PDA

View Full Version : Interesting reading from Italian pilot accounts



x__CRASH__x
02-01-2006, 06:03 PM
A friend passed this along in another forum. I enjoyed it, maybe you will too.

http://www.eaf51.org/New_Web/Documenti/Storia/PresentazioneMC205-Finale.pdf

x__CRASH__x
02-01-2006, 06:03 PM
A friend passed this along in another forum. I enjoyed it, maybe you will too.

http://www.eaf51.org/New_Web/Documenti/Storia/PresentazioneMC205-Finale.pdf

berg417448
02-01-2006, 06:15 PM
Excellent. Can't wait to fly them.

x__CRASH__x
02-01-2006, 06:22 PM
I was clueless on how they were supposed to perform. According to these accounts, they perform quite well, so it excites me to try them out.

ugh! When is the patch out???

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 06:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I was half expecting a joke .pdf file with a big white flag on it.

Thanks for posting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I am reading 'Spitfire in BAttle' by the pilot Duncan Smith right now and he talks of a dogfight in Malta 1943 with a Macchi 202. As he turns the Macchi gains on his Spitfire 9 and turns tighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif In the end he has to run as he cant use his usual tactic against the Bf109 or FW190 which is to outturn them, as in this case it wasnt working.

I know we dont know the details (speed,height etc) but the fact that the MAcchi 202 was outturning the Spit Mk IX came as a shock to me (and obviously to him too )

partic_10
02-01-2006, 06:36 PM
What a lousy combat pilot! No SA, makes every wrong move you can imagine. Still he had the most vital asset a fighter pilot could have - luck!

Xiolablu3
02-01-2006, 06:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_MC.202

'An even match for the Spitfire MkV and the p51 Mustang'

I didnt realise the Italians had such good planes. Only 1500 produced, they should have built more.

EDIT: I see they had very poor armament tho, which I supopse saved a lot of weight. (most pilots took off the 2 small .303 guns and just had 2x.50cals)

GuNzABlaZiN
02-01-2006, 07:34 PM
MC.205 had 2 .50's and 2 20mm with enought ammo.

Grey_Mouser67
02-01-2006, 07:39 PM
Accounts I've read were that the Mc200 was dated and the equivelant to a Hurricane, but the Mc202 was a very good plane but had poor weapons...was nimble and had speed similar to Spit MkV...don't think it could turn as good. I've also read that many Italian units were regarded as very aggressive and brave pilots that fought hard.
\
I wonder if we will attract an larger group of Italian players as a result of this addon?

VW-IceFire
02-01-2006, 08:49 PM
I believe the RAF pilots concluded that Italian fighter pilots were excellent pilots who flew very agressively but were not very good at gunnery. Maybe something to do with the training program in place? Not sure...I think that came from infamous ace Buzz "Screwball" Beurling (sp).

MC.202 should be a bit like a 109 I think. Same sort of concept...but lighter weight and with lighter armament. I believe that the Italian 12.7mm rounds were actually mixed with high explosive rounds like 20mm cannons...not as good as a cannon but with a little more punch.

Now...the MC.205...not many made but thats supposed to be an awesome fighter. Fast as a Spitfire VIII or IX and well armed with machine guns and MG151/20's. Also supposedly very agile.

Hristo_
02-01-2006, 11:53 PM
From another sim that has decent FM and MC.202 and MC.205 for several years now.

MC.202 is somewhere between Spitfire V and 109F performance wise, but its poor armament will keep it rather unpopular.

MC.205 is somewhere between a Spitfire IX and 109G. Not as fast as later 109G but a better turner. Not as good turner as Spitfire IX, but better than 109G. Armamant is better than that of 109 and arguably better than that of the Spitfire (if MC.205 ever got M-Geschoss).

Cannons are German MG151/20, while machine guns are 12.7 Breda-SAFAT. They use HE rounds, but so do MG131s. Great overall plane in 1943, possibly extending into early 1944. Against late war planes it is obsolete.

Manuel29
02-02-2006, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I didnt realise the Italians had such good planes. Only 1500 produced, they should have built more.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at my sign.

ImpStarDuece
02-02-2006, 06:05 AM
I'm reading "Spitfires over Malta", at the moment which is day by day account of the 1942 air battles over Malta. There are lots of accounts of dogfights both in and against MC 202s.

General opinion among the British seems to be that the Bf 109F was a more dangerous opponent, being faster and more heavily armed. There was a comment by one pilot that the Italians were wonderful aerobatic pilots, but generally speaking, they weren't as agressive or skillful in attack or defence, often breaking at strange times both offensively or defensively. The Reggia Aeronautica didn't seem to posses the same tactical acumen as the LuftWaffe over Malta; lots of victories seemed to come over single or paired fighters operating by away from the main gaggle.

The Mk V pilots seems confident that they could reliably out-turn the MC 202. Lots of combat reports mention turning inside both 109s and 202s. Both German and Italian combat accounts make note of the excellent turning capabilities of the Spitfire, but both still report being able to get inside Spitfires turns.

Interestingly, a captured German pilot who spoke English got into a discussion about the various merits of the Spitfire vs 109. He felt that the 1090 possesed the advantages in speed, while the Spitfire was more manuverable.

Manuel29
02-02-2006, 07:35 AM
Agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

An History Channel documentary about italian aviation said that american pilots were very afraid by the Macchis, not so the RAF.

Grey_Mouser67
02-02-2006, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I believe the RAF pilots concluded that Italian fighter pilots were excellent pilots who flew very agressively but were not very good at gunnery. Maybe something to do with the training program in place? Not sure...I think that came from infamous ace Buzz "Screwball" Beurling (sp).

MC.202 should be a bit like a 109 I think. Same sort of concept...but lighter weight and with lighter armament. I believe that the Italian 12.7mm rounds were actually mixed with high explosive rounds like 20mm cannons...not as good as a cannon but with a little more punch.

Now...the MC.205...not many made but thats supposed to be an awesome fighter. Fast as a Spitfire VIII or IX and well armed with machine guns and MG151/20's. Also supposedly very agile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HE rounds are better in this game, but not necessarily in real life...especially in a HMG. I would think HE .50 cal rounds would be a bit of a liability actually...not like a MG round, just not enough boom.

AP rounds do their damage inside the aircraft and transfer their energy when they strike somehting solid...stut, engine block, ammo box, gun, armor plate....they just travel through the plane looking for something to "explode" but not from HE, rather energy transfer.

HE rounds, usually don't make it past the skin of the aircraft...they blow big holes and make a few little holes due to shrapnel so the external skin and some structure is damaged causing the plane to fly terribly. DM's just aren't complex enough yet to appreciate the differences, but HE and AP rounds were both nearly equally effective, just in different manners...besides AP rounds are much more fun to watch go "boom"...API's are fun too when they start fires...humans have a great fascination for fire!