Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: brady on September 27, 2002, 10:34:49 AM
-
Their are realy only two bombers worth serious consideration for Italy, both saw service throught the war with Italy, and with the exception of the BoB both saw service in every theater Italy faught in( I am not 100% shure the SM 79 was in Russia though).
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.
Cant Z 1007:
-
How about SM 82 "Canguru" or SM 84 ?
-
what about Fiat Br-20 Cicogna.
it was in Bo'B
(http://www.vvs-regia-avions.com/Regia/Br20-005.jpg)
-
How about the P-108 or something like that?
It was a 4 engine bomber
-
"SM 82 "Canguru" or SM 84 "
The SM 82 was rarely used as a bomber mostly as a transport.
The SM 84 realy has no preformance advantage over the Cant Z 1007 and suffered from a number of handeling issues and was fairely rare by comparision.
"In 1940, the Regia Aeronautica received a new addition to its bomber force, the SM.84, that was designed to replace the SM.79, but which never succeeded in equaling the performance of its illustrious predecessor. This was principally due to its lack of maneuverability, making it anything but ideal in the role of torpedo-bomber, and due to the general lack of reliability of its Piaggio P.XI engines."*
"Br-20 Cicogna:"
While in it's day this early Italian Buff was a good one, by the time WW2 started it was quiet obseleate, and the Cant Z 1007 is markedly supiour in Virtualy every catagory you would look at comparing the two.
The P 108: Truly a great Bomber, but unfortunatley not representave of what Italy had in the field and an extreamly rare bird, very few were made and their area of operation as limited as their service.
Over all the Cant Z 1007 and the SM 79 saw more service on all fronts and were for various reasions more suxcessfull than their counterparts, this is a stong point for arguing their inclushion they fit into a wider number of CT and special events because of this. Now out of the two the Cant Z 1007 as we see above clearly as the preformance edge, which would even make it usefull in the MA.
* taken from this sight:
http://www.comandosupremo.com/Air3.html
-
If Brady's info is accurate (no reason to think it isn't), then the SM.79 carries less bombs than some fighters. Not too useful in the MA and worse than the Ju-88 for CT purposes.
I still think a Ju-52 or some sort of Japanese transport (preferably all 3) should be a priority though as either would see more use than another bomber since we have a total of 1 transport in AH right now, but since this thread is about Itialian bobmers I guess I'd vote for the Cant Z 1007
J_A_B
-
I dont think brady quite gets the point about Italian planes yet. The SM79 is by far the cooler looking plane and must be included. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I dont think brady quite gets the point about Italian planes yet. The SM79 is by far the cooler looking plane and must be included. :D
Thats the best reason so far...... that, and I dig chicks with humps....
:D
Tronsky
-
LOL, funy I gues I must be wierd I get good wood when I look at my Cant Z 1007 centerfold, the SM 79 leaves me wanting:)
-
Aren't there any usefull italian bombers??
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Aren't there any usefull italian bombers??
Didn't I say the SM79 looks really cool?
-
Usefull...Well The Cant Z 1007 caries a bigger bombload than a B 26, and or two Torpedos and two K of bombs sounds prety usefull to me.
Also in any set up for the Ct or special event the availabality of an Italian Bomber would add much, espichaly one whith it's bomb load It caries over twice as much as the curent early war Allied buff the Boston, and has a much better defensive package.
-
Woops Just fopund out that the Cant Z 1007 did indead fight in the BoB, aslo found out that . Ali d'Italia 18, has come out a great series and if this one is like the rest a very detailed acount of this awsome Italian Buff, Possably holding enough data, and Images for HTC to do us a model of the Cant Z 1007.
-
Are they all Italian planes? they look alike the MC.79
-
Not realy, other than those that have three engines, and even they are vastly different in their lines.
Cant Z 1007:
-
Originally posted by brady
The P 108: Truly a great Bomber, but unfortunatley not representave of what Italy had in the field and an extreamly rare bird, very few were made and their area of operation as limited as their service.
Over all the Cant Z 1007 and the SM 79 saw more service on all fronts and were for various reasions more suxcessfull than their counterparts, this is a stong point for arguing their inclushion they fit into a wider number of CT and special events because of this. Now out of the two the Cant Z 1007 as we see above clearly as the preformance edge, which would even make it usefull in the MA.
I was afraid someone was going to say something like that.
The cant would be fine ;) but the P-108 would be more fun in the MA.
P.S.: And the SM79 would give us another hunchback :D
-
Ya it would, It is realy a cool plane.
-
The real question isn't What Italian bomber should be modeled but When andIF we'll see one before release 2.@:D
-
I gues you could say it's a LONG Shot:)
-
hopefully you'll get one...along with a G.55 or such. The 205 is certainly an outstanding mid war bird. you'd actually have a pretty decent scenario set with just the 202/205 and a nice tactical bomber. Especially if you were looking at a p-40, hurricane, spit V/IX with Bostons/A20's on allied side.
-
Yes or better yet an Re 2000 series somthing, so you could have a Jabo capabality, that would be very nice indead a Cant Z 1007 the Machis we already have and an Re 2000 series Jabo, mabe a MC 200 thrown in for a little collor:)
-
Why no Cant Z ? Well... I think because its one UGLY plane with a capital Uuuggggg. ;)
-
I am not ammused:)
I realy like it's lines best looking Italian buf imo:)
-
Cant Z 1007 is an art-deco streamlining masterpiece (except for the tail braces). off the top of my head i cant think of a WWII combat plane w/ equal beauty except maybe early P-38s
-
Bahhhh... Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the French make good food, a fine wine, and that their aircraft are the most beautiful things to grace the sky ! :p
*taps foot impatiently waiting for Straffo to show up*
-
GOD MODE ON
I'm your father Vermillion ! :p
took me only about 14 minutes ;)
and now I've my food messed over my keyboard :D
-
What? A 25, make 26, replies thread about those two ugly butt italian bombers? ;)
Sorry Brady, I still prefer the SM79 :) Its so cool ... moreover you should read some after action reports of those aircrews and the way they attacked Royal Navy convoys ...
-
Well My Ali d'Italia 18 is on the way as I type should be hear this week:), I will have a few private moments with it I am shure:)
-
bah Straffo, your way too pretty to be my father you sissy french boy !!! (and silly to boot !!) :p just kidding
My father was a jack booted beer swilling sausage devouring Prussian drill sergeant. ;) (actually my great grandfather, but close enough).
To be honest, none of the Italian bombers is going to be good for much more than "waving the flag" for Italians in scenarios and other special events. But if we had one, I like the cleaner lines, and more interesting camo schemes of the SM79. :)
-
I dont know Vermillion, thats a prety usefull load on the Cant Z 1007 ( little biger than a B 26, and way bigger than a Ki 67) and those torpedos shure would be usefull, If your going to go you might as well go in stile:)
-
I want to "wave a little french flag" :)
either with a D520 or with a Yak3 / P63 / P39 / Spit IX
-
D 520 would be nice, very nice.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I want to "wave a little french flag" :)
either with a D520 or with a Yak3 / P63 / P39 / Spit IX
<---- Drools thinking of a D520 in AH
Un Dewoitine 520 pour AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
-
WOOO HOOO, My Brand spanking New Hot off the presses Ali D'Italia 18 C.R.D.A. Cant Z 1007 came yesterday. Like all in this series it is a great book, very informative, and filled with a ton of great picks, interiour ones as well showing all the gun positions and and crew positions, detailed drawings of the aircraft and turets as well. It also covers the remakable history of this amasing plane in great detail.
Some Quotes from this Volume:
p.9 "The cant Z 1007 apears to be the most advanced Italian landplane bomber wrote the Air Staff Office( on 3 Augast 1938)"
p.11 " Magor Giuseppe Colavolpe, commandor of the 1st Flying unit, described the handeling qualities as excellent and satisfactory under every aspect."
p.11 "On 12th Augast 1939, the Air Staff Office informed Gabaereo that the preformance recorded placed the type very clearly ahead of the SM 79."
p.11" Since the Cant Z 1007bis has been shown to have better preformance than all other Standard Bomber aircraft currently in service, and in the event that such results be sanctioned by practial experience with service units{they were}, it will presumably be necessary to orient future orders towards this aircraft type."
p.22 "upon entering service the Cant Z 1007bis immedately showed qualities that endeared it to it's crews- docile handeling, stable platform, good low speed characteristics."
p.22 " bombs were well placed, making for predictable trajectories that inproved accuracery."
P.22 "Defensive arament was also found adaquate to keep enemy fighters at bay."
p.22 " wooden structure extreamly strong"
p.26 " the gradual increase in of the Cant Z 1007bis production rate translated into greater availabaility, which in turn allowed sereral SM 79 units to convert onto the new bomber."
p.35 "1942..."by now the aircraft formed the backbone of the reconnaissance and bomber units."
p.37 " Lt Vittorio Sanseverino, a veteran of the 256th squadrigilia, testifies that the 1007 could take great punishment and was not easily set on fire."
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.
-
I really don't care, just an Italian PLANE
-
I'd still vote for the Pe 1008. Production numbers or service use are not a factor in deciding an AC's inclusion in AH....see Ostie and C Hog numbers IRL for two glaring examples.
And, of course a Re 2005 for escort :D
-
who needs crappy italian planes, bring me the Helldiver
-
Hmmm, drives a railroad tie through my udet doll.:)
-
Punt? :D
-
Damn, you would think Brady had stock in the plane the way he is pushing it! :D
Brady!
-
Somewone douge it up and punted it.
Frankely I have run the emotional gamet of plane hoping to the point whear I am over it, What is that cheasey Doris Day song, been watching Hitchcock movies again, What ever Shal Be , Shal be.
-
I would like to see an Italian plane or French. Everyone is pushing for Me-410s and Ki-84s when Italy has by far the least amount of planes (oh yeah, VVS comes close)
-
I don't really want to say punt but..................punt
-
Kevin, plese stop punting this HTC might get pissed and lock it or somthing, just creat a link to it on your sig like i did then people can view it if the wish, I looked up a buch of stuff for this thread I would to be able to refrence it in the future.
-
Originally posted by udet
who needs crappy italian planes, bring me the Helldiver
Now THAT'S a crappy plane...Many of my Navy friends flew the Helldiver, and they all hated it. But I dosn't matter, we dont have to work on the "leaker"...As for Italian planes, why not? And the Leaker too...and the ju-52, and the ME410, and and and...I got an Idea! why dont we have a plane building contest for CT? Im guessing HT would be happy to put it in the arena, provided it was up to snuff...what ya think?XXX,Duke
-
Other people have sugested this be done as well, i dont know why they dont this or if they ever will, I am not shure if HTC has comented on it one way or another...
-
in order that this post remains in notice i add this link about SM 79
that is my bomber-dream :D
SM 79 pic & history and Details (http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html)
(http://www.6floor.ru/gotta/images/sm79/savgrup.jpg)
-
Originally posted by bigjava
in order that this post remains in notice i add this link about SM 79
that is my bomber-dream :D
SM 79 pic & history and Details (http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html)
(http://www.6floor.ru/gotta/images/sm79/savgrup.jpg)
you mean nightmare?! ;)
-
Savoia-Marchetti SM.79
Italy
(http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79-2.jpg)
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. [/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.
(http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79-3.jpg)
The SM.79 had a distinctive 'hump' on the upper forward fuselage. Its appearance earned the aircraft the nickname 'Gobbo Maleditto' ('Damned Hunchback'). [/size]
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/sm79-1.jpg)
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. Surviving SM.79s were converted into transports during the last phases of the war, serving in that role until the early 1950s. [/size]
Specifications: [/size]
------------------------------------------
Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 Sparviero
------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 69 ft 6 1/2 in (21.2 m)
Length: 53 ft 1 3/4 in (16.2m)
Height: 13 ft 5.5 in (4.1 m)
------------------------------------------
Weights:
Empty: 16,755 lb (7,600 kg)
Operational: 24,192 lb (11,300 kg)
------------------------------------------
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 270 mph (434 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 23,000 ft (7,000 m)
Range: 1,243 miles (2,000 km)
------------------------------------------
Powerplant: [/i]
Powered by three 559 kW (750 hp) Alfa-Romeo 126 RC.34 radials. Later three Piaggio P.XI RC40 1,000 hp 14-cylinder radial. 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.
------------------------------------------
Armament: [/i]
It carried a 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun firing ahead from the roof of the cockpit humpback that enabled bullets to clear the nose propeller; a second firing to the rear from the hump; a third aimed down and to the rear from the gondola under the rear fuselage; and often a 7.7 mm firing from each beam window. this needing a crew of at least five. The bombardier occupied the gondola with his legs projecting down in two retractable tubes during the bombing run. Up to 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) of bombs were carried in an internal bay; alternatively two 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedoes could be hung externally.
http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html
And the most important reason why the Sparrowhawk is the better choice .....
drumroll please ......
It flew in SPAIN![/b]
:D
-
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.
I am not looking to get laid in the plane just go bomb the H!ll somthing, I dont care what it looks like, but thats easy for me to say I think the Sm 79 is kina ugly, and the Z 1007 is sleak and sexy, I even have some pictures bove my bed, used to piss my GF off she keep saying I loved it more than her.:)
-
Originally posted by brady
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.
You're right, it doesn't say "why the SM79 was not as good as the z1007." It shows that the 79 is good enough. You already know the "uber is better" argument never impressed me much. :D
10 to 30 mph faster? No big deal, actually.
500 more ft per min? Again, so what?
Range of over 3,000 miles? AH overkill.
On some models the 79 had a 12.7 fixed. So what? On some it had a 20mm. Still ... so what?
The Z1007 bombload was 1100 kg ... only 100 kg more.
I made the most important reason really really big so you wouldn't miss it and you still did. ;) :D
-
Twice the 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.
The fuel load being twice as large means you can take less from the hanger and get better preformance.
You know Arlo you kinda come across as being a salamander sometimes.
-
And about a third of the production of the SM-79.
Sorry your feelings are gettin' hurt but hey, I don't agree. "Uber" shouldn't be the first consideration when modeling a plane in AH. Especially when you're focusing on the MA which already has bombers that outclass both of the Italian models we're discussing.
Now there's some gaps need fillin' ... and who knows ... maybe someday after the fourth or fifth patch of AHII is out, HTC will consider fillin' `em in. But if the current models are plugged in first, then the remainder needs to be:
1: Something that fills in the gaps for a country's planeset that will help historically based events gain more latitude.
2: Common enough to be used in virtually any campaign.
3: Not the bestest best of it's class if it can be avoided. Work up to that. Introduce something that will get as much use in older setups as it will later war ones. But if the choice comes between one that's slightly more "uber" than the other ... go with the "other" so players will be more prone to try them and discover their strengths and continue to use them once the "more uber" variant or model is added.
It kinda falls into the difference in how the Navy and the Air Force build their air bases. The Navy will build the runways, hangars, tower, fuel farm, supply, etc ... first ... and then when it comes to the e-club and stuff, if they run short of funds, tough chit. The Air Force will build the E and O clubs, the theater, the pool, the chowhall ... then when they run short of funds for the runways, hangar, tower, etc ... hell yeah, they'll get it.
Hold back on the uber ... it'll come with time. ;)
I know you don't either understand or agree with this philosophy. But I do and I'll bring it up everytime it looks like it needs to be. :D
-
I realy dont think this machine (either of them) would see much if any use in the MA, The places it would be used would be in event's or in the CT and both would fit in any scenario that could include Italian Aircraft, and the Z 1007 did see contunied service after the surender in 43 with the allies.
At this point as I illuded to above, I realy dont expect to see this machine, or any buff for Italy, in the near future...year maybe, if then. Frankely whatever hope I had for this has morfed into apathy.
You are right wanting a less capable machine to fill the role for the only Italian bomber were ever likely to see is not somthing I am going to back.
The Cant Z. 1007 was intended to replace SM 79 units and many converted to it during the war. Production simply did meat demand.
We also know that production numbers are not a criteria for inclushion or exclushion in AH.
From,Ali D'Italia 18 C.R.D.A. Cant Z 1007:
Some Quotes from this Volume:
p.9 "The cant Z 1007 apears to be the most advanced Italian landplane bomber wrote the Air Staff Office( on 3 Augast 1938)"
p.11 " Magor Giuseppe Colavolpe, commandor of the 1st Flying unit, described the handeling qualities as excellent and satisfactory under every aspect."
p.11 "On 12th Augast 1939, the Air Staff Office informed Gabaereo that the preformance recorded placed the type very clearly ahead of the SM 79."
p.11" Since the Cant Z 1007bis has been shown to have better preformance than all other Standard Bomber aircraft currently in service, and in the event that such results be sanctioned by practial experience with service units{they were}, it will presumably be necessary to orient future orders towards this aircraft type."
p.22 "upon entering service the Cant Z 1007bis immedately showed qualities that endeared it to it's crews- docile handeling, stable platform, good low speed characteristics."
p.22 " bombs were well placed, making for predictable trajectories that inproved accuracery."
P.22 "Defensive arament was also found adaquate to keep enemy fighters at bay."
p.22 " wooden structure extreamly strong"
p.26 " the gradual increase in of the Cant Z 1007bis production rate translated into greater availabaility, which in turn allowed sereral SM 79 units to convert onto the new bomber."
p.35 "1942..."by now the aircraft formed the backbone of the reconnaissance and bomber units."
p.37 " Lt Vittorio Sanseverino, a veteran of the 256th squadrigilia, testifies that the 1007 could take great punishment and was not easily set on fire."
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.
-
Originally posted by brady
I realy dont think this machine (either of them) would see much if any use in the MA,
The 1007 was a terrific plane by all accounts.
The Italian planes carried up to two torpedos (although handling was impaired in the 79 with that load)--likely they would get some use.
We ned one desparately. As well as the Gloster Gladiator.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by brady
You are right wanting a less capable machine to fill the role for the only Italian bomber we're ever likely to see is not somthing I am going to back.
Problem is .... and I've seen it mentioned time and again (by you, as well, if I'm not mistaken) .... if the "uber" model gets modeled first then one of the main excuses used to not model the other one is the existance of the uber model.
Your being CT staff, I'm surprised you're not an advocate for getting both of these modeled. How many times have all of us cringed when a plane had to be subbed for another because the game didn't offer the historically correct model?
I'd like to stay optimistic about things and hope that after AHII is released and debugged more aircraft (and even vehicles) will get modeled. Having the IJ and Italian gaps filled (as well as others) can only help the game (whether we're talking TOD, CT, whatever). But if the models selected are done so with only an "uber" mentality .... that same mentality will end up the excuse to not bother with the other models. Models which probably serve to fill in the historical gaps better than the uber ones do.
And if that isn't enough ... there's player preference to be considered. There are lot's of AH players now wondering why the Billy Mitchell was never modeled. It's been said that the B-26 "is similar enough" or "better" so what's the point. The point is what I said earlier. Subbing sucks. Same would go for the SM-79. What I'm seeing more and more of here are players that would prefer to see the Sparviero modeled ... uber be damned. I bet these same players would gladly back the Z1007 once they get their "first draft pick."
:D
-
Both were in service during the same time throught the war, and saw service prety much in all the same areas, so subbing is not realy an issue. Unlees of course as a matter of personal preferance one simply likes the SM 79 better, then their screwed or could be as in the case of the B25, Kate vs Jill, ect, but in this case it is not a time of service or place of service question, since as i stated both were in use during the whole war, the Z 1007 was simply the better model and was as i mentioned intended to replace the SM 79 but production dident catch up in time so the SM 79 soldiered on.
I am trying to be somewhat realistic in my hopes for the future in terms of modeling by picking just one, and granted I am being a bit of a dreamer in just wanting this one buff, I cant imagine them doing both of these.
-
Why i prefer the SM79 called by pilots "il gobbo" (the hunchbacked): it's moore GOODLOOKING only that
it's my only reason :D
Brady says true writing the CantZ is the best:
the italians Heavy bombers structure was composed mainly by 3 plane all three engined:
the SM79, the Cantz1007 and the Fiat Br-20 .
all that plane have worked durin all wwII and on every front-line even in spain war.( 40 Br-20 had figth with jap flags even in the pacific front).
1) THE SPEED
cantz-1007-bis 278mph
sm 79 267mph
Br 20 291mph
as said above the cantZ was faster than the 79 but not so much
2) THE RANGE with full loads of bombs
cantz-1007-bis 794.88 miles
sm 79 1242 miles
Br 20 1708 miles
The CantZ was able to have a range over 3,000 miles only whitout bombs.... carring fuel instead Bombs
3) CLIMB RATE ON TAKE OFF
cantz-1007-bis 472 m/min = 1548 ft/min
sm 79 350 m/min = 1148 ft/min
Br 20 275 m/min = 902 ft/min
Here tha CantZ is largely the king!
4) BOMBS
cantz-1007-bis 3000 kg = 6600 Lb
sm 79 2000 kg = 4400 Lb
Br 20 2500 kg = 5500 Lb
also there the cantZ is a king able to carry 2000Kg inside + 4 X 250kg on wings and as Brady says the drop's mechanism was moore efficent on the 1007 making sure a better precision-drop.
Cantz was more manovrable both at low altitude and higth,
a litle more strong, and rather arming.
As i wrote i like so much the SM-79 that the pic i had post is my deam .
I put also the link at the main page where i took the pic only for consuetude.
i would't produce a discussion about what is so clear :
Cantz is better than SM-79 ;)
i'm proud and happy to listen Brady speeking whit a great knowledge about italian air force.
but i'm so romantic that if they get me a SM-79 i will be moore happy than CantZ , but CantZ will made me satisfy too
BUT AT LEAST GIVE ME ONE PLZ!!!:D
-
Well, hopefully we can eveuntaily both get our Dream:)
-
Z.1018 Leone? So what if only ~20 examples where made. ;)
-
Ya, it a sweat ride, but I think only one or two actualy made it to a operational unit, I have the Ali'D'Italia book on it to.
-
Just figured with so many latter war rides it might be more survivable. Dunno maybe a Z.1007 ter then?
-
Cant Z.1018 Leone
(http://r1329776.hostultra.com/Uploads/CantZ1007)
tnx Nacho for hosting this pic... :)
-
A great looking plane to be shure.
Their was a planed Night fighter vershion of it as well, with some serious firepower.
-
made out of wood, BB's for guns short range sounds like a target for sure... Well it would be ok for the hurri and spit 1's and all the other planes that have BB guns
-
It's not a realy MA plane, be about as surviable as a JU 88, it has better guns though, the two 12.7mm would be Better than the 7.9's of the JU 88. It was preportedly a very tough plane, just because it's made of wood doesent mean it's week, the Mossie is a woden plane and it's prety tough. Be a good event and CT plane though.
-
Forget about the MA. The MA isn't an issue. Every side gets Lancs and B-17s in the MA. ;0)
(Holds up watch and gently swings it back and forth)
""The Spanish Civil War would be awesome. Uberbipes would be awesome. Planes that fought in the Spanish Civil War would be fun! Spain is fun! Think of it as the opening shots of WWII in Europe. The Sparviero would be fun. The Sparviero was in Spain. A Spanish CT setup would be fun! It would bring new blood! Italian planes fought in Spain. But not the Cant. The Sparviero. The Sparviero. And the Chirri. Those would be fun! It would be historical gameplay that doesn't hurt! It would be fun! FUN! FUN! FUN!."
When I snap my fingers you will awaken and have a strong urge to promote the Sparviero. And just as strong an urge to promote a Spanish Civil War planeset. You will recruit as many of your friends as possible to help you with this worthy endevour. You will also want to send Arlo one of each of the products offered in the Aces High merchandise. And to pay his AH account for six months.
*SNAP*
:D
-
LOL:)
-
Oooooooookay. from what i real, Arlo wants practical, brady wants uber.
Go practicality! gimme the SM-79, it also looks so much better ;)
-
Originally posted by brady
It's not a realy MA plane, be about as surviable as a JU 88, it has better guns though, the two 12.7mm would be Better than the 7.9's of the JU 88. It was preportedly a very tough plane, just because it's made of wood doesent mean it's week, the Mossie is a woden plane and it's prety tough. Be a good event and CT plane though.
I don't know about you, but I see Ju88s up all the time in the MA. My squad flies them regularly. I see them more often than I do B26s.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Forget about the MA. The MA isn't an issue. Every side gets Lancs and B-17s in the MA. ;0)
(Holds up watch and gently swings it back and forth)
When I snap my fingers you will awaken and have a strong urge to promote the Sparviero.
Anyone can want a Sparveiro, real men want "Tante Jus" and the Pipistrello.
Sakai
-
Ok guy's from what I understand what with global warming and HTC's productiopn schedual were not going to see another new plane in AH untill way after H!ll actually freazes over, and that aint going to hapen anythime soon, So I will be brief, all that toejam I said aboce about why the Cant Z 1007 is better is why it's better, if you all dont want to read all that I can understand:) I just dont have it in me to rehash all this agin:)
-
with all due respect, good brady, we arent asking you to tell us how much 'better' it is, we don't want the SM79 because we think it's performance is better, and we don't care. We want the SM79 because #1. it's an italian bomber, so is the Cant, but the SM79 looks a helluva lot more fun, plus we need early war becasue the TOD starts out... in the early war!
-
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:)
If I remember corectly TOD is suposed to start of in Europe in 44/45, or so I read, but they may of changed their planes.
-
Poll:
Sm79 - X
or
Cant -
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
-
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
-
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:)
-
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
-
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.
(http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79-3.jpg)
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
(http://www.constable.ca/sm79.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
:)
-
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
-
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.:)
-
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
-
OMG dont get me started on the he 177 isue and how we nead it more than the He 111:)
-
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
-
lol:)
-
Originally posted by brady
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. [/color]
(Snip uber specification argument)
:)
Yeah ... and I said this:
"You're right, it doesn't say "why the SM79 was not as good as the z1007." It shows that the 79 is good enough. You already know the "uber is better" argument never impressed me much.
(Snip rest of my retort approximating to "So what?")" :D
Uber ain't the end all and be all of a reason to select one model over the other. If that was the case, then Aces High only needs less than a dozen models period (if that many). ;)
A total of 560 Cant 1007s were built. The final production version ended in 1943 ... it's operational status ended in `46. Over 1300 SM-79s were built .. it's production also ended in 1943 .... but it's operational life extended into the `50s. Which belies the claim of some sources that the Cant succeeded in replacing and phasing out the SM-79. That may have been the intent ... but obviously not the end result. I know what you'll say to numbers but it really only relates to your insistance that the Alcione kicked the Sparviero to the bench and became the first string torpedo bomber of Italy .... when, in fact, it didn't.
"Regardless of the version, its (the SM-79's) handling pleased most pilots and its ability to come home with extensive damage endeared it even more."
http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html
The Sparviero is especially remembered for the excellent torpedo actions in the Med carried out by 132 Gruppo A.S. led by Capitan Buscaglia from `41-`42. During those actions Bucaglia's group managed to sink the destroyers Husky, Jaguar, Kujavik II and Southwall. They also managed to heavily damage the battleship Malaya and the carriers Indomitable, Victorious and Eagle.
History and heroic deeds often make the difference in the overall community's preference in aircraft modeling.
Speaking of history. Here's a very interesting read I ran across when researching the Sparviero (you may enjoy it):
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/9601/corradini.html
-
While I can certainly understand wanting a plane that you feal is cooler for what ever reasion, I cant get behind backing a leser preforming plane espichaly in a situation like this one whear they were both in service at the same time and the Allied plane set their to be set aganst has the best preformers from their stable for the same time perioud.
-
Like I've said before, time and again .... if performance statistics (from sources that vary) is all that counts toward modeling aircraft for Aces High, then it needs to be cut down, not added to. ;)
-
gonna break a rib with all that chest beatin, is why i just gave up after i figured out how 'persistant' brady is being. ;)
-
Well I thik your missing the point her Arlo (and I feal antagonestic only because I want to bait you into extending this debate till we reach the centuary mark)....LOL:), If Italty is going to get just one bomber why make it somthing thats a lesser machine when their are two equily as addable for the same time frame, it will just add to the balance inequaity that exists in the Allied Axis plane set for this perioud, presently it's primary antagonast in the bomber catagory is the Boston, although we could get a Wellington I supose.
-
Whyyyy we like the Sm79? because it has the sleek, gracefull looks of a mini or a honda civic, and it looks a heck of a lot more fun to fly, and hopefully our version will have a 20mm, and.. and..]
Wanna bet HTC isnt reading this anymore?
-
I dont think they have read any of this thread except maybe the first few post's which were done a long time ago, I am prety shure they note with some interest the wants of the players but only to a point and they cant realy give us what we want and an Italian bomber is prety low on the we got do it totem pole, most debates like this are simply somthing for us players to do, another aspect of the game if you will.
-
Just so long as it doesnt matter.. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
History and heroic deeds often make the difference in the overall community's preference in aircraft modeling.
Very true, thats why we need the Gladiator and Swordfish (incidentally may have some relevance to this post - as it outserved its intended successor, and supposedly higher performance Albacore)
-
SM-79 carried only one torpedo in combat, it had two torpedo hardpoints but both were only used if it was a non combat ferry mission. So the z1007 actually does have a much more useful war load.
That said I still prefer the SM-79 because I like the plane more and it's more of a classic.
Basically:
SM-79=B17
z1007=B24
While the latter are cleraly better performers, I greatly prefer the former...
-
That was more likely due to torpedo shortages and not the craft's inability to effectively carry two torpedos in combat. Read the following where the pilot describes both torpedo shortages and the unfortunate and dangerous neccessity of bringing back live torpedos due to the shortage. :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dal: "My mission log shows that I flew 20 war missions: 6 with bombs, 5 with torpedo and 9 as armed escort or armed patrol. Armed escort was usually with bombs which we would drop on any ship or formation which was approaching or threatening the vessels we were escorting - usually cargo ships. Armed patrol was with a torpedo, which we would launch against any ship we would intercept before turning back and giving their position, via radio, to the Air Command of Sardinia. On one occasion (March 1, 1943) I came back with the torpedo because I couldn't get close to the British formation due to the strong opposition of their fighter planes. Considering the escort and patrol missions, I guess that of my 20 missions, 10 were with bombs and 10 with torpedo."
[ Note: Bringing back a torpedo was not without risk. In J. Sadkovich's Italian Navy in WWII he mentions the actions the Sardinian Torpedo squadrons of the Airforce assisted in. Air launched torpedo shortages were constant. American aircraft were told to salvo bombs and torpedoes especially if the fields they had to return to were as rough as were the one at Milis. I asked Dal about shortages. ]
"Our group in Sardinia was isolated and took orders from the Air Force general in charge of the island. If the order from headquarters was to go out with the bombs because there were no torpedoes we wouldn't have known. We received all armament from the main warehouse and we followed orders without inquiring why this and not that. Therefore, if there were shortages we were not told. We knew of spare parts shortages because very often the answer to our requests was "Not in stock". In such cases we had to find a way to fix the old or damaged ones . I remember cases when, for lack of tires we would have our "specialists" make do by using some wire or tape to keep them from jumping off the rims. As for the mounting of torpedoes or bombs on the plane there was no problem because the plane was the same old "bombardier" with the addition of some outside hooks to carry the torpedo; no other conversion was necessary."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another interesting addition to AHII would be the "mad bomb" ... even though this pilot admits never (personally) getting to use them in combat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My war missions were 5 as a bombardier and 15 as a torpedo pilot, all against the British Fleet, with the SM 79 and the SM 84. My first mission was on May 10, 1941 with the bombs and the last one on March 27, 1943 with the torpedo. The "mad bombs" (bombe matte) were actually small torpedoes which, were parachute retarded, entered the water when released from the parachute and, with the rear propeller going, they would go around in an expanding spiral until they hit something or exploded by themselves at the end of their run. I had some training with them but never had occasion to use them in a war mission. My training as torpedo pilot started at the end of 1940 and my torpedo missions took place from Jan. '42 to March '43."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/9601/corradini.html
It certainly doesn't sound like a second torp mount for ferrying purposes was the actual design intent nor practice. Besides ... if you can "ferry" it ... you can carry it. ;)
-
Nice read Arlo thank's.
I just dont see the Beauty in the the SM 79 (looks wise), I think The Cant is a much cooler looking plane personaly.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
SM-79 carried only one torpedo in combat, it had two torpedo hardpoints but both were only used if it was a non combat ferry mission. So the z1007 actually does have a much more useful war load.
That said I still prefer the SM-79 because I like the plane more and it's more of a classic.
Basically:
SM-79=B17
z1007=B24
While the latter are cleraly better performers, I greatly prefer the former...
My understanding was that they could carry two and did in combat but upon finding that the handling of the plane was degraded by carrying two torps they reverted to carrying just the one.
Sakai
-
Whatever the reason it stands that they carried only one torpedo in combat. :)
Still the SM79 is too cool to not have in the game - imagine the user add on skins to that baby! :D
-
If they paint it to look like a Cant Z 1007 will it be faster and cary more bomb's?, like the Cant can...:)
-
No ... but it'll withstand more damage and stand up to extreme weather better like the Sparviero could. ;)
-
Realy, I read whear the Z 1007 was very tough.:)
-
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. :)
-
Ya my Z 1007 book(s) mention how very strong the airframe was, and that it could asorb a lot of battle damage.
-
Did anyone ever reply to your online request back in October for internal pics of the gunner stations?
-
I have some, now. Wait I will post them.
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/62819/0.jpg)
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 .
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
Hi Sakai,
>I wonder if this takes into account the wider early opertaional deployment of the 17s with their reduced defenseive capability?
Yes, the numbers are from the ETO only and show the same tendency for the B-24 to be more survivable regardless of the time period, i. e. the higher B-17 losses didn't occurr only in 1943 when they operated without long-range escorts.
>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.
I looked only at the ETO bomb group losses on operational flights.
I've to admit the result surprised me, too :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Sakai,
I looked only at the ETO bomb group losses on operational flights.
I've to admit the result surprised me, too :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Excellent, thanks. What was your source? While I seem to recall the 17s did suffer in the ETO a higher loss ratio per mission, I also would again note that the 17s were considered to be so tough that they (again from memory here) 1) flew more unescorted missions than did the 24s and 2) the early models did not have the same defensive armaments that the 24s had. If the 17 shouldered the load of the learning curve, then I would expect them to have incurred the greater losses.
Considering the loss of wings due to hits (you never saw a B-24 land with half a wing shot off did you?) that you could not crash land them and use the plane again (and they sank faster in water crashes from what I recall-weak bay doors came right off-but it's been some time for me on this issue), and their notorious penchant for catching fire when hit, and their hydraulics problems, one wonders if simple numbers tells the whole story?
Though their losses were greater, that might reflect the missions entrusted to 17s due to their capacity, no? Or is it your belief that the 24s simply did not have the legendary status of the 17s so while in reality tougher they were not given credit?
The 17 was allegedly easier to fly, that might have influenced a great number of crews to believe in the superiority of their plane and constant retelling of such often gets ascribed as "fact".
Sakai
-
Hi Sakai,
>Excellent, thanks. What was your source?
Read the full story at:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90633&highlight=willmott
:-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
time to put this tread up:D :D
(http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/cantz/cant_z1007bis_191sq_86gr_35st_bt_grecia.jpg)
-
Man they are awsome looking huh:)
-
I would like to see the Ju 52,as an axis alternative to the C47;I am certain that this aeroplane would see a lot of use.
It would be nice to have a sea plane,maybe for search and rescue,an amphibian like the catalina would be nice.
Gv,has got to be either T 34 or sherman,the lack of the sherman in particular stands out,when we have two German tanks,and no Allied Tanks!I would gladly lose the m8 for the sherman! The above tanks would balance AH II GV's perfectly.:)
-
Ju52 would be cool
But so would the Curtiss Comando, and the one the Russians had.....
-
The big downside to the JU 52 would be the fact that it slower than the DC-3, and take a lot of work to make, be easer to get a varient of the DC-3, one with a gun on it preferably, Like the Tabby the Japanese Built, or even as mentioned above the Russian varient.
-
But for historical immersion purposes wouldn't it be good to have transport/utility planes for every nationality represented in AH? Granted, we can fudge the "Tabby" reskinning the C-47 (and not worrying about the meager defenses it had). And Russians used the C-47, right? The Brits too .... they called it the Dakota. So it actually stands to reason the the easiest way to gain immersion in the transport/utility plane category would be to model a JU-52 for use by the Germans and Italians. Following it up with a Tabby (C-47 variant) would be nice but it's not as "glaring" a hole as the JU-52.
Besides ... the JU-52 would be yet one step closer to ...
(drumroll)
A Spanish Civil War planeset!. :D
-
I wounder..........
It is still good to want things, even after all this time.:)
-
Those Italian 'three holers' are unique looking & attractive aircaft. The P-38s of the bomb dropping set. Any thoughts about the Fiat G.12?
-
Fiat G.12- Transport plane from what I recall off the top of my head.
-
Yes, it was a transport, used by the Hungarians also, but I dont know if it was ever used as a paratroop transport.
-
oh yes..the Sm79 is just a pleasure to fly..i like the manual prop pitch :-)
http://tainankuu.fc2web.com/download/SM79_formation.WMV
-
CANT Z1007 was a lovely plane.
Here you are a picture about the Alcione in Target Tobruk
(http://www.4stormo.it/public_archive/tt_z1007_012.jpg)
-
Hey! Stop making advertising for another sim, you italian! :D
Was it already released? :)
-
Eh eh...not yet release ;) ...but....what do you think about the Folgore? :cool:
(http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/screenshots/tt_c202_015.jpg)
(http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/screenshots/tt_c202_016.jpg)
-
Just that you guys made a great job, Vespa! I have TT, though I play it rarely, (I'm stuck with AH now, you know, first months of subscription :) ), can't wait for it to evolve into a better sim with a lot more people, it's the only multiplayer oriented sim where you can fly a good number of italian planes (little hint for Hitech! :p)
-
Now, this is what I call a beautifully modeled Macchi :) That prancing horse makes me almost cry :eek:
Btw, I'd like to know when our Macchis' cockpits will be updated .... :rolleyes:
-
Do you really want me to say it????
Two weeks! :D (Never said it, now I'm happy! :D)
-
i really tried to get into targetware, but it wouldnt let me download it!
any tips?
-
Originally posted by Pooface
i really tried to get into targetware, but it wouldnt let me download it!
any tips?
whoopeee, i got it working. just DL'd it again. last time i tried all i got was a black screen when i ran the game. lol, now i have another set of controls to learn!:rolleyes: anyone from AH play targetware?