The Italian aircraft armament.

World War II Italian Military
#21

[b][u]Mauser MG 151/20

[/u][/b]One of the most bizarres topic of WW2 italian aircarft armament of how they failed to provide a 20mm gun. The Regia aeronautica purchased some Oerlikon “L” cannon in early 1930s for seaplanes, but just in small quantities.
They have also two army/navy AAA full automatic guns, both chambered for the german 20x138B cartrigde; the Breda 20/65 and the Isotta-Fraschini (Scotti design) 20/70, however there were no attemps to convert that weapons in airborne guns.

In lieu of a modern fast firing 20 mm cannon indigenous design for aircraft the italian purchased the Mauser reliable MG 151 and adapted it to several types of fighters.

For detailed information on the MG 151/20 and its ammunition:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4127&page=3

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4127&page=4

[b]Reggiane Re-2001 CN, 2 Mausers under wings.

Reggiane Re-2005 2 x 20 mm Mauser in wings plus one in the engine.[/b]

Servicing the starboard Mauser in a Fiat G-55.

#22

[b]-Long and short gun cover in Fiat G-55 of the ANR.

  • Squematic of engine and wing emplacement in Fiat G-56

  • 6 x MG 151 in project Fiat G-58[/b]

#23

Breda dal 37/54

This was the standard Italian close-range AA weapon used on larger ships during World War II. The guns used in the Model 1932 mountings were gas operated, water-cooled with a recirculating pump, but the others were air-cooled. The magazines held only six rounds, but it was possible to load them one after the other and thus maintain a high rate of fire.
The adaptation for aircraft was first requested in 1941 and took place in 1942.

A single Fiat BR 20 was equipped with a 37mm gun in a solid nose, it was designated BR 20Ca ( ca for Cannoncino, aircraft cannon) . More serious attemp took place in the Fiat Cansa C 20 and Savoia Marchetti SM 89 attack bombers, wich were designed to be the italian Henschel Hs-129s but faster and with better bomb load. The prototypes of this models first flew in 1940, however the 37mm armed variants did it in mid 1943 when the final was close for Italy and they only remained as a experimental airplanes.

#24

More images of the 37mm gun.

In Fiat Cansa FC 20 ter. The gun is laying in a side in order to be feed from above.

2 x 37mm, Savoia Marchetti SM 89.

#25

47 mm autocannon:

This gun was made around the infantry AT cartrigde 47/32 Breda. It seems it was used only in the Breda 88 and Fiat AS 14.

#26

The 47 mm gun installed in Breda Ba 88 (underfuselage)

In the nose of Fiat AS 14 attack aircraft.

#27

Ansaldo 102mm/40.

In late 1942 the Regia Aeronautica began to explore using its larger bomber, the Piaggio P-108B as a long rance maritime recce and attack aircraft, much like the way as the Fw 200 employment in the Luftwaffe.

For that task several types of armament were tested in this aircraft, including radio controlled topredos and armor piercing bombs. However the closeness to enemy Flak remained as a problem. An alternative to attack transport ships and destroyed was to employ heavy artillery piece.

Originally a 75 mm antitank cannon was to be used, but eventually the heavier 102mm was selected to arm the P-108A ( A for artigliere, artilleryman)

The Ansaldo fist tested the gun in ground shooting inside a mock up nose in october 1942.
In april 1943 2 P-108A were ready for test.

Ansaldo`s 102mm howitzer was emplaced in a solid nose aimed by the copilot with a Reflex San Giorgio gunsight with a line of fire tangent up to 4000 meters. It had weight of 680 kg, and was manually loaded from a revolving ammunition dispenser of 6 rounds. A total of 53 round could be carried in the frontal section of the aircraft, the complete gun ad related devices/ammunition weight over 1500 kilos. Some minor damage to the nose section forced to use a steel sheet to protect the structure from the muzzle blast.

The Piaggio P-108A was tested intensively until september 1943, the 4000 meters range was saw as excesive and most of the shots were carried out at 1500 metes for better view of the target. there is no information if this type entered in action. One was captured by the Luftwaffe and tested as well in Rechlin in early 1944.

#28

I forgot to mention that the muzzle velocity of the 44 calibres 102 mm gun was 700mps. Armor penetration with apc projectile 165 mm @ 500 meters.

#29

The only Fiat fighter ever to carry 12,7 mm Breda S.A.F.A.Ts in the wings, the G50 bis A, the emplacement was not quite simple adding 0,8 meters to the wingspan.

#30

Hello Panzerknacker, it is an excellent post that you made here, but I would like to bring a supplementary information has those that will read it, it is that all this beautiful weapons had a big default, them n’ were not particularly efficient, because most suffered overheating and a lack cruel from rate of shooting, besides they were sensitive to their environment and stopped themselves easily. Yet their munitions were effective, but most these weapons endured old conception and especially of uselessly complicated breech mechanism. There is what I could bring you like information while hoping that it helps you a few more.
Fred regards

#31

Wich weapons in particular you are talking about ? the 50 caliber breda is quated as a reliable machinegun in most sources.

#32

Hello Panzerknacker, yes indeed it was relatively a good weapon, but its main default was that its munition was a lot less fast than one 12.7mm American and that the performance of its munition was also least, if the shell made well 12.7mm of diameter, on the other hand its length was least that the American munition and by lighter consequence. What caused less damages to the impacte.
Fred regards

#33

Less damage because the lower muzzle velocity ?, yes that is correct, but in my opinion it was not so important, M2 had 850 mps, and Breda ( and scotti) 12,7mm had 775 mps. The problem for the italian was they had only a pair of heavy machineguns of their fighters (sometimes complemented by 2 light machinegun), simply wasnt enough, remember the USAAF used at list 4 or 6 even 8 heavy machineguns and without synchronization in order not to dimish the rate of fire.

#34

Effectively my dear Panzerknacker, there is also this problem, but he doesn’t remain less that the lack of punch of the Italian weapons put them a lot of worries, there were only the German and after the English in Europe, that had consisted of the utility of a big power of fire, there is only has watch the arming of their two main hunters, that is to say the Messerschmidt and the Focke Wulf. The Japanese had also understood quickly the whole profit that they could pull a heavy arming. There is not that the Italian that had this problem, the French planes were they also equipped with weak caliber weapons. It is necessary to remember that in aerial fight the time of contact with the enemie is short and more the impacte of the weapons of sides is violent and devastating, more the luck to see his destroyed enemie or greatly damaged has the first pass is big, besides it also increases luck of have not have get back in position to finish work, especially with regard to the bombardiers.
Fred regards

#35

Italian airplanes are well-know for using only narrow number of heavy machine gun and no cannons. Look at the Fiat CR.42, Fiat G.50 or Macchi MC.200, these 3 models form the backbone of fighter units. They have only 2 x 12.7 mm machine guns. The US P-47 have 8 x 12.7 mm machine guns. Spitfire and BF-109 use at least 2 x 20mm cannons plus machine guns. The problem of slower ammunitions it’s a “minor” defect. The real problem was the difference in numbers of guns. The Allies airplanes can simply send in the same time a greater number bullet of same and bigger caliber. The effect of multiple hits by 20 mm on light armored Italian airplanes are devastating.
Only with 5 series (Fiat G.55/G.56, Macchi MC.205 and Reggiane Re.205) the Italian airplanes use a mix of 20 mm cannons and 12.7 machine guns.

#36

Superb thread from colonel Panzerknacker (another very interesting read from you once more), ich bin sie vielen dank verschuldigt (i owe you many thanks…, (my germen isn’t perfect :))
@ burp (chears btw) the Bf 109 F series had 1X 20mm and 2X 8mm (i know it’s 7.9, but 8 is nice round number) and this was criticised by the likes of A.Galland (and probably many german fighter pilots) for ‘lacking punch’ yet the Bf got (‘only’) 2x 13mm (rounded up number again) and 1X 20mm from G-5 series() onwards (= besides underwing gunpods (wich hampered performance) and i’m using my 'punch lacking’memory here, so excuse me if i’m wrong) The upgraded (2X 13mm)109 got nicknamed: ‘beule’ wich can be translated as ‘hunchback’ (i’m not sure if it was meant affectionately or negatively, but thats an different story)
Now i wonder: with the Japanese philosophy of keeping planes as light as possible (for better range and agility, and for the cost of armour a.o.) weren’t many of the axis fighter planes ‘lightly’ armed ??? I’d guess they did their jobs non the less, atleast the german fighters (mostly Bf 109 F and G series) did well on the easterfront, against russian planes of whom (so i’ve been told) the guns had considerable firepower. But i’m sure Panzerknacker’s knowledge of these matters (and in this case the italian gun effectiveness of WWII against rivals) is far greater than mine (and many with me).
So i wish you well in 2012 and keep those writings coming this ways, for they are wel reading for me (and many others), and even though i might not make many (written) contributions, i’m still reading your articles with joy and gratitude…, thanks.
Greetings stano666 (btw i don’t have a pc, i use a PS3 wich does things slower (even gaming LOL) so that you know why it takes so much time when i write replys

#37

I am entirely okay with you Burp, except that the weak speed and the weight of the munition are also a factor determining for the aerial fight, a heavier munition is in general a steadier munition. Besides the weight delivered every second makes the difference indeed, for info the 4 cannons of 30 mm of the Me 262 were the taken away most devastating weapons by a hunter, the only impact of 4 of these obuts was sufficient to destroy any hunters ally. The war of Korea proportion a revelation for the American that utilaient massively of the 12.7, indeed the reports of fights indicated that a consequent number of munitions was necessary of 12.7mm to knock a MiG 15 down, whereas in the same time, a plane equipped with cannon of 20 had a lot more luck to knock his/her/its target quickly down. For the Italian the hold of concience that their arming was too weak in relation to the allies was too belated and appeared too late in the course of the war, Trusted it G55 was equipped well of cannon MGde 20mm but it only appeared too late and in too small quantity to change whatever it is. Yet if one looks at his/her/its performances he/it was far from being handicapped face has his/her/its adversaries of the moment and at the time of the test that he/it undergoes here with the allemend those fure surprised because he/it was in many respects superior in the Messerschmidt 109K.
Fred regards

#38

Superb thread from colonel Panzerknacker (another very interesting read from you once more), ich bin sie vielen dank verschuldigt (i owe you many thanks…, (my germen isn’t perfect :))
@ burp (chears btw) the Bf 109 F series had 1X 20mm and 2X 8mm (i know it’s 7.9, but 8 is nice round number) and this was criticised by the likes of A.Galland (and probably many german fighter pilots) for ‘lacking punch’ yet the Bf got (‘only’) 2x 13mm (rounded up number again) and 1X 20mm from G-5 series() onwards (= besides underwing gunpods (wich hampered performance) and i’m using my 'punch lacking’memory here, so excuse me if i’m wrong) The upgraded (2X 13mm)109 got nicknamed: ‘beule’ wich can be translated as ‘hunchback’ (i’m not sure if it was meant affectionately or negatively, but thats an different story)
Now i wonder: with the Japanese philosophy of keeping planes as light as possible (for better range and agility, and for the cost of armour a.o.) weren’t many of the axis fighter planes ‘lightly’ armed ??? I’d guess they did their jobs non the less, atleast the german fighters (mostly Bf 109 F and G series) did well on the easterfront, against russian planes of whom (so i’ve been told) the guns had considerable firepower. But i’m sure Panzerknacker’s knowledge of these matters (and in this case the italian gun effectiveness of WWII against rivals) is far greater than mine (and many with me).
So i wish you well in 2012 and keep those writings coming this ways, for they are wel reading for me (and many others), and even though i might not make many (written) contributions, i’m still reading your articles with joy and gratitude…, thanks.
Greetings stano666 (btw i don’t have a pc, i use a PS3 wich does things slower (even gaming LOL) so that you know why it takes so much time when i write replys

Thanks, the japanese view on aerial combat was more like a thing of designers…not so on pilot who from 1942 onwards clearly were inclined to have more powerful armament on their fighters. The italians were limited more by some heavier construction of their airframes, with a profusion of steel tubing inside wich made sturdier aircraft but left less mass available for armament with the usual 800-1000hp italian engines available in 1938-41.

For the Italian the hold of concience that their arming was too weak in relation to the allies was too belated and appeared too late in the course of the war, Trusted it G55 was equipped well of cannon MGde 20mm but it only appeared too late and in too small quantity to change whatever it is. Yet if one looks at his/her/its performances he/it was far from being handicapped face has his/her/its adversaries of the moment and at the time of the test that he/it undergoes here with the allemend those fure surprised because he/it was in many respects superior in the Messerschmidt 109K.
Fred regards

A very little know experiment to bolster the firepower of the Fiat G55 was in the earlier pre-series, it had 4 Bredas 12.7mm, two above and 2 below the engine, after sometime the lower machineguns were seen as unpractical and removed in favour of 2 wings mounted Mausers.

#39

Hello to all, it is indeed a beautiful post my dear Panzerknacker, very interesting and documented very well. Since you put us a G55 Argentinian is what you would not have luck some more information on them. For information, in my other forum or me post Italy 1935 45, we made a post on the aviation Italian under other colors. And we have been surprised to see that a lot of countries of America of the South these are interested to the Italian aviation, it is surprising to see the number of sold devices in America of the South.
Fred Regards

#40

Btw, my eyes are quite pleased to see those italian designed plane’s. If they fly as well as they look…, i guess you catch my drift.
Greeting stano666.