Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 19 August 2009

Hurricane and Macchi fighters

Hello, thanks for correcting my mistakes... and please excuse for my english... could you please check if it is correct? I am translating from italian books... about the maccchi 200 versus the Hurricanes it may be questionable but I can send you some quotes that states tat... even in english books... please just wait.

King regards, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry for my mistakes again... i am rather new in[REDACTED] and I have some problems in writing notes... about Macchi 200, please, let me quote Jeffrey L. Ethell, in Aircraft of world war two: The Saetta could compete (?)( face ?) with the best allied fighter going out oftnen the winner" (Sorry for my translation)... I Know an Italian ace that shot down a Flying Fortress on a Macchi 200, alone against 24 bombers, on the sky of La Spezia, at the beginning of september 1943... I know that in english military history tradition italian planes and pilots have been often derided but 64 yeras have passed by... It is enough to write the truth, dont you think? :)

Regards, gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) .

Agreed, but aren't you placing the wrong emphasis on the prowess of the Macchi MC 200 by enlarging the Hurricane article? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Noti prego che state realizzando i progressi notevoli nell'imballaggio in su sullo stile e sulla disposizione di Misplaced Pages. FWiW (Per che cosa vale), arrivederci Roma Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Ma, parlate italiano? No, ma io ha un dizionario! Saluti, Gian piero. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

My edit comment about the claim is mainly because when only three Gladiators were launched and the Italians saw five and claimed two, when only one fell? Anyway, I left the note intact but moved it to a reference note. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

You are surprised that pilots see more (or less) planes than in reality?? It happened all the times.... please i could quote you tens of this situations... anyway I send you the extract from the page of the historian I took the quote from... If you say that it is not reliable you can cancel the quotes... it means that I should buy his books... :)--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"At 09.45 in the morning of 31 July 1940 nine 23o Gruppo CR.42s escorted a single reconnaissance S.79 over Malta. Hardly any Hurricanes were now serviceable on the island, and three Gladiators took off to intercept, flown by Flying Officers Peter Hartley, F. F. Taylor and Woods. As they attacked the formation, the bomber turned away, but a dogfight at once began between the opposing fighters. A burst of fire from the guns of Sergente Manlio Tarantino's aircraft caused the fuel tank of Hartley's Gladiator (N5519) to explode, and he baled out suffering from severe burns. Woods shot down the commander of the Italian formation, Capitano Antonio Chiodi of the 75a Squadriglia, his aircraft falling into the sea five miles east of Grand Harbour. Chiodi was subsequently awarded a posthumous Medaglia d'Oro (Gold Medal of Valour - Italy's highest military award). The returning Italian pilots claimed that they had seen five Gladiators and two of them were claimed shot down. One by the above mentioned Tarantino and one by Capitano Luigi Filippi. Two more Gladiators were attacked by Tenente Mario Rigatti. " Håkans aviation page

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) gian piero

C.202

Ciao! I removed your additions to Macchi C.202 as they were too detailed and a bit out-of-context for here. This is an encyclopedia, so narrative micro-events should be avoided (in fact, they also referred not strictly to the C.202). Ciao and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, anche io sono di Roma e in effetti non approvo l'eccessiva attenzione data alla roba (spesso mediocre) della RAF o dell'USAF. Purtroppo il 90% della letteratura leggibile nel resto del mondo è scritto da loro... Saluti da Roma anche a te! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ciao anche da me. Lascia perdere l'eccesso di entusiasmo. Potresti ritrovarti nei problematici in 4 e quattr'otto. Qui ci sono persone che non ti passano nemmeno uno spillo e se ti impunti sono c...i. Lascia che te lo dica per esperienza personale, a me è capitato di discutere per settimane sui kmh in più o meno degli F-86F-40, capisci.. Poi, sul combattimento di Pantelleria, devo correggerti: i 17 Spitfire erano quelli dichiarati, non quelli persi realmente. Vedi Storia Militare N.150. Io l'avevo scritto a suo tempo proprio per questo, non confonderti con le dichiarazioni, che lasciano il tempo che trovano, tipo le famosi stragi di Spitfire fatte dai nostri CR.42 in GB, insomma. Qui fanno bene a contraddirti, comunque non essere troppo lesto nei contributi, perché questi progetti 'collaborativi' prevedono apparentemente che se non stai nel branco sei un 'pericolo pubblico'. E non c'é modo di far valere il buon senso se l'altro usa come clave i regolamenti, anche ben oltre quello per il quale erano stati concepiti.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

ANR Bf 109s

Hallo from New Zealand. The ANR's opertions are an interesting subject which deserves more coverage than it usually gets. The only problem is that covering the entire day's combat mission (14 March) in detail is just too detailed for Misplaced Pages. All that is really needed is a couple of sentences such as (for example): I° Gruppo attempted to intercept B-25 Mitchells of the 321st Bomb Group near Lake Garda but, in turn, were bounced by P-47 Thunderbolts of the 350th Fighter Group. 1° Gruppo had three pilots dead, one wounded, three planes lost and six damaged; in return one P-47 was claimed by Adriano Visconti.

As interesting as the subject is to us editors too much information may just bore more general readers and put them off reading any further. Trying to achieve a balance isn't easy. Anyway, it is good to have an Italian perspective on the subject of the Italian war effort; I agree with you that the myth of Italian "cowardice" is still prevalent and the real facts need to be told. Keep up the good work. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hallo again. I understand the importance of this combat; unfortunately the Bf 109 article is already very long; if anything there should be a seperate article on Bf 109 Combat Operations, which would mean there would be more scope for describing important combat operations. I have no problem about helping with the editing. I also realise that it must be a little frustrating for you, because you have put a lot of time and thought into describing such events only to see them being drastically cut back. So, no apologies necessary!

As for the charges of cowardice? Much of the blame lies with Mussolini and many of the top Generals; many of the Italian army units which fought in North Africa had absolutely no training (many of the men who were thrown directly into combat hadn't even fired a rifle!) and their equipment was extremely poor- Mussolini believed that sheer Facist Brio would be enough to make his soldiers invincible in combat. How could such poorly trained, badly equipped units be expected to fight when faced with a professional army? I also agree that there needs to be some articles on some of the Italian aces. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire operations

Sorry to have to contradict you again, but your peice about 17 Spitfires being shot down in exchange for two C.202s on 20 April 1943 is simply wrong. According to Shores, Ring and Hess Fighters over Tunisia (http://www.antiqbook.nl/boox/klon/050064.shtml) 17 Spitfires were claimed by the Italian pilots but only one South African Spitfire was badly damaged in this combat, in exchange for two, maybe three Macchis. The real events were that Italian ground observers claimed to have seen 17 aircraft land in the sea, followed by four parachutes that were "not Italian". I do not have this book myself but I asked a friend of mine who has a copy to look up the events of April 20; as soon as I get a chance to borrow it from him I will add this research to balance the paragraph you have added.

And please, before you start saying that this is nothing but "Allied propaganda", the information has been very carefully researched by a highly respected aviation historian who has never attempted to skew events to favour one side; Christopher Shores has co-written several books on the North African and Mediterranean theatres (eg Malta: The Spitfire Year http://www.amazon.com/Malta-Spitfire-Year-Christopher-Shores/dp/094881716X) alongside of historians from Italy, Germany and the USA and he has always been objective towards the pilots and aircrew of all nations involved. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being "touchy" or sensative about the Spitfire/Hurricane, I am simply pointing out to you that Shores and Neulen contradict one another. I can assure you that Christopher Shores has researched the Tunisian Campaign in detail -this means he went through piles of the relevant historical documents, interviewed pilots and worked hard to establish what happened on each day. I repeat, I have read enough of his books to know that he is thoroughly objective. Can you claim the same for Hans Werner Nuelen? Does Nuelen explain the details of his research? Did he read, for example, the unit Operations Record Books (ORBs) that were used by all RAF units? What are his scources? What other books has he read and listed in his bibliography? Anyway, I'm not sure that a Misplaced Pages article is the place to debate the finer details about which source is more accurate, nor is it the place for pushing claims and counter claims that were made in the heat of combat over sixty years ago.

Nor have I tried to make out that the Macchis were less manouevrable than the Spitfire; the C.200 was one of the most manouevrable monoplane fighters of it's time, and the 202/205 series had similar capabilities. I have no doubts that the C.202 and 205s were fine fighters and could easily outperform the Hurricane, could outperform the Spitfire VC in some areas and were a match for the Spitfire VIII and IXs. If anything the Macchis are a favorite aircraft of mine, as is the Reggianne RE 2005; the only reason I haven't added more about them is because I don't have a lot of material on them.

Again, I appreciate that you have a special interest in acheiving more balance regarding the Italian airmen and aircraft of WW 2, and I wish you well in this. Kia Kaha Gian! Minorhistorian (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kia Kaha = Maori for "Be strong". Now that I have been able to borrow Shores' book from a friend who is an aviation historian this is what is written about the combat which took place on 20 April 15 miles west of Pantellaria between the Spitfires of and 1° Stormo:

At 1230 six Polish pilots (145 Sqn) gave top cover to Spitfires of 92, 417, 601 and 1 SAAF Squadrons on a large offensive patrol in the area of Pantelleria. When 15 miles west of this island 20 plus fighters identified as Bf 109s, MC 202s and MC 200s dived on the lower Spitfires; these were aircraft of 1° Stormo, led by Magg.Luigidi Bernado and Cap.Clicio Nici, 24 MC 205s and nine MC.202s having taken off from Pantelleria...The Poles dived on the Italian fighters, Flt Lt Krol attacking four, identified as three Bf 109s and an MC 202; turning into the latter he fired and it crashed into the sea...(two more paragraphs describe the combat in which one Spitfire was badly damaged...) The Regia Aeronautica reported that observers on the ground signalled that they had seen 14 Spitfires crashing into the sea or on land and that they observed four non-Italian parachutes. Three M.C 205s were lost; Ten. Francesco Fanelli failing to return; Ten. Vittorio Bacchi Andreoli tried to land his damaged fighter but crashed and was killed, while Marr. Anano Borreo force-landed in open country. Cap. Pietro Colisti, though wounded, managed to land safely. This combat brought Italian claims for the day to 17, although just what the aircraft the observers on the ground saw falling is not known. (The paragraph goes on to say that it is possible that Bf 109s of I./JG 77 were also involved in this combat; the records for this unit beyond 16 April were destroyed ) Shores, Ring and Hess "Fighters Over Tunisia" p.330

This is very different to the bald statement that 17 Spitfires were shot down versus two C.205s; the total number of aircraft claimed by the RA for the whole day was 17. The RA reported that Ground Observers had reported 14 Spitfires had landed either in the sea or on land, although there is a great deal of doubt over just what the ground observers actually saw. Three C 205s and two pilots, with the pilots named, were lost while, in return one Spitfire was heavily damaged. This is the only combat situation on 20 April in which 1° Stormo fights a large number of Spitfires. The pilot's names and the units involved are specified, meaning that the records of both sides have been examined.

As for 1 May 1943 - There is no mention whatsoever of 1° Stormo Macchis engaging with, let alone destroying, six Spitfires and Two P-40s!

My point is this; by continually adding contradictory information to an article (for example) on the Spitfire all that happens is that the general reader gets confused. Who does one believe, particularly when both accounts are properly referenced? Where information is so badly conflicted it is better not to include it, otherwise the entire article becomes a mess, full of claims and counter-claims.

Unfortunately this is what is happening with many of your additions to this and other articles - other editors can find information which directly contradicts the material you are putting in, which creates headaches/frustration for all concerned. All I can suggest, again, is that where the evidence is contradictory don't use it! Sorry for the length of this. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have not explained this very well; when you are teaching history to a class you have the time and ability to go into issues in detail - there is scope for continual discussion over facts and figures and it is possible to discuss and debate at length the different points of view. The same goes for books where historians can expound facts figures and debate points of view at length because there is room for doing so. Agreed? Unfortunately the same things cannot be done in Misplaced Pages articles. Please read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, in particular this statement: Misplaced Pages is not a directory:...

6 A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.

There is nothing wrong with putting something in an article saying Aircraft X was more manouvrable than Aircraft Y with a reference; have I in any way opposed you doing so? No, and you know that full well.

However by adding an unqualified statement saying 17 Spitfires were shot down by Macchis on a particular day in 1943, you have added something which is debateable! Especially when when I have information written by a researcher (who, I have explained at length to you is not biased towards one side or the other) which shows this did not happen. Since when does explaining that not follow the principle of trying to be objective? By claiming that I am somehow being unfair or biased or expounding some percieved (by you) "anglo-american" tradition of writing one sided history by doing so is nonsense. You might not like what Christopher Shores has written, but it is no reason to complain that he is only writing history from the point of view of the victors. This highlights exactly why Misplaced Pages is not the place for debating such details. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a little more; you say that you wish to present both sides of history, to present a balanced point of view? Why do you object when I do the same? Is this an example to set your students when you wish to "tell to the students the different opinions of views about one event or historical character"? I have spent a lot of time and effort explaining to you the research which has been done into the events of 20 April 1943; I did not have to do so, yet you still throw the hackneyed old nonsense about bias at me. This is very disappointing, and you are probably right, further discussion is probably useless. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Gian, this is getting ridiculous; you ask

Sorry who is this Mister Shores to get such a flat consideration? Is he a god of history? Was he there? He say that he could read the records of the day. Wew you there? And if yes, are those records the Holy Bible? :)

These are silly questions to ask about an historian, particularly by a history teacher. Suppose someone wanted to write a new history of Giuseppe Garibaldi? You would tell them to forget it because 1) The author probably isn't a god of history! :)2) The author wasn't around at the time that Garibaldi was changing the course of Italian history! 3)The author probably won't/didn't bother to read the records anyway and you can't prove it because you weren't there to actually watch the author read the records! 4)Why bother anyway because the records probably aren't reliable anyway?

If you don't like what Chris Shores has written, that is your problem. I seriously suggest that you write to Nicola Malizia, who has co-written and researched several books with Mr Shores, and express your concerns about the possible poor quality and lack of objectivity of Mr Shores' work to him. I would be interested in what Mr Malizia has to say. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gian, I am certain that RAF pilots overclaimed, as did the pilots of other nations. This is a subject which has been discussed many times in Misplaced Pages, and there is an article dedicated to this Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories. Do we conclude that all pilots overclaimed deliberately? Do we conclude that it was deliberate policy on the part of different air forces to encourage pilots to overclaim? The simple fact is that few pilots deliberately tried to mislead - in the heat of air to air combat, for example several pilots may have fired at the same aircraft. It was quite easy for this one aircraft to be claimed as a certain kill by several pilots, each of whom genuinely believed that they were the ones who shot it down. Sometimes it would be possible to examine the wrecked aircraft and/or question the captured aircrew to establish the circumstances of how it came to be shot down, but usually that was impossible; lots of aerial combat took place over water, for instance. Another possible way of verifing a kill was to examine gun-camera footage - some air forces, however, did not use gun cameras.

The point is that there is very little scope for endlessly debating these issues in Misplaced Pages articles, because, as I have tried to point out to you, for every claim made by one editor that such an such an air force consistently overclaimed (with referenced evidence) someone else will find evidence that the other side overclaimed - with referenced evidence. Where would it end? This may be very interesting to those of us who enjoy the detail, but, for the general readership which makes up the vast bulk of those who read these articles, the constant claims and counter-claims are a total turn-off. I have encountered several people who have become very frustrated by the constant revisiting of such issues in Misplaced Pages aviation articles.

The same goes for the claims and counter-claims about the qualities of individual aircraft types - for every positive pilot opinion there is bound to be a negative one; where does it stop? For now, regards Minorhistorian (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon from New Zealand. There's probably a little Campanilismo (http://www.transparent.com/italian/campanilismo/) in everyone - some more than others! I think it would perhaps be fair to say that Aviation articles in Misplaced Pages are created by enthusiasts who wish to share some of their enthusiasm on aircraft with a wider community? This is why you decided to join in wouldn't you say? In the circumstances I think it is probably inevitable that some hint of bias will creep in, in spite of all of our best efforts. How does anyone decide which historians are reliable; as in anything dealing with history, experience is often the best guide; the best historians will be able to present a reasonably balanced point of view and will be able explain how their research unfolded. For example a book called "Shattered Sword" (http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/) is about the Battle of Midway told from the point of view of the Japanese. This book has exploded several myths about the battle which have been perpetuated for years. The authors are both American, which, you would think, would mean a total bias against the Japanese; however, by studying and translating the original Japanese accounts and records of the battle they were able to recreate the battle from the Japanese side; they discovered that the Japanese operated their carriers in a completely different way to the Americans, and this had a crucial bearing on how the battle was fought. As Americans, the authors could have been biased, but instead they present a completely balanced account of Midway.

One thing to remember is that no one editor can claim ownership of an article; that applies to those of us who have created articles - once an article is on Misplaced Pages, as the disclaimer says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it". Also remember that an article is supposed to be a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject; properly speaking this means, for example, that an article on the P-51 deals with the P-51 alone, without long passages about other aircraft types. Passing references to the Macchi C. 205, yes, detailed material about the Macchi C. 205, no. The passage you added included a detailed description of the 205's armament and the units using it, which material is more appropriate in the article on the C. 205. When you read it there isn't really a great deal of information in the P-51 article on opposing aircraft. Anyway, tis getting late and I have work to do. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop turning the P-40 page into the Macchi page

Please stop editing the P-40 page. Give me a chance to adjust the contradictory phrases you have introduced. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiat G.50 mission

Hi Gian piero, but the Niclot "kill" can be significant only in the context of how it influences the use of the aircraft. It probably can be put on the pilot's page where it is most relevant. As to individual missions, it usually is a good idea to stay away from single sorties or even individual victories as they are often more representative of the pilot's skill, combat conditions or any combination of factors. See if you can move the information to the appropriate page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

This may surprise you even more...

Being a keen model builder and an IPMS member (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ipms_dunedin/) I knew about the RE 2005 "Sagittario", although I didn't have a lot of information on the aircraft http://www.aldini.it/re2005/index.htm. This changed when a New Zealand manufacturer called Falcon brought out a 1:48 scale "limited run" injection moulded RE 2005 about ten years ago. http://www.falconmodels.co.nz/kits.html The model was produced using low-pressure moulding techniques, so there were some problems, but it was basically accurate. http://www.modelcraftsandhobbies.co.nz/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=4595&category_id=9af73185b6d041271e523be77a1756ac& An Italian manufacturer, "Flying Machines" has since brought out a new model which is better than the old Falcon kitset http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/re2005reviewbg_1.htm. I also have decal sheets by Italian manufacturer Sky Models for the Reggiane series and for the Macchi C. 202 http://web.tiscali.it/skymodels/. Incidentally, I have built a Hasegawa 1/48 scale C. 202 as Red 11 of 378ˆSq, 51˚ Stormo, the aircraft flown by Sergente Gelli, who, as you know, was shot down by George Beurling. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits...

Thank you for the contributions you have made to Misplaced Pages so far. However, a few of them (relating to individual combat actions involving Italian aircraft) may be slightly problematic. While you have referenced your additions some of those references are of dubious quality, but more importantly we don't tend to mention specific actions in articles about an aircraft type. By doing so you are introducing an undue weight and possible neutrality issues into the articles. I appreciate your helpful intentions, but in future please be careful to avoid using the exceptions to re-write the rules. EyeSerene 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - you accidentally posted it to my user-page rather than my talk-page, so I've moved it to here. I apologise if you were offended; that was not my intention at all. I left you the note because another editor mentioned some concerns on the Military history WikiProject talk-page (see here). I think Bzuk is worried that, by including the information that you've been adding, you may be unintentionally introducing a bias into certain articles. I understand your desire to "write the truth" (as you put it at the top of this page), but on Misplaced Pages we aim to present all subjects from a neutral point of view and to give the subjects appropriate weight. For example, giving special mention to an isolated incident such as with Niclot on Fiat G.50 might cause a reader to believe that this was a typical event, making the article misleading. Misplaced Pages is not the place for 'setting the record straight' (see WP:SOAP for more information).

We encourage all editors to be bold in editing our encyclopedia, and we all made mistakes when we were new and learning how Misplaced Pages works. You've made many valuable contributions so far and with your background I'm sure you will be a excellent and knowledgeable contributor, but please take seriously the advice you've been given on this page by some highly experienced editors. It will help you avoid both conflicts with other editors and problems with Misplaced Pages editing policy. If you're not sure about an edit, it's often helpful to propose it on the article talk-page first before adding it to the article - it can be discussed by the other editors and helps avoid edit-warring. I sincerely hope your time here with us will be a long and happy one. Regards, EyeSerene 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Many editors use their real names on Misplaced Pages; many more don't. It's purely a matter of choice that most of us wish to remain anonymous. Misplaced Pages (sometimes controversially) places little value on real-life reputations or appeals to authority, so one's name is less important that one's editing history.

Good Night from Abruzzo, land of earthquakes

I thanks for your kind and interesting letters.... I think all of us are (more or less) right... Ironically the question could be: how can we avoid that the reader get a headache reading wikipedia? the article has to be homogeneus.... :D >Sorry... i smile... how can somebody expect that a page about history is homogeneuos and not causing head-ache? So we write the page of Alexander the Great writing down that he was a genius, a mythical heroe, etc. and we dont say any word about somebody that say the he was a drunker, half crazy, paranoic, narcissist, like Dante Alighieri say: "Killer of peoples" etc...? Because, if we write this too, who reads get confused and can have headache??? Are WE joking, Misters??? Are the average readers, sailors, of[REDACTED] so mentally and psichologically limited? They need to be told only one-sided things, like children that can not stand a more complex reality? No, sorry! :) I cant believe it!! Are we writing for the little babies?? SO... if you write your SPitfire page quoting all nationalist British historians that say how wonferful it was, it is ok?? It is homogeneous, right<? But is not honest, sorry!!! I told you many times that the Spitfire was a good plane but not perfect!!! I know personally an italian ace, Costantino Petrosellini, a very warm hearted pilot, that had the licence to fly more that 80 types of planes... well he loved the Spitfire IX more than others but he told me that he Macchi 205 was superior an medium low altitudes.... Spit was more fragile... so... you think that if we say that the Spitfire IX was a wonderful plane but that if he met a 205 at low altitudes it could be outmanouvred and shot down, that is better to avoid it because who reads then start to not understand nothing? We must avoid headeache or write something that is true and objective? LIke if he says: EHi, you told me so far that the SPit was the best fighter in the world, and now you tell me that an italian plane can shot id down? Ehi, you confuse me I an getting head ache... :D Funny, is it not? :) and about this neverending story of the 17 SPitfire!!! My god... it was a quote fron TWO historian, a German, Neulen, that has a bibliograpy 14 pages long (fourteen!!) it is not a driver or a worker that decides to pay an editor to be regarded as a writer of history and prints a book, and an Italian, Arena, that wrote many books for military aviation editor... STEM MUCCHI... I dont see the problem.... we want to take it away? Ok... but i think that a person with a medium intelligence can understand something of history even if he reads that english say one thing and italian say another... it is the old story of the history written differently... but, please remember that this is true for everithing... According to Hakan Gustavsoon (is he a reliable historian?) Marmaduke Pattle and his fellow pilots, to say some names, claimed always much more planes than shot down in reality...so... are we re-writing the story of the aces? If you read the english version of raf claims you can have, let's say, 50 planes shot down, Pattle, if you read the italian records they are 20 or less... so...what you write in wiki en? That he shot 20 or 50? 50 of course (we are all nationalist) and yo dont mention the italian claims or who reads get confused... Nice story, is it not? Just about Pattle: he and his pilots claimed one day 27 italian planes shot down, and for these victories and others they became all aces and the King graciously complimented and awarded them. Good fellas, brave and skilfull... there is only a problem: Italian planes lost were only 7.... so? The first Niclot victory with fiat was significant because he destroyed a plane considered superior and shot the other two and he get a medal for this action... and he was probably one of the most skilfull pilot of the was... ten year before tha start of the was he haf flown 1500 hours, 500 of them in acrobacy, and he held 7 or 9 record of flying... We can go on discussing for hours... without coming to an end... some of you uses[REDACTED] rules like swords to win on the others... I am not here to fight a war... our fathers and grandfathers did it and lost it and we still have some delated effects from that... regards from rome gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)...

From the land of the long white cloud

Which also suffers from earthquakes...and volcanoes... Sorry Gian, the only person who is trying to refight WW 2 appears to be you. First of all to claim that all British (and, presumably Anglo-American) historians are nationalist and, therefore (by your implication) biased, is as offensive as it is untrue - I have tried to explain this to you, but it doesn't seem to matter. If I were to claim that all Italian historians are nationalist and clearly (by implication) biased I would justifiably be pilloried by all self-respecting Italians. As an arguement, it simply doesn't wash. Why does it worry you so much that while two authors claim that 17 Spitfires were shot down by Macchis during a single action two others say this didn't happen; interestingly these latter two have the names of the Italian pilots whose Macchis were shot down, and the mnames of the RAF units and pilots involved - do Neulan and Arena have that information? I would guess not. Simply accepting such claims at face value, without examining the quality of research behind the claims, is a problem you have created for yourself. I have explained at length that Shores (for example) worked in co-operation with members of the Italian Air Force to examine the records of the Regia Aeronautica and 1º Stormo - again, this does not seem to mean much to you.

To also claim that various articles, including the Spitfire articles are totally biased towards an Anglo-American perspective and are unbalanced is also somewhat offensive:

The battle-performance of the Spitfire was frequently compared with that of the Hawker Hurricane, which was used in greater numbers during the critical stages of 1940. Although early Spitfires and Hurricanes carried identical armament of eight .303 inch (7.7 mm) machine guns, the placement of the Hurricane's guns was better, yielding a closer pattern of fire.

By late 1940 Luftwaffe fighter units were being re-equipped with the formidable new Bf 109F-1 and F-2, considered by many Luftwaffe pilots to be the best of the many variants of this fighter. The F-1s and F-2s easily outperformed the Spitfire Mk Is and IIs and it closely matched that of the Mk Vs which were just about to enter service.

The introduction of the Fw 190 in late 1941 along the Channel front came as a complete surprise to Fighter Command. At first it was assumed that the new radial-engined fighters were Curtiss 75-C1s which had been captured from the French. It soon became clear that the new aircraft easily outperformed the Spitfire V and appeared to be more heavily armed. Very little was known about this fighter until 23 June 1942 when Oberleutnant Armin Faber of JG 2 landed his FW 190A-3 at RAF Pembrey by mistake. In comparison tests the new German fighter proved superior to the then-current Mk Vb in all aspects except turning radius. The Fw 190 was at least 25 to 30 mph faster than the Spitfire V, and could climb and accelerate to combat speeds more quickly. Spitfire pilots who flew over enemy territory using the standard technique of flying at low rpm and high boost pressures to economise on fuel often found themselves in trouble when intercepted by Fw 190s. If "bounced" while cruising at low speeds it could take a Spitfire up to two minutes to accelerate to top speed. The only way it was thought that a Spitfire could evade attack was to cruise at high speed and go into a shallow dive with the throttle open. Provided the Fw 190 was seen in time, it could be forced into a long stern chase.

The Spitfire V units continued to take heavy casualties, often inflicting little damage in return, throughout 1941 and well into 1942. Once the Mk IX started arriving in sufficient numbers this trend started to even out, although the 190s in particular continued to be a serious threat.

Please point out the lack of balance and/or the implication that the Spitfire was "perfect"? Minorhistorian (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Long white cloud? Perchè?

Hello i hope i did not offend you i am sorry if i did so... i read with interest your lettes and i must say that it seems correct to write that the Spitfire was (until the arrive of the IX) inferior to German fighters... that's explains why the first 103 aces scoring more thatn 100 planes were all German, nowithstanding the allied had had radars since the beginnning... But if you wrote (wiki en) such a balanced page why you are reluctant to accept quotes that states that Macchi 205 and Reggiane 2005 could tackle and shot down the SPitfire and the Mustang as well? Because the italians planes and pilots have a long allied historical tradition to be derided, maybe? You (not you) here started to react and to cancel and to modify quotes from historians of your part as well, not italians!! And about the story of the 14 or 17 Spitfire on Pantelleria... that Aeronautica Militare Italiana gave the names of the italian pilots shot down simply shows how correct is AMI, nevertheless mister Shores mistaked - it seems to me - the name of the two italian commanders... I dont know if Neulen and Arena saw the RAF records, maybe because it is not so easy to have a look over them... I spoke with Malizia that stated what the others two co-author writes... but... I told you about Malizia... nice and available until you start to doubt about raf records... ANd I have some doubts, sorry, for I told You that RAF - not the single pilotes, the RAF - overclaimed ALWAYS the claims... If you want I write you a phrase of Adolf Galland in "The first and the last". One day, RAF claimed (with all the things related: pilots became aces, prizes, newspapers title and all that false stuff... medals, King that praised and awarded etc) 87 German planes, while they had lost only 2. DO you understand me? FOrtythree times more!!! ANd why I should believe to the records of such people? I told you: my father was in the CAI with 85a Squadriglia and he told me that the RAF declared 10 or 14 CR.42 shot down when they lost only 2 in combat and many italian pilots declared to have strafed heavily with the breda 12,7 heavy maching guns (not the rifle caliber of the browning) the Hurricanes... Commander Ferrucci Vossilla reported, about a Hurrican hot down: It seemed to shoot somebody that was sitting on the wc... this phrases was so impressed in me when I was a child... I knew one of them, Cai pilots, General Giulio Cesare Giuntella, who was not a liar... I shot a english monoplane... I saw the bullets striking its fuselage... and he simply accelerated and run away... But Malizia stated: only 2 o 3 three holes in the wings...get the raf, i saw the records... How can you be so sure in front of all these different versions??? I am not sure... I dont believe, you understand me? BELIEVE. I read the different versions and I dont accept one... Malizia to do so has his interests... please dont let me write unpleasant things in a public place about other people... Have a nice week end... I go to plant a couple of oaks on a mountain.. gian piero --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Scusa Giampié, però un poco esageri. E' vero, ci sono cose non del tutto commendevoli in wiki, e te lo dice uno che ha preso blocchi a raffica. E che è facilmente ignorato/rollbacckato ecc. Che ha usato spesso la parola 'censura' e che è sottoposto ad una situazione di bando permanente da wiki.it perché ha avuto da 'ridire' un pò troppo. Questo è vero ed assodato. Però..

Però non è che affermando che un bel giorno i Macchi 205 hanno abbattuto 17 Spitfire, dei quali non c'é traccia alcuna, allora fai una bella figura. A parte che si tratta di uno squadrone intero, che sarebbe stata una grossa perdita, non facile da coprire.. e poi 17 piloti uccisi oppure catturati oppure recuperati. Stesso discorso per una battaglia a Capo Pula, in cui il 51° dichiarò 12 P-38 mentre gli USA, così perfidi, pur ammettendo 60 bombardieri abbattuti dai Tedeschi, non dichiararono nessun P-38 agli Italiani. E' chiaro che la cosa, non fosse altro che per le dozzine di perdite subite, anche a livello umano, è questionabile. Anche gli americani hanno 'overclaimato': il 2 agosto dichiararono 3-4 aerei, quando l'unica vittima fu il mrs Bianchi su di un C.202. Ma un conto è dichiarare che i macchi hanno abbattuto 11 P-38 con una perdita, un conto che è finita 0-1. Lo stesso per la battaglia tra i Reggiane e i Sea Hurricane, finita 2:1, anzi 1:1 considerando il combattimento vero e proprio, il 15 giugno 1942 (in cui gli italiani dichiararono 11 Sea Hurricane, quando in tutto ce n'erano 12 in aria e 11 tornarono alla portaerei, uno era danneggiato e si fracassò, un altro riuscì ad atterrare: nel combattimento vero e proprio vi furono in tutto 1 perdita per parte, 2 danneggiati per gli inglesi e 1 per gli italiani. Nota che i britannici avevano dichiarato, se non sbaglio, una sola vittoria). O magari anche Storia Militare fa parte del complotto? Quanto alla Gran Bretagna, stesso discorso: se tu dici: hei, guarda che ho abbattuto 2 caccia nemici. E sui registri dello squadrone che hai affrontato non ce ne sono di perdite, non ci sono nomi di piloti abbattutit, non ci sono rimpiazzi.. che pensi, che dopo avere perso 1.000 caccia contro la LW la RAF avrebbe avuto problemi ad ammettere qualche perdita contro la RA? E sopratutto, quei 10 piloti britannici, in uno degli scontri aerei più studiati nella storia? Chi erano, e che aerei volavano? Parliamo di un intero squadrone. Infine: dire che il C.202 fosse superiore all'Hurricane (come caccia, certo non come 'striker') è un conto, estendere la cosa al C.200 no. Non ci sono ragioni per considerare superiore il C.200 vs l'Hurricane Mk.1, non parliamo dell'Mk.II. Al più e al peggio, i problemi per gli Hurricane erano i filtri Vockes, che li rendevano più lenti di 30 kmh. Durante la famosa incursione di Tesei, gli Hurricane di copertura distrussero le due motosiluranti e poi abbatterono 2 Macchi (ne rivendicarono 3), perdendo in tutto un Hurricane, forse colpito dalla mitragliera di una motosilurante (gli Italiani ovviamente dichiararono 3 vittorie). Insomma, al più era una battaglia ad armi pari, ma: solo a quote medio-basse, e solo tra i caccia. Come intercettore di bombardieri e aereo d'attacco, l'Hurricane era grandemente migliore. Uno solo di questi, ricorda un altro noto sovversivo (T.Marcon) abbatté 3 SM.79 vicino a Bardia nel settembre del 1940, per esempio, quando per i caccia italiani era difficile avere la meglio su di un singolo Blenheim. Tu dirai che anche qualche caccia italiano ne abbatté due, ma non era la norma. Invece 3 Bf-109 in Grecia trovarono 6 Blenheim e li distrussero tutti, tanto per capirci. I caccia non servono per le acrobazie aeree, hanno parecchi compiti da fare, altrimenti considerando questo dovremmo pensare che i caccia inglesi erano superiori a quelli tedeschi, che quelli italiani erano superiori (?) a quelli britannici, e che quelli giapponesi erano superiori a tutti. Per non parlare dei piloti: i Finlandesi ottennero vittorie su vittorie con: i Morane-Saulnier, i Fokker D.XXI, i G.50 e poi i (super)Buffalo (439 vittorie per 42 aerei!), spesso ai danni di Hurricane e Spitfire (sovietici). Ora dimmi: l'elenco di cui sopra comprende alcuni dei caccia più mediocri (il G.50 era certo inferiore agli altri monoplani italiani) della storia, che in altri teatri le hanno buscate di santa ragione dai loro oppositori: se dovessimo vedere queste statistiche, oppure dovessimo considerare che in Australia gli Spit le presero 7:1 contro gli Zero nel '43, cosa dovremmo concludere? Mentre Alleati, Tedeschi, anche Giapponesi, avevano più aerei che piloti, lo stesso non era vero per gli Italiani, i cui migliori caccia erano volati dai piloti più esperti (ovviamente, visto quant'erano pochi), per cui i risultati mediamente venivano 'meglio' di quello che ci si potrebbe aspettare. Niclot era esperto, molti piloti italiani avevano imparato il mestiere in Spagna mentre i Britannici erano privi di alcuna esperienza bellica reale nel '40. Se poi gente come Gorrini ha concluso 5 anni di guerra con 24 vittorie non è 'sto gran risultato, sono cose che capitano quando ti tocca combattere al massimo delle tue possibilità. E non dimenticare, sempre a proposito di Gorrini, quel che lui diceva: gli ufficiali, andavano in aria, tornavano, dicevano: ho abbattuto un aereo, e glielo segnavano sulla parola. Senza cinemitragliatrice non c'era altro.

Stammi bene.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What can I say to such arguments? You have made it clear that you will discount almost all Anglo-American historical research as being biased and that anything to do with the RAF is obviously biased - except when is says what you want it to say. This to the point where you have a falling out with someone with whom (I presume) you had a friendship - because he believes RAF records that he has read, and because he worked with a British aviation historian? Have you read RAF records or worked with a British aviation historian? Of course not, because RAF records are nothing but lies and propaganda, and the historians must be the same! Of course, it is obvious that, by contrast Regia Aeronautica records must be the fountain of absolute truth. How is it possible to have a sensible conversation with someone who is so closed minded? You argue that one should take a balanced view of how historical events are written, right? Yet when this is done you get upset and annoyed, because it contradicts your perception of what happened over 66 years ago.

Here are some interesting comments written by a British aviation historian (if you can bare to read them):

The October (1942) claims of the Malta-based RAF fighters afford a particularly good opportunity to consider this phenomenon. During the week of the main blitz (11th to 17th) claims made against Ju88s...amounted to 53 'confirmed' and 27 'probable' by day and night. Actual losses totalled 34 Ju88s destroyed...thus actual losses represented 64% of confirmed claims...Against the Italian escort fighters claims were made for 11 Macchi MC202s and three Reggiane Re2001s 'confirmed'...Actual losses appear to have totalled five Macchis and one Reggiane...the percentage of actual losses to confirmed claims deteriorates to just under 43%...However, claims against BF 109s amounted to 45 'confirmed' and 16 'probables', whilst recorded losses were 12 destroyed and five damaged. This indicates an accuracy level of confirmed claims of about 26.5% - or less than one in four!

Wow! There is some serious anti-Italian bias here! Not only that but it must be nonsense because the authors consulted RAF records! You are probably not interested, but this is from a book called Malta: The Spitfire Year 1942 (pp.648-649) by Christopher Shores and Brian Cull with Nicola Malizia. Nicola Malizia offered personal thanks for assistance in Italy to Ufficio Storico dello Stato Maggiore Aeronautica, Uffico Propaganda e Fotografico dello SNAM,...Stephano Doglio Niclot; books consulted included Nina Arena Il Radar; La Guerra Aerea - Attacco-Difesa - Organizzazione terrestre and La Regia Aeronautica - Vol 1º, 2º, 3º and 4º - but why bother going on because clearly, one cannot believe anything written by an English aviation historian, even with the help of Italian records? But what do I know, I wasn't around at the time to see what actually happened. Minorhistorian (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you keep mentioning the encounter of 11 November 1940 where the RAF pilots claimed 10 to 12 CR 42s? All this proves is that there was such a thing as propaganda in wartime. I wonder if Mussolini and the Fascist regime ever stooped to propaganda? Naaah, it never happened! Propaganda was only ever resorted to by the perfideous Anglo-Americans...Minorhistorian (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Relative merits of World War II aircraft

Although my area of interest and "expertise" is not necessarily World War II aircraft, I will respond to some of the comments and ideas that you have brought forward. The combat history of this era was greatly dependent on a number of factors including technology and pilot capability. Individual pilots in Allied units were typically "rotated" and served only a period of time in front line combat. In U.S. bomber squadrons, completing 25 missions would lead to a transfer to a home base; the length of service did vary from air force to air force. In the Axis, there was no provision for pilots to rotate and many of the veteran pilots such as Adolf Galland served for the entire war. The longer that the Axis pilot flew, the more experienced he would become and the more likely that the experience along with situational awareness combined with skills would lead to victories in the air over the enemy. More often, the aircraft that was flown was not the deciding factor, as was proved by Finnish fighter pilots who "racked" up aerial scores in antiquated equipment. The other aspect of staying in combat for an extended period was that even the veteran pilot would encounter the young "hot" ace or be in a situation where the odds were stacked against him. The "ace-of-aces", Erich Hartmann was forced down 14 times; Gerhard Barkhorn was shot down three times, the first before he had scored even one "kill". The aircraft that was predominately flown by both Barkhorn and Hartmann was the Messerschmitt Bf 109. How much of their victories could be attributed to the aircraft? That is hard to know precisely since over the Eastern Front, the Russian aircraft were often forced to fly at low altitudes in ground attack missions that put the Russian pilot at a great disadvantage. Flying an aircraft without adequate protection from self-sealing fuel tanks or armour was a predicament that Japanese fighter pilots faced. Regardless of their prowess, a Japanese pilot could be brought down by relatively minor damage inflicted by an Allied aircraft. Add to all of this the inevitable maelstrom of combat where pilots made contact with the enemy, registered "hits" and claims that were not borne out by later records. Many damaged aircraft eventually "limped" home but the attacking pilot made a report that indicated a victory. The problem was so acute that German authorities had to insist on stringent verification to limit the amount of "overclaiming" that was prevalent on all sides. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Ciao. Proprio adesso il tg dice che quest'anno avremo il 4,4% di crescita (negativa) del PIL. Non so se spararmi o impiccarmi per la gioia, tu che ne dici? Bon, ti dico il resto adesso. però qui. Clicca sul link e leggi. Per un minimo di privacy. Ciao.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies too

Sorry if I have been a little blunt over the past few days; in some ways my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek, although perhaps it didn't translate as such. I took no deep offence from anything you have written - I was just a little irritated at times. I know that Italy built some excellent fighters and had some great pilots, just as I know that Italy still builds some excellent cars and makes the best pasta in the world :) Not forgetting that the RNZAF did fly Italian Aermacchi MB-339CBs until the government was stupid enough to put them into storage! There is no point in quibbling about details, because every aircraft enthusiast will have their favourites; one of mine is the little Commonwealth Boomerang http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/boomer.html, an aircraft which was (sort of) an Australian equivalent to the Macchi 200. Like the Macchi it was highly manoeuvrable, although, unlike the Macchi, it hardly ever saw air-to-air combat. Anyway, stick around and lets all see what can be done to create a more balanced view of Italy's WW 2 fighters. Kia Kaha! Minorhistorian (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you'll allow me to say so, perhaps you were a little unfair on Nicola Malizia? Is it really worth burning your bridges with fellow aviation enthusiasts over details of events of over 60 years ago?. Cheers Gian.

Hello Gian piero (sorry for calling you Gian all the time!). Yes, I can see that being told how to write your novel would be annoying - imagine if Tolstoy had to write War and Peace to someone else's specifications? It would seem that enthusiasm overcame good judgement! Anyway, some years ago I came across an Italian book on the Reggiane Re 2002 and Re 2005 series in a second-hand bookshop; foolishly, I decided to leave it thinking that I would be able to buy it in another week or so. Duuuh ooh!! Of course it was gone a week later. It was Sergio Govi: dal RE 2002 al RE 2005 which I have just found on the net http://www.alireggiane.com/libri-aeronautici-f12/dal-re-2002-al-re-2005-t331.htm on a site dedicated to the Reggiane http://www.alireggiane.com/forum.htm. I'm going to hunt down a copy of this book because it has the best information on the 2002 to 2005 series I have ever seen. I cannot find it through Amazon, nor on e-Bay - do you have any ideas? Good luck on renewing your licence. Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cmq se ti annoi qui fai un salto su wikibooks.it, a Giampié. Almeno sei un pò più libero di scrivere i tuoi contributi. Magari non tipo 'Guerra e Pace', ma almeno non ti saltano addosso ogni tre bytes di editing.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Beh, qui puoi fare come me, metterti a discutere fino a farti dire che non sei 'adatto per wikipedia' da parte di chi, una volta che scrivi una riga, ti rollbaccka tutto in quanto POV, malscritto e senza fonte, e nell'arco di minuti. Qui nel settore aviazione, dico, i progetti[REDACTED] sembrano presidiati dai pasdaran. Ps. hai letto il link che ti ho fatto sopra? Contiene il messaggio che ho occultato giorni fa.

Sull'Hurricane, il fatto è che il Merlin era il 'discendente' di una famiglia che comprendeva anche il Kestrel. Così c'é stato un errore di attribuzione. Pensavo che anche l'Hurricane prototipico avesse il Kestrel, invece no (quello ce l'aveva.. il Bf-109!). Ma ora non sono nella condizione di modificarlo perché fatto fuori da wikipedia. Quindi ben venga. Come capirai, il settore aviazione di wiki.it è molto meno 'controllato', qui l'errore del Kestrel non sarebbe durato 5 minuti. Poi ti volevo dire, spesso mi pare che tu faccia qualche errore ortografico in inglese. Anche qui dopo un pò te ne dicono di tutti i colori. Le regole base per metterti in croce sono infatti 'poor grammar', POV e 'unreferenced'. Capisc'ammè. Cmq wikibooks è questo:. Magari hai altro da fare, ma anche a stare qui per discutere ogni 5 righe di testo non è che sia così appagante no? Qui non avrai mai la libertà che cerchi, specie se ti metti nelle pagine aviatorie anglo-americane. Pensa che la pagina F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators l'avevo scritta io (70 Kb!) e aveva anche un titolo più bello (Phantom in wordlwide service), che ovviamente hanno cambiato mentre ero sotto blocco e senza chiedermi parare alcuno.. Adesso non riesco ad aggiungerci nemmeno una riga senza che scatta l'allarme antiatomico. Che ggente grata no? Ciao.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Così tu scrivi? Su che riviste pubblichi?

hai proprio ragione Giampié, è incredibile. Ma giocare al kapò è uno sport divertente.. sai quanti sono più papisti del Papa, e ragionano con delle policy che sembrano scritte da Mosé e invece le hanno redatte qualche settimana prima in 4 gatti in qualche pagina di discussione. A parte questo, ho visto dai tuoi contributi che fai 40 edit al giorno su wiki.it. Auguri, ma sta attento, chi fa troppe attività alle volte viene visto con fastidio, specie se non uìchificca bene. Io meritavo una decorazione al valore per avere scritto 13 caccia americani su 15 della II GM, invece, beh.. ecco. Io potrei anche cambiare nick, però ci sono due problemi. Uno è che se opero nel settore aviatorio, sta sicuro che qualcuno mi sgamerebbe subito con il CU, ci sono troppi pochi contributori ed è già successo che io sia stato bloccato al volo senza avere fatto niente. La seconda ragione è che io vorrei fare le cose in maniera 'legale', corretta e chiara, in una parola 'onesta'. E vedere se la possente comunità di wikipedia, dopo 1,5 anni dal mio blocco amministrativo (ci sono assassini che sono stati scarcerati nel frattempo..) posso beneficiare, stante il mio impegno per wikimedia, di un pò di clemenza.Per ora pare di no, e questo la dice lunga sulle qualità morali della gente. Utenti e admin che erano capaci di coscienza critica o se ne sono andati, o li hanno bloccati, o stanno zitti per non compromettersi. Ecco come va. Va a guardare la pagina utente dell'ex-admin Paulaz, per esempio. Stammi bene e se ti va di fare lavori più complessi vieni su 'books.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Salve

I got your query, but misplaced it temporarily as you had placed it on my User page, rather than my Talk page. I've responded there. Best wishes. Sunray (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian Aces

Hi Gian, I've been looking up some names of Italian pilots; Maggiore Luigi Fillipi, Sergente Maggiore Luigi Gorrini (websites;http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/italy_gorrini.htm ; http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/italy-ww2-ground.pdf ; http://www.airartnw.com/stormclouds.htm) Have you got any information on Sergente Maggiore Maurizio Ruspoli? Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Much appreciated - I also found this Mario Ruspoli, 2nd Prince of Poggio Suasa; yes I did get his rank wrong - it's well after midnight here, and I should be in bed, instead of on the computer, so I read St. (Stormo) as Sgt...:) Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Just found this...http://www.acesofww2.com/italy/Italy.htm I'm away to bed...

Homerism

Homerism= rooting for the home team, much in the way a sports announcer is overly involved in supporting one side. The articles in an encyclopedia have to take on a neutral position, which is starting to erode in some of the articles on Italian wartime aircraft. For example, even though there is evidence that the Macchi MC.202 was a capable aircraft, citing individual actions that show its superiority in combat casts a subjective appraisal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Homerism is actually a "slang" word. You have made some interesting comments about the other aircraft types. In writing articles on aviation, it is important not to over-compensate for a beloved subject. Taking your example of the P-51 Mustang, read the difference in the approach taken for this article and that of the Macchi MC.202:

The P-51 flew most of its wartime missions as a bomber escort in raids over Germany, helping ensure Allied air superiority from early 1944. It also saw limited service against the Japanese in the Pacific War. The Mustang began the Korean War as the United Nations' main fighter, but was relegated to a ground attack role when superseded by jet fighters early in the conflict. Nevertheless, it remained in service with some air forces until the early 1980s. As well as being economical to produce, the Mustang was a fast, well-made, and highly durable aircraft.

Macchi MC.202: Considered one of the most beautiful fighters to fly with wartime Axis forces, the Folgore was also an effective and deadly dogfighter. "The Macchi C.202 was considered superior to both the Hurricane and the Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawks it fought against, at first on the Libyan front from November 1941, and the equal of the Mk V Spitfire. The C.202 was able to out-turn all three although the Spitfire had a superior rate of climb." A prominent Allied foe of the C.202, the leading Australian air ace Clive Caldwell, said that the Folgore would have been superior to the Messerschmitt Bf 109 had it been better equipped with weapons/"

Note the difference in objectivity between the two article's lead paragraphs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Homerism J. Simpson?

(ok l'ho detta); proprio non te ne passano una (nemmeno a me, se è per questo, vedi l'Hawk). Buono a sapersi (per il futuro), no? Su wiki.it stai attento, la situazione non è buona, per parafrasare il Molleggiato. Ricordati che se cominciano a trovare il 'cattivo' non ci mettono molto a farti fuori, devono difendere la purezza della Rivoluzione, sai, e il progetto aviazione è uno dei terreni più minati che esistano: non ci andrebbero nemmeno degli sminatori ONU pakistani. Il mio consiglio: ricorda che l'editing per qualche ragione, dà assuefazione e stimola la diuresi. Se puoi stacca per una settimana o due, o altrimenti preparati a diventare il nuovo Mencarelli. Non se ne esce, non ci sono margini, credimi.Io non posso aiutarti più di così, se ti serve una mano sono sempre disponibile. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Article needed for the ace Luigi Gorrini

Instead of so many individual combats being identified in aircraft articles, it's time for an article on individual pilots such as Luigi Gorrini. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

Added photo and caption to article, plus rewrite of lead paragraph, specifying combat theatres in which Gorrini flew. Also added his name to list of notable recipiants of the Medaglia d'oro. Cheers. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; the photo was pinched from Hakan's page and I have since added the proper credit (Most Important!). Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just having a look at that page now; what you will have to do is save the photo from Hakan's page to your own computer. Download it from your computer to your Italian Misplaced Pages account under your account name, making sure to use the correct details using the Italian Misplaced Pages equivalent - there should be a template you can use; Stefanomencarelli or Bzuk might be able to help you with this: This is the template and information I used on my download;

File information

Description	Serg. Magg. Luigi Gorrini (Ferdinando D'Amico, Gabriele Valentini)
Source	http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/italy_gorrini.htm via Ferdinando D'Amico, Gabriele Valentini. Per below, Italian copyright expired in the 1960s, therefore not copyrighted in the US.
Date	2009-05-12 (original upload date)
Author	Regia Aeronautica (Italy) 1942?
Permission (Reusing this file)	This photograph is subject to the provisions of Italy's Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights because it was either created in Italy or may be considered an Italian work within the meaning of Italian law (Art. 189). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). Simple photographs are defined by the law as "images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film" (Art. 87). If this image meets the definition of a simple photograph and was created prior to 1976 and published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then it was out of copyright in Italy on the date of restoration (January 1, 1996) and is currently in the public domain in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 104A). Outside the US, reusers may need to check the copyright status of this image in their local jurisdiction. Full source, publication date and authorship information should be provided. PD-Italy Public domain in Italy //en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gian_piero_milanetti Because Italy has long-standing copyright relations with the United States, some Italian works might have a subsisting U.S. copyright. In such a case, the works in question are not in the public domain in the U.S. even if they meet the above conditions. This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S.: if it entered the public domain in Italy prior to 1996, or when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law. Information about the creation date and creator should be provided. If the image is not in the public domain in the United States, in addition to the license tag for its status in Italy an appropriate fair use license and rationale should be provided, or the image should be proposed for deletion. If the media is in the public domain in both Italy and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons. Note: If this image is in the public domain in the U.S., modify the end of the copyright tag from }} to |commons}}. This will replace the preceding U.S. copyright notification with a nomination for this image to be moved to the Wikimedia Commons.

It is most important that you credit the source of the photo, otherwise it will most likely be deleted very quickly. Good luck, regards Minorhistorian (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

P-39 Airacobra

I just reverted your addition which I found contradictory and unhelpful to the reader. How can you say the P-39 Airacobra had a few problems that made it unsuitable for dogfighting when "The P-39 was used with great success by the Soviet Air Force, who scored the highest number of individual kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type." You said "unsuitable for dogfights", but OBVIOUSLY, the Soviets proved otherwise. Please don't confuse the reader with half-digested material. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about every single sentence Gunston put in his book. I really don't! All the sources out in the world have conflicts with each other. The good Misplaced Pages editor must read them, compare them, think for a while (ruminate, digest) and figure out what to give the reader, and how best to present the material so that it makes sense. You did not do this, and you introduced a major contradiction in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Format of references

Can you slightly modify your style of adding references? If you do, fewer people will have to follow you around and correct your additions. The reference immediately follows the final punctuation of a phrase or sentence, with no space. The page number is followed by a period, with no space. Here's an example:

You recently added:

...prior to release. <ref>Gunston 1980, p. 122 </ref>

Slightly modified to match other military history and aviation articles:

...prior to release.<ref>Gunston 1980, p. 122.</ref>

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking

For ease of reading, only the most important links are necessary. Whenever a main wikilink is made, it only has to be linked once. See: Overlinking. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Adriano Visconti

Hi Gian, I've done some work on Adriano Visconti, including an action early on where he was awarded a Bronze Medal; please note that although Visconti has been credited in various publications with 26 victories Visconti himself claimed no more than ten - this is according to Italian research (Massimello and Apostolo). From all I have read about Visconti he was an honest and honourable man; I think an article on him should reflect that, and I'm sure you would agree. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I had the feeling that you would react this way so let me make myself VERY clear once again; I have no particular bias against Italian aircraft or Italian pilots - I never have and I never will. However I will try to use the best information available to create accuracy and balance in articles - If Italian research shows that Adriano Visconti HIMSELF did not claim 26 victories then that is what goes in the article; if this somehow offends you that is your problem. For me I find it somewhat offensive, after I have gone to considerable time and effort to explain this to you, that you still in effect accuse me and various other editors of bias. This is completely unfair and it is a reflection of your lack of objectivity. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gian, this is ridiculous; you asked for my help with Adriano Visconti - I helped. No sign of appreciation from you for the hours of work I put in plus I explained how Visconti was awarded the first of his bronze medals. I also explained to you that this was the work of Italian researchers I was using. So you quote Mike Spick. The last time I quoted an Anglo-American author to you (Christopher Shores) it was tossed back in my face with accusations of bias. Then you go on about Marmaduke Pattle. So What? I had nothing to do with his article! The fact is you have several times accused me and other editors of bias;

I mean I am a guest in wiki en and several of you, just deleted, modified or moved what I wrote...

It is the same old story... do what you want..

Don't you understand by now that every editor who has worked in Misplaced Pages has had their work deleted altered or moved? It is part of everyday life in Misplaced Pages...The fact is that I and other editors have tried to help you out with things only to have it tossed back in our faces with claims of some sort of conspiracy against all things Italian, because you don't like the changes! You've said it yourself that your English is not so good (much better than my Italian) and that you have trouble understanding how to add references. We try to help but...Minorhistorian (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's any comfort I can name a number of British aircraft that go in the "inferior" basket; Blackburn Roc a mediocre dive bomber and an even worse "fighter", Blackburn Skua why was this ever built? Worse still it was put into service - imagine the fun Bf 109s would have had with these??, Fairey Battle why oh why was this machine ever sent into service? Bristol Blenheim an awful and sometimes lethal cockpit layout and obsolescent before it reached combat. Bristol Brigand one of the few aircraft built which shot itself down, also became a structural liability. Boulton Paul Defiant why send brave men up to die in this? Blackburn Botha worst "medium" bomber ever built? Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle served as a "stop-gap" freighter and target tug. Blackburn Firebrand *ugh!* Dangerous even when developed into the Mark IV after six years of trying. And lots more besides For all the propaganda about "inferior" Italian aircraft disseminated during and after the war the Brits also built some howlers! Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bf 109 pilots did indeed have lots of fun with SkuasPetebutt (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Achtung Indianer!

Oh? And where is the tangible evidence that Fiats and 109s could dive vertically while the Spitfire could not? The crucial disadvantage both British fighters suffered from during the Battle of Britain was the inability to bunt straight into a dive after a 109 because the float chambers of their carburettors were starved of petrol through the sudden negative-g. Once actually in a dive the Spitfire could keep up with a Bf 109. eg:

P/O David Crook, with No. 609 Squadron at Middle Wallop 30 September 1940:

"The victim that I had selected for myself was about 500 yards ahead of me, and still diving hard at very high speed. God, what a dive that was! I came down on full throttle from 27,000 feet to 1,000 feet in a matter of seconds, and the speed rose with incredible swiftness - 400 m.p.h., 500, 550, 600 m.p.h. I never reached this speed before and probably never shall again. I have a dim recollection of the sea coming up towards me at an incredible rate and also feeling an awful pain in my ears, though I was not really conscious of this in the heat of the moment. I pulled out of the dive as gently as I could, but the strain was terrific and there was a sort of black mist in front of my eyes, though I did not quite 'black out'. The Messerschmitt was now just ahead of me. I came up behind him and gave him a terrific burst of fire at very close range."

No hint here that the Spitfire was struggling to dive with the 109, which was diving hard...

F/Lt. John Webster, of No. 41 Squadron combat report 8 August 1940:

"I had no difficulty (using 12 boost) in overtaking the Me. 109's either in diving or level flight."

Sgt Jack Stokoe of 603 Squadron claimed a 109 destroyed, probably that of Oberleutnant Bauer of III/JG53, recording on his Combat Report of 1 September 1940:

"At about 17.30 we were patrolling Manston at 12,000' when control informed us Canterbury was being dive bombed. About five miles south of the town when at about 3,000' a Me 109, silver with black crosses, dived past my nose flattened out about 50 feet up and headed south. I executed a steep turn, pushed in boost override, and sat on his tail. At about 50 yards, I gave him one small burst with little effect, closed to 30 yards, and gave a slightly longer burst. Black smoke poured from him as I overshot him. The a/c crashed in a field, turned over two or three times and burst into flames in a clump of trees. 70 bullets were fired from each gun."

In short there were plenty of RAF pilots who would categorically refute the claims made by Galland, and some did so by shooting a Bf 109 down after a diving chase.

I know that there are those who seem to be very eager to downplay the capabilities of the Spitfire especially and I know that people such as yourself seem to think that there is far too much credit given to the aircraft. The problem is the Spitfire was still a fine fighter, no matter what some people might like to claim, and it was capable of at the very least of keeping up with a 109 in a dive. There is plenty of objective data to prove it. It is all very well to quote information at third hand from pilots like Galland and Giuntella but for every quote from them there are plenty of other quotes to prove them wrong. Misplaced Pages is not a palce to trade quotes to try and prove a point of view.

By the way, while the 109 did indeed have a greater ammunition capacity and firing time than the RAF fighters, you and Williams and Gustin forgot to mention that the cannon armed E-3 and E-4, which made up the bulk of the Luftwaffe 109 contingent, had about seven seconds worth of ammunition before being reduced to using two small calibre machine guns. In truth, the chances of a fighter pilot expending a minute's worth of ammunition during a combat operation was generally very unlikely. Cheers from NZ Minorhistorian (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits; this is the standard format for references: "Spick, 1983. p. 59." it is NOT "Mike Spick. Fighter Pilot Tactics.Cambridge, Patrick Stephens, 1983. p. 59": if you are using a book which is not already listed in the bibliography please add the book in, using the proper format, including an ISBN number where possible, instead of leaving it to someone else. As it is I had to go to the trouble of finding the relevant details of Williams and Gustin 2003; a time waster and one which I would appreciate not having to do.

Where references are duplicated in more than one place it becomes:

ref name="Spick, 1983. pag. 59">Spick, 1983. p. 59 all subsequent entries then look like ref name="Spick, 1983. pag. 59"/> so it looks like this - ^ a b Spick, 1983. p. 59 - in the citations.

Secondly there is no need to duplicate information which is already in the article. A set of turning circle figures was already included; adding another, slightly different set of figures is a pointless and confusing exercise. The relative climbing abilities of the fighters had already been discussed and referenced and it was made clear that the information applied to B of B era Spitfires which were mostly equipped with constant-speed propeller units; nor does Mike Spick take the use of 100 octane petrol and the provision of increased boost pressure available to Spitfires into account when describing the relative climb performances. Simply adding layer after layer of material without first considering whether the article actually needs the constant additions means that in all likelyhood the extra "padding" will eventually be edited out or deleted altogether.

For example this "Although early Spitfires and Hurricanes carried identical armament of eight .303 inch (7.7 mm) machine guns, both aircraft had been designed for four guns - in the case of the Hurricane, two in the wings and two in the fuselage." may be interesting but it is irrelevant to this article; what armament the Hurricane was designed for, but never actually carried as an operational aircraft has nothing to do with its involvement in the Battle of Britain; this type of information is better included in the Hawker Hurricane article. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't deny that the Spitfire has become a legend, but to assume that everything written about it is therefore tantamount to propaganda is erroneous as well. If anything there is probably more information available on the Spitfire's problems than has been written about the entire life of an aircraft such as the Reggiane 2000.

Galland was one of many balanced, reliable, professional, intelligent and skilful pilots of the war; trouble is many balanced, reliable, professional, intelligent and skilful Spitfire pilots caught Bf 109s in a dive and shot them down, thus proving Galland was fallible in his opinion. Sure Macchi C.202s did shoot down Spitfires over Malta, but the Spitfire was also effective at shooting down Macchis, including that flown by a pilot as experienced as Niclot Doglio. You make the assumption that the Spitfires always had the advantage of height? Again this was not neccesarily so; there were many times when Malta based Spitfires were caught in a bounce as they were still climbing to intercept. Lots of fighters were shot down through being bounced from a superior height throughout WW 2.

To claim that all Spitfires were weak because of an accident to one out of over 22,000 built is drawing a very long bow. The fact that a mass produced fighter of WW 2 vintage did on occasion suffer from accidents is nothing new; these aircraft were regularly flown at the limits of their capabilities in ways which could test the strongest of airframes. In 1942 some Spitfire Vs fell apart and crashed because they were badly loaded at unit level; new equipment was added with no consideration for ensuring that the centre of gravity was correct. This was not poor design or weakness of the airframe - it was carelessness that caused these crashes.

Problems, such as fatigue cracks (for example) have a bad habit of becoming terminal when an airframe is put under stress. One small, undetected flaw is all that is need. The fact is that many pilots put huge stresses and strains on their Spifires during operations and all reached home base safely. Many more pilots safely flew Spitfires than pilots who flew Macchis. If the wing of the Spitfire was fundamentally weak how was it possible to dive a Spitfire from 40,500 feet, reach a true airspeed of 606 mph and pull out? Funnily enough the wings didn't fail, the engine reduction gear blew. No myths or legends here. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gian; The last few weeks have been a stressful time with the death of a much loved father in law - along with this is the added stress of having to intervene in some unpleasent family squabbles over his estate. If some of this has spilled over into my discussions with you my sincere apologies. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Certo che le vostre conversazioni sono estremamente divertenti. In realtà sarebbe bello che[REDACTED] fosse così aperta per confrontarsi in opinioni e dati senza tanti pudori dello 'stile enciclopedico' delle discussioni. Guarda quante informazioni vengono fuori da questi scambi. Avercene di più, ecco. Cmq è vero che lo Spit era strutturalmente più debole del Macchi e anche del Bf-109, lo ricordava persino il vituperato Sgarlato nella monografia. Però è anche vero che nei test, già lo Spit britannico era più veloce in picchiata del Bf-109. La cosa divertente è che i Tedeschi valutarono i caccia catturati agli inglesi, sia Spit che Hurricane, i britannici valutarono i Bf-109 ed entrambi conclusero che i loro caccia erano migliori: gli inglesi che avevano caccia più agili e che lo Spit era superiore in velocità in ogni condizione, i Tedeschi ridevano della tendenza del motore inglese a spegnersi in picchiata. Però che già il debole Spit Mk I fosse in grado di picchiare a 600 mph (960 kmh..), è veramente una notizia interessante: significa che potrebbe inseguire in picchiata un MB.339, tanto per fare un esempio, oppure un Me.262. Se aggiungiamo tempi di salita da paura, almeno dagli Spit Mk IX in poi, allora non ce n'é. Eppure c'é un sito internet in cui si celebra il P-40 contro tutti gli altri (con argomenti pertinenti) e si ricorda dello stupore (in negativo) che fece agli americani l'autonomia ridotta dello Spitfire. Insomma, tutti a suonarsela e a cantarsela. Gli Spit dall'ala fragile di cui parli tu erano su Storia militare di un pò di anni addietro, il problema era che si trattava di aerei di terza mano lasciati ad arrugginire per qualche anno su di un campo pugliese, prima di essere ceduti all'AMI. Così la comparazione tra questi aerei e quello che erano 5-6 anni prima, nuovi di zecca, effettivamente è priva di costrutto. Anche la potenza di fuoco è sempre difficile da valutare: prova a fare la differenza tra un P-38 e un FW-190. Da diventarci pazzi. Il P-38 ha 4x12,7 mm con 40 secondi di fuoco e un cannone da 20 con circa 15 secondi. Il FW-190 ha 2 cannoni da 20 con 10 secondi di fuoco, 2 da 20 con 25 e due da 7,92 con 60 secondi. Così la differenza varia enormemente a seconda delle munizioni già sparate: primi 10 secondi per il FW, poi per il P-38 per altri 5 secondi, poi ancora FW-190 per altri 10, poi il P-38 per altri 15, poi gli ultimi 20 sono per il FW (ovvero 2 armi da 7,92 contro niente). Dire se fosse meglio l'armamento del Bf-109 o dello Spit è difficile, io però tendo al secondo perché era semplice per un pilota centrare qualcosa a 10.000 colpi al minuto, anche se era più difficile abbatterlo dato il calibro. Meglio sarebbe stato sostituire il tutto con 6 M2 Browning come sul P-40 e P-51, che avrebbero dato autonomia di fuoco e potenza in buona media. Gli americani, per esempio, sono ancora dell'idea che fecero la scelta giusta, sembra che i loro pezzi da 20 mm fossero alquanto inaffidabili e la buona vecchia 0.50 rimase la loro preferita fino ai tempi dell'F-100 Super Sabre, quando finalmente si accorsero di essere rimasti un pò indietro, anche rispetto all'USN.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sei troppo petulante nell'affermare le tue ragioni sì, ma con fonti che non che io disprezzi in quanto OR, ma in quanto non corrispondono a pubblicazioni dell'argomento già note e ben documentate.

Quanto alla robustezza strutturale, non mi risulta che i P-39, 51 e 47 fossero dei mollaccioni, e forse lo stesso non si può dire del Re.2005.

Spitfire nuovi? Verrebbe da dire: citazione necessaria, oppure ci accontentiamo di un Ipse dixit? Guarda che gli Spit Mk V erano di terza mano, e che gli Mk IX sono rimasti davvero anni all'addiaccio, oltre che essere già usurati di loro. Quindi non è che mi impressioni molto l'opinione di Petrosellini, visto che di fatto non corrisponde ad alcuna nota realtà. Scusa, ma non basta essere un veterano per essere la Bocca della Verità. Gli Spitfire Mk V vennero trovati già parecchio usurati ed ebbero meno attività dei P-39, nel dopoguerra gli Spit Mk IX erano ex-RAF ed erano fermi da più di un anno. Dei 53 Mk V ex-Yugoslavi e di altre nazioni Alleate, solo 33 vennero rimessi in servizio con il 51° Stormo, gli altri erano rottami. NEl '46 toccò agli Spit Mk IX della Puglia. Solo il 24 luglio 1947 vennero autorizzata la cessione degli Spit Mk IX di Treviso, dove avevano preso acqua per 2 anni all'aperto, più altri aerei ex-RAF. Tutti i velivoli erano usati e tutti o quasi così malmessi, che parecchi ebbero sì le MM, ma non vennero nemmeno messi in servizio data la corrosione e l'usura troppo elevata. Ebbero bisogno di una revisione già nel 1948 secondaria. Gli incidenti mortali aumentarono a 9 in tutto, nel '50 già gli Spit vennero messi fuori servizio, ma stranamente 30 Spitfire IX, quando completamente revisionati (il che aiutò anche a sviluppare il G.59 dall'Aeritalia), vennero poi ceduti ad Israele e poi nel '54 alla Birmania. Quindi in base a Storia Militare 62 e anche ad altre fonti, non ci sono dubbi sulle cattive condizioni e sull'usura degli aerei finiti all'AM, con gli annessi e connessi immaginabili. MA, secondo punto, una volta restaurati per bene, erano ancora aerei validi da trovare altre due carriere consecutive, per cui evidentemente la durevolezza di uno Spit non era disprezzabile se strutturalmente era ancora integro. In altri termini il tuo buon Petrosellini potrà ridere quanto vuole, ma piaccia o no, i dati storici parlano chiaro e non dicono quello che afferma lui e che riporti tu. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo in general

Sorry that you are being required to leave your current school; I hope things will work out well for you in whatever new posting you go to. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Post war Spitfire op's

Looking good Gian, and much appreciated - one of the weaknesses of the article is a lack of detail about what happened post-war; you're helping fill the gaps. Regards from NZ Minorhistorian (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

Gian piero, some of your edits are now taking on a constant repitition of the same mistakes. You have to look at what other editors are doing to correct your edits and not repeat the mistakes. Let me identify some of these:

1. Bibliography note: This is the correct title following for a reference source: Glancey, Jonathan. Spitfire: The Illustrated Biography. London: Atlantic Books, 2006. ISBN 978-1-84354-528-6. Simply copy the whole line and use it over and over.
2. Dates: If it is European or Asian subject, generally use: month day year, such as 21 June 2009. Note there are no periods or commas and you do not have to wikilik dates which is now not the standard as the wikilink does not connect to the article.
3. Numbers: The numbers zero to nine are written out as words, while numbers from 10 on are given as numerals, such as nine Spitfires shot down 12 Fw 190s/Bf 109s. Note that it is a Bf not Me 109 and if there are more than one, than a possessive tense is used (s).
4. Main nouns: All main or important nouns such as months are capitalized, see June, not june, and that same standard is used for titles in a bibliography: Spitfire: The Illustrated Biography, not "Spitfire: the illustrated biography." Fwiw Bzuk (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Flipping over

Hi Gian, how are you? "Flick over" means that Buerling has pulled back on the control column sharply so that his Spitfire has pulled up into a sudden climb. Because of this sudden pull-up the wings lose their lift (stall) and the Spitfire tumbles into a spin. The effect was that the enemy aircraft would completely lose the target and, in some cases, would count Buerling as being shot down out of control. "Flick" can mean a sudden sharp move.

There is a manoeuver used by aerobatic pilots called the "Falling Leaf" http://www.aeroplanemonthly.co.uk/glossary/F_news_70038.html which is very similar to Buerling's "Flick over" - the difference is that Buerling would not have reversed the spin.

"Flip over" in this context means that the aircraft quickly banks sharply, rolls and goes into a dive; the roll means that Buerling's Spitfire has suddenly changed direction by 180 degrees, into the direction of the attack, and is diving towards and then behind the enemy aircraft. With this manoeuver the closing speeds of the two aircraft are very high. Possibly the nearest Italian word would be voltafaccia(?) By the time the enemy pilot could react Buerling would be well out of range and not worth chasing. Hope this helps. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we weren't there so who are we to judge? As it is Buerling survived Malta so whatever he was doing it seemed to work. You're right about not including that graphic quote - definitely not for a Misplaced Pages article. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Diving fighters

Hi Gian, we've been through this type of discussion before, over and over. It is getting tedious. Instead of attacking me and accusing me of some sort of bias look at what you wrote: "Another of its attributes was its extremely strong construction that allowed its pilots to dive the aircraft steeply and out of range of ensueing fighters, a manoeuvre which few other figters could perform without breaking up"

This is an unqualified statement which has no evidence to back it up. What other fighters had a habit of breaking up in a dive? Operational fighters in 1942 were the Fiat G. 50, Macchi C. 202 and C. 200, the Reggiane 2000, 2001, the Bf 109F, the Fw 190A, the Hurricane, the Typhoon, the Spitfire V and IX, the A6M2, the Ki-27, the Ki-43, the Ki-44, the P-38, the P-39, the P-40, The Bloch MB 150 & 152, the Dewoitine D-520, the Hawk 75, the MS 406, the LaGG 3, the I-15, I-153 and I-16, the Yak 1 & 7 to name a few (I presume this meant single engine fighters?). Which of these broke up in a dive while evading enemy fighters? Does Richard Caruana - whose writing I respect BTW - specify? Is 1942 specified?

If you are going to write this kind of unqualified statement, even if it is a quote from a respected author, it will be challenged, if not by me by someone else. Think about it - would you teach your pupils to write such sweeping statements in a history essay, for example, without also expecting them to provide some evidence? Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, some websites you might be interested in (if you haven't already bookmarked them)

• http://digilander.libero.it/enniotarantola/TarantolaVelC202Photofile.htm
• http://www.webalice.it/barto80/Articoli/Walkaround/c205.htm
• http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/
• http://stormomagazine.com/

Cheers! Minorhistorian (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reggiane Re.2001

I agree that some individual actions may be noteworthy but be aware that some of the incidents are disputed. Keeping the individual missions to a minimum is usually the best course. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

From a cold New Zealand

I envy you being able to tour Malta. So much history on one small spot of land. *Sigh* Someday I'll get to your part of the world, with a good camera...Cheers, Kia Kaha! Minorhistorian (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peacock

The term WP:Peacock refers to overly flattering comments, and is to be avoided. Try to be concise and accurate, not flowerly and WP:POV. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC).

English

en.wikipedia is for english language, funny old thing!!, to converse in Italian please use it.wikipedia.Petebutt (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Troll in Bf 109 article

A troll seem to have has risen his ugly head in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article, and is on the path of initiating an edit war with barely hidden motives. I know you care about the quality of that article, so I kindly ask you to take a look at what he does. Thanks in advance. Kurfürst (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404
2. Quill 1983, p.193.
3. ^ Price 2002, pp.143-144.
4. Price 1991, p.192.
5. Cite error: The named reference Price 1997 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).