Fiat G.55 - The Italian Fighter Germany Desired

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hey, there! I hope you enjoy this new video and thank you all for your support. You've been fantastic. About this video: If you want to know more about the German Commission's findings on this aircraft, you can check out the Military Aviation History video on this subject: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXSbnZV8bLJpqsk It contains more details and I used it for some of the information on the Head to Head section of this video.

[@Cbabilon675]

Thank you for the information to this was well-made. Also I shudder to think what would have happened if they had the G56 back in 1942. I have a feeling that thing we've been a game-changer.

[@talpark8796]

That was very interesting. thx Its good to see a channel showcasing lesser known aircraft fr the war, Other than we few history weirdos, they are largely ignored.

[@kevindistill1572]

😊

[@i.r.s9494]

The limited information on the G.56 indicates it could have seriously challenged for the best air superiority fighter of the War had it been mass produced. It combined incredible speed (465 mph) and outstanding maneuverability at all altitudes. It probably needed a little more resilience and had there been a will to solve a few of its problems, it would have conceivably become the Axis' best conventional fighter.

[@twolak1972]

Once design. Fast and agile .

[@Diadema033]

No, its max speed was rated at 685 km/h, more or less like the Fw-190D. And it flew on march 1944, really too late to make any difference, just like the Ta-152.

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

Worse range than Spitfire and Bf 109.

[@TinyBearTim]

@@Diadema033what are u saying the speed in kph

[@peterlinz2733]

Die Probleme hätten auf Grund von Mangel an Motoren nie behoben werden können

[@paoloviti6156]

One of my favorite airplane!! It is good to remember that despite being all-metal it, instead of being made more commonly with wood, had a structure that took roughly 15,000 man-hours to be built compared to 5,000/7000 man-hours to build up the Me 109G series. The ugly truth was that the Italian industry was never optimised for mass production and generally it was produced in rather cramped halls with limited resources like alloys like aluminium ensuring ridiculously slow production not to mentionrelatively few skilled labour. Going back to the Fiat G.55 it was a delight to fly and necessitated lower power settings than the Me 109 as it was aerodynamically cleaner and with wide legs was more safer to land and to take off. I have spoken with the R.S.I. veterans years ago, I'm Italian, and told me that it was not true at all that they disliked the Me 109G but were generally nervous to land in half prepared fields as they never knew if the legs were going to snap! That said the airframe of the G.55 could easily accept the bigger and more powerful DB 603, that couldn't fit in the Me 109G, so it was slated to put in production but because Germany had big problems to mass produce this engine together with the difficulty to mass produce the airplane and limited resources it had to cease production. Hope I didn't bore you....

[@edwardpate6128]

Compare that to how many man hours it took to crank out Allied aircraft.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@edwardpate6128 in Great Britain there was even a propaganda publicity showing how fast one bomber could be built! But I don't remember what bomber it was...

[@antonioiozzi9171]

True.

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

It would be impossible to bore people like us with information like that.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music thank you for your kind words as I love airplanes and related history 👍👍👍

[@lucienvandegaart3611]

My dad was a colonel in A A. Corp in ww2.and said the italians made some beautiful planes. They were master craftsmen in motor industries. Like marble cutters just masters with their hands and if they had the resources they could outdo all others Its shows today with their cars. Very expensive but well worth the money the work is fantastic

[@ericatruong6939]

to me made in italy products are worse than made in china PERIOD

[@SUP_Bigans]

The best ww2 Italian engines were copy of German ones. Other radials engines were copy of English and french ones, made by fiat, Isotta Fraschini, Piaggio. Italian are good in handmade prototyps for racing, in fact at the beginning of ww2 all planes were underpowered against the enemy's ones. During the war they tryed to increase quality and quantity, but lack of know how and materials let them to ask production of German ones.

[@danieleyre8913]

Unfortunately that master craftsmanship severely limited production output. Especially compared to the assembly lines of the UK, USA and USSR. And it also inhibited technical advancements.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

Hi, Dan. Have you heard the old joke about engineering philosophy? You start with the need for a notched bolt screwed into a piece of metal. The Germans would build a production line to crank out perfect notched bolts that any idiot could screw in. The British would have a master craftsman machining the bolts and an apprentice responsible for screwing them in. The Americans would redesign the piece of metal so a common bolt would work. The Soviets would use soft iron pegs and big enough hammers to pound them in. The French would devise a unique solution to some other problem and run out of bolts. And... Don't bother the Italians! They're artists!

[@Anton-qf9ft]

I motori alfa romeo, montati su,Savoia Marchetti S79, negli anni 34. Resero questo bombardiere italiano, il più veloce dell’epoca.

[@helischorsch9786]

As an RC model pilot I don’t understand that we don’t see this beautiful plane somewhere as scale plane🤔… looks so cool

[@hape4]

Exactly!! I’ve been looking for this plane in a rc model and the only one close I found is the Vinh Quang RC models Fiat G-59 which is built from balsa, pre built and covered. It’s for e-motor or glow engine and it has a decent size. It’s not quite as nice as the G55 but I would order it if I knew how to do. From their English website I don’t see any way to order it.

[@hape4]

They also make the Macchi 205 Veltro btw!!

[@tonyromano6220]

Build one!

[@RENEGADEJon19]

It doesn't have the same pull as the more famous aircraft. Most every WW II model builder wants the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spitfire, FW190, BF109, or Zero because those are "the" planes. A Fiat? Not so much.

[@andysolution62]

einfach mal abwarten - bin grad am bauen einer Fiat G-56:

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

The G56, C205, and Re. 2005 are probably my favorite planes of the war thank you for covering this one!!

[@bg147]

The Spitfire and Bf 109 were beautiful looking fighters. The P-40 had its own appeal as well. The Italian Serie 5 fighters were at the top of the heap, in my eyes. Sleek and graceful.

[@andreassteyer1404]

jeah ok it looks good but fly as shit. In war not the beauty matters. but the performance.

[@danioa9414]

@@andreassteyer1404 which plane flies like shit? If you are referring to the G55 obviously you do not understand anything of what has been said about this aircraft

[@danieleyre8913]

@@andreassteyer1404 All three of the Italian Serie 5 fighters flew majestically. Come back when you’ve even paid attention to this video.

[@danieleyre8913]

I always thought that the MiG-3 was the very best looking fighter of the Second World War.

[@bg147]

@@danieleyre8913 Beautiful machine. The inlines had nice sleek lines.

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

You can see the staggered wings 1:10 that the G-55 and C. 205 used to counter engine torque the starboard is shorter than the port wing. Italy was only 2 nations to do this during the war the other was Sweden with their limited production F.F.V.S. J-22 but it didn't have it quite as extreme as the Italian fighters did. All single engine fighters want to rotate with the engine revolutions and direction, and this was a cheap way to counter it and so make the plane fly in a straight line without any control inputs to counter the torque. It also had the benefit of making it turn sharper to the right due to that shorter wing, a lot of US and British pilots said you never wanted to turn with these in a right hand turn as they could out turn you and be on your tail in 2 full revolutions. The first Italian fighter to use this was the predecessor to the 205 the C. 202.

[@mideuropean]

All single (piston) engined Planes (not only fighters) want to rotate AGAINST(not: WITH) engine revolutions direction - especially at changes of throttle positions. I tried this myself with the extremely docile motorglider SF25, a plane said to be impossible to bring into a spin. After some trials I found out: Bring the bird with low engine revolution (engine revolves LEFT) near to stall speed and then (quickly and synchronized): Full throttlle, full elevator, full rudder right. You would not believe HOW this plane went into a right spin.... Same to the left: Impossible... And now imagine the counter torque of an approx. 1100kgs/1900hp DB605 or 603...

[@rosiehawtrey]

Sopwith Camel did the same thing, would turn right 3x faster than turning left. Not all single engine aircraft do this. The way to solve it is counter rotating prop.

[@mxdl1173]

@@rosiehawtrey I think this was common to all rotary engine equipped fighters...

[@destroyerarmor2846]

Interesting

[@robertoorsi5771]

However our top ace fighter in WW2 was Serg. Maj. Luigi Gorrini, gold medal. He shot down two B 17, and seveeral others allied planes: B 24, P 47, Spitfire, P 40, P 38, Blenheim. Hurricane. Always with Macchi (ing. Castoldi) airplanes: MC 200 Saetta, MC 202 Folgore, MC 205 Veltro. He was a true gentleman pilot, often launching water bottles to the enenmies he shot down on the african desert to save their lives.

[@ardshielcomplex8917]

Thats all very well, but could he dance a reasonable Tango as a Regio Airenautica Pilot was expected to ?,

[@anonymousdude9099]

How many Germans did he shoot down after Italy switched sides?

[@Scarp7141]

@@anonymousdude9099 he fought for Italian Social Republic after the armistice on the side of Germany

[@lowersaxon]

@@Scarp7141Yes,🫢. Visconti seems to have the biggest hero status even today, is that correct?

[@MiG-31893]

Pat Pattle shot down 23 Italian planez

[@Arthion]

I love the G.55 and the Serie 5 fighters in general. Very unrecognised, people tend to not know that Italy actually designed some of the best performing airframes in the Axis despite the various problems Italy and its armed forced had during the war. I was kinda hoping you'd mention the post-war G.59 that was re-designed to use a RR Merlin engine instead of the DB 605 but I guess some other day then..

[@moss8448]

damn good engineers

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hey there. I normally stay focused on the second world war, as it is the channel's topic, and the G.59 was created after the war ended. But I really thought about going a little further there. Praise the Omnissiah! 😊

[@lucienvandegaart3611]

Italians make great anything with a motor. To them its a true art to make it beautiful and run and sound better than it looks. Beautiful looking birds. 55 was like a fararri in the sky. Just a nice piece of art theyre always in the top

[@kasimsultonfan]

😂😂

[@krishendrix4924]

Don't forget to mention that the Italian fighters used in the test had a less powerful engine. If they had the same engine as the Bf 109G, they would have matched its speed and probably climbed faster. The Germans saw the G.55 as a suitable base for the DB 603A but in fact, the DB 605ASM delivered the same power. As such, the G.55 could have stayed in production until more powerful versions of the DB 603 appeared in 1945. Finally, it is true that the Italian aircraft required more manhours, thereby making it unsuited to produce in Germany. However, there was nothing stopping them from starting a bigger decentralised production of the Fiat G.55 in Italy, where there was less of an issue with manpower.

[@toniberger6005]

well italy got a weak industry so the plan to push another factory out of nothing isnt realistic. you need extra infrastuktur, ressources and you need qualified personal to build the factory, engines, Planes ect ect not to mention that you also need to extent the amount of pilots in your airforce and their training.

[@szilardtoth8814]

Different nation, different philosophy, different approach, different kinda implementation respectively.

[@danieleyre8913]

It is absolutely true about the backward Italian production methods. Their aircraft were assembled by highly skilled craftsmen rather than the assembly line of everyone else and that doomed their aerospace industry to underdeliver aircraft. Well everyone else except the French, who had the same approach and problem.

[@danieleyre8913]

@@toniberger6005It wasn’t a case of “weak industry”, it was a case of backward production methods.

[@danieleyre8913]

@@szilardtoth8814 And this “different approach” compromised fascist Italy.

[@jamessmith1785]

Thank you for elaborating on pilot Giulio Torresi, Italian aces of WW2 book does not mention his tally (3) with the Re-2005 versus spitfires in Sicily, bombers in Naples and his G-55 tally in N. Italy

[@grumpycalenzana7514]

If my recollections are correct, George Beurling the unforgettable Canadian Ace, in his book Malta Spitfire mentions that the Axis fighter he thought was the best and the one to watch was the Fiat, I cannot remember which of the G series he mentioned. I lost that book long time ago. He you can find that book READ it it describes all the heroic feats of this Canadian warrior. He is also mentioned the the books by Pierre Closterman, I believe Fire in the sky.

[@The67wheelman]

Screwball Beurling was a piece of work. No one could instinctive shoot like him….nobody and in fact he swapped out his tracer rounds for regular ones cause he didn’t need the visual cue and wanted more ammo that killed. Hats off to George.

[@MDzmitry]

Wasn't he mentioned in James Johnson's memoirs? IIRC George served in James' wing for some time.

[@SUP_Bigans]

Beurling never faced a g55, for the simple reason that only few of them were in Sicily after July 1943 and then they were soon withdrawal.

[@jagers4xford471]

Without a doubt your series on aircraft is one of the most informative on the internet. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to accuracy and detail. Keep up the good work. 🤙

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you very much!

[@ericmowrey6872]

I think the G.55 confirms the adage that if a plane is beautiful it flies well. The A6-M Zero, the Spitfire, the P-51Mustang. These fighters stood out in their time for exceptional flying characteristics. Not coincidently they were uniquely "sexy" in their lines and proportions compared to other fighters. Naturally the Italians are going to design a fighter on par with the best; a beautiful aircraft. How can the hereditary practitioners of style and function do otherwise? Though relatively few in number and somewhat lost to history it should be of no surprise these were great planes. Great video. Much appreciated, thanks.

[@danieleyre8913]

The A6M beautiful? Haven’t heard it be described as that before. The most beautiful of all the fighter aircraft of the second world was the MiG-3. Yet it didn’t fly especially well. It was fast at high altitudes and had excellent energy retention. But it was inagile and flew poorly at low altitudes and was very difficult and demanding for pilots to operate.

[@ericmowrey6872]

@@danieleyre8913 Well beauty is subjective my friend, and there are exceptions to the beauty/flight theory, no doubt. However, I maintain my fundamental agreement with Dassault concerning aircraft design. I am surprised that you exclude the Zero from the category. It has graceful, clean lines and maintained air superiority up until allied designs made it obsolete after 1942 to '43. Another gorgeous Japanese fighter was the Oscar; flown mainly by the Japanese army.

[@danieleyre8913]

@@ericmowrey6872 Well as for this “hereditary practitioners of style and function”: have you ever seen the FIAT CR.32? Or how about the Serie 3 Italians fighters; the G.50 & C.200? Sorry but nationality does not determine anything.

[@ericmowrey6872]

So what's your point in the end dude? Are you one of those wearisome people who argue for the sake of it? Italy has the upper hand when it comes to making anything more stylish. It's in their blood, their DNA. They can't help themselves. Whether it's cars or boats or motorcycles or fucking shoes and, yes, even airplanes; they have style. I'm not even Italian and I can see that. It's an honest observation but you dig out a few exceptions and say it's not the case. Ever hear the expression "nobody's perfect"? Are you a troll or something? You sound like one.

[@csjrogerson2377]

Whether or not your first sentance is true, it certainly doesn't apply to their cars and superyachts. Look good, but don't buy one. Their women my look beautiful, but don't marry one. Remember the 3 Fs - if it flies, floats or f^&ks, rent it by the hour.

[@brianmartin3342]

A great Italian WWII fighter. This is something we never hear about in the states, probably due to the fact that Italy started the war on the side of the axis. But this makes sense considering the most beautiful cars in the world are still produced in small cities in Italy today. Italians make amazing, beautiful machines but the Germans were better on the mass production end of it. I believe that still holds true today.

[@mottthehoople693]

well actually they never started the war...fascist Mussolini dragged them into the war...The Italians per se didnt want anything to do with the nazis ....and when Italian anti fascist partisans finally won anyone who was a fascist power figure ie police chiefs politicians etc were killed by the Italians themselves...good job too....we could start doing that with our rightwing politicians and their media enablers....

[@diademadiademoni202]

G-55 was actually a pretty crappy fighter according to pilots like Mario Bellagambi (italian ace who used it actually), he preferred C.205 and G.55. The same was true for german pilots.

[@proarte4081]

Not exactly, German industrial production is still the first in Europe today, but Italian industrial production is just second, on the other hand, 80 years ago, Italian industrial production was significantly lower than German, French and English. Italy was an agricultural country at the time, but today it is one of the largest industrial countries in Europe.

[@andrewdickerson849]

@@mottthehoople693 operation Gladio disproves a lot of what you said. Lots of Italian fascists left to prevent commies from winning.

[@mottthehoople693]

@@andrewdickerson849 disproves? Wtf? You need to read up abit

[@capo.88]

German heart in an Italian fighter. We didn't see enough of them but was a great one.

[@ericbrammer2245]

Nicely informative, well laid-out video. I always wondered if the G-55 was the Re-2005's superior. Now, I know, that what my Uncle (a B-26 & B-17 combat pilot, and B-26 Instructor, employed by Martin) said about not being able to 'get above' some of the Italian planes was entirely true. Thanks!

[@rosiehawtrey]

You know, I always wondered what you'd get if you took a B17 - pulled the radials off it, and replaced them with 4 Packard Merlins...

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@revansecofreak394]

If I were flying for the Axis, I would’ve preferred an Italian plane. Any of the 3 mentioned here. But I understand that it would’ve been easier to mass produce the German planes. Amazing planes though! Thanks for making a video on less spoken of aircraft

[@littlebritain64]

Yes, germans had the organization, the resources, the industries.... They should have considered better these italian jewels...

[@RockinRedRover]

Good vid, good to hear abt the Italian planes, thanks. I see lots of comments here abt Italian planes, cars, etc all looking great - and I agree, thats why I found this video. HOWEVER looks arent everything in life, especially engineering. I'm a retired aerospace engineer, and in my humble opinion many Italian products, be they cars or fridges, often look great and even perform well when new, BUT often at the expense of them being complex, fragile and unreliable, be they 1980s Lancias & Fiats which rusted even! faster than British Leyland cars, or modern kitchen appliances or even supercars that are nightmares for even trained mechanics. So add this recipe to a wartime scenario, and it's NO surprise the "sensible" Germans stayed with their proven 109. Plus, despite people mentioning how the G55 takes FAR longer than a 109 to build, this is despite the fact that German aircraft industry were themselves overly-reliant on highly-skilled staff almost hand-crafting parts, they wern't that good at mass-production either !. In conclusion, a lovely looking and undoubtedly excellent plane "on it's day", just like the Italian Schneider Trophy seaplanes of the 30s - yet they didn't perform when they were most needed. (PS - I should add that from 1988 to 1995 my job in UK was design, build and flight-proving of new oil cooler fans for the main engine gearboxes of Italian Helicopters (Agusta A129 and A109K2), both very challenging projects. I worked with, and occasionally visited, the Agusta engineers in Samarate, and in all fairness they were capable and their end products were reliable, esp the A109. So clearly Italian engineering can be very good, especially in more modern times and in aerospace. However I still stand by my statement that it's NO surprise that Germany did not adopt the G55 over their own BF109.)

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you! Nice comment, and thank you for sharing your experience.

[@TWH_Pixy]

Wow what an excellent video about an underrated bird! She's my absolute favorite aircraft and she never gets the respect she deserves for how good it was. Liked and Subscribed!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you and welcome!

[@kenkratman6447]

It is fantastic to finally hear about Italy and WW2. Thank you!

[@stephengrant6316]

The Italian Fiat G.55 and it's variants were lovely aircraft. Beautifully designed airframes looked organic, not mechanical.

[@irvingnerdbaum7256]

Yes, that's it, they "..looked organic , not mechanical"! I've always thought the three Italian monoplanes mentioned in the video are some of the most attractive WWII fighters, and I just couldn't think how to describe them very well , but you got it right, Mr. Grant, for the Fiat G.55 and the others, too, I think. They are elegant and beautiful in a "sexy" sort of way. [ I hate to have used that term!] They are very similar in design but each with its own uniqueness, if that makes sense.

[@wavecentral]

Great video. While the G55 was probably the better fighter, the best case was that it would take slightly under double the time and effort to produce a G-55 versus a Me-109. As the Germans found out on the Eastern front - quantity has a quality all of its own.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@majorkursk780]

It is a nice change of pace learning about WW2 Italian aircraft...very nice production!

[@edwardquin4464]

What a fantastic series! Thanks very much and looking forward to more.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@johanrunfeldt7174]

By the time the Germans concluded the testing of the Italian fighters, a new policy document had been added to the procurement rules for Luftwaffe: All fighters had to be able to carry bombs and perform JaBo missions, since this was the only way to give Close Air Support to the Army, after the Stuka had become obsolescent. The Italian fighters could not carry any bombs or maybe a very small load (like one 100kg (220lb) bomb under each wing), so they were not suited for CAS work. That was a very important reason why the Luftwaffe didn't adopt any of these fighters.

[@mariobentivenga844]

Awww yeah, it’s the italian’s time to shine, and with one of my favorite planes nonetheless! Always happy to see your videos in my feed!

[@Trucksofwar]

Always loved the look of this plane, it looks like it’s going 100mph sitting still

[@proofbox]

Italy makes good stuff as a 30 year maintenance mechanic in the food and container industry I have dealt with many Italian made machines . This video makes me think that the SM-79 bomber would have been what Japan could have used as the G4M betty had deficiencies and the SM79 was better suited to their needs being faster better armed and a awesome torpedo bomber as it could carry two torpedos or a 1000 larger bomb load and as a three engine aircraft a loss of one engine was less of a problem from asymmetrical thrust not to mention 2340 HP compared 1060 HP. I always liked this plane and it could have been a good ship killer in the right theater .

[@parabelluminvicta8380]

It was a ship killer in fact the royal navy feared it!

[@garybrader8447]

Excuse me, am I to understand that you think the SM79 was superior to the G4M Betty? Stick to the container industry.

[@oscarvi3232]

An excellent report. I am greatly impressed by your explaining the amount of man hours required to produce the Centauro compared to the Bf 109. Quantity has a quality of its own.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@knightonwarbeck1969]

Wow. Knew nothing about this plane until today. Well done video! Thank you. Subscribed.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you and welcome!

[@adamtruong1759]

I think after watching this video, I can call the G. 55 "The Plane I Learned to Respect." The thumbnail of video makes the G. 55 look cool, too.

[@rastapopoulos7870]

Brilliant Video, just discovered the channel. Engaging storytelling and a great summary of what the plane is all about! One suggestion though: maybe you count speed, climb rate and maneuverability double in the head to head comparison as they make or break a fighters performance in combat. Thrilled for more videos!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hey there! There are plans to upgrade the head to head section and make it more of a true comparison between aircraft. I will take your suggestion in account, and thank you!

[@romandecaesar4782]

Excellent video. The issues with the G-56 cited by the German commission could have been addressed and resolved if the motivation to do so would have been apparent. The leaders in the Italian aviation industry at the time would have had to embraced a paradigm shift in manufacturing processes, procedures and techniques for which it was not only unprepared, but unwilling to undertake. The German commission's purpose was to discover opportunities that were so overwhelming superior to any available at home. However, and as great as the G-56 was, and with the advent of jet fighter development in Germany, there must not have been in the minds of the German commission the belief or the feeling that the G-56 was overwhelmingly superior to any designed or produced piston engine fighters serving in the Luftwaffe at the time.

[@jameseubanks379]

Bout time we hear about the Italian fighter planes, would have thought they spent their time on train schedules rather than producing good fighter planes. New information for me. Thank you.

[@BoomVang]

Beautiful examples of these found in air museum north of Rome, on lake b. I was able to walk there from train station to the north.

[@paoloviti6156]

I know very well this museum with very interesting airplanes, engines and memorabilia! Unfortunately there is no real G.55 as it made from various relics and replica and I don't know if it has an DB 605 engine installed! The museum is very interesting with a lovely SM 79 that is very well restored!

[@qomiq19fan]

Beautiful video as always mate keep up the good work. I would like to see the La7's high alt conversion video someday too

[@AllthingsWW2]

I will surely cover the La-7, as well as other Lavochkin aircraft, in the future.

[@royalcard5443]

One of my favourites of all time! Great stuff!

[@samy7013]

Excellent video! Liked and subscribed! 👍 Thank you for shedding light on one of my favorite aircraft of WW2, and certainly the one I consider to be the best looking of all the WW2 fighters. 😎

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you and welcome!

[@barryscott6222]

Congratulations on a very well produced video. Your use of graphics and titles is a great example to many other content makers.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@fload46d]

As we have seen with sports cars, the Italians have built the most beautiful ones. The same can probably be said of these fighters.

[@NeuKrofta]

It wasn't just labor hours that decided the conclusions, but also all the logistics of supply and repair. The Germans already had tons of spare parts and airframes etc for the 109 and changing the airframe to anything else that late in the war was deemed as not being worth it. The repair and maintenance infrastructure was catered to the 109s. It would have been a massive burden to change their main fighter

[@janvalasekcz]

Exactly the point. Soviets had the same idea and therefore it was the T-34 that carried them to Berlin despite its outdated design.

[@lowersaxon]

Yes, the US could have done sth like that but non other country, let alone Germany. It was so lala prepared for Blitzkrieg but not at all for „total war“.

[@martentrudeau6948]

It was late to join the war, if the Italian design and German engineering were sorted out sooner the Fiat G.55 would have had a greater effect on the war. Those Italian fighters were good looking planes.

[@a.b.6233]

Mussolini told Hitler that Italy needed 5 years to get ready for war, I guess the G.55 is proof of this.

[@capo.88]

Good looking doesn't win wars. And I don't think any plane could've actually stopped the outcome of the war

[@johnreed9435]

No large scale industrial base in Italy doomed them from the get go. Axis lost the industrial and logistics war are the 2 most important reasons why they lost

[@alessandrom7181]

It was not just German engineering, it was also the italian one.

[@edwardpate6128]

Really like your channel! You are doing a lot of fighters others have ignored such as these Italian ones. Also love the time you have spent on on of my favorites the P-39.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@buckwheatINtheCity]

If the G55 had arrived a year sooner, the allies would have had a much harder time defeating the Italians. The Germans would have fared better if they could have produced the G55 from 1943 when American bombers started bombing Germany. They could have supplemented the German fighter production. German central planning and priorities were always flawed. The Me 110 remained in production although its shortcomings were known. The Me 410 was not taken out of production, although it was hardly better than the 110. Herrmann Goring and Ehrhard Milch did not have their priorities straight.

[@marseldagistani1989]

I think the problem with Me410 were it's single spar wings. Which, while good for a fighter like Bf109, it wasn't really good for heavy fighters.

[@901Sherman]

The 110s and other twin engine fighters still excelled at night interception (more so than their single engine counterparts) and given what bomber Harris was sending over, it’s understandable why they were kept in production.

[@tommasorovida2280]

Consider that the c205 in 1943 obtained a kill/loss ratio of around 5:1 during the defence of Italian skies, and only about 100-150 of them were produced before the armistice. Imagine if italy could mass produce them, thus having something like 1000 of them, along with the other series 5 planes

[@gonuts4donuts]

I'm fairly certain that the 109G-4's standard armament was 2x 7.92mm MG17 and 1x 20mm MG151/20. The 13mm's weren't fitted until the G-6 model

[@bmwelch320]

You're comment of the Bf 109 G-4 armament of 2 x7.9mm and 1 x MG 151 cannon is correct. And the thing climbed like hell - around 4,200 ft. per minute! A very high performance aircraft that remained in service long after the much more numerous (and heavier) G6 version largely took over and equipped much of the BF 109 units. G4 versions - with their lighter weight and very good high altitude performance .. were used as fighter vs. fighter against the escorting P-47s .. and later P-51's well into the spring of 1944.

[@norbertopineda1167]

Muy buen video. Es un avion que los argentinos tenemos un cariño especial ya que se fabrico bajo licencia y sirvio en la Fueza Aerea Argentina. Buen video.Saludos

[@lorenzomarzona7160]

Onore ai nostri piloti che hanno sempre combattuto come leoni senza mai tirarsi indietro nemmeno di fronte a centinaia di aerei avversari

[@lowersaxon]

Yes!! Agreed.

[@garynew9637]

Good format, enjoyable and interesting video on obscure ww2 aircraft

[@burtonporter8437]

P51 next- love this channel and got sad when there were only 5 videos when I found it. Thank you

[@murikaicoments5847]

Same I am looking forward to more and yes please do the p-51 my fav ww2 fighter

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you! The P-51 is a hard fighter to cover, I will wait until I have a little bit more experience to do it justice. But I will definitely do it.

[@garynew9637]

Been done to death on many other channels.

[@rob5944]

A great, no nonsense channel that tells the story in easy to understand way. I'd of had this aircraft for bomber interception mixed with spitfires, P47 for ground attack, P51s as escorts and Mosquitoes in the PR/interdiction role and to top it off; 24hr strategic Lancs+ and B-17. Anyone any other thoughts on building a fantasy airforce?

[@twinns34]

Solid lineup, no flaws. I would find a way to incorporate the Corsairs (my fav WW2 plane), the Mustang was the best high altitude fighter but lacked the ability to take a punch.

[@rob5944]

@@twinns34 I forgot naval aviation, interesting angle. 👍

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@k98_zock_tv47]

Very interesting! Now I want "IL-2 Battle of Italy" even more :)

[@davidbridge5652]

The Italians certainly know how to make a good looking aircraft

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

The Me-109 was always crippled in that one always had to choose between reduced performance or reduced armament. All of the 5 series fighters had better armament with near equal or superior performance. As to which was better, a politician might say cheaper means better value, a general might say faster production is better, and a pilot would want the best. It's easy to see why *_both_* the G.55 and C.205 were chosen for mass production.

[@OliverSchroeder]

Excellent compilation, thank you! 👏👏👏👏

[@spiritof6986]

Thankyou. Excellent video. Subscribed. Greetings from Scotland.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you and welcome!

[@peterlinz2733]

Mit dem DB 605 Motor wurde die Maschine zur G56.Die G56 war den Meisten Deutschen und Alliierten Jägern Ebenbürtig oder sogar Überlegen.Auf Grund von Mangel an Motoren ging diese Version aber nie in Serie.Es wurden lediglich 2 Prototypen gebaut

[@davidbeattie4294]

In a global conflict with huge attrition, the aircraft that takes fewer man-hours to produce has a major advantage.

[@pieroincani]

not completely agree... Time is not the sole parametre... Arguably, a more important parameter is the time it takes to convert production lines for the new model. The Bf209 and 309 were also victims of this ... Spitfire took 25.000 h/man at the beginning and 15.000 h/man at end of war and nobody dares to say this was a problem... Always G.55 production time is compared with Bf.109, but nobody had compared G.55 with FW190... I didn't waste much time on it but I never found the FW190 production time figure...

[@jprules2578]

I'm a fan of all three Italian aircraft "finalists", but truly their biggest fault would probably reside with all three being labor intensive to produce. Italy was never geared up for a real war footing, and Germany itself hadn't planned out for a long term war so they found themselves playing catch up in 43 when the writing was already on the wall whether they realized it or not.

[@hokehinson5987]

Great video on a little known axis fighter. Study has shown how each country contributed unique designs to produce capable fighters. Just shows the aspect of universal consciousness.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@donarthiazi2443]

Very good video. Clear and Informative and when I heard _The Godfather_ music in the background I got the biggest smile 🙂 Very well done!!

[@christophggcyrus6861]

Excellent piece of information - thanks a lot for that 🙏 - Very well done!

[@giorgioottaviani2841]

Simply lovely. Wonderful job guy.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@lowersaxon]

Very good instructive video. Thank you.

[@andrewbranch4918]

I like Italian planes they seem to be overlooked a bit. Russian planes too. When you look into the wartime aviation world, there's a lot of what ifs.if the Germans had have produced some of their better stuff the war would have been so much longer.Makes you think eh?: Good video 👍

[@Leptospirosi]

I read first hand the conclusion of Ing. Kurt Tank about all the Series 5 Fighters. None of the new fighters were obviously as promising as the upcoming Me262, but nothing even came close. What Tank focussed on how to mass produce a plane that could improve over the existing Bf-109 and Fw-190A. They wanted a fighter chassis for their DB603. The Macchi was not good because it was not good where the war wanted it to be: Up high. It also was a nightmare to build, despite inheriting the thoughtless of all 200 series. It could not mount an engine mounted gun at least on the first series. the N would be required but it was not ready for the showdown. It was a good stopgap because every MC202 could be converted to the 2005 standard. The Mc-205 was also too small to fit the Db603 engine. The Re2005 was an excellent airframe aerodynamically speaking, but had a fatal flaw in the tail assembly that made it too vulnerable. It also was the most complex to build and not at all conceived for mass production in large numbers. I saw some images of the Re2006 with the DB603 engine, but I don't know if it ever flew. It was damaged in an Allied bomb raid and scrapped. The G55 was excellent, despite being marginally slower then the Re2005 and the Bf-109G. Where the true strength of the plane lied was a large fuselage, allowing for a heavy armament and provision for an engine mounted 20 or 30mm. It was excellent and very comfortable above 12000m where no other axis plane could fly with ease. Build complexity was a problem, but as Tank stated it could be reduced to a manageable 9000 men hours, not far from the FW190. It also was a very sturdy plane, with a large landing gear footprint, unlike the Bf109. The presence of a large cooling radiator under the cockpit prevented the use of large bombs, but the plane was mainly intended for interception. What really amazed Kurt Tank was the incredible harmony of the controls of the plane up to Mach 0.85 which literally required no trims. Tank was so impressed to ask for a n interview with Ing. Gabrielli to better understand how it was made possible. The Luftwaffe industry ministry higly prised the G55 and pushed for it's immediate mass production, evaluating production in Germany for the G56 variant. It was 1942, so Italy had no industrial capacity to rapidly switch production of the Reggiane and Macchi design for the Fiat: it was decided to keep all three the models in low production until a large manufacture chain could be arranged, but the war was going badly and northern industrial area was repeatedly hit by allied bombardment flying form North Africa. This is the reason because Kurt Tank developed the Ta-152, as the G55 was no more a viable solution, rather then "difficulties" in bringing the G56 build time in line with German requirements. Actually the build time of a G56 was comparable to a Fw-190D had mass production really started. Another reason might have been the lack of DB603 engine, which were almost all mounted on Junkers and Henschel and Dornier Night Fighters. Both the Fw-190D and the Ta-152 had to be adapted to the Jumo engines, which Tank never loved. The G55 kept flying and being built after the end of the war, until the DB605 became difficult to get. The G55 found new life by adapting the Rolls Roice Merlin engine, with the name G59 becoming the backbone trainer for the italian air force.

[@steveanderson9718]

Hello, Really Good..... Great history coverage..... Is there any Centauro's that still are airworthy there in Europe ?

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

G55 was an exceptional aircraft. Italy have a gift for engines and the engine is the heart and soul of any combat aircraft. Needless to say they make good airplanes.

[@bornonthebattlefront4883]

Something to be said about Italian mechanics Even if the thing they build has it’s issues It’s always 3 things Fast as a bat out of hell Absolutely drop dead gorgeous Extremely expensive The G.55 and even the precursor, the G.50 are absolutely gorgeous planes Much better lookers IMO then the P-51 and the Spitfire Which are both excellent planes in their own right, but something about the G.55 is so striking and beautiful Like a Red Tailed Hawk of airplanes Just striking

[@KotobKotob]

Never knew italian fighter among the best and even superior to german fighter

[@bingosunnoon9341]

Do you use Me-109 and Bf-109 interchangeably or do you use the place where they were built? Every one I've seen in museums are labeled Me-109s. These Fiats are all fine looking airplanes.

[@ralfis1234]

I love your videos man! Keep it up! I hope one day you will make video about soviet La series.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you! A video about the LaGG-3 will be released in a few days. 👍

[@donfoley1590]

Fantastic Documtaries. 10/10. Love these.

[@thiemokellner1893]

Very refreshing, having a closer look at a plane away from the main stream.

[@princesofthepower3690]

G.55 had a top speed of 417 mph with WEP. The 390 mph quoted figure was without WEP and fully armed.

[@phlather]

I love the format of this video. Bravo!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@ralphbalfoort2909]

The Luftwaffe apparently chose quantity over quality. In a twist on history, the American Army went with the M-4 Sherman against the much more powerful German tanks.

[@TalkingGIJoe]

Italians know from beautiful design...

[@chriscarbaugh3936]

No, far too many man hours required when the Germans needed planes so badly. Still a beautiful plane w so much promise. Great video! 👍

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@mikemortensen4973]

You forgot the Macchi C.202! It was an earlier war aircraft that had some success. It was simialr to the C.205 but slower with worse armament, if I remember correctly.

[@stevelewis7263]

The Fiat G55 Centauro and the Macchi C205 Veltro are almost identical, did the designers collaborate or did one of them copy the other's design

[@neutronalchemist3241]

They are structurally completely different, especially in the wings. The resemblance came from using the same engine (that dictaded the shape ofthe engine cowling), the same cockpit and the same weapons (that were requested by the Regia Aeronautica).

[@murikaicoments5847]

Love these vids man please do the p-51/p-47/p-38 or f4U corsair next

[@AllthingsWW2]

Of these four, probably the P-38 or F4U will be covered sooner, thank you for you comment.

[@murikaicoments5847]

@@AllthingsWW2 that would be splendid

[@grumpycalenzana7514]

Also, the Dewoitine 520 and the Lagg5, please ?

[@AndrewC6]

Superb video thank you !

[@Briselance]

01:15 The Re 2005 was the fastest at high altitudes and the most maneuvrable, yet the G 55 was the most performant at high altitudes? I don't get it.

[@WildBillCox13]

Good content. Thanks for posting.

[@AviViljoen]

Great video, great channel, subbed.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you and welcome!

[@theonlymadmac4771]

Very good planes! But it was the right decision not to produce them, as ease of construction is an important factor often not considered.

[@-Zevin-]

Yes this is such an important point that is too often overlooked. Logistics is so important in actual war. It reminds me of the numerous debates I have had with people surrounding the Mig-21 vs the F-4 phantom. Point being the F-4 is technically better, from a on paper stats / performance standpoint. However from a mass production and cost point of view the MiG is clearly superior, and I would gladly take 4x as many MiGs as compared to a small number of F-4 for the same price/time. Cost and production are hugely important factors.

[@drott150]

Not to mention that the Me262 was first test flown before these comparative tests were even completed. The 262 supply chains, tooling and manufacturing processes were already underway by the time this report came out. Clearly, the Germans would have been much better off focusing on ramping up production on the 262 instead of all the various "side roads" it ended up taking at a critical timeframe, thereby diluting the 262 to a mere technology demonstrator at the end of the war.

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Good job !! This is really amazing*

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@Schlipperschlopper]

Fiat G56 had beaten the hell out of Spitfires and Mustangs!

[@MDzmitry]

1: Did it get into service? If yes, when and where? 2: Did it change anything? 3: If you want to brag about performance, better compare a fighter to its enemies of the same year of production and in more details

[@Schlipperschlopper]

@@MDzmitry Untill end of WW2 there was not one allied piston engine fighter that was better than a G56, G56 with DB 603 engine was better than Focke Wulff FW 190 Dora and the Japanese Zero too

[@MDzmitry]

@@Schlipperschlopper to be honest by 1944-1945 nearly every fighter was better than a zero, and I still see no actual proofs or comparisons.

[@cloverfieldexprt]

one of the sexiest planes in my opinion

[@spitfire12able]

didn't know about the radial engine version the g57, I wonder what that would have looked like and how it would've performed

[@mrvk39]

what's interesting is that Germans were focused on building swiss knives of fighters - ones that could fight in the West vs. high altitude bombers and their escorts and vs. East against highly maneuverable low -altitude Soviet fighters and ended up having a disadvantage on both fronts by 1944. It would make a lot of sense for Italians to focus on developing a specialist - either a high-altitude fighter to fight US/Britain or a low altitude fighter to fight the Soviets. This way, they can produce fighters for one front, while Germany produces one for the other front and maybe another one that is a generalist. But no.. Italians also concentrated on producing a generalist... weird

[@199diesel]

Range was always important and by that measure alone, given it's overall parity, it was a better plane.

[@lupoalberto8384]

Possiamo quindi dire che i caccia li sapevamo fare , complicati da costruire ma efficaci.

[@udp1073]

a very nice and interesting video. Right now I am sitting less then 2 miles from the former Officine Reggiane and the connected "airport". thanks for making this video, thanks a lot

[@HarborLockRoad]

Should have had Albert Speer figure out how to simplify construction, like he did with luftwaffe planes. ( ie: needle bearings vs ball bearings)

[@Rev6044]

Albert Speer did not design German fighters. Messerschmitt and Focke Wulf both paid attention to ease of manufacturing.

[@BELCAN57]

Italian design = sexy plane.

[@lawrencefox563]

Saw Macchi 202 didn't realize variety high quality of Italian chaser types , odd no adequate Italian powerplants available .