as bombers with visual aiming position in the nose and subsequently mainly as utility transports.

Post-war surviving SM.79s were converted into various versions of utility transports during the last phases of the war and survived in that role until 1952.

http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html



« Last Edit: July 25, 2003, 12:49:32 PM by Arlo »

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #83 on: July 25, 2003, 12:49:37 PM »
Ya I would love to see a Gladator and a CR 42, and your right the Earlest Planes we had for the Stalangrad set up in the CT were lend lease British planes, non of the Soviet planes in our plane set (other than the Il-2) were their, It would be realy nice to see some early Rusian planes like an I-16 for example.

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #84 on: July 25, 2003, 12:53:19 PM »
Arlo, is it me or has this hapened before?:)


 Well that is a very nice read on that plane but it doesent say why the SM 79 was not as good as the Z 1007.

Now If we look at the capabalities of the two we soon see the following, The Cant Z 1007 was:

Faster: Top speed aprox 10 to 30 mph faster than the SM 79(depending on model)

Climb Rate: Cant Z 1007 climber initialy aprox 500 ft per minute faster than the SM 79.

Z 1007 initial climb rate aprox.1, 550 ft/min.

SM 79 initial climb rate:1,150ft/min(typical)

Range: The Cant Z 1007 had aprox. twice the range as the SM 79. SM 79 aprox 1,243 miles Cant Z 1007 aprox. 3,100 miles.

Defensive Arament:Both had a very simmilar defensive package, two 12.7mm and two 7.7mm guns, the 12.7mm being dorsal and ventral guns and the 7.7mm beams guns. The SM 79 howeaver on some models had a 12.7mm fixed firing ahead.

Bomb load, the Cant Z 1007 could cary a larger bombload.

SM 79 aprox2,640 pounds(later models) or Two 450mm torpedos.

Cant Z 1007 aprox. 4,410 pounds internaly, alternatively two 1,000 pound torpedos and 4 bombs up to 551lb on under wing racks.

So in conclushion the Cant Z 1007 is Faster,Climbs Faster, Has Twice the range, and Twice the Bomb Load and is as well defended, also In torpedo mode it not only has the same torpload but can cary Four 500 pound bombs at the same time.

 :)

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #85 on: July 25, 2003, 01:10:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
Arlo, is it me or has this hapened before?:)


OK you two mooks, can it.

The 79 is not as technically adept as is the Cant, no way around that,  But Brady, the 79 is the representative plane of its type for the RA.

I-16 Brady, aye but also LaGG-3 and Mig-3.  Il-4 wouldn't hurt either.

I tell you what, I went to NAS Pensacola museum and I would love to see all those 1930s Bipes modeled, they were the coolest planes there (although teh SBDs were wonderful).  

Sakai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #86 on: July 25, 2003, 01:58:09 PM »
Ya Me to, I would love to see some Biplanes added.

 I dont argee on the representative part I beleave that both realy are equily representitave, considering the importance with which the RA held the Z 1007 and It's service record.

 I respect your effort at medation saki but I am prety set in my openion on this issue.:)

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #87 on: July 25, 2003, 02:10:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
I respect your effort at medation saki but I am prety set in my openion on this issue.:)


Well, it's easy to get behind the 1007, it's a great plane and seeing as how the Italians built so few planes anyways it isn't hindered in the "contribution to effort" manner in the same way as the small numbers of 177s do the German plane debate.

Sakai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #88 on: July 25, 2003, 03:10:17 PM »
OMG dont get me started on the he 177 isue and how we nead it more than the He 111:)

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007
« Reply #89 on: July 25, 2003, 03:24:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by brady
OMG dont get me started on the he 177 isue and how we nead it more than the He 111:)


No no no, we need more spitfires first.

;-)

Sakai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."