View Single Post
  #17  
Old February 21st, 2017, 07:41 PM

Pibwl Pibwl is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Poland
Posts: 716
Thanks: 54
Thanked 174 Times in 135 Posts
Pibwl is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Italy OOB 34 corrections/suggestions (v.8.1)

Only one photo error (Fiat 611) and a few simple things:

487 SPA-38 20/65 - photo is a truck with Solothurn AT rifle(?). Better is 3652 (Dovunque with 20mm) or I'm attaching SPA with AA gun.

492,493 Fiat 611 - photo should be 16053 (now it's Soviet BA-27)

497 TL-37 75L27 - photo is 47mm Autocannone - I'm attaching several proposals of a proper vehicle with 75mm gun.

564 Centro Radia OA - photo in fact is Cingoletta carrier prototype, I'm attaching Carro Commando L40.

715 SMV M.42 OA - there was no twin 13mm TMG - it should be a single weapon 233, same as unit 566


371, 502 L 3-38 - available publications don't mention any improvement in armour or fire control comparing with L 3-35, only a chassis (armour is too good now). Unit 371 should be available from 1942, like 502.

506 L 3-38 [13.2] - despite prototype L 3/38 featured single 13.2mm MG, but actually, according to Squadron/Signal book, it wasn't adopted and some tankettes were fitted with a single 12.7 mm Breda SAFAT aircraft MG rather than 13.2mm MG (and there wasn't twin 13.2mm at all). It could be renamed to L 3-35 [..], because such weapons were mounted since early 1941, before an advent of L-3/38. Same remarks for armour, as above.


Aircraft:

I got a bit carried away with aircraft, but I noticed, that some of ground attack planes appear years too early and have unrealistic bomb loads. Changes are simple, but you can just leave it.

177,178 Cr.42 Falco - it should be CR.42 (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_C.R.42)
For sure it couldn't take six bombs 50 kg - possibly four in some versions, though typical was two bombs.
As for unit 178, max bomb load was 2x100 kg (now 2x120 kg).

Apparently fighter-bomber variants entered service only in Africa (6/40 could be for both, although it seems it was 1941 - I have no firm sources).

179,180 MC.200 Saetta, MC.200 bis - MC.200 bis variant of 1942 did not enter production, but all MC.200 were armed with twin 12.7mm MGs as a standard.
Ordinary MC 200, entering service in 1939 had no bomb racks, and could be a strafer only. A fighter-bomber variant was named MC.200 CB (up to 2x160kg indeed), but they were first used, according to a Polish monograph, from summer 1942 (Italian Wikipedia seems to confirm it, first mentioning arrival of bomber MC.200 CB from July 1942)

Polish monograph mentions also armament in 8 bombs 50 kg (on two quadruple racks), but it's hard to believe.

(Great icon btw! )

184 Breda Ba.65 - according to two Polish articles, they were produced only from 2/37 and used from 5/37 (now 3/35). Withdrawn from combat use by 2/41 (now 7/42). In combat units used as single-seaters.

Although Italian Wikipedia says "1000 kg (carico teorico)" (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_Ba.65) but in fact they could take 4 x max 100kg in a bomb bay (though usually it was 4x50kg).

Interesting often used armament variant was 168 of 2kg HE bomblets, but it would need a new weapon (in Spain it was used in addition to 2x100 kg bombs)

191,192 Ba. 88 Lince - they first went to units only in 5/39, ready from 9/39 (now 6/36). Withdrawn from operational service already in 11/40 (now 11/41).
Speed 3 is too low (490 km/h)

Although Italian Wikipedia gives bomb load 1000 kg, but it had a big problem with overload and wouldn't go airborne with it, especially in Africa, when they had problems with 250 kg sometimes (what is confirmed even on Wikipedia page).

As for unit 191, a standard load was 3x100 kg, 3x200 kg was theoretical.
As for unit 192, according to Polish article and http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ba88.html, a standard number of 250 kg bombs were two. Three 250kg would be pure theory, not mentioning four (Ba 88 had three bomb racks under a fuselage).

That's all.

Attached are some assorted photos.
Attached Files
File Type: zip IT_pics.zip (1.48 MB, 36 views)
Reply With Quote