The Plane That Was Meant to Win the War but Hitler Ignored

[@FlorinSutu]

The Germans seriously considered mass producing this Italian fighter instead of Me-109. The problem is that each Fiat G55 needed 100 hours of more labor, compared with the Me-109. So, what determined the issue was the economics of mass manufacturing !

[@dongately2817]

Meanwhile they chose to produce the Me-262, Ferdinand tank destroyers, and King Tigers - the German war procurement was a shitshow

[@criticalthinking123]

Germany could produce a small quantity for elite German pilots, which would make those pilots more lethal in the air.

[@williamzk9083]

@@dongately2817 Only 100 Ferdinand/Elefant was only produced for 6 months in 1943 to take advantage of chasis that were part of Porche Failed bid to produce the Tiger I. The Elefant/Ferdinand had the highest kill ratio of any AFV of the war. It had engine over heating issues if pushed too hard and early versions didn't get a simple MG34 so were vulenerable to infantry attacks in the rare case they were ambushed. -Tiger II tanks cost 1.5 times more than a Panther which took the same man hours as a T34/85 or Sherman. The belief that a Tiger 2 took 100,000 man hours acmes from non German speakers confusing Reich Mark (German currency) with man hours). Tiger II used the same engine as a Panther, standard 88 and rifle caliber machine guns. The 50% greater Cost came from it just being bigger. -The Me 262 was a fine aircraft. It's engine was being improved with anew control system that would make it more reliable and getting a new compressor design.

[@torbenjohansen6955]

@@dongately2817 The Hull of the Elefant / The Ferdinand was a already build By Porsche when it was turned in to a Tank destroyer. ( Ferdinand Porsche) The Me 262 was easier to build than the ME/BF 109 also they could fly on low quality fuel. The King Tiger was stupid Yes. The Fiat G55 took 15.000 man houeres to build In Turin. The Germans thought they could get it down to 9.000 man houeres when optimized for production( in Germany). The ME 109 took 5.000 man houeres to build. so Yes

[@JohnCorcoran-c2z]

100 hours more? I think it was about 3 times the total hours.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

No piston-engined fighter would have made any difference for Germany from 1943 onwards. No matter how good, its margin of superiority would have been rather marginal, and more than nullified by lack of fuel for both training and operations.

[@nickmitsialis]

Along with that, we had the other problems with the G55; I brought it up at a aviation blog and was also told that both the G55 and the Mc205 took an extraordinary amount of man hours to build, as compared to the late war Me190s. A few German pilots actually flew the '205 and liked it but...like you also said: lack of pilots and fuel had a greater impact

[@abellseaman4114]

There is some truth to what you say as allied pilots in the later stages of the war began to note a marked deterioration of skill among both German and Japanese pilots - thus proving that classroom strategy talks DO NOT MAKE UP FOR TIME IN COCKPIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@gamertardguardian1299]

The BF109 already has the highest plane to plane K:D ratio of any WW2 plane, that shows enough that it wouldnt make a difference

[@c2jones]

@@abellseaman4114 Especially the Japanese where many had negligible flying hours and were simply easy-pickings for superior pilots with superior planes and resources, certainly later in the campaign.

[@treystephens6166]

@@c2joneshow did the Japanese get beaten so badly??

[@leethorp2164]

Interesting fact about the G.55 : one wing was 5 inches longer than the other to counteract engine torque.

[@MrChopsticktech]

Actually it would be 127 milimetres. Italy adopted the metric system in 1861.

[@emilisdainauskas3988]

⁠um actuly🤓

[@neutronalchemist3241]

That was the Macchi C.205. The G.55 had the same lenght.

[@Cuccos19]

@@neutronalchemist3241 You got the point! The Macchi fighters - at least the 202 and 205 - had this feature, and NOT the Fiats.

[@johnking6252]

Interesting tidbit. 👍

[@NeuKrofta]

Keep in mind that this is in 1943... the G.55 was pushing some crazy performance and wasn't only very fast, but had a great climb rate of 7km in 7 minutes, turn time of 18 seconds, amazing roll rate and dive acceleration and a terminal dive speed of 590mph The Italians had been developing inverted V12s since 1927 producing racing engines and trailblazing engine development however the Regia Aeronauticas enforced a policy of radial engines only which hindered development. Fiat had the A.38, A.40, and A.44 inverted 12s but it was easier to continue production of the DB600 series engines.

[@criszh2981]

It was not just easier. All Italian engine projects above 1000 HP, radial or in-line, were failures. Result of rushed development and lack of foreign technology exchange after the Ethiopian war. For their part, the Germans were not enthusiastic about licensing the MB engines, so this transaction took time and the first license-made DB.601 and 605 arrived late.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

Engines used were of course, German. Italian inline liquid-cooled engines were a failure, and radial engines not powerful enough to offset increased drag.

[@NeuKrofta]

@criszh2981 failures in a military context, yes, but the Italian liquid cooled v engines were used in racing planes and were excellent, the record for fastest floatplane is still held to this day by the Macchi MC72. That's like saying the 7.3 Power Stroke is a failure because it doesn't meet the military requirements for an MRAP- Its still a great engine.

[@NeuKrofta]

@aleksazunjic9672 yes the Italian radial engines were underwhelming and underpowered. Interestingly, the first ones were originally license built French engines which they were initially developed from. Edit* ie the Piaggio P.XI was a licensed Gnome-Rhone Mistral

[@criszh2981]

@@NeuKrofta I have a different point of view than yours. What you describe as an excellent engine powering the MC 72, the Fiat AS6, was in fact two V-12 AS5's placed in tandem. It was so plagued by mechanical problems that the Italians and the MC72 could not race in the Schneider Cup 1931, for which the MC 72 was built. Obviously, race engines are not built to last, but that's a foreshadow of bad things to come. The AS.6 had no military value because no sensible fighter would mount a tandem engine and the MC72's evaporative cooling. The MC72 was magnificent but did not help the Regia Aeronautica at all. But let us see other inline engines, which were supposed to be used on military aircraft: The Isotta Fraschini Asso is out of the discussion, yielding no more than 850 HP. Same for the Gamma. The Isotta Fraschini Zeta never made it into a product suitable for any use. (edit. there was the Fiat AS.8 / A38, who could not deliver useful results before the end of the war) There aren't any more. All the rest are radial. And should we discuss the sad story of radial engine failures? The most evident deficiency of Italian aviation in the 40s was not in (most) airframe design, but in the engines and in fuel refining / chemistry. Italian industry had structural disadvantages in those high-tech products, and it showed.

[@MrCateagle]

It survived in the postwar Era as the G.59 when fitted with a Merlin and a variety of cockpit and canopy configurations.

[@Soobutoomuch]

They should add to War Thunder lol

[@Jbroker404]

Which Merlin?

[@MrCateagle]

@@Jbroker404 Merlin T.24-2, a postwar variant. G.59 was produced in single-seat and two-seat versions and with the original canopy style and with bubble canopies (two-seat bubble canopy resemble the canopy on a trainer version of the Hawker Sea Fury).

[@rileyteuwen7741]

I really appreciate the skills of this narrator

[@garryferrington811]

We don't get very many accounts of the Italian air force, so thanks.

[@dongately2817]

"Italy has an air force" - random Luftwaffe officer after 4 years of fighting Spitfires, P-51s, and having the sky darkened by clouds of Lancasters and B-17s.

[@jim.franklin]

They aquitted themselves well in North Africa in the early days, thyey are not given the press they deserve to be fair, but once the RAF arrived in force with Hurricanes and Spitfires, the, mostly, obsolete aircraft they had stood little chance and took one hell of a drubbing, as did the Germans because all the best equipment was fighting in Europe.

[@Etäinshewölf007]

One of the mistakes the Germans made was not allowing the Italians to build their planes or vehicles

[@PhansiKhongoloza]

​@@jim.franklinNo really correct. The SAAF demolished the Italian Airforce during the East Africa campaign with planes which predated the Italian models.

[@StephenRyder-w3q]

i wonder why - anything like the sale of surplus Italian army rifles after the war? "Never fired and only dropped once."

[@paoloviti6156]

It is good to remember that the G.55 like the rest of the Italian aviation production was plagued with very slow production both because of old production methods, relatively narrow halls and because of heavy use of wooden parts with the Fiat RA.1050, a license-built copy of the Daimler-Benz DB 605A but in Germany was already being substituted by improved variants. The G.55 was actually more aerodynamic the the Me 109 and necessitated lower power settings. Unfortunately there are no surviving complete.55 and the that at Vigna di Valle is a assembly of the MC. 201A with some G.55 parts. It could be installed the larger DB 603E, not possible with the Me 109G as it was too narrow. All in all the G.55 is my favourite Italian 2nd WW fighter...

[@georgesvandenbergen2387]

I can't barely wait on your view on the Mc. 205 Veltro and it's amazing accomplishments..

[@MrCateagle]

Yes, quite amazing. Especially when you consider that the MC series fighters took 3 to 4 times the man-hours to build as other similar fighters. From available documentation, this was mainly due to the complicated and time-consuming nature of the wing structure.

[@StephenRyder-w3q]

some "Accomplishments" - they lost the war.

[@Briselance]

The Fiat G55, the Macchi MC 205, the Reggiane Re 2000 and, especially, 2005. Now these were the fighters the Italians and Axis needed.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

Not necessarily. In essence, they used German engines, thus were comparable in speed to Bf-109 series. Aerodynamically they were better, but not that much to compensate for more man-hours needed to complete them.

[@ninjalanternshark1508]

All I know is these Italian machines are the sexiest looking planes ever

[@MiG-31893]

BF's were far easier to make, and didn't have much a difference in performance. The ANR swapped their Macchi 205s for 109Gs

[@StephenRyder-w3q]

a little skill and courage wouldn't have hurt...

[@daystatesniper01]

Another no b/s video Dark with a lot of relevant photo's and videos keep this up

[@AlanTweats]

Meantime the Spitfire was improved to a Mk lX and did 404 mph and the Meteor Jet was soon to be flying in June 1943. with a speed of around 450 which was improved to 600+ by 1946.

[@StephenRyder-w3q]

you somehow forgot about the P-51D Mustang. Odd that.

[@publichearing8536]

The Spitfire was alright so improving it was a good call. Weird though that the Meteor got substantially better after they got their hands on the German jets.

[@AlanTweats]

@ to the victor go the spoils^ we didn't get a moon rocket though =)

[@annehersey9895]

Simply the best Military channels around! I love ALL of the Dark channels narrated by this Non-AI real person!

[@davefellhoelter1343]

"I Wonder?" Had a fishing and camping buddy Glen in so cal. He told me he flew P-38's over N afrika, and the whole of the Med. Downed two times, behind enemy lines, landed battle damaged N Afrika once. Recovered, and returned into the fight via locals' underground and brit subs pick ups. He was lo key, never bragged, never let anyone know much, but Very Proud of his service, with All those he served With, and loved I paid attn and knew the history and equipment used, so he let me ask questions, and I did. I knew what "not" to ask vets, or when to ask? Last time I recall fishing with him was my dad's last good fishing trip at lake Lopez, second to his last. Ol Bastards caught a 14+ lb channel cat on 4lb trout fishing 3 in 12' aluminum boat! Got so excited they fliped the boat and all had to swim about 15 to 25 yards thought the COLD weeds and muck to make shore! OLD! BASTARDS! Saved that CAT FISH! I have a picture of it hanging on dads truck rack with the tail drapped over the tail gate. His "Marilyn Monroe?" Story could be? (not a bit dirty)Total BS? but than again? I see stranger things' in my life. R! I! P! Greatest!

[@bezimienny_andzej6425]

Fiat G.55, G.56, Re.2005, Re.2006 - Italians were WW2 masters of balanced aircraft design.

[@aquaden8344]

It's another good example for Germany starting WW II years too early, before they secured enough resources for a sustained war.

[@drunio1504]

Excellent research and video presentation. My favorite WW2 channel. 🎯

[@FreshStartOFFICIAL]

Sorry, you need to do more research on this research. Much of it is wrong.

[@beerhunter272]

This is the first time I've heard of this plane. It would have been interesting to see how well it performed if given the chance.

[@Soobutoomuch]

The G.55 is my favorite WWII aircraft!

[@ChrisSmith-lo2kp]

Italy invested in public works during the 1930s, unlike Germany's military based recovery - that and the effects of a famine from a botched land redistribution meant that they were completely unprepared to participate in WW2 - they should have followed Spain's example

[@Recon59]

Oh man, you can’t compare the C.202 Folgore with the G.55 Centauro. They are fighters of two different generations. Anyway, Gabrielli’s real wonder was the DB603 engined G.55, that is the G.56. That was a real match for late Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Mustangs.

[@VidarLund-k5q]

With the Italian experiences from the Schneider Cup races it's quite strange that they weren't able to develop better fighter aircraft engines during the 1930s. They were aware of the problems with propeller tips and the speed of sound, exploring ways to deal with it. Their automobile industry was quite successfully as well, with great engines. Italy was probably not prepared to be involved in a large scale war. Like most other countries.

[@joostprins3381]

Engines were the big problem for the Fokker planes, they just couldn’t get the best engines, that made the Fokker’s doomed from the start.

[@abellseaman4114]

Italy in the 1930`s WAS A POOR COUNTRY - thus resources for military development were not always available.................. the Italians seem to have devoted much of their effort to building up their fleet between 1925 and 1940 - with the signing of the so called Five, Five Three treaty signed in 1925 freezing naval strength between Britain, France, United States, Italy and Japan........................ with BOTH ITALY AND JAPAN working to CHEAT ON THE TREATY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Apparently the Italians did not devote much effort to their air force - other than to build some interesting prototypes and to make a few samples of those prototypes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@diademadiademoni202]

@@abellseaman4114 correct! the lazy >Regia Marina had the best materials, engeneers and materials (high quality alloys) while the vaunted Regia Aeronautica was relegated to wooden aircrafts andR.Esercito had 8,000 lb tankettes and no new production of field guns until it was too late.

[@abellseaman4114]

@@diademadiademoni202 I have heard it suggested that Admirals of the Italian navy had political ambitions and thus wanted to keep the navy as a powerful military force able to influence a political coup if and when needed - and so the Admirals avoided any real contact with Brit Navy ................. and certain historians have suggested this is why Brit navy with its smaller, older ships were able to dominate the Italian fleet......... or maybe the Admirals simply feared a substantial punishment and loss of political influence if their fleet suffered major casualties in a fight with Brits................ (In any case it is quite obvious that Italy in the 1930`s lacked the resources to build up its army and air forces to the standard the navy got!!!!!!

[@abellseaman4114]

@@diademadiademoni202 We might also ask if Mussolini figured that he DID NOT NEED to spend big money on the army and air force since the gear he did have was quite adequate to defeat Ethiopians and other African groups...................... after all - Italy had been an ALLY of Britain in WW1 so Mussolini appears not to have planned a war against any European power that would have modern equipment.......... and it seems Mussolini simply entered WW2 on the assumption that Hitler had already fatally weakened Britain so that obsolete Italian forces could prevail against the remnants of the Brit military in North Africa.............. we may suggest that Mussolini was a much better politician than he was as military planner!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@lohikarhu734]

All the radial engine clips are a bit strange when the audio talks about V12 engines?

[@JohnMoses1897]

AI video darkens the clickbait sky

[@MiG-31893]

When you consider that Spitfire XIV was built at the same time, G.55 starts too look a bit underpowered for the axis.

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

Why are they comparing Macchi 202 with Fiat G-55? The Macchi counterpart to G-55 was the 205 Veltro

[@julianfrost3796]

You mention the Macchi C.202 that was powered by a license-built DB601, but omit the Macchi C.205, the third of the Series 5 fighters. That was also regarded as better than the Bf109.

[@Nel33147]

The Mc205 is the plane Italy should have focused on. They already had lots of experience with the mc202 so that shifting of production to the 205 would have been relatively easy. MC205 production involved much less man hours to produce. Further , they could have made incremental improvements to it , much like the Brits with the Spitfire and the Germans with the 109. It also would have streamlined production as opposed to producing all 3 of the competing 5 series planes and thereby saving not only time , but valuable resources. Italy’s resources were severely limited as was their industrial capacity.

[@Neldot]

A few inaccuracies (for example about the Macchi C202, which is not contemporary to the G55, being a previous project which led, in '43, to the C205) but all in all a decent video.

[@Sreng444]

Looks very spitfirey to me! No wonder Merlin’s fitted so well.

[@fivizzano]

There is confusion about the top speed ... The OLDER G55 with the V12 1450 hp Fiat 1050 RC.58 Tifone (licensed and modified Daimler to get around metal shortages) was 630 kmh the NEWER "NATIVE"DAIMLER 603 pribably a modified E to use C3 {or a early N, which was 2700 hp } nearly 2000 hp supercharged and with C3 fuel formula and additive was capable of over 750 kmh with oxygen (clocked over La Spezia) but was dangerous to fly, the strenghtened G56 AIRFRAME using original 1750 hp DB605 A was introduced in 1944 but built in a handful of prototypes, maybe 5 of which only one was utilized in combat, another survived the war.

[@richardmcphail9487]

Didn't matter, what they had. They ran out of pilots.

[@rochrich1223]

I knew a Command Sergeant Major who as a boy watched Axis planes over Crete. Boys would closely watch the German bombers but would run to cover if they were Italian. Spotting British fighters, the Germans fought through to the ports. The Italians would drop bombs wherever and run endangering the village lads.

[@sdgsuperstar]

While it may seem like Hitler missed an opportunity, it is possible that he and his German military leaders had a clear strategy in mind, focusing on proven weapons and tactics. Strategic choices in war always involve factors such as resource priorities, the feasibility of new technology, and the ability to deploy quickly. Hitler’s decision not to select this aircraft may have been a reasoned decision, rather than an irresponsible omission.

[@dark_one1337]

no, Hitler was a total Idiot not knowing anything about Weapons, example: the ME 262 he sanctioned as a Bomber, a Speed Demon, a plane soley developt for Interception, as a Bomb carrier. Same goes for guns, tanks and ships, so manuvers and Operations to take victory failed because of The "Great" strategy and knowledg of this Guy and his "aces".

[@1966rapunzel]

Hitler presided over a regime that replaced physicist in universities with charlatans and conscripted an entire workshop of Messerschmitt best engineers and sent them to the Eastern Front to serve in the frontline, it took months for Messerschmitt works to bring them back. Hitler paid cash bribes of thousands to his generals because he couldn’t trust them. He made criminal street bullies, enforcers from the nazi party commanders of military divisions, with no experience whatsoever. was a chaotic regime run by self serving criminals. The idea that the regime had a clear strategy in mind , beyond the confused racist nonsense of lebensruam is frankly risible.

[@HartmutJagerArt]

@@dark_one1337- It is good that Hitler was a total Idiot - otherwise the world would be speaking German today ! -

[@TP-ie3hj]

Children compare weapons while the fight is actually decided in the places children dont like. Work. The BF109 was 85% as good and could be built in 3000 to 4000 man hours. The G55 15,000 man hours each. It was not an easy plane to build making it a side show at best. All 5 series aircraft were very good but the lack of build had nothing to do with Hitler. 148 g55 were built 33,909 bf 109s were built ..... that was the decision maker.

[@abellseaman4114]

The NARRATOR of the video states that Germans WANTED to build that Italian fighter - but they had become SO DESPERATE FOR WEAPONS OF ANY SORT that Germany decided THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO TAKE A PRODUCTION LINE OUT OF SERVICE to retool in preparation for eventual production of a superior weapon - Germany NEEDED WEAPONS NOW - NOT IN 6-8 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I have made a similar point about British tank design as Brits were SO DESPERATE FOR ANY ARMOUR that they happily accepted Lend Lease of obsolete Yankee designs and kept on making their own cruiser tank and the early unreliable Churchill designs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@aleksazunjic9672]

Bf-109 was around 5000 man-hours in 1943, further reduction caused problems in reliability (late 1944 onwards). Now, G.55 could be reduced to around 9000 hours if mass produced. But, it would cause disruption in production and difference in quality was not that big. There was of course problem of German pride too.

[@abellseaman4114]

@@aleksazunjic9672 thank you for offering that WOKE BLATHER about how quickly G55 MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED!!!!!!!!!!!! Why are you making such ABSURD AND UNPROVEN GUESSES ABOUT what MIGHT have been possible outside of your fevered imagination????????????

[@abellseaman4114]

As the narrator of the video STATES: Nazis were very interested in the G55 but Nazis were so desperate for ANY WEAPONS that they did not dare take a production line out of service for retooling in order to build a better weapon!!!!!!!!! In related news - the G55 was apparently quite a good aircraft - but the German Jet fighters were BETTER STILL - and the jets DID NOT turn the tide of war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@ayubshaikh9156]

Right you are,……! Bf-109 ……pragmatic , G-55 a flying Ferrari !

[@masterofreality.o0o.535]

Many thanks, this is my second favorite aircraft. Number 1... the Re2005. Both stylishly beautiful and impressively competitive. I also love the MC205, Italian elegance. I'm not just obsessed with Italian aircraft. Fw190D, Hawker Tempest, La7. In general piston engined fighters are my love but a few simply stand out as stunning........ My son just asked me what I was thinking...Not sure how I forgot the Ta152. That also battles for the top spot.

[@genneltorres4500]

Watching from Philippines

[@rabidduck1089]

Interesting that this video didn't mention the C.205, which like the G.55 and Re.2005, was Db-605 based and it was considered just as good by many.

[@tl1758]

Based on the title I can think of one plane. ME-262. Had it been prioritized and used as fighter from the beginning. Don't see the Italian planes achieve more than Bf-109 or FW-190 did from technical point. Don't think they would have been a game changer. The industrial race was decided anyway.

[@FLucca11]

Agree

[@love_it_to_death]

Italian Series 5 fighters (FIAT G55, Macchi 205, and Reggiano 2005) were proven to be superior to the Bf-109 and FW-190 in mock dog fights in 1943.

[@raymondtingting6364]

At 41000 feet it is incredible , a falcon not a centauro, 💪💪

[@garyhughes2446]

There has been a lot of debate that that access manufacturer jets were too few and too late to turn the tide of war. Bombing the manufacturing factories where the jets were created would have been very likely.

[@aldoso2]

Only 15 Reggiane 2005 were produced before the Armistice. The Germans were so impressed that they wanted to use it in the air defence of the Reich. A Regia Aeronautica Reggiane 2005, after 8 September was used in a dog fight against a P 51 Mustang. The mustang was defeated. The result was a heavy bombing on Reggio Emilia, where there was the factory.

[@diademadiademoni202]

Never happened the Re.2005 vs P-51, the Reggiane was bombed because they still built the fighter-bomber Re.2002 for LW needings. No Re.2005 fought in ANR anyway.

[@jim.franklin]

Couple of points - firstly, the outcome of a dog fight was as much about the tactical and flight experience of the pilot, and US P-51 Pilots in theatre would have had vastly more experience flying their aircraft and huge volumes of tactical experience that would give them the edge in a dog flight, this is not knocking the Italian or his airframe - simple facts - also, the Mustang was a far faster aircraft, they never flew alone and whilst I am sure the Italians didn't either, again, odds are in the favour of the US Pilots I am afraid to say. Whilst I doubt this happened, and it would certainly not have been the reason for the Allies to bomb Italian production facilities, I find it highly improbable.

[@MiG-31893]

Re.2005 never faced P-51, and if it did it would've been the older P-51B/C. P-51D was way faster and more agile. Even against older Spitfire V, Re.2005 lost 2-0, with two others badly damaged.

[@userTJ39780]

What about the Veltro? That was a beast with the DB 605. I also think the Ta-152 in large enough numbers could have done real damage.

[@icewaterslim7260]

I believe it was the Re2005 Reggiane Sagittario that Eric Brown had compliments for after having tested one of the very few.

[@johnkochen7264]

In line engines allowed planes to be faster? A good thing nobody told Chance Vought that or the Corsair would never have been built.

[@xfirehurican]

*Even if the Italians had produced thousands of G-55's, with or without Germany's assistance, the Allies would've still prevailed.*

[@pradeepkharta5953]

Axis didn't plan . If they would have helped india and Egypt to gain independence before ww2 . They would have win the war without even fighting it .

[@blupampurio5995]

CAUSE WE ARE 4 NATIONS, AGAINST ONE HUNDRED NATIONS......

[@Ackdaddy100]

Australian here , what is is with Italians and making beautiful stunning looking machines ?

[@RockinRedRover]

which are invariably, inherently, fragile and unreliable... ;-)

[@Ackdaddy100]

Haha mostly true although I own a 2010 Fiat camper van with 300000ks and it doesn’t miss a beat it’s a gem !

[@ZioWillY]

@@RockinRedRoverdepends on who you want to believe media propaganda for consumption or real feedback :) Here in Italy we don’t have all those issues

[@brambillafumagalli9535]

@@RockinRedRoverdipende da chi le usa ………da 30 anni lavoro con mezzi IVECO li uso con cura e non ho mai chiamato un carro attrezzi.

[@Ackdaddy100]

@@brambillafumagalli9535 my Fiat Ducatto is extremely reliable it has been to one side of Australia to the other been up and down the whole country plus I’ve taken it off road in the outback it just keeps on going strong ! Iveco trucks are very reliable our Army uses them

[@NASWOG]

Based on shoot-down statistics, If they had ceased aircraft production entirely and allocated all those resources to flak and other anti-aircraft systems by jan 1943, I highly doubt they would’ve needed to worry about a western front. This would also save the majority of precious oil, allowing the germans to better mechanize in the east and fuel tanks. They would’ve probably lost in the end, but the war would’ve been atleast a year longer

[@robzilla60]

I've been studying WWII aircraft and the war in general since I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. I knew about the Regianne's and Macchi fighters, but never heard about this G55, or it's superior performance to comparable fighters of 1943. It does bear a fleeting resemblance to the Bf 109. Then again, the Italians were never really much of a fighting force in WWII except for in North Africa and their homeland, due to just lack of numbers I guess. Good video of a cool aircraft.

[@ZerokillerOppel1]

Beautiful aircraft!😊

[@basswars7060]

Buzz Beurling, the Canadian Spitfire Ace wrote that Italian fighters and pilots were the most dangerous he faced while defending Malta. He said that the Germans would turn and run once they saw the Spitfires, but the Italians would fight like Hell. Read his biography.

[@joesutherland225]

Italy produced some very good fighters during the war.fortunatley German hubris dismissed the possibility of them being better than German designs

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

It took much longer time to build those italian fighters compared to their german counterparts. In a war that was essentially won by numbers that's a key factor.

[@bolinfan1519]

Great video. Thanks!

[@balladeerbuzz3688]

]the DB 600 was a water-cooled in-line engine; many photos here showed an air-cooled radial engine. many allied aircraft max performance equaled or exceeded what is quoted here [as did the FW 190; the guns, however were bad-ass]

[@Cuccos19]

All three Series 5 fighters were formidable excellent fighters, only their numbers were very low to make a difference. Also the manhour to make these "Italian stallions" were about 2,5-3 times higher than the Bf-109 manufacturing time. And with the Italian workstyle, logistics, organized teamwork (LOL, no it was anything but organized) these fighters were almost non-existing. Sad faith of three excellent fighters. In proper numbers, they could make real difference.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

Mind that the production time of the Bf109 depended on the scale of production. The G.55 costed 15.000 man/hour at the start of the production, and the plan was to reduce them to 9.000 for a scale of production of about 200 airplanes/month. The Bf109, IN MAY 1944 (production times were longer in 1943) costed 9.200 m/h for 50 aircrafts/month, 6.500 m/h for 200 aircrafts/month, 3.800 m/h for 500 aircrafts/months. So, for the same scale of production and the same year, the G.55 was more time consuming to assemble, but not by that much. For a comparison, in January 1943 a P-47 costed 22.100 m/h. A year later it costed 9.100 m/h.

[@stevenbissonnette7893]

Adolph also ignored the greatness of the Me-262 Schwalbe. That and if the Horten 229 was ready, the allies would not of been able to keep up to both those amazing machines.

[@Soobutoomuch]

This is true, but with the collapse of the German Production lines they would not have been able to mass produce these aircraft

[@falcondmp]

Dream on

[@alfonsfalkhayn8950]

Its the same as with Putins hyper-sonic rockets....there might be few, *a very few* of them around, but that's about it...😅

[@kirgan1000]

Was hold back by the engine development, not Hitler, the Germans did try to build a jet-engine of sheet metal, because they did lack exotic metals to make heat resistant steel. Its a insane feat of engineering that they did succeeded.

[@rawhidelamp]

The fact you said “would not of” tells me everything i need to know

[@GaryKennedy-g7p]

Me-109 was designed for mass production .... so this is a bit dubious .... FW-190 was better for attacking bombers as the radial engine gave the pilot better protection .... if you guys are into Italian aircraft - if you are near Rome head out to the Italian Air Force Museum at Lake Bracciano .... amazing ... they have the Macchi Schneider Trophy planes including the utterly insane MC72 ..... with 2x V12s ..... back to back and contra rotating propellers via hollow shaft from the front engine ..... yep 24 cylinders .... absolutely bonkers

[@neutronalchemist3241]

FW190A was not a good high altitude fighter, because the engine lost too much power. Bf109 up to the G version wasn't either, because of the too high wingload. The bigger wings of the G.55 solved this problem first (then, it was also more heavily armed and carried more fuel than the Bf109).

[@Rhys4190111]

To make a bf-109 5000man hours. To make this fighter it was from memory 13000 man hours. It came down to numbers. Bf-109 is the 3rd most mass produced aircraft in world history.

[@ChasDean-d8y]

Interesting video, thanks. However, the 'radial engine is inferior' for fighters myth is just that. Only one example of many is necessary: the FW190. More? Vought Corsair, F6F and the list goes on. All fast, all competitive.

[@BiggHogg870]

Not my favorite fighter but damn i love the name. G.55 Centauro. Sounds like a million dollar car.

[@RyansuBike]

Sorry the axis did not have the manufacturing capacity, or access to raw materials and fuel for any "wonder weapon" short of an A Bomb to "win the war". In a book on Operation Torch I came across a footnote that indicated that in 1943 alone the US outproduced the German efforts of the ENTIRE war. It does look like a slick plane though.

[@rickfremaux6482]

I was thinking the very same.

[@angriff69]

beautiful documentary, one very minimal flaw: It's Aeronautica Militare (AM) without the "I" for "Italiana" so not (AMI)

[@GUISNIP]

Enjoyed your video on Italian aeronautical engineering. The city of Lecce is pronounced “Le- CHE”😎

[@tirebiter1680]

How about the 14 cylinder BMW radial engine in the Focke Wulf 190?

[@raymond7880]

Its the "how do you outrun a grizzly" question. Just run faster than your friend. Usually "good enough" is all that matters - hence Me 109.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Ferrari of the Skies.

[@JohnMoses1897]

With the same mindset as Ferrari sales. Too bad Ferruchio Lamborghini didn't design fighter aircraft.

[@loodwich]

The problem with the Fiat G.55 Centauro was that it was made by hand without out industrialized lines, so it will take several more man-hours to produce ONE Fiat G.55 than one Bf-109K. The Me-262 and Fw-190D had an industrial line, but it took more man-hours to make one than one Bf-109K. Sorry, the numbers have their own quality. for the same reason, the bomber production was stopped in 1944.

[@jaimehudson7623]

Do examples of this lovely plane exist in any air museums? Would be a good project for an R/C aircraft modeler. Note: Dark Skies, you make a video on the Foo Fighters seen by Allied and Axis air crews? Just wondered.

[@iaidagger8278]

Awesome airplane!!wish to build a super detailed scale model for my model plane collection!!😊😊❤❤❤Fiat G55 Centauro!!😊❤❤❤❤

[@markhindmarsh2811]

I always believed the G55 was just slightly above average. Compared to what Germany and the allies were Fielding after 1941. I always thought the best Italian fighter (for its time) was the Fiat C42, reading about this biplane it seemed exceptional. Even Hurricane pilots at the outbreak of war were told not to underestimate its capability. Every day is a learning day

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

The C-42 was already obsolete when it entered service (in 1939, after Bf-109E, Hurricane and Spitfire MkI), so any italian fighter that could just be a match for the allies (like Mc-202 or G-55) was comparatively better than C-42

[@markhindmarsh2811]

@rodrigorincongarcia771 I understand that. That was why I mentioned at the time. It came at the transition to monoplane fighters but compared to the other interwar biplanes it was highly competitive

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

@@markhindmarsh2811 the problem is, it came after that transition. FIAT already had a monoplane fighter (G-50) when C-42 first flew

[@markhindmarsh2811]

@@rodrigorincongarcia771 my bad. I'm not up on Italian aircraft I thought the C42 came first

[@nightshade4186]

One could say C42 was peak of biplane performance

[@christianklein5774]

you have any data about colord/black lightning or similiar aircraft pilots ww 2 in europ wail ther is somfing that idont understand .!?

[@timmardon6161]

Are there any flying today?

[@milanettigianpiero3460]

No, there just one in the Museo of Vigna di valle north of Rome but is not flying

[@tonybarnes3658]

12 x7mm m/g's? Thought it originally 4x 12.7mm m/gs, then later 2x12.7mm . Plus the original 20mm MG 151/20 cannon firing thru the prop hub and additional pair of 20mm MG 151/ 20s in the wings?j

[@tiggersdad6878]

I would imagine that some of these aircraft survived and are still around today?

[@wolfmauler]

Wow...Not what I was expecting you to say 😳...

[@ИванИванов-ь7х7б]

Hey, Dark Skies, what do you think, is Ta-152H comparable to G.55?

[@auro1986]

so was this best of musolini?

[@BaronFlyingClub]

The Germans got the BF 109 undercart so badly wrong.

[@christopherrobinson7541]

A huge proportion of the BF-109's destroyed in WWII were due to landing accidents, about a third.

[@brentdallyn8459]

The designs construction did not lend itself to mass production.

[@lancerevell5979]

The Lambo and Ferrari of the aircraft world. Great performance, but you needed your mechanic on speed dial. 😅

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The G.55 had a similar structure to US fighters. It was way simpler than a Spitfire IE.

[@louisavondart9178]

It would appear that the designers went by the Italian rule of driving. " What is behind you is not important ".

[@robertmiller2173]

A great program.

[@mikemiura7740]

I can see where the Japanese KI-61 "Hien" fighter came from

[@navypowertv]

Imagine if Hitler had backed the Fiat G.55 Centauro-this could have been the game-changer that shifted the skies during WWII. It's incredible to think how a plane like this, with its speed and firepower, was nearly ignored at such a crucial moment. What do you think, could this aircraft have altered the course of the war?

[@VincenzoDiMattia-yj4or]

Thank you for you appreciate a masterpiece of Italian Aeronautical industry but the reality is quite different. The G 55 was an excellent hunter, no doubt about that, but in no way it should be a game changer in the war. First, it was too much difficult to produce in great numbers and even too expensive (almost three times than a BF 109 or a FW 190). Second, in 1944 jet aircrafts were jet flying both in Germany and in Great Britain. Third, Italian RAF was unable to train a large number of pilots for a so advanced hunter and forth, we were lack of oil for that type of engines.

[@morriganmhor5078]

Concerning the radial engines: didn´t some of the highly successful types of FW 190 use them?

[@johnhanson5943]

You forgot to mention, its main attribute was to conveniently break down and fly back to base without firing a shot. The Italians aren’t stupid.

[@Psychlist1972]

Clicked this only once the clickbait-looking version with the *three* red arrows went away, and you had a different thumbnail. The arrow game is insulting.

[@DoBraveryFPS]

If your planes are designed to defend your airspace, and their planes are designed to operate in your airspace, you're already in big trouble..

[@Prfdt3]

Rate of climb was big in a dogfight.ask the men who fought the zero.

[@davidr2802]

Until we dropped two of the big ones on the Nips and then their WW2 victory count was...zero

[@kwwiedenfeld]

You mean Italy's war economy made something spectacular? That just shows my bias.

[@lupoalberto8384]

Yes

[@prosto_potomuwto]

I'm going to bet all my money, one him being smarter than you, not just about that but about EVERY decission he ever made. Thx

[@joshhutchison9447]

Sounds like it cud have been the axis version of the P-51.

[@davidr2802]

what about the axis version of the B-29? when would that arrive, 1962?

[@MyMikey88]

nothing was better then the ME262 the first twin turbo aircraft fighter.But they couldnt produce fast a big qty of ME262 and it came too late to make a difference

[@ericford7066]

I didn't know Napoleon Dynamite did voice work for documentaries.

[@lancerevell5979]

Sounds more like Cmdr Chacotay.

[@manchild3479]

it is just a shame,that none of these AXIS fighters,could stem the tide of the allied offensive,in 1943/45. It is hard to know what could have.Still some pretty decent aircraft used,in the bid to do this.Could have been so different.......................................................

[@jpavlvs]

I disagree with the statement about radial engines. I present as my counter argument the Pratt and Whitney R 2800 Double Wasp. See the P-37 Thunderbolt and The F4U Corsair.

[@michaelmccotter4293]

P47 performance: 412 mph @ 26k ft 382 mph @ 16k ft P51 performance: Low Blower 425 mph @ 16.8k ft 422 mph @ 26k ft Hi Blower 442 mph @ 29k ft P38 performance: 391 mph @ 15k ft 408 mph @ 20k ft

[@DayleMacKenzie]

Your point?

[@orlandoflores72]

This plane looks similar to the P51 mustang, in shape.

[@hashteraksgage3281]

It's the wide landing gear

[@leonardc1303]

Luckily Germany and Italy did not go full coproduction.

[@GordonKley-nz4qm]

No. I just say no. It’s cockpit limited visibility. Besides other issues.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

If you see close images (IE 2:58 ) , the canopy has straight sides, and the rear frame has inward curved sides. That means that the pilot could see between the canopy and the rear frame. Allied pilots that tested the Italian fighters confirmed they could see the tail, and the rear view, thus not perfect as in a bubble canopy (that was anyway dangerous in case of rollovers on landing) was better than in the Bf109.

[@michaelsowden5892]

3:55. A ceiling of 41,000ft. For a prop plane, really? 🤣

[@criszh2981]

The Germans made the right decision. Their production lines were working at maximum efficiency and adding a new design would have resulted in fewer aircraft built. The G.55 required many more working hours than a late Bf.109, which had broadly the same performances. (On this point, I ignore under which conditions the Fiat’s speed had been recorded: with original German engines and higher-octane German gasoline, better performance would be expected).