Italian bombers

[VooWho]

Italian plane set is by far the sh[weakest]est set in the whole game. It's cr[weaker]yer than the Japanese or Russian sets.

I'd sure like to see the SM75 or the P.108. It give the axis another bomber as there is only what 3? 

[MAX-107]

Any more ideas for Italian bombers.

[waystin2]

Please don't give 999000 any more dangerous toys!
Seriously though it would be great to see some spaghetti iron droppers.

[Beefcake]

I would LOVE to have that 3 engine on, man that would be cool.

[IronDog]

Only America and Great Britain seemed to grasp the fact that four engine bombers could wear down the enemy and hamper their war-making efforts.The Axis powers were all guilty of light bomber mentality.The Italians really had no business in the war,and they fought accordingly.An Italian bomber would be limited to scenarios,right along with the Bettys,Heinkel 111s,etc.I would sooner see a Me 410,as it was a far better performer.
ID

[Motherland]

Only America and Great Britain seemed to grasp the fact that four engine bombers could wear down the enemy and hamper their war-making efforts.The Axis powers were all guilty of light bomber mentality.The Italians really had no business in the war,and they fought accordingly.An Italian bomber would be limited to scenarios,right along with the Bettys,Heinkel 111s,etc.I would sooner see a Me 410,as it was a far better performer.
ID

So was the Soviet Union and we see what happened there

The Italians really had no business in the war,and they fought accordingly.

Italy fought offensively. They invaded several African countries.

An Italian bomber would be limited to scenarios,right along with the Bettys,Heinkel 111s,etc.

The SM.79 could potentially be a successful MA bomber. Half decent speed, good range, little over 2,000 lbs ordnance (a little more than the Ki 67), and a .50 cal tail gun, 3 engines, forward firing 20mm. Would be at least as popular as the Ju 88.

I would sooner see a Me 410,as it was a far better performer.

It was also a fighter

I would fly the SM.79, if for no other reason than it's cool 

[MORAY37]

The G.55 was supposed to replace all 109 variants, and was slated for manufacture in Germany, in 1943.  It actually out flew all aircraft it was fought against that the Germans brought to trial. The DB 603 engine that went into the Ta-152 was slated to be fitted, and actually was on 3 variants. (G.56)

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

The tests began 20 February 1943. The German commission was very impressed by the Italian aircraft, the G.55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5 fighters were very good at low altitudes, but the G.55 was also competitive with its German opponents in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G.55, "good" for the Re.2005 and "average" for the C.205. Oberst Petersen defined the G.55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on 22 February 1943 voted to produce the G.55 in Germany.

[Selino631]

Fiat G.55 Centauro

Powerplant 1,457 hp Daimler-Benz DB605H V12 Liquid cooled engine
Max Speed 391 mph
Service Cieling 41,700 ft
Armament 3 Mauser 20mm cannons 2 .50 cal machine guns, 1 2,046lb torpedo or 2 160 kg bombs

Reggiane Re.2001/5

Powerplant same as G.55
Max Speed 390 mph
Service Ceiling 39,400 ft
Armament 3 20mm 1 nose 2 wing and 2 .50 cal . up to 630kg of bombs

Piaggio P.108

Powerplant 4 18 clylinder P. XII 1350 hp engines
Max Speed 420 kmph
Sevice Ceiling 4,300 meter at 420 kmph
Armament 7 500 kg or 250 kg bombs 50.cal in the nose same in ventral 2 7.7mm in ventrals + more that i dont know of

Cant Z.1007

Powerplant 3 1000 hp P.XI radial engines
Max Speed 285 mph
Service Ceiling 25,00 ft
Armament 1,200kg bombs internal and 1,000 external or 2 450 mm 800kg torpedos 3 .50cal. guns and 2 .303 cal. machine guns

Fiat Br.20

Powerplant 2 Fiat A. 80 18 cylinder radial engines
Max Speed 273 mph
Service Ceiling 26,250 ft
Armamet 1,600 kg of bombs and 3 .50 cal. machine gun

[gyrene81]

(Image removed from quote.)
The G.55 was supposed to replace all 109 variants, and was slated for manufacture in Germany, in 1943.  It actually out flew all aircraft it was fought against that the Germans brought to trial. The DB 603 engine that went into the Ta-152 was slated to be fitted, and actually was on 3 variants. (G.56)

An Italian Mustang/P-40? Cool...bring it on in puleeeez!!!

[MAX-107]

We need the SM.79 for Special Events so the Axis can use more than 2 bombers.

[WPmega]

a well thought out excuse. along with info.

        

5 out of 5

I vote yes for this.



<<S>>


JB76

[Simba]

"We need the SM.79"

Yes indeed, it was the most common Italian bomber and torpedo-bomber (Aerosiluranti) of WW2, and a splendid target for RAF and FAA Hurricanes.

 

[max107]

SM.79
Prototype powered by radial engines.
SM.79-I
The first production four- or five-seat bomber version powered by three 582 kW (780 hp) Alfa Romeo 126 RC.34 nine-cylinder engines. Span 21.20 m (69.55 ft), length 15.80 m (51.84 ft), max speed 430 km/h (270 mph) at 4,000 m (13,130 ft), up to 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) of bombs, max takeoff weight 10,480 kg (23,100 lb), range 1,899 km (1,180 mi).
SM.79-II
Torpedo-bomber powered by three Piaggio P.XI engines.
SM.79-III
Improved extended range torpedo bomber introduced late 1942, it was not available in significant numbers until mid-1943. Known also as SM.79bis, SM.79GA, or SM.579. Powered by AR.128 engines of approximately 746 kW (1,000 hp) each, giving increased performance (speed increased to 475 km/h/295 mph, and climb to 5,000 m/16,400 ft in 16 minutes 7 sec). Ventral nacelle deleted. 1,000 L (260 US gal) fuel tank mounted in the bomb bay. The forward machine gun was retained, with its flash protection, probably as an anti-ship weapon.
SM.79B
Twin-engine export version powered by less reliable Fiat A.80 engines and with a glazed nose for improved bomb-aiming. More economical but slower (420 km/h/260 mph and 21.45 minutes to 5,000 m/16,400 ft) than the standard SM.79, but weighed 6,600/10,100 kg (14,551/22,267 lb, around 500 kg/1,100 lb less than the basic SM.79), was longer (16.22 m/53.22 ft), and had the same armament. Iraq bought five, but this version achieved little success in Italy.
SM.79C
VIP transport conversion, powered by Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines, with the dorsal and ventral machine guns removed.
SM.79JR
Twin-engine version for Romania, powered by 895 kW (1,200 hp) Junkers Jumo 211Da engines. Eight Italian built aircraft (designated JIS.79B by Romania), followed by 36 licensed built JRS.79B powered by the Jumo 211Da and 36 JRS.79B1s with 1,029 kW (1,380 hp) Jumo 211F engines. Production continued until 1946.[15]
SM.79K
Version for Yugoslavia.
SM.79T
Long-range VIP transport version.
SM.79 Flying Bomb
Special SM.79 operative conversion into radio-controlled flying bomb for managed by CANT Z.1007 "Alcione" guding aircraft.(one example)

[lyric1]

Only America and Great Britain seemed to grasp the fact that four engine bombers could wear down the enemy and hamper their war-making efforts.The Axis powers were all guilty of light bomber mentality.The Italians really had no business in the war,and they fought accordingly.An Italian bomber would be limited to scenarios,right along with the Bettys,Heinkel 111s,etc.I would sooner see a Me 410,as it was a far better performer.
ID

P-108 granted few were made however it was on par with the B17. Now as far as AHII would be concerned it would make an excellent Axis heavy bomber & could hold it's own in the main arenas.

[Karnak]

P-108 granted few were made however it was on par with the B17. Now as far as AHII would be concerned it would make an excellent Axis heavy bomber & could hold it's own in the main arenas.

The only issue I have with this is that.....we don't need an Axis heavy bomber.

In the MA all planes can be used by all sides, so it doesn't matter, and in scenarios, well, there is no time when Axis heavies really played a big role.


I'd certainly not object to a P.108, He177A-5 or H8K2, but none of them really fill a need.