I suggest adding C.201 as rank 2 premium/event.
This was an attempt at improvement of C.200 by taking it more aerodynamic and smooth. They eliminate hump behind engine, enclosed cockpit. This increased speed(a little) and reduced drag(better energy retention)
I was looking at any potential weapon loads to expand the existing Italian Bombers and i found this
SM.79 with 2 450kg torpedos
Also, additional bombs for early fighters, CR.32/42’s, G.50’s, C.200’s were after being repleced in frontal use by newer machines used as attack aircraft droping 50kg,100kg and heavier bombs.
Also Sispre C-7 would be much needed addition to early Jets
I would like to see this more than a subtree, its a shame because Italy really has quite alot of aircraft still to be added
My beloved…
If this is referring to the 339CB - as in, the one only ever operated by the RNZAF - there’s a very, very short list of stores that were actually able to be used with it, and Sidewinders weren’t on that list (nor was the Magic).
No it is referring to this
Aermacchi kept a couple of the earlier C models for demonstrators and sales pitches for foreign buyers and the Italian Airforce. The only export MB.339 present is the MB.339CE which is a MB.339CD for the Eritrean Airforce.
Update: The G.95 is moved to the “Unfinished prototype” section due to components for the G.95 was built such as the tail and wings, a testbed for it was also built so modeling it is possible
New vehicle:
VAK-191B (located on the “Other Italian Fighters and Attackers” Line): Fiat had some involvement in the development in the VAK-191B alongside VFW, the VAK-191B also incorporated the wings and tail from the cancelled G.95
I am doing researches for suggest the G95 currently, could You provide me some source that states that?
Thanks
That was an error on my part
I supposed to put that in the VAK.191B section and i corrected that. I did mention that it was originally going to be a G.91Y modified as a VTOL aircraft before it became it’s own thing. Since due to it having a testbed and the G.95 had wooden mockups built for at least the 4th design i’m still keeping it in the Unfinished/Incomplete Prototypes sections since i do allow those kind of aircraft in that tab
There is still a possibility that components for the G.95 were built for a functioning prototype but still yet to find evidence for that
For anybody else who is interested in the G.95 project i’ll post a link to some more info on them and what specifications that let the proposal start in the first place
Due to Gaijin completely ruining the Italian Air TT with an Hungarian subtree exclusively made of pointless copy and paste vehicles of Soviet (and maybe Polish or Czech origin) they will not be represented in the next iteration of the TT
I’ll will probably make a thread in the near future about subtrees and why we need to start scrutinizing them more thoroughly since i sensing that Subtrees are slowly ruining the game in a lot of ways that people are either in denial, aren’t aware of or fail to see the bigger picture. Especially since there is (during the writing of this) unconfirmed rumors that France may get a Benelux Subtree though France like Italy doesn’t need one, arguably France needs subtrees even less than even the Italy.
Hear hear! I see people who wanted to grind Italy just to spam AGM-65Gs, they dont deserve that.
Might I suggest the Reggiane Re.2006 and Macchi C.207? They would be good 6.3 aircraft to match with the G.56 along with giving Italy some more competitive superprops.
The Re.2006 was 99% complete and just needing its engine. The C.207 however I’m unsure of the status of, but it’d leave a bad taste in my mouth to leave it out.
Sadly i don’t see the utility of (no subtrees required) since we already have the Hungarian subtree and its there to stay.
Well, for now the Hungarian air tt was used only for c&p so… I’ll prefer something hungarian or italian but original.
you cooked but gaijin would never implement this, because italy has the best players. and therefore the tech tree would be too overpowered.
It is not intelligent to reason this way… Anyone who uses a bit of brains realises that the strength of a tech tree and a player’s ability to play Warthunder are 2 separate things… And it is a mean move to use this statement as an excuse for not improving a tech-tree that desperately needs it.
In conclusion, you cannot claim that tech-tree is strong if the only strength it has is the players who play it… At most you can say that the best warthunder players are the Italian players this statement is more correct.
Agree, unfortunately the almighty snail only makes decisions based on statistics and Italian players are too good for their own good (not me tho)
That’s why (for exaplme) we have the OTOMATIC at 14.0.