What the German's thought about Italian Fighter planes 

Which one is *your* favourite?

As an owner of a vintage Italian car, I nodded when you mentioned that “the layout of the instruments in cockpit was confusing”.

Very nice, Italian fighters are very often overlooked and even moreso in comparison to other aircraft.

Dear Sir, as Italian passionate for aviation, I really thank you very much for your publications, and specially this one and the other related to Fiat G55. I do recommend anyone coming to Italy to visit the Museo di Vigna di Valle not too far from Rome, is really worth of a visit, as you may see the other champions of the Schneider cup. In Italy we normally consider german technology to be the best one, so such flattering judgements are really pleasant for us. Keep going on, Bravo!

3:37 "No cockpit layout standardization" I remember reading that early on in the war, the USA suffered a lot of crashes during pilot training, mostly due to "pilot error". One of the problems identified was a lack of control layout standardization. This was subsequently corrected, and the number of accidents was decreased substantially.

There was a G55 flying in Queensland Australia for some time till the death of the owner (Guido Zuccoli) who had a rather nice collection of warbirds. Was a beautiful plane to see in the sky.🇦🇺

The main reasons the Luftwaffe didn't adopt them: -Armistice compromised the technology - Man hours to produce the BF109 was 9k hours, whereas the Italian planes required 11k man hours and upwards as well as what you mentioned with the manufacturing infrastrusture and logistics for repair and maintenance.

Hi! In from Argentina, and I found out that the military bought a G.55 serie 1 for testing, the testing didn't go any further, but the aircraft is still on display!

I would be interested in more of these types of comparisons, especially to allied aircraft.

How the tests had been performed. Five comparatives planned, four actually made. N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away. The FW190 was faster in sustained dive too. N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m). N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster. N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage. N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test. Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast. So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.

I remember reading some secondary sources on this years ago. The conclusions were that the Italian airframes were bigger than the 109, so they lent themselves better for wartime upgrades. Some planes were on par with the 109. The source I read however said that it took 2 times as many man hours to build an Italian fighter compared to a bf109. I could be remembering the numbers wrong, but I distinctly recall that Italian fighters took many more man hours to build, even when considering that the bf109 is a smaller aircraft - to the point where it would almost be better to just export 109's to Italy instead of them building their own planes.

The Fiat G-55 and Macchi C-205 Veltro, they looked liked thoroughbred race horses. And the others looked good too.

Great Video, The Italian Air Force did have some excellent aircraft. Like all of Italy’s WWII performance it tends to be under appreciated. The Macchi 202 “ Folgore” and the Savoia Marchetti 79 are two of my favorites. Thanks again 🇮🇹

I had the pleasure of visiting the Vigna di Valle Italian Air Force Museum in Bracciano a couple of years ago. Well worth the visit. They also have a collection of Macchi seaplanes, including the famed MC 72. :)

The G55 was one of the nicest looking planes of the whole war very nice lines, would've been nice if they were built in larger numbers even if they were used on the allies side against the Axis

Capt. Eric Brown RN test-flew a Macchi C.205V at the end of the war and rated it very highly: one of the best he ever flew in fact. It's odd that the German reports state the aircraft were unsuitable for fighter-bombing: all of them had wing pylons for light bomb loads and a couple of them had centreline pylons at least designed or improvised, if not in production.

Fascinating. I'm in my 50th year as an aviation structural mechanic. You hit the nail on the head as far as introducing a new aircraft type and the hurdles you have to overcome in order for it work.

I saw the CR42 in the RAF Museum London recently. It's got to be the best looking biplane ever. Stylish.

When my dear uncle used to talk about war in North Africa he was an artillery gun lorry driver and supply's and talk of Italian planes dogfight the British fighters who woul try to shoot his possition up and on every occation shoot them down . I questioned him a lot about this thinking him wrong but he described the planes and he was spot on and how the Italian plains would come done above them waggle there wings and climbs up . Italian pilot s were used to there controls and were very cable and he never show one shot down ..

From what I know, Germans really wanted to switch to Italian designs, since 109s met their design limitations basically at 109F series, after which its airframe was barely adequate for new engines and more firepower. Fiat G.55/56 was much better suited for further power and firepower improvement, but as it turned out, Italian manufacturing pipelines were focused on huge amounts of low-skill labor, while German designs were more sophisticated, but also more effective in production. So Italian planes being slightly cheaper to make, required 2-3 times more man-hours of labor and were nightmare to scale up production. Ironically it was something that soviets could like, since they were relying on big numbers of low-skill workers, but for Germany it just couldn't work.

Honestly man, keep going with videos like this! You’re sharing history with airplane geeks. I’m not going to complain about that, at all.

RU-vid recommends the most random videos, but this is probably one of the best ones.

It would be interesting to compare the Japanese "Bf-109", the Ki-61 Tony.

Interesting to see this after so much criticism of Italian machines in print. Thanks for posting.

I do know that the Germans loved the Fiat G.56. A G.55 with a DB 603 engine. One of the fastest axis aircraft of the war but Germany ended up not producing it because it cost like 12,000 man hours to make while the Me 109 was something around 5000 man hours.

Thank you so much for this! I have always loved the Italian planes and they are highly overlooked

Chris, I love these videos for the work you put in, the detail from the primary sources, the flavour of how it felt at the time to evaluate the machines. To be able to mediate the files of the Bundesarchiv to us who live farther away is such a vital job - we salute you! Vielen danke, kamerad.

The Erprobungsstelle missed the main criticism: The repair cost is atrocious.

Awesome, Ive seen several sources with contradictory statements on this regard, great video.

Thank you for posting. Finland bought G50s 35 planes in all but only 14 was received to serve in winter war but by the time continuation war began in 1941 all were deliver and this plane type scored 44 enemy planes downed.

Great video. Your translations were flawless! Your conclusion also is spot on. I am now a subscriber. I had a Fiat as my first car, electrical gremlins from day 1. I still loved it.

The conclusions seem very sound and reflect what you'd expect. On the possibility of a german built italian fighter, the report makes clear that the lack of fighter-bomber capability is a major issue (and increasingly so) and also I seem to recall that the italian fighters were significantly more expensive to build than comparable German designs. Perhaps the smaller nature of the Italian industry lead to the adoption of design and construction practices that lead to greater expense overall. The design of the 5 series (and earlier italian fighters) with little or no provision for bomb carrying is surely related to doctrinal differences which meant that the Italians saw the fighter essentially as an air superiority weapon system.

If I'm not wrong reggiane has a configuration to carry 1 250kg and 2 100kg bombs, also because the mc205 and g55 had the radiatior under the cockpit, while the re 2005 had 2 smaller on the wings. Anyway just wanted to say that it's strange the German didn't noticed the high instability of the re 2005 caused by some design error on the rudder (nothing that cannot be fixed) at high speed

That's a beautiful aircraft, bravo Italia. Italy had a good air force and navy in WWII. Their army leadership wasn't up to scratch I suppose but other than that

Thank you very much for this interesting and documented comparative video. Excelent!!

Thank you for this excellent look at important aircraft history!

Your documentaries are first class Chris, keep them coming thanks

First of all, you look great in turtleneck XD

Excellent; I really appreciate your lack of bias.

Italian aircraft were so good-looking. Especially the Centauro. It was the right choice as the best of the Italian fighters of World War II.

Yo Bismarck. I remember playing some War Thunder with you during those Me 262 vs B-17 events. Nice to see you're doing well, and thanks a lot for the great content. Keep up your good work!

The turtle neck makes you look like a Bond villain

I love seeing something "a bit off the beaten path" like this--thanks so much!

Perhaps my impressions (from what I've read) are more early war, but, the overall consensus was that the Italian airframes were very good, well handling. It was their armament and lack of powerful enough engines (surprising for the Italians) that let them down. This was why the German engines were mated to the Italian designs. Very good video, interesting viewpoint on the Italian aircraft.

Analysis of primary historical documents is great, please keep it going. History is not just about what actually happened but what people living through an event thought was happening. Your access to the German archives, and your reading/interpretation, are very interesting. Thanks again!

My favorite still tends to stay with FW190-D. Great Channel! Peace.

Thanks Bis, It's great to hear from primary source materiel from the German side. That stuff is really hard to find.

Yes please, more similar content from the German Military Archives. Thank you.

It is nice to hear you call yourself Chris (your name) rather than 'Bismark' which might have fitted if you were into ships but is strange with airplanes. It is not a big deal, of course but it has always felt a bit strange when you call yourself that. I happily and gladly subscribed to your excellent channel long ago and love your content: Great video as usual again btw and I learned that the Italian planes were clearly better than I had thought before but on reflection it makes sense, they make good cars and good ships. Fascinating!

From a secondary source years back I read - if memory serves me - that 22,000 man-hours were spent producing a Macchi MC.200 or 202: A Spitfire consumed 13,000 man-hours, while a Bf 109 G (in late 1944) only consumed 4,500...

Your in depth comparison is very concise and to the point as usual. Good video.

Apparently, the Macchi Fogolore was so good that the Germans used captured versions themselves.

This is the first of your videos I have seen and I really enjoyed it. The information is really unique. Loved it. Cheers

I think it's interesting the Germans complain about the aircraft not being usable as fighter bombers due to the radiator placement. Makes you wonder whether they would have come to the same conclusion with the P-51, since the placement is identical (and obviously, that doesn't make sense, it was an adequate fighter bomber at the very least).

I have got the opportunity several years ago to speak with an Italian pilot who flew in combat the G55 and his personal comment was not so positive. He marked out that the production G55 had a definite lower performance than the one stated officially. It seems that the Italian pilots used to the Macchi 202 preferred the Macchi 205 (in practice a 202 with a different engine) to the G55. The main Macchi test pilot said that he preferred the Macchi 205 V (Veltro) to the following Macchi 205 Orione since the first one retained the brilliant flight behaviour of the 202. It may be said that the 202 and 202V gave the best at lower altitudes and were less brilliant at the B17 altitudes but a large part of the fights occurred in fact at low altitudes, in particular against medium bombers and fighter bombers as the Thunderbolt. At low altitudes the 205V was a dangerous opponent even to the Mustang and a standard practice of Italian pilots to avoid the inferior performance at high altitudes was to provoke the Allied fighters in a diving pursue of the Macchi to then find themselves in a lower or equal performance to the Macchi. The Macchi cockpit layout was made differently from the German one, it was just a matter of being used to either of the two and this is why for instance the famous ace Marseille when testing a Macchi 202 during a visit to an Italian unit ended the test in a very embarrassing way smashing the fighter when landing. Despite this difference the Italian pilot mentioned at the beginning was truly enthusiast of the Me 109 when he had to convert to it, even if in general the Italian pilots flying the Me 109 displayed a poor performance, also due to certain lacks in their training and to the huge Allied air superiority in that period. Last but not least the Re 2005 had two serious snags. The fragility at the wing root, resulting in the wings easily collapsing at the end of a dive, and the fact that the Reggiane factory could offer only an extremely limited production output. As a final detail the German engines produced in Italy had a lower output due to the obsolete and less accurate production methods. This occurred even more in Japan with the Japanese deciding to heavily modify the engine in order to adapt it to their standards and the result was disastrous affecting the future of the otherwise excellent Nakajima fighter. The main reason was the exceptionally tight tolerances of the DB 601 engine, tighter than in any other engine as even the Rolls Royce experts had to admit. Danny

Very interesting, live in Jamaica and I research WW2 US bases in Jamaica.

I like these kinds of videos. One can learn a lot on what was considered important back when they really used it. I would be interested in more of these kind.

MAH: I have a really old video... my memory: "Jawohl, zis is german sailing."

Very interesting and thanks for your excellent historical work!

I'd also like to see German opinions of the Romanian IAR80 and IAR81. Any chance?

Would like to see such comparissions between all of the types used on both sides in as much detail as is available. Very good info and gives real world evaluations of the aircraft. Great video!

Bf-109's italian cousin

Very informative. Great to have someone as knowledgeable as you doing this kind of work and sharing it. Great work on the production values of the video: doesn't happen by magic. Great work all around.

In the great irony of ironies, it would be a FIAT (G91) that would be selected as the first standardized NATO fighter, causing some folks in London and Paris to react insulted but some people in Turin and Koln grinning.

Interesting comparisons on German/Italian fighters that I had never imagined, thanks!

Interesting that they brought up the spitfire for comparison, I know that they had captured and tested examples but I guess it must only be a very limited number of test pilots who would be familiar enough with a spitfire’s handling to understand exactly what this comparison meant? I assume there was a lot of information on the handling of enemy types available to frontline pilots but I’m curious how many, if any, had taken one up themselves?

This was excellent. Great breakdown. Thanks for posting. So few thorough breakdowns on Italian WWII aviation.

I would absolutely love to see a video about German opinions of British aircraft

First time I’ve viewed one of your videos! Wonderful! Very good content, and information, as well as your presentation! Liked (👍🏼) and subscribed.

Did you find a similar document about IAR-81? I know that IAR begged the germans for a BMW engine to replicate, as they thought with that engine, the IAR-81 could achieve 600 kmh. But they were denied.

Fascinating thank you. I was already aware of this aircraft and the backstory from winiprdia but very interesting to hear the actual report from the archives!!! Much appreciated

[the original presentation ends] "Well, with fighters that good I can't imagine how we could lose in North Africa." "There's no need for sarcasm, Sepp."

Very good. This format is very interesting and please do more like this.

I was born in Frankfurt and my family is from the Ludwigshafen/Manhein area, I am a WW2 aviation buff having a American father that flew on B-17’s and my German Opa was in the Luftwaffe and I have always been interested in how different countries evaluated each others aircraft both friends and foes

G.55 is my favorite in War Thunder! I spent extra to get it! Maybe that is why I have owned 3 Fiat automobiles? Lol!

These are excellent with their emphases on primary sources and empirical data. Thanks!

I love the fact that you can read and translate German source material. I would really like to see more of how Germany compared their fighters to the competition.

Interesting topic. Well researched. Presented clearly with little bias. Reasonable and helpful editorial comments. This is the second video of yours I have watched (P-39 is the other.) Both had new, true, and interesting info. WW2 aircraft is only one of seven subjects I research and model, but this video is making me more interested in WW2 planes. Thanks much.

Most People: Italy sucks hahahaha Italy's Air Force: Hold my Pizza

A very interesting video. I like the use of original source material. Thank you.

no wonder they were short on engines everyone was using the same lol

Italy had a few good fighters and good pilot's to go with them. I always have been interested in the Regia Aronautica( Italian Air Force). @militaryaviationhistory , good shit as usual man. Would you be so kind as to bring us more on the Regia Aronautica. It's a little difficult to find any modern documentary on them. They deserve to be showcased (imo) and separated from much of the rest of Italy's fumbling military. I would be grateful and really can't think of anyone better to do it. Thank you bro.

The Macchis are very handsome machines

The design history of the Reggiane Re.2005 goes back to the Seversky P-35. There were 2 or 3 Italian engineers who worked for Seversky and returned back to Italy. They joined Reggiane and their first result was the Re 2000 that had many similarities to the P-35 including wing and tail surface shapes. Those similarities continued in their aircraft as well in Republic (formerly Seversky) aircraft. This makes the P-47 and Re.2005 distant cousins.

Fully expected the video to be just "yes" and thirteen minutes of credits

First time viewer. I am impressed by the factual, substantiated information given. I was most impressed with the explanation of the flying characteristics when there is added weight for adding armaments' on the wings introduced.

The RAF treated the Italian Air force pilots with great respect as unlike the Luffwaffe pilots they were prepared to mix it.

I have read elsewhere that one of the biggest disadvantages of the Italian G55 fighter was that it took substantially more man-hours to build. Very interesting video, thanks.

The Macchi C.202 had a higher K/D than the BF 109s in North Africa. Which is made even more impressive by the Italians having ditched their radios for sandbags which reduced their combat effectiveness.

Thank you for the video, great research and presentation as usual. please keep them coming.

I have a question Chris, "Why does the Italian fighters look so similar to each other?

I found this comparison very valuable and insightful. More, please.

When you held up the thumb, index finger and middle finger to indicate 3, I thought: Damn, Inglourious Basterds was right!

This was a very interesting video, more like this would be very much appreciated, thank you

So what exactly do they mean in reports, by not suitable for fighter-bomber usage, due to radiator placement? Too vulnerable to ground fire?

I want to add that the Argentine Air Force operated 15 Fiat G.55B y 30 G.55A from 1948 to 1954. The maintenance of the airplane was very complex.

I don’t much about it, but am quite amazed they gave them so high rating. Gonna keep my eyes open for more. Very interesting indeed. Thank you, keep on doing this! /peter

Wow your so correct I appreciate it. The 5 Series was the best and the Italian pilots I interviewed felt the 205V was the best while others preferred the G-55, this just I felt it just boils down to personal preference. With regards to the Re.2005 the few pilots I spoke to who actually flew it felt it was a beast in the air; but only a few actually made it into combat. And spot on about the Luftwaffe feeling the 55 was the best of the 5 Series. As for the Italian pilots they all loved the 205 and 55 but they absolutely loved the Me.109G-6 and other variants supplied to them in 44/45.

War Thunder G55s: absolute legend

Thank you for such a marvelous video as always! Stay safe mr Bismarck!