soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Bill Shatzer" wrote:

> And once equipped with the Daimler-Benz engines, Italian fighters were not
> noticably inferior to their German counterparts.

It was not a matter of engines only. Firepower was considerably inferior
until the Series 5 fighters (MC 205, etc.) with their 20 mm cannons were
issued, and those planes were too few and too late to make any significant
difference. Besides, they were (at best) on a par with the latest Bf 109
models, and by late 1943 - 1944 that bird had lost its edge against newer
Allied designs.

Italian 12,7 mm machineguns had not the punch of same caliber US weapons.
Firing through the propeller, their rate of fire was substantially reduced.
Shooting a heavy bomber down with two MGs firing at nearly the combined rate
of one was an exercise in heroism and good luck. During the tough spring
1943 clashes over Naples, in the attempt to somehow maximize the damage done
by getting as close as possible, some MC 202s got close to collision with
B-24 bombers (US crews mistook 12,7 mm explosive rounds raking their
fuselages for 20 mm ones).

It is usually reported that Italian pilots, firmly rooted into WWI dogfight
tactics, accepted, or asked for less firepower in order to fly nimble planes
best suited to dogfight. Italian pilots' training was certainly obsolete,
but the main reason why firepower was woefully inadequate until too late
into the war is that due to contemporary Italian technology limitations,
aircraft structure was heavier than most foreign competitors in the same
league. A heavy structure propelled by a weak engine can't carry much in the
way of machineguns or cannons.

Haydn