Changes on Italian airplanes

[unmerged(51143)]

I think Italian airplanes in HoI2 are not correctly placed: e.g., Italian fighters were based on some "series", "0" (Macchi Mc200, Reggiane Re2000, FIAT G50), "2" (Macchi Mc202 and Reggiane Re2001) and "5" (Macchi Mc205, Reggiane Re2005 and FIAT G55); also, Cant1007 was a three engines bomber like S79, and was wooden-made, while FIAT Br20 was metal-made and with two engines; Junker87 "Stuka" was bought by Germany because Italy cannot build enough (and enough good) dive-bombers, but after the Breda Br65 the Italian designers proposed the Breda Br88 as new ground-attack plane; FIAT CR42 was the best war biplane ever made, and could compete with the first monoplanes which were not more than a few faster and had much less lift, while before the CR42 (and still used in the Ethiopian and Spanish wars) Italian RAF used FIAT CR32.
Thus I propose these changes:
- interwar interceptor fighter: FIAT CR32;
- early interceptor fighter: FIAT CR42;
- advanced interceptor fighter: Reggiane Re2005;
- basic fighter: Macchi 200;
- improved fighter: Macchi 202;
- advanced fighter: Macchi 205;
- advanced escort fighter: FIAT G55;
- early bomber: Cant1007;
- basic bomber: FIAT Br20;
- improved CAS: Breda Br88 - also Reggiane Re2002 should be considered for this role.

 

[baylox]

The models change quite a bit from vanilla in CORE so this would not be directly applicable, but my setup does differ somewhat from your proposal anyway.

Primarily I have the Reggiane aircraft as Fighters and the Macchi's as Interceptors. What's your reasoning for having them the opposite way?

The CR.42 will be in the game, but not the CR.32 - there just isn't room for it. Cant1007 will feature as an early bomber, but I have the Br.20 before it. I'll need to look that up, because I don't remember my own reasoning for it at this point.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Reggiane was a simple designers workshop, its fighters were lighter and cheaper, especially Re2000 to Mc200, I know it would be "unhistorical" because Italy concentrated its production on Macchi and not Reggiane (also because Macchi was a big industrial company in Italian aeronautics) but Reggiane are more feasible as interceptors and Macchi as fighters even if in the game we would pass from (my suggestion) CR42 to Re2000 and not Mc200 as it was.
FIAT Br20 and Cant1007 were all two designed and produced by 1936, but as in HoI2 the reasearch tree is, S79 naval bomber would betterly derivates from Cant1007 (they were really similar), also Br20 was the 1st Italian aluminium-made airplane, Cant1007 being still wooden-made, then surely not more modern.
FIAT CR32 and FIAT CR42 were used duringe Ethiopian and Spanish wars, while in WW2 only CR42 (CR32 maybe as school plane) was, so I think they are just done to be interwar and early fighter planes.

 

[baylox]

Reggiane are more feasible as interceptors and Macchi as fighters

What regarding their performance suggests this division?

Interceptors are characterized by short range, high speed and heavy armament, while Air Superiority fighters instead are more balanced with regards to armament and range. (I'm not saying your division is wrong, I just want you to justify it to me)

 

[unmerged(51143)]

Air Superiority Fighters have heavier weaponry than Interceptors, as it is in the game skills, are heavier because of both weaponry and longer range, and need more pwerfull engines, while top speed and climbing are nearly the same between an AS and an I (naturally, everything refers to the same planes "class").

 

[baylox]

Air Superiority Fighters have heavier weaponry than Interceptors, as it is in the game skills, are heavier because of both weaponry and longer range, and need more pwerfull engines, while top speed and climbing are nearly the same between an AS and an I (naturally, everything refers to the same planes "class").

No, they do not have heavier weaponry, per definition. Heavy weapons, such as cannons, do not make it easier to shoot down fighters. Fighters are so fragile that machine guns are better, and because of their small size it is better to have many MGs rather than few cannons (the important thing is to put as large a number of bullets in the air as possible - plus MGs have larger ammo count). That's why the bonus against bombers work so well for Interceptors since their heavier (large caliber) weaponry is suited in attacking durable, but slow, bombers, rather than other fighters.

That said, the preference between MGs and cannons is usually nation-specific, rather than fighter-role specific - German fighters almost exclusively have at least some cannon armament, while US fighters rarely have cannons. But then again Germany emphasized interceptors and the US emphasized longer-ranged aircraft (FTR and ESC models).

The more powerful engine for FTR model isn't universal either - the P-51 had a comparatively weak engine but was very fast anyway (thanks to unmatched aerodynamics). But that's more an exception than anything else though. Fighters are generally larger than Interceptors, though, yes.

 

[Epaminondas]

You gotta know I'm going to jump in on something like this.

First cannon vs machine gun armament on fighters.

The later model Spitfires converted from 8x.303 machine guns to 4x20mm cannon precisely because the cannon armament of the Me 109 and Fw 190 had been judged to be favourable to the German aircraft in air-to-air combat. It's true that a machine gun armament put more bullets in the air, but these were so markedly less destructive than cannon fire that instances of Luftwaffe fighters returning to base with sixty or more bullet holes in them was almost commonplace. The cannon armament not only inflicted greater damage but also offered a greater range than machine guns - both critical advantages.

In fairness, this was redressed somewhat by the use of .50 calibre machine guns in American and later Russian fighters.

Then, the P-51 engine.

The original production model of the P-51 did indeed feature a relatively low powered engine (a 1200 h.p. Allison) - and its performance was accordingly disappointing. It wasn't until the aircraft was fitted with licence produced versions of the Rolls Royce Merlin that the Mustang began to achieve the performance figures for which it is renowned. In the P-51 this engine delivered 1620 h.p. initially and this was ratchetted up to 2218 h.p. in later models. Them's pretty impressive outputs, and among volume produced contemporaries they were only really exceeded by the Corsair and the Thunderbolt.

Finally, rate of climb.

It was broadly true that most of the interceptors operated by the Luftwaffe (and the RAF for that matter) didn't offer any great advantage in climb rate over their air-superiority fighters. But that's because they were, for the most part, adaptations of air-superiority designs. A superior rate of climb was typically one of the design parameters of the interceptor type, however, and as the war progressed the need to achieve altitude very quickly became increasingly important. Hence the Me 163.

Quite how all that affects the debate, I'm unsure. But it certainly helped me get my rocks off laying it out.

 

[unmerged(51143)]

P51's Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engine was one of the most powerfull not-jet engines of the war.
Cannons are much in dog-fighting than MGs: in all air fightings, the planes which had cannons had a significant advantage on those which had MGs, e.g. in WW2 late German fighters, in Corea MIG15s on F86s (but American pilots were much more skilfull than their North Corean, Chinese and even Soviet counterparts) etc.
Anyway, German mounted cannons both on interceptors and air superiority planes, American did not at all, Italians did on the lattest versions of their planes (used in the last year of war against Allies by Regia Aeronautica, then by RSI in 1943-45). Maybe HoI2 is wrong in considering fighters so much mighter in air combat than interceptors (HoI1 was more fair), but it remains that fighters having longer range needed more fuel inside, that is much more weight than any weapon system, than more powerfull engine to have the same speed, and then are more expensive to build.
Only one thing: I suggest to change my own proposal, by inverting Mc 205 and Re2005, because Re2005 had heavier weaponry, bombing capabilities and longer range (in the game fighters have also ground attack, interceptors have not).

 

[baylox]

Epa: I was of course referring to .50 caliber machine guns, I forgot to clarify that. With .303 caliber you would probably have had to have 12 of them to achieve the same effect and I guess that wasn't exactly practical.

As for the P.51 - it did have markedly lower HP rates than other contemporary fighters. In 1944 German and British airplanes had around 2000 HP compared to 1600 as you mention. Yet performance was equal or in favor of the P-51, so I'm glad we agree on this (you can't really compare it to the P-51H...).

FilTur: If cannons were that much better than MGs I think that both the RAF and USAAF would've used them sooner over Europe since they barely chased bombers at all.
The favoritism of cannons over MGs is much overrated and only post-war refinements (and with much bigger aircraft so the ammo count could be increased) changed this. I used to share your view, but I have abandoned it since the more I've studied and discussed the subject.
Another thing, somewhat related: MGs also favor less experienced/less trained pilots than cannons do - since accuracy isn't of such critical importance as with cannons (where every shot counts). In HoI2 this could be interpreted as the difference between a Standing army and a Drafted one on the sliders.

I'm willing to discuss other facets of air combat (such as importance of speed and rate of climb), but this one point I will not change my mind on so there is no point discussing it further.

 

[unmerged(21069)]

hmmm... why doesn't the Cr. 42 stay at the interwar fighter spot and the G. 50 go in for the Macchi at the early fighter spot and for the rest of it take Filtur's suggestions

leave out the cr. 32

 

[baylox]

I am leaving out the CR.32. The CR.42 will be on par with the first monoplane fighters and be preceded by a 1925 era fighter.

 

[unmerged(19967)]

If cannons were that much better than MGs I think that both the RAF and USAAF would've used them sooner over Europe since they barely chased bombers at all.
The favoritism of cannons over MGs is much overrated and only post-war refinements (and with much bigger aircraft so the ammo count could be increased) changed this. I used to share your view, but I have abandoned it since the more I've studied and discussed the subject.
Another thing, somewhat related: MGs also favor less experienced/less trained pilots than cannons do - since accuracy isn't of such critical importance as with cannons (where every shot counts).

This arguement is a little bit flawed (at least in the case of the USAAF). Especially as the war progressed, when US pilots were actually better trained and better prepared than their Luftwaffe opponents (whose experienced pilots were dwindling more and more, and being replaced with unprepared and undertrained replacements).

As for the USAAF hardly using the 20mm canon in its fighters, there are a few reasons:

1) US attempts to mass produce a 20mm cannon were generally unsucessful. Most of the 20mm's were shipped to the UK. The British found them unsatisfactory compared to their own Hispano production. They had a much higher rate of jamming and breakdowns than the UK produced cannon.

2) There was also an attempt to produce an indigenous Very Heavy Machine Gun. There was another attempt to re-engineer the Mg151/15 into a .60 calibre (15.3 mm), very high velocity machine gun. Neither resulted in a workable design.

3) A third reason the US remained with the .50 is economics. The .50 was an excellent air to air weapon, and it was already standard fit on most US fighters. Considering the US was more about mass production than innovation (See the Sherman tank), it makes perfect sense.