Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

Discussions on all aspects of the Spanish Civil War including the Condor Legion, the Germans fighting for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.
User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#46

Post by Ironmachine » 22 Jul 2015, 14:13

durb wrote:It would be interesting to know details if Nationalists had also something like domestic "aircraft industry" in Spain? For example how were the 50 Fiat CR 32´s built from the wreckages of written off planes? Was that done in some central place or by field units?
This may help:
While the possession of the Tablada Air Base comprised an important strategic advantage for Franco’s supporters, it was perhaps equally or even more important that it was also the site of the best aeronautical workshops in the southern zone of the peninsula, the Parque Regional del Sur. These workshops, which were already responsible for maintenance and repairs for the units in service in the zone - and even the construction of prototypes such as the four-seater Gil Pazó P-IV – were soon converted into the most important logistics centre for the Nationalist Aviation, being used as the base for the reception, assembly and flight preparation of the aircraft sent from countries aiding the insurgents and the maintenance, repair and even reconstruction of those damaged in combat or otherwise. Established in 1921 and initially known simply as the Talleres del Aeródromo de Tablada (Workshops of the Tablada Aerodrome), on the date of its inauguration the Parque Regional del Sur consisted of a complex of buildings which included the Base and the workshops, all of which was completely fenced off from the exterior. It included an underground bomb storage area; a special workshop with Berger tanks for petrol and oil with a capacity of one million litres for petrol and 200,000 litres for oil; and the aircraft hangar with a large workshop area which was used for assembly and storage of the various parts. The single entrance from the exterior via road and a rail branch line and the single exit facilitated controls and checks of the material and personnel coming to and from the facilities. The large hangar-workshop was an impressive work of engineering, with a height above ground level of 32.5 metres and a length of 50 metres. Still standing today, like the majority of the original buildings it consisted of arches of reinforced concrete with a keystone height of 17 metres which supported a roof consisting of a combination of cement and reinforced brick masonry. This enormous construction was built by mounting the complete formwork and elevating the concrete as it was mixed using jacks, with the latest technology available at the time. Aircraft could access this large hangar directly from the airfield through an opening with a height of eight metres and a series of sliding doors which opened out on each side, with each section of the door able to be moved by a single person using a railing system. In the interior, the parts of the aircraft were assembled using electric cranes and repairs were carried out in another two secondary hangars with a height of 12 metres, which were equipped with all the latest metalwork, woodwork and textile machinery.
A fundamental role
At the outset of the conflict after Seville fell into the hands of the insurgents, the Parque Regional del Sur had to markedly step up the pace of its activities, not only to incorporate any aircraft which might be useful for the war effort but also to keep the limited units available in perfect condition. This led to a rapid increase in the number of personnel, which nearly tripled in a matter of months, often requiring the staff to be trained on the spot. In many cases, although they were skilled carpenters, metalworkers or mechanics, they were dealing with aircraft structures and engines for the first time. Many were volunteers and at times they even came from the front, being called back because their services were more urgently needed in the workshop. In this way, although not achieving the desired efficiency they managed to make up the numbers with workers from military factories, mechanical and civil workshops and even students yet to complete their apprenticeship at Vocational Schools.
The arrival of the Italian three-engine Savoia SM 81s and the Fiat CR-32 biplane fighters was not too traumatic, mainly because the crews of the first SM-81s included both a mechanic and an assembler. In the case of the CR- 32s, the first aircraft unloaded at Melilla on the night of 13 August also arrived with twelve airplanes (the most commonly accepted figure, although in light of the photographs taken, there were probably somewhat more) and pilots, three mechanics, three assemblers and two armourers. These first Italian technicians were responsible for directing the assembly of the fighter planes and their number was to later increase. Right from the outset, the Tablada Base was the main logistics centre for the Aviazione Legionaria, the official name given to the Italian expeditionary air force for the purposes of international law. Its members received documentation which identified them as ‘Aviadores del Tercio’ (‘Aviators of the Regiment’). The Italian contribution later included Fiat G-50s, Fiat BR-20s, Romeo 37s and Ro 41s, Savoia SM-79s, the Caproni AP-1 “Apio” and the Ca-310, along with various other models.
This was also the case of the material obtained from the Germans, although on occasions, especially in the case of secret prototypes – for example Tablada was used for Ju-87 Stukas, Messerschmitt Bf-109s, Heinkel He-111s,He-112s and Henschel Hs-123s– solely German technicians and mechanics worked on the aircraft, many of whom were civilians employed by aircraft manufacturers. At first, the German aircraft were assembled and readied for flight at Tablada. However, after the formation of the Condor Legion and the distancing of the fronts this unit established its own logistics centre at León. At Tablada they continued to repair and service the Arado Ar-66, the Heinkel He- 45 “Pava” and He 46 “Pavo”, the He-70 “Rayo”, the Dornier Do-17 “Bacalao”, the Henschel Hs 123 “Angelito” and the Hs 126, the Junkers Ju-52/3m and the Ju-86 “Fumo” — this latter aircraft having the distinction of being powered by diesel engines—, the Bucker Bu-131 and 133, the Messerschmitt Bf-108 “Taifun” and many others, which were used by both the units of the Condor Legion and others with Spanish crews. Many of the Republican aircraft which were captured ended up at Tablada for their evaluation – as is the case of the Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 and the Tupolev SB “Katiuska” – or for repairs and preparation for use by the Nationalist Aviation. Aircraft such as the Aero 101 “Praga”, the Vultee V1, the Lockheed Electra, the Douglas DC-2, the Northrop Delta and the Fairchild also passed through the expert hands of the mechanics and specialists at Tablada.
[…]
An invaluable effort
It could be said, without any exaggeration, that the Tablada Air Base and its workshops made a vital contribution to the Nationalist war effort. Under their commanding officer, Modesto Aguilera, there was not a moment’s rest in the workshops and veritable miracles were achieved. The aircraft returned from the front in a ravaged state and in a very short time, always hampered by the scarcity of spare parts and components which often had to be remade, they managed to get these aircraft back in the air. At times they even left better than they were when they arrived: the Fiat CR-32 left Tablada with a special “spaced” protective shield designed by workshop specialists which was not to reappear again for many years, along with various other improvements. One very complex job was the repair of the front radiator of this apparently simple fighter, which was very vulnerable to enemy fire because of its position. On more than one occasion their efforts earned express congratulations from on high, including an emotive letter sent by Major García Morato from the front in Aragón in March 1938 and various telegrams from General Franco himself issued from his General Headquarters. Those distinguished for their work included the Captains Micheo, Urioste, Gil Delgado, Pazó, Becerril and Díaz Rodríguez; the Lieutenants Pons, Haya and Miraver; the Second Lieutenant del Valle; the Sergeants Blanco, Galeano, Rodríguez Jara, Sisquella and Vimet and the specialists and armourers Burgos, Coco, Cueto, Gener, Gordillo, Jorquera, López Martín, López Quiroga, Magaña, Marín Villaverde, Mora López, Paz and Platero.
[…]
As mentioned earlier on, right from the start of the Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the workshops known as Parque Regional Sur at Tablada were provisionally responsible for the repair, servicing and rebuilding of certain types of aircraft of the Italian Expeditionary Air Force and the National Aviation Service. These mainly consisted of FIAT CR-32 biplane fighters, known as ‘Chirris’ in reference to the Italian pronunciation of their initials. However, in November of 1936 the managers of the firm La Hispano Suiza, Messrs. Mateu and Gallart, initiated talks with FIAT at the Paris Air Show for the supply of lorries. A month later during a visit to the headquarters of the Italian firm, they secured the signing of a cooperation agreement for the Spanish company to service the fighter aircraft manufactured by FIAT – and this despite the fact the company had all its engine factories in Barcelona and aircraft and lorry factories in Guadalajara in the Republican zone.
La Hispano de Sevilla
Until that time, La Hispano Suiza had based its activities in the Nationalist zone in Zaragoza. However, it was obviously more suitable from a military standpoint for the new services to be located in a safer, more strategic zone, and the decision was made to relocate to Seville. As well as exploiting the experience – and staff - of the Parque Regional Sur with the Italian aircraft, La Hispano Suiza had a branch established in Seville since 1932 to provide sales and servicing of FIAT automobiles. The new factory was installed on one of the large premises of the metal and timber yard owner Miguel Palacios in Triana. These premises, which were relatively close to the Tablada Air Base although still within the city centre, offered a large space “with various enclosed storerooms which could be used as aircraft manufacture and assembly sites,” in the words of Enric Surroca, the last manager of the La Hispano Suiza workshops in Barcelona, as quoted by Manuel Lage in his book Hispano Suiza 1904-1972, Hombres, Empresas, Motores y Aviones. Above all, it was equipped with a large central metallic framework which provided a large enclosed space ideal for aircraft assembly and repairs. Known as the ‘umbrella’, this famous structure has been incorrectly attributed by some to the famous French engineer Eiffel. The new factory quickly received machinery from Société Francaise Hispano Suiza in Paris, despite the misgivings of the Swiss partners and the obstacles posed by the Populaire Front in power in France at the time. In addition, the French partners had their own concerns regarding Spain’s Italian allies, and above all, the Germans supporting Franco.
Despite all these obstacles, in March of 1938 it was agreed that the facilities of La Hispano Suiza in calle San Jacinto were to carry out overhauls of the of the FIAT CR-32 and G-50 fighters and their engines (the linear A30RA and the radial A74 respectively), the manufacture of spare parts and the eventual manufacture of the CR-32. Subject to its adoption by the Spanish Air Force, there were also plans to manufacture the G-50 monoplane, a very advanced aircraft at the time as it had only just been accepted by the Regia Aeronautica. The intention had been to install Hispano Suiza HS 12-Xbrs engines in all except the first 15 of the 100 units contemplated in the contract signed with the Nationalist Aviation in Burgos in August 1938. However, this plan never came to fruition.
[…]
The end of the civil war and the beginning of World War II complicated the manufacture of the 100 CR-32s in Triana, the first 14 of which were delivered in 1940. These were followed by another 71 in 1941 and 15 more in 1942.
(Source: Aeronáutica Andaluza, various numbers)

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#47

Post by durb » 23 Jul 2015, 15:30

Very informative, thanks.


VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009, 16:32
Location: Paris

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#48

Post by VG 33 » 31 Jul 2015, 11:31

Hello durb,

Back to the roots...
durb wrote: Reading the above makes one think if they were writing about Heinkel 51 rather than Fiat CR 32?
Considering soviet tests the He-51 was not so bad, since it could outurn* and even outclimb (a little) the Fiat. But on rather unfair comparison conditions for the italian plane, since soviets they could have as much brand new BMW - VI engines as they want, called Mikoolin M-17 in USSR. That couldn't be said for the A-30 RAbis, in turn.


However, the very negative opinion of Soviet test pilots is to be considered. Was the Soviet I-15 actually a clearly better plane?
Considering it could outclimb, outurn and generaly outfight its opponents, pilot for pilot (mano a mano) we can say that.
A better weapon? This is another question...Being the better plane in an aerobatic contest may help of course, but there are many others factors in count.

When reading the test-reports of different flyers one should remember that the plane "good" for one may be a "lousy one" for another - are these subjective or obective things? Not to forget the infamous evaluation of Werner Mölders who claimed Spitfire to be a "lousy fighter plane in air combat" after test-flight with it in 1940. More than once "home team" has the clearly better plane in the evaluations between the "enemy" and "friendly" planes. Prejudices?
A matter of taste? May be...
But there are also other factors as wear, general plane's condition and engine rattings of a particular plane. So you can have better, and worse CR-32, as better ou worse I-15. But among some subjective pilot's feelings, you have objective data as a power to weight ratio or wing loading etc...that make the flight envelope, performance, manouverability of the plane. In our case, they are fully in favor of the soviet one.

*11/12s (He-51) vs 13,5/15.5 (CR-32), and 8/8.5s the full 360° circle for the I-15, in a sustainted turn.


Regards

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#49

Post by durb » 01 Aug 2015, 00:34

The I-15 was more nimble but Fiat was perhaps the latter was more stable platform for gunnery and could perhaps dive more sharply. When it comes to mechanics and maintence both sides had their assets: the Republicans had aviation factory specialised in I-15, the Nationalists guaranteed technical support from Italy and good workshops. Mechanics in field conditions made their best. The accident rates of both planes seem to have been more or less equal. These biplanes were also less complicated to maintain than I-16 or Bf 109 and easier to fly.

Maslov mentions that I-15´s manufactured in Soviet Union suffered from technical problems but I remember to have read that I-15´s shipped to Spain had been already seen service in Soviet air force and their biggest problems had been fixed. Of the planes license-built in Spain I have read that there was some variation of quality - that some series (lotes) were of less quality than others but I do not know details. However the impression which I have is that technical problems were much bigger with I-16 and that many I-16 type 10´s or "Supermoscas" failed to achieve their full potential due to technical problems.

It would be interesting to know more or less accurate kill/loss -rates between Fiat and Polikarpovs but that seems to be too complicated task (or is it?). The impression that I have is that Fiat pilots were confident to meet I-15 but found I-16 more problematic because it was so much faster. However it seems that they were not afraid of I-16 either. When it comes to turn times of full circle, Fiat made it equal or somewhat better than I-16. My info of turn time of Polikarpov I-16 tip 10 (1938, 1,716 kg, 764 hp/740 hp Shvetsov M-25V, 4 x 7.62mm mgs): 16-18 or 16.5 secs (at an altitude of 1000 meters) - compare this vs. 13,5-15,5 secs of Fiat as shown above.

If I-16 ended up to be shot down by Fiat I guess that it was often due to an error of I-16 pilot gettind tied in dogfight with tight turns whereas a "pendulum tactics" (hit-disengage-climb-hit at better opportunity) should have been employed more against Fiats in order to take the advantage of superior speed (quite the same way as Germans employed Bf 109). Maybe they knew and tried it but good theory is not always easy and simple to realize in combat practice.

Both Soviet planes should have been thereotically better than Fiat - I-15 being more nimble and I-16 more fast - but practice was more complicated. Tactics, combat skills and level of training should be compared between Fiat vs. Polikarpov pilots. Also combat conditions should be taken in account although it is difficult to get accurate info as both sides usually claimed to have fought against numerical superiority of enemy (overclaiming the number of enemies in air has been as endemic as overclaiming of air victories in the history of air combat).

The Heinkel 51 was perhaps not that bad as its reputation was - I have also read that it had actually decent manouverability. The actual air combat losses of Heinkel 51´s were to my knowledge lower than those of Fiats - and this even during the period when Heinkel 51´s were still used as fighters over frontline. Maybe Fiats clashed more often with enemy and thus suffered also more losses?

However it seems that Polikarpov pilots believed that they shot down more Heinkels than Fiats by late 1936 - according to Maslov by 9.12.1936 the Soviet I-15 pilots claimed as many as 18 Heinkels and only 3 Fiats. Part of this overclaiming may be due to identification error (Fiats thought to be Heinkels).

The claim against Heinkel 51 is hugely overoptimistic but the claim vs. Fiat CR 32 results surprisingly accurate:

The Heinkel 51 air combat losses against Polikarpov fighters by 9.12.1936 (known to me via Laureau):
13.11.1936 Madrid: He 51 (Eberhardt) lost over Madrid in mid-air-collision with enemy I-16 (Tarkhov)
8.12.1936 Madrid (?): He 51 (Mratzek - 4.J/88) shot down by enemy fighter (I-15 or I-16)

The Fiat CR 32 air combat losses against Polikarpov fighters by 9.12.1936 (known to me via Alcofar/Loguloso):
4.11.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy I-15, Magistrini KIA (but force-landed aircraft was recovered later)
4.11.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy I-15, Dequal OK
5.11.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy I-15, Maccacgno WIA, POW
1.12.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy fighters (I-15/I-16), Chianese POW

Loguloso gives cases of overclaiming of Fiat pilots of same period over same battlefield:
- on 13.11. they claimed ten enemy planes destroyed, actual Republican losses against Fiat pilots on that day were three (2 I-15 + 1 SB)
- on 19.11. they claimed seven enemy fighters destroyed, actual Republican losses three (2 I-16 + 1 I-15)

Both sides seem to have overclaimed 3:1 or more in many cases but these can be downscaled by the surviving loss records of both sides to give some hint how it actually was between Fiat vs. Polikarpovs.

VG 33
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 28 Apr 2009, 16:32
Location: Paris

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#50

Post by VG 33 » 02 Aug 2015, 08:36

durb wrote:
The Fiat CR 32 air combat losses against Polikarpov fighters by 9.12.1936 (known to me via Alcofar/Loguloso):
4.11.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy I-15, Magistrini KIA (but force-landed aircraft was recovered later)
4.11.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy I-15, Dequal OK
5.11.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy I-15, Maccacgno WIA, POW
1.12.1936 Madrid: Fiat CR 32 shot down by enemy fighters (I-15/I-16), Chianese POW

.
From Juan Arraez Cerda

On 5.11.36 Maccagno + Piccoli
on 13.11.36 Mosca + Marrioti
30.11.36 Chianese
on about this time (end of nov 36, beginning of dec 36) Larsimont and Ferrari.

Abrossov mention other Fiat losses without pilot names (maybe safe).

I never saw balance accounts for italians or german units.
So all we consider it's known losses for them, not complete ones.

Regards

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#51

Post by durb » 02 Aug 2015, 15:01

VG 33 wrote: From Juan Arraez Cerda
On 5.11.36 Maccagno + Piccoli
on 13.11.36 Mosca + Marrioti
30.11.36 Chianese
on about this time (end of nov 36, beginning of dec 36) Larsimont and Ferrari.
Abrossov mention other Fiat losses without pilot names (maybe safe).
I never saw balance accounts for italians or german units.
So all we consider it's known losses for them, not complete ones.
Regards

Comments on Abrossov´s claims (Alcofar - Loguloso):
On 5.11.1936 the Italian/Nationalist sources do confirm only the loss of Maccagno - this is very explicite. Piccoli´s plane was probably damaged, not destroyed.
On 13.11.1936 - Mosca was wounded in combat, but made it back to Nationalist lines, his plane was saved. Mariotti also made it back to Nationalist lines and his plane was damaged but could be put in combat later with a new engine.
On 30.11.1936 - the loss of Chianese´s Fiat as well as him ending up to be a PoW is confirmed, although Alcofar dates it to 1.12.1936 (these kind of date errors are fairly common). I did no find any confirmation to the losses of Larsimont and Ferrari during the days Abrossov is referring. Larsimont and Ferrari are not be found from the list of combat casualties of Aviazione Legionaria. About Antonio Larsimont more I found more spesific details: http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/italy_larsimont.htm

When it comes to German losses, only known and confirmed by German sources are those of Eberhard and Heinrici both KIA and one Heinkel 51 lost during the period of November-December 1936. No other known combat losses against Polikarpov fighters during November and early December are confirmed by German sources. (Laureau)

Is Abrossov suggesting that Italians/Germans/Nationalists were hiding their combat losses - for example attributing some combat losses to non-combat causes? I do not think that such thing happened - for example Alcofar may have been partialist (pro-Nationalist) but he has mentioned very accurately all the Italian air combat losses known to him.

Has Abrossov used Italian/German/Spanish Nationalist sources and compared them with the data which he has collected from Soviet/Republican sources? For example Alcofar despite his partialism has used the few Republican sources available to him and this is to his credit.

The air victory claims of both sides were exaggarated - that is what we know for sure - but I believe that both sides knew their own losses well and recorded them as accurately as possible although sometimes the cause of loss can be disputed. Was the loss caused by air combat or flak? Was it caused by enemy or attributed to non-enemy cause when there was a chance of both possibilities?

The most reliable combat stats is that what we can find from the loss records of both sides - although it is not 100 % it gives at least more reliable picture than the exaggerated air victory records. The "Håkans Aviation Page" has been so far the most complete and neutral try to represent the loss records of both sides in air battles of SCW which I have seen - at least a start for those of us who do not have access to archive materials. With more time I try to go through that and represent what conclusion can be drawn from that (incomplete) material which is represented by Håkan. If someone knows more and better and can represent combat stats of Fiat CR 32 vs. Polikarpov fighters based on loss records of both sides more accurately, please share the info here.

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#52

Post by durb » 04 Aug 2015, 18:53

I went through the day-to-day chronicle of Håkans Aviation page about the air operations in SCW. Of the air combats between Fiats and Polikarpovs between the period 4.11.1936 (first encounter) and 9.2.1939 (last encounter) I found out that at least 67 Polikarpov fighters were shot down and destroyed by Fiat CR 32´s during the SCW. This number includes only those confirmed by the cited Republican loss records and excluding all those cases when the I-15 or I-16 might have been shot down by Legion Condor pilots. Also I have taken out all those cases when the cause of loss may have been due to AA fire or anything else than getting shot down in air combat. Of the Polikarpov 1-15/I-16 air combat losses vs. Fiat CR 32 some 20 were I-16´s according to Håkan´s notes. See details: http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/scw.htm - it is possible that you will end up with different numbers by studying the same material so I advice everyone interested to go through it. The difficulty with the material is that it is so detailed that one gets easily lost in the multitude of day-to-day operations and combat record notes. You will see lots of trees (details like pilot claims) but not the forest (overall picture and general patterns).

Although Håkans day-to-day data and air victory notes looks very impressive I noted that they were far from complete when comparing them to my own literature and to notes of some other people. For example I did find the recorded Fiat CR 32 air combat losses by both Spanish and Italian units being somewhere between 50 and 60 in Håkan´s notes while Italian airwar historian Fernando Pedriali (cited by Ironmachine) gives the air combat losses of Fiat CR 32 as high as 76 (and does this higher figure include the Fiat CR 32 air combat losses of Spanish air units?).

I have to wait until my retirement or winning in lottery to be able to make it to Spain to study the surviving air combat records of both sides and collect all the other relevant material. Only then I can come up with something as precise as possible based on well-researched details. Until then my rough guess is that Fiat CR 32 vs. Polikarpov fighters was quite even match when comparing the loss records. Taking in account that I-15 was more nimble and I-16 more fast the Fiat pilots made it quite well although their claims were exaggerated (as well as those of their Republican counterparts). Although the air combat stats study is difficult I believe that with careful research work using all the available data of both sides we can have a a rough picture how "it actually was" at the sky of SCW.

All the studies up to now tend to be either prorepublican or pronationalist or focused otherwise onesidedly without using all the available material of the "other side" - I think that there is still a room for serious research work in this field for someone who makes a serious try to be as neutral and balanced as possible. We know that official combat claims and records of individual pilots as such can not be taken as true results of air combat so the focus should be in the loss records of both sides and based on unit level rather than checking individual air victory records.

Håkan Gustavsson
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 May 2002, 11:15
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#53

Post by Håkan Gustavsson » 14 Aug 2015, 17:12

Hello durb,

My site on the SCW is by no means complete and I have plenty of additional info on Fiat CR.32 vs. Polikarpov combats which will be added in due time... ;-)

Best wishes/Håkan

Daibanana
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 08 Aug 2013, 10:21

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#54

Post by Daibanana » 15 Aug 2015, 19:34

Hello! Please accept my apologies, I don't speak and write english very well :|
I just read this very interesting topic. My grandfather was a Cr32 pilot in the Spanish Civil war, XVI gruppo "Cucaracha". Unfortunately he passed away many years ago, when I was a kid, but I still remember some of his words because I asked him abut the war. He respected a lot enemy fighters but he believed that his Fiat was the best. He shot down both I-15 and I-16 (4 confirmed individual kills + 2 shared, all in 1937); he thought that his plane was also mechanically reliable because he had to do a forced landing in another airport only once, because of a leak in the cooling sistem.
I know that maybe this is a not-so-important account but I hope it helps :)
All the best from Italy! :)
Renato

Håkan Gustavsson
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 May 2002, 11:15
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#55

Post by Håkan Gustavsson » 24 Aug 2015, 20:56

Hello Renato,

Welcome to the forum!
Interesting info! What was your grandfathers name?

Best wishes/Håkan

durb
Member
Posts: 627
Joined: 06 May 2014, 10:31

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#56

Post by durb » 13 Oct 2015, 15:34

One model-related website gave these numbers as the "official confirmed" records of Italian/Spanish Nationalist Fiat CR 32 pilots vs. Polikarpov fighters: 242 I-15 and 240 I-16 destroyed vs. the loss of 73 Fiats in air combat. Of the latter clearly most (over 90 %) were lost in air combat against Polikarpov fighters. The air victory records and score of more than 6:1 in favour of Fiats appear exaggerated, but the latter figure is well in line what is often referred in books (between 70 - 80 Fiats lost in air combats of SCW are figures given by various authors when referring to action of Italian air contingent in Spain).

However I wonder if the usually given numbers of Fiat CR 32 air combat losses between 70 - 80 include only Italian losses or are the losses of Spanish Fiat-units also included in those figures? Could the total losses of Fiat CR 32´s during SCW be as high as about 100 when also "Spanish" planes are included?

According to Alcofar the Aviación Nacional received 127 Fiat CR 32 from Italians during the SCW. Of these planes 43 were lost during the SCW and of these losses 26 were combat-related losses (mostly in air combat vs. Polikarpovs, I guess).

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Fiat CR 32 vs Polikarpov I-15/I-16

#57

Post by Ironmachine » 13 Oct 2015, 18:46

durb wrote:However I wonder if the usually given numbers of Fiat CR 32 air combat losses between 70 - 80 include only Italian losses or are the losses of Spanish Fiat-units also included in those figures?
Yes, that number of CR 32 losses (between 70-80) is only that of the Italian units, without including Spanish losses.

Post Reply

Return to “Spanish Civil War & Legion Condor”