Thursday, May 14, 2020

The Piaggio P.108 Bombardiere (The What?)

The Piaggio P.108 and 274th Long-Range Bombardment Group.
(Source

When one mentions World War II and four-engined bombers, most of you will no doubt think of these birds first, the order of course depends on one's nationality I suppose:
  • The RAF Avro Lancaster
  • The RAF Short Stirling
  • The RAF Handley-Page Halifax¹
  • The USAAF Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
  • The USAAF Consolidated B-24 Liberator
  • The USAAF Boeing B-29 Superfortress
  • The USAAF Consolidated B-32 Dominator (wait, what?)
Note that I didn't mention the Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberator, the PB4Y-2 Privateer, nor the Fw 200 Kondor. Those three, while they were indeed bombers, were primarily used for maritime patrol, anti-shipping, and anti-submarine work. They did not operate in vast fleets filling the skies over enemy cities as did the aircraft in the list above.

Wait a minute Sarge, what's that Dominator you mention? Oh, alright, I suppose I'll mention that now. I never heard of that aircraft until today (well, yesterday as of the date of publication of this here post).

Consolidated B-32 Dominator
The B-32 was designed as a fallback plan in case the B-29 didn't work out. As it did, the B-32 saw limited service late in the war. You can read more about that here. The bird sort of looks like a four-engined B-26 to me. (YMMV)

So yes, I suppose that's what folks think of when you mention "four engined, WWII bomber," at least I always did. Until today of course (er, yesterday, freaking time travel!).

Now what do you think of when I say "Italian military"?

Now, now, behave. Sure there are thousands of jokes about the Italian armed forces in WWII -
  • Sale on Italian infantry rifles, never been fired, only been dropped once
  • Italian tanks, one gear in forward, five in reverse
  • Why do Italian Navy ships have glass bottoms? So they can see the old Italian Navy.
  • Sir Winston Churchill, on being informed that the Italians had entered WWII on the side of the Germans, is alleged to have said, "It's only fair, they were on our side in the last war."
I'm sure there are more but that's not the subject of today's post. I should mention that the Italians have a bad reputation from their participation in WWII. The great Desert Fox (Erwin Rommel) himself was impressed with the average Italian soldier, noting that they were often poorly supplied, their equipment was terrible, and their officers, especially in the more senior ranks, were terrible. The Italian artillery had an excellent reputation in North Africa, they would die at their guns rather than abandon them.

But it is true that Italian military prowess suffered a great deal after the fall of the Roman Empire. I mean a people who can produce the likes of a Caesar (Julius and a couple of others) cannot lack a certain military aptitude. Am I right?

But (again) I'm getting off topic.

I'm not sure how I stumbled across the Piaggio P.108 depicted in that opening photo. Might have been an email from John in Philly which sent me chasing across the Internet for something. No doubt I saw a photo and said, "What the heck is that?"

Well, the P.108 was the only four-engined bomber to see service with the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force) in WWII. It didn't have much of an impact on the war as there weren't that many of them built. The Pedia of Wiki has this to say about the Bombardiere -
The Piaggio P.108 Bombardiere was an Italian four-engine heavy bomber that saw service with the Regia Aeronautica during World War II. The prototype first flew in 1939 and it entered service in 1941. It was one of a handful of Italian combat aircraft that could match the best manufactured by the Allies. Four versions of the P.108 were designed, but only one, the P.108B bomber, was produced in any quantity before the armistice. The other variants included the P.108A anti-ship aircraft with a 102 mm gun, the P.108C, an airliner with an extended wingspan and re-modeled fuselage capable of carrying 32 passengers, and the P.108T transport version designed specifically for military use. Only one P.108A and 24 P.108Bs were built. The combined total number of all versions (and prototypes) was at least 39, almost certainly more than 44. Most of the P.108Cs were subsequently modified for use as military transport aircraft and could accommodate up to sixty passengers. Nine P.108 Ts were used by Luftwaffe transport units until the end of the war. (Source)
Less than fifty were built, so I guess it shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the Lancasters, Fortresses, Liberators, and others of that ilk.

This source had this information on the Bombardiere, part of a larger (and interesting) article -
The Piaggio P.108 was the only heavy four-engine bomber to see service with the Regia Aeronautica during World War Two. Too few were built to play a significant role in the war. The bomber version was identified as the Piaggio P108B and Piaggio built just 24 units. The P.108 was an all-metal, low-wing monoplane with a retractable undercarriage. The Piaggio P.108 powerplant consisted of four 1,350 hp Piaggio P.XII radial engines. The Piaggio P.108 was an expensive aircraft to build and cost 3x as much as the SM.79 Sparviero.
The first prototype was completed in October 1939 and contained very advanced defensive armament for its day. The aircraft armament included two 7.7 mm machine waist guns, a 12.7 mm machine gun in the lower turret and a similar weapon in the nose turret. The P108 also had some innovative technology such as two remotely-controlled twin gun turrets in the outer engine nacelles. The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was the first Allied bomber with a similar armament but developed four years later. The bomb load of the Piaggio comprised of 7,700 lbs housed internally in the bomb bay.
Innovative, expensive, and not many of them. What a very modern concept!

Looks very modern, well, except for the nose and the unfinished-looking propeller hubs.
(Source)
The manufacturer of that aircraft, Piaggio Aero Industries, (now called Piaggio Aerospace) has been in business for a long time, manufacturing their first aircraft in 1915. You can read more about them here.

Anyhoo, I thought it was an interesting aircraft, so I decided to share it with you. It's what I do, I share.

So juvat, what do we call this, "Weird Aircraft Week"?

While the P.108 isn't weird (the guy who designed it, Giovanni Casiraghi, worked in the United States from 1927 to 1936) it was certainly advanced for it's time. Good thing the Italians didn't have more of them. I mean, they were on the wrong side for most of WWII!




¹ This aircraft was initially not listed, but I had a visit from the police, UK variety, which made me mend my ways and add it in. Thanks Hogday!

38 comments:

  1. "But it is true that Italian military prowess suffered a great deal after the fall of the Roman Empire. I mean a people who can produce the likes of a Caesar (Julius and a couple of others) cannot lack a certain military aptitude. Am I right?"

    Yes indeed. No less a person than Mussolini has been quoted as wondering (sadly, I suspect) "When did Romans turn into Italians?".

    Neat airplanes. One of the (many) problems with Italian aircraft of the period was that they were all pretty much built "Craftsman" style--beautifully put together but one at a time by individuals, thus limiting numbers etc. There is a great Italian military aircraft museum on Lake Braccioano.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I went to the museum's website, here. They have a really nice collection.

      I remember that quote from Mussolini.

      Delete
  2. Heh, there was even a one-off version, the P.108A, that carried a 102mm cannon, because.

    (I knew this, because it's in a War Thunder...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's even video clips of the mighty P.108 in War Thunder on the Tube O' You.

      Nothing says serious quite like a big cannon.

      Delete
    2. What was its rate of fire? Bullet density (e.g. rate of fire) is usually more important than bullet size in air operations. Although 6000 rounds a minute of 102mm would be pretty devastating, I would think.

      Delete
    3. Well, the cannon was based on the Cannone da 90/53 which had a rate of fire of 19 rounds per minute. Wikipedia says:

      In response to a request in November 1942, the P.108A Artigliere "gunship" was developed for anti-shipping duties to supplement torpedo bombers. It was armed with a modified high velocity Cannone da 90/53 gun mounted in a redesigned nose. This was considered the most effective artillery piece in service, and in several versions was used as an anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun by the Army and the Navy. To be more effective in its new role, the size of the gun was increased from 90 mm to 102 mm, a non-standard Italian artillery caliber, and fired shells weighing 13 kg as opposed to the standard gun's 10 kg, with a muzzle velocity of over 600 m/s.The gun together with its recoil system weighed 1,500 kg. Due to it being a re-bored smaller gun, its weight was relatively low for its caliber.

      The P.108A concept was in line with other contemporary developments, as medium bombers such as the North American B-25 Mitchell and even smaller attack-aircraft like the Henschel Hs 129 were being fitted with high-velocity 75 mm guns.

      The gun was mounted longitudinally in the fuselage centerline, at a depressed angle, and had a powerful recoil, which the 30 ton airframe was able to absorb. The amount of ammunition that could be carried was around 50-60 rounds for the main gun, as well as up to three standard torpedoes or two radio-guided torpedoes (a secret weapon which was never used in combat), and for the defensive wing and fuselage turrets. The 102 mm gun was intended to be fitted with a ballistic sight with an analogue computer, and a six or 12 round mechanical loader.


      I would not want to be the target of that beast!

      Delete
  3. Neat post Sarge, never knew that there was a four engine bird in the Regia Aeronautica during WWII. Notice the engine size, 1350hp vs 2200hp for the B29 and B32.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big difference in horsepower there. B-32 also had engine problems similar to those experienced in the B-29.

      Delete
  4. RAF fighters had a few engagements with Italian fighters and bombers during the Battle of Britain over southern England(they never got beyond ‘southern’ 😉).
    Desert war anecdote. During a North African battle, a British Recon group realised there were Italian soldiers on some high ground on the British flank. A manoeuvre outflanked and captured them. The officers tried to protest their capture citing the fact that they were ‘only watching’!
    (Ps: I won’t mention the Handley-Page Halifax 😉😂)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the Italians involvement in the West was rather lackluster. Don't think their hearts were really in it for all of Il Duce's bluster.

      As to the desert anecdote, heh, no fair, we're just spectators.

      As to the Halifax, 😲. My, ahem, oversight has been corrected. (That'll teach me to use the Pedia of Wiki as a sole source.)

      Delete
  5. Remote turrets on the engine. I wonder if they used selsyns to control them like the 29? Syncros were still findable when I was a shiny new ham radio operator. They were used to drive a direction indicator on a rotatable antenna by ham radio operators, the ones that rolled their own. Guys like this: https://archive.org/details/JeanShepherd1965Pt1/1965_01_29_Ham_Radio.mp3 Most of those guys are gone, folks are just equipment operators now. 1939.... That is really interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was pretty advanced for that era, but as Cap'n Steve pointed out above, handcrafting will give you lovely machines, but not a lot of them!

      Delete
    2. B-29 gun turrets--

      Part 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nskFayhBcy0

      Part 2

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h4yBxydz0E

      Delete
    3. Like you I was going to begin my comment by mentioning the remote control gun turrets on the engine nacelles.
      But then the Honey Do list got a change in priorities.

      Delete
    4. I guess I need to be more detailed in my posts. You guys...

      Delete
  6. Here's another unique one-off --

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-15

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, the P.108 was not a "one off," it was actually used operationally.

      Delete
    2. Did not mean to imply that it was. "Another" was just a leftover from my trip down the Wiki rabbit hole. Need more coffee.

      Delete
    3. Weird Aircraft Week works for me. Just as long as we don't run out of material any time soon, say by next Monday.

      Delete
    4. The XB-15 was kind of a test-bed for the XB-17, kind of, sort of. Weird relationship between the development of the two aircraft. The -15 was much more conventional looking for the time, with the -17 being the streamlined futuristic one.

      Delete
  7. The Italian aircraft effort reminds me a bit of their auto effort, at least at the high end - hand built and not May of them, kinda like Ferrari? I was also wondering about those remote gun turrets "on the engine nacelles". Why that placement I wonder? Didn't see any pics, did they have 360 degree rotation above or below the plane of the wings or were they far enough to the rear that they could also fire above and below the plane of the wing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you chase that source under the last photo, they have a nice cutaway drawing of the P.108. The remotely operated turrets are behind the engine on top of the nacelle, right about even with the wing leading edge. Looks to be 360° rotation above the wing, no coverage below the wing and another photo in that article shows a P.108 in flight, the starboard turret is clearly visible and it looks like it can't be rotated forward in the direction of flight. A good idea that. Looks like coverage is to the flanks and rear of the aircraft from wing level up.

      Delete
    2. My question exactly Tom, Didn't see any indication of them in either picture, so...1-800-Google and voila'. Looks like they would have a decent field of fire to the outside and front up and down, but only up to defend from an attack from the rear (where most would come from in WWII).

      Delete
    3. A rather nice depiction of two P.108s in flight!

      Delete
    4. Thanks to you both - looks like the ventral surface is covered by a remote turret on the bottom of the fuselage as well.. I also note that on the source document Sarge refers to,l Mussolini's son died when he flew his P.108 a bit too low and hit a "dwelling" killing himself and two other crew members.

      Great stuff!

      Delete
  8. Hey AFSarge;

    I remember another quote from Rommel, He liked the Italian Soldiers, when they were lead by German Officers, they fought as well as the Afrika Corp despite the inferior equipment, the Officer corp, especially the higher up tend to get their rank the old fashioned way, they bought them. Also check out the B-18 Bolo and the XB-19 for other planes Excellent post btw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The average Italian soldier was a good man and a faithful comrade. Like any nation, give 'em bad equipment and bad officers and they will be ineffective.

      Delete
  9. Everything Italian is fascinating. What a history! They've never been and never will be like anyone else. Building super cars and tractors and cutting edge aircraft in barns. Pizza, pasta, vino, corruption, Catholocism, socialism, democracy, superb naval construction, nap between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. then eat, party, and fornicate all night long.

    Italia meravigliosa!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sì, l'Italia è adorabile e gli italiani sono fantastici! I spent my 59th birthday in Italy, loved every minute of it. But especially the food and the history!

      Delete
  10. So the Italians produced a handcrafted version of... the B-17. Seriously. Same bomb load, same speed, even looks like a -17. Wonder how many were mistaken by each side for their own? And if that was one of the reasons for the B-24 being used heavily in the Med. Hmmmmm...

    Seems to be a parallel evolution thing. Same parameters produce the same type of critter. Like how you get, given in-line engines of X hp and need for Y performance, the P-51, one or two Yaks, an Italian job and a Jap fighter which all look and perform roughly similar.

    Interesting.

    As to Italian construction, their shipping construction industry was well founded by pre-WWI, but most of the rest of their industries was still hampered by the non-unification of the unified country. Let me explain. So when Italy consolidated from a bunch of city-states and private kingdoms, each one was noted for having specific industries that each one controlled. Consolidate the country, and you have all these private little industries tucked away in not easy to reach areas, and not a lot of room to grow, nor the capital to grow, and you end up with hand-crafted aircraft, tanks that work for Italy's terrain, rifles meant for Italy's terrain, artillery designed for Italy's terrain.

    Seriously, Italy's terrain dictated greatly how the country acted. Southern Italy may be relatively flat, compared to Northern Italy, but nowhere in Italy do you have anything like the great flatness along the US coast or along the US rivers. Seriously, Italy is like a really big country, like France, that some elder god grabbed in his giant hand and smooshed, with Corsica and Sicily, and some other islands, popping out between the fingers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty good synopsis of why Italy was what it was in WWII.

      Delete
    2. And why it is what it is today. Especially now that ChiCom owns a good part of Northern Italy.

      Delete
    3. Well, their politicians are worse than ours. And that's saying something!

      Delete
    4. Southern Italy is just about ready to cut the North loose as the South is successful and the North isn't. During this Covidiocy, the South has ended up footing way too much of the bill for the North's fecklessness.

      Which, unfortunately, sounds way too familiar here in the States.

      Delete
    5. That's the exact opposite of how it was not that long ago. Most industry is in the north.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.