User talk:Gian piero milanetti

'''NOTE: Going back into my trade as a writer and  WWII  historian, concentrating on Great Patriotic War  subjects. '''

I could be late in answering 

Military commissariat
Hello, I am currently editing the page 'military commissariat' and noticed that the information you provided did not have any citations, I was wondering if you remembered where you got your information from and if there is more to add? You will see the information under the 'other european countries' heading. Thank you! Jijiathome (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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).

 Hi Gian piero milanetti, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! 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:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC).


 * 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! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (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! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 [flown by Flt Lt Dreki, a Pole of 145 Sqn] 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 [p.331]) 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 Wikipedia articles. Please read What Wikipedia is not, in particular this statement: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: Many editors use their real names on Wikipedia; many more don't. It's purely a matter of choice that most of us wish to remain anonymous. Wikipedia (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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia account under your account name, making sure to use the correct details using the Italian Wikipedia 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;


 * 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 Wikipedia 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.

Slightly modified to match other military history and aviation articles:

...prior to release.

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 Wikipedia has had their work deleted altered or moved? It is part of everyday life in Wikipedia...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. Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * No problem, what you were writing is probably not important, but the language it is written in is. I assume that you contribute ti the italian version of wikipedia!Petebutt (talk) 05:48, 21 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)

Boeing 737 and Messerschmitt Me 262 influences
Hardly likely that the modern B-737 was intended, the author probably meant the Boeing 367-80, the progenitor of an extensive family of commercial aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Spitfire flying characteristics
Sorry Gian I have been far too busy to spend much time in Wiki; re the Spitfire article - right now this needs some drastic pruning. The Flying Characteristics section just does not fit in as it is now. Quite frankly it is far too detailed and a great deal of the information you and others have added repeats information which was already there. Instead of adding more and more information the entire article needs pruning and a rethink before it gets way to big, boring and unweildy. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I look at some of my editing and realise that I too get carried away with adding lots of information which, in hindsight, is just too much. I've been lately removing and revising a lot of my own material. Always learning...BTW have you settled into your new school? I hope this is going well for you. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Galland Book
Note the differences: Your edit: My edit (note differences):
 * Galland, Adolf. The first and the last. New York, Ballantine Books, 1957. No ISBN.
 * Galland, Adolf. The First and the Last. New York: Ballantine Books, 1957. No ISBN.

Here are the changes to incorporate in a reference note written in Modern Language Guide (style guide for bibliographical referencing): 1. Authors are written in full, last name, first name, separated by a period. 2. Titles are written in bold or italics, in title form which means all main nouns are capitalized. You wrote the title in sentence form where the main or leading word is only capitalized. 3. Publishers information is give as place of publication separated by a colon. You used a comma. 4. Publishers name is given in full separated by a comma. 5. The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for periodicals are optional "pointers" to location of the book or periodical (magazine, journal, etc). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Glancey book
Jonathan Glancey is not a professional historian, and his book is not an authoritative source, rather it fits into the category of "popular history" and the new, expanded version is essentially a "coffee table" book. It's a "great read" but is in no way, the first book to use as a reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Muy habla?
Seeing you appear to speak Italian, perhaps you can help with Ilario Bandini & the associated car articles...? I can't tell if the errors are in the original or in the translation. Also, if you've got an interest in Italian cars, maybe you've got good sources? Thanks in advance. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  01:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Caldwell and C.202
No problem, it's just that if someone is being quoted (using quote marks) the quote must be accurate; it must use the actual words that were written down or stated. Your Caldwell quote: "one of the best and more undervalued fighter" is, I presume, not what was written in Glancey's book? Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?
In the page Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 you appear to have made a Revision as of 20:32, 30 July 2009 by adding text and citations to the article. is causing a cite error. I think you may have intended the source to be. Could you please go back and fix it, whatever you intended? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Callsign Maverick
Given he's wingman, flying with the same unit, he'd scarcely be flying anything but a P-39, so adding "on Airacobras" is needless.

OT, let me suggest moving the "about me" above to your user page, & off your talk page, & removing the table border (or whatever it is ;p); the border makes the page a bit hard to read. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunston works
Hi Gian, there is often a reprint of the same book when the publisher has multiple "inprint" houses. The books are essentially the same, no changes other than being issued by another of the publisher's subsidiaries, although a new ISBN is assigned to "point" to the new location. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

New works
I actually am waiting to see the results of a Polish translation of one of my earlier biographies of a Second World War fighter pilot and later postwar test pilot: Legend in the Skies: Janusz Zurakowski. The book was being held up by some legal issues that occur when a published work is being rewritten and reissued in a foreign market. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Howdy from down South
 Hi Gian Piero; I hear Italy is having an exceptionally white Christmas while we in NZ are getting suntanned (he says...adding another layer of sunblock and sipping on a cola tinkling with little iceblocks while admiring the ladies in bikinis) Have a great festive season in spite of it all! Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille
Your last edits on the table messed up the column width. Please experiment with making changes to the table in a sandbox prior to submitting the change. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First let's not start an editorial war over this issue and discuss this as sensible people would. My understanding of Wikipedia is that we do not emphasise one reference over another author’s book. They are all more or less treated equal. Secondly I was not criticising your changes to the time of the aerial victories. I criticised that you put text in the column reserved for the time of aerial victory only. The information presented in the table originates from Wübbe's book on Marseille. What I suggest we do here is to add a note that while Wübbe and Prien agree on the times, Tate presents a different time. Could we agree to this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, any information that you add is important, if it is properly cited, unbiased and truthful. Yes I own Tate's book on Marseille, I believe that I own almost every book published in English and German on Marseille. I am so infatuated with the person that I even travelled to Berlin to see his tail rudder on display at the Luftwaffen Museum. You can have a look at my personal collection of WW2 related books here my library. I don’t think that anybody is responsible for making decisions on what goes into or doesn’t belong into an article. Definitely not the number of Wiki awards presented is important here. However, if sources are contradicting you cannot assume that Tate is saying the truth. He may have made errors too. So you can say, while Wübbe claims this Tate says this. This is legitimate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I do not speak Italian. I have visited Italy a few times before but mostly Milano. By the way, I have double checked Tate, Wübbe and Prien once more. You have spotted an error in Wübbe's book. It is only Wübbe who places the last three claims at 15.56, 15.59 and 16.10. Both Tate and Prien say the same thing. So I made the correction and added a footnote explaining the discrepancies. Thanks for pointing this out. Merry Christmas MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would gladly read an extract of your book. Do you happen to have information you could add to the article about the Medaglia d'oro al Valore Militare? I had started this article a while ago but I have little information on Italian awards and I can't translate the Italian Wiki page myself. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can send me an email by visiting my user pager and then klick "E-mail this user". MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the link in the toolbox on the left. Try this linkMisterBee1966 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Merry Christmas and peace and quiet to you too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Email
I think the problem is that you have not entered your email in your Wiki preference section. It reads
 * "You do not have to provide an e-mail address, but if you forget your password, you will not be able to regain access to your account without one. You also need to provide an email address if you wish to enable the "Email this User" feature, to either send or receive emails via Wikipedia. You can provide an email address later on, or change it. If you change your e-mail address, you will need to reconfirm it."

So visit your user preference section and enter your email address. This should allow us to email each other. This is the safest way to let each other know the email address without letting the rest of the world knowning. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, just reading MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes
Thanks, have a nice vacation MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I liked the little story. I am a bit critical and from what I have read so far Neumann called Marseille "Seile" since he couldn't or wouldn't pronounce his last name in the correct French pronounciation. Otherwise nice read.MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All the best for the New Year - I'm already writing from 2010. Regards, Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Salve!
Greetings from Singapore, my sincere apologies if I sounded brash towards you earlier but I was afraid you might get the wrong idea that I was directing my disgust towards you, which I'm not~! Its just that some Italian and Spanish editors (other than you, obviously) are clumsy with their choice of words and has offended many many English speaking editors here on En.Wiki during their amateurish attempts of editing, causing not once but several occasions of unhappiness with the rest of us.

Anyway, I was hoping to meet an actual Italian editor who can understand and speak English with the kind of proficiency of at least a college student/working professional... and you came into the picture, how nice~! To cut a long story short, I was hoping you could help us with a few of the Italian designed/produced modern aircraft/weaponry articles, such as the Aermacchi S-211, Aermacchi SF.260, Otobreda 76 mm and DARDO... (sorry, that's all I can recall for now!). We don't have much way into Italian sources for these articles and we could use your expertise in helping us to cite them in the articles themselves.

Think you're up to the job? Reply me here and we'll see how things will go from here, yeah? Cheers and ciao~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from You... You mean you want me to answer You here?? Or in Your discussion page? In fact I dont feel confident when I write in english... it is not and will never be my language, so I make mistakes and I should apologize... but I suffer to see how poor are some pages about aviation, mostly the ones regarding Italian WWII aircraft... about the modern Italian craft... honestly I am not so interested and I dont have so much time as I am working on my aviation book about Soviet air power... I should have something but not so updated as they are not my first interests...

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I meant here. Don't worry, you can go slow with the writing in English, we will work things out as we go along, okay? No problemo, right? Take your time with those articles I've mentioned above, especially the Otobreda 76 mm and DARDO... they really are in need of better references if you can find them for citations. Well, I figured that since you're Italiano and the designer/producer is also Italiano, you might have better source available in your native language or country to help us here. Take all the time you need to find them, don't worry because There is no deadline... what I want is reliable sources to help us, and nothing else. Thanks and ciao~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, are we by chance on En wikipedia???

Sorry but I am not used to that courtesy on these pages... Most of the people here has proved to be rather... how can I say? ... a little harsh... Anyway... I cant promise you nothing... I opened some books but I didnt find anything... I should look better but I am afraid I dont have much, anyway, thanks! Saluti da ROma!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 references - Neulen 2000?
Here you added a couple of references to Neulen 2000 re Romanian use of the SM.79, but it isn't listed in the Bibliography section - any chance of adding it there?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gianno
Sorry for not responding quickly, I am in the midst of coordinating an aviation conference and have very little free time. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Mariya Dolina
—  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  08:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck and keep up the good work! —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  10:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Weight of fire
Two reasons why weight of fire need not be included:

1)Weight of fire is interesting for an extended technical comparison in a book; the Spitfire Operational History is a Wikipedia article and is not written for that purpose.

2)If weight of fire is quoted for one aircraft type it opens the way for every aircraft type mentioned in the article to also include weight of fire for comparison. Then, if it is included for an aircraft type, why not include figures for aircraft sub-types which may have different armament?

At the moment, and for the next while my work at university has to take priority, so I have no time for extended discussions on these sorts of issues - please bear with me - Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but I'm not working in university I'm a student; having worked my butt off for years I decided to take the opportunity, starting last year, to do some papers that interest me and get a couple of degrees under my belt - BAs in Archaeology and History (Papers are Greek Archaeology, starting with the famous Trojan Wars; History starting with the history of ANZAC during WWI). Congratulations on your win in the literary contest etc (A little gloating on my side: I scored 100% on two assignments recently, plus 96% on another *cough* gloat over) Cheers, Minorhistorian (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * PS I'm not hugely worried about weight of fire; personally I'd prefer to have such info included, but we can't have everything!

Yekaterina Budanova
At the Yekaterina Budanova article, you wrote this:

You did not provide a source for this assertion. What other authors? Was it just one other author? What book are you reading? Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

P-51s in Russia
SInce there was only a small number of P-51 Mustangs in service by the USSR, the mere mention of their use is sufficient. Locating and changing the leading passages to describe their evaluation by the USSR is an example of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. FWiW, check the edits now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Soviets refused the first series aircraft is inconsequential. The aircraft type was an extremely successful fighter and the lead paragraphs reflect that, rather than a historical footnote based on a minor testing report. The P-51 was and still remains one of the most significant fighter aircraft of all time and when dozens of countries operated them both wartime and post-war as front line fighters even in an age of jet fighters being introduced, is extremely telling. It represents the epoch of the piston-engine fighter to this day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fiat G.56 and Macchi 205 aircraft barely hit 400 mph and were short-legged, highly maneuverable, defensive fighters while the P-51 Mustang was a long-range escort fighter, possessing high-speed (P-51H could reach 487 mph), good to very good maneuverabilty and was a durable, stable airframe. The actual comparison to the P-51 would be the P-47D/N, P-38J, the only other escort fighters used in wartime. Both of these types were supplanted by the P-51D. The only other comparable aircraft that could match the Mustang was the Ta 152 but was produced in such limited numbers, that its influence was negligible. By the way, I am not an American so "homerism" doesn't apply here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The record is clear, you are comparing a prototype that hit 426 mph in testing to a combat-tested aircraft with over 16,000 examples built that were in general use by all the main Allied air forces. The P-51 is by any standard, one of the superlative aircraft of the past century. The Fiat G-56 is an interesting but inconsequential example of a "what if" much like the Martin-Baker MB5, which would have left the Fiat in its "dust." Neither even achieved production status. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito use in Russia
The same issue occurs with the detailed treatment of a sole Mosquito being tested in the USSR. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

Use of Gordon's book as reference
At least use the proper coding:
 * Gordon, Yefim. Soviet Air Power in World War 2. Hinckley, Lancashire, UK: Midland, Ian Allan Publishing, 2008. ISBN 978-85780-304-4. Note there is no "Hinkley". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Eihlà
Pensavo che avessi gettato la spugna, invece mi sbagliavo. Però, ne hai fatto di lavoro.

Vorrei parlarti già che ci sono del Reggiane 2000. Ci sono due-tre cose che dovrebbero interessarti. A proposito del raggio d'azione dell'aereo nel tipo GA, spesso si legge che esso fosse capace di volare per ben 3.000 km a 460 kmh. Ma questo è a mio avviso, falso. Il fatto che potesse portare due serbatoi da 170 litri di carburante extra, infatti, non avrebbe certo potuto moltiplicare un'autonomia tipica di meno di 1.000 km. Non c'é modo, in tutta onestà, di fare tale miracolo: se con 620 litri di carburante fai poco più di un km/litro, allora anche se aggiungi un 30% di benzina in più, dove mai potrai arrivare? Il motore del RE.2000, apparentemente, consumava circa 200 kg/h di benzina, per cui anche con un migliaio di litri, poteva al più raggiungere i 1.400-1.800 km.

Sarebbe poi interessante trovare dove e come il Re.2000 potesse 'battere' il CR.42 (o il CR.32) in agilità, a mio immodesto avviso è semplicemente improponibile che un monoplano da caccia potesse riuscirci.

In seconda istanza, ho avuto modo di intravedere un libro di Nicola Malizia sul Re.2000. Spesso si dice che quest'aereo fosse scevro del rischio di autorotazione. In realtà non è affatto vero. Secondo Tullio de Prato, il Reggiane, al contrario, era un mezzo con una 'maledetta tendenza all'autorotazione'.

Ma c'é di più: nel libricino di N.Malizia dedicato al Re.2000 (pubblicato attorno al '76, p.64), si parla anche del suo servizio nella squadriglia sperimentale, la 377a. Beh, già pochi giorni dopo l'entrata in servizio, un Re.2000, durante un volo apparentemente normale, uscì semplicemente dal controllo e si schiantò al suolo, uccidendo il suo sventurato pilota, sopra Comiso: 'il Re.2000 del Tenente G. De Angelis (MM.5074) fu visto entrare inspiegabilmente in vite piatta e precipitare(19 aprile 1941)'. Ai piloti il Re.2000 non piacque, a parte per l'autonomia che gli consentiva di volare con una certa sicurezza fino a scortare i convogli per la Tunisia (quindi, da Comiso, circa 300 km). Anzi 'Il Re.2000 faceva una certa paura, del resto giustificata dalla presenza di quel motore P.XI di facile grippaggio'. Ma non è finita qui: il 7 luglio 1941 il Re.2000 MM.5070 del Ten. Moruzzi, al decollo, perse letteralmente un cilindro. Tornò a terra e tentò l'atterraggio, ma cappottò e prese fuoco, anche se stavolta il pilota venne tirato fuori ancora vivo (ma piuttosto acciaccato). Insomma, i piloti ne erano intimoriti, i meccanici lo disprezzavano per la complessa manutenzione e il motore inaffidabile, questi due incidenti sembrano pochi, ma bisogna considerare che erano solo la punta dell'icesberg e che comunque si parla di una singola squadriglia. Bel capolavoro d'aereo, non c'é che dire. Certo, prima che tu parta con qualche filippica contro i celebrati aerei anglosassoni (Typhoon su tutti), questi erano numeri piccoli, ma danno l'idea di come il Reggiane 2000, malgrado abbia spesso dei supporters (non dico che tu sia uno di loro, ti racconto solo quel che ne so io in merito), sia in realtà una macchina al limite dell'accettabile. A quanto pare, dei monoplani italiani di I Generazione l'unico che non fosse propenso all'autorotazione era il Fabrizi F.5, che tuttavia non è stato mai filato di striscio per la produzione in grande serie. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Il nemico ci ascolta"

 * I answer You in English, because they could complain and I am not in good waters with the main columns of en wiki... Da... I tried to work here as I suffered reading how badly were treated Italian (Japanese, Rumenian..) planes and how over-valued were anglo/american machines... even mostly unhappy craft like the P-40... it is a shame that no admin check what its happening here... anyway... we are guests here... what you say is extremely interesting and it is a pity that you can not or you do not want to find the way to write these things in the articles of the planes.. If >You cant, You could send me a scan with the data of the book and I will try to write them down... >By the way... have you read my book (not only mine) "Bomba a bordo e altri racconti" by Autori Vari, IBN editore? There is a short novel of mine and one of Nicola Malilzia... I would like to know your opinion... da skorogo (a presto)

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can assure to english readers, that there is no attempt, insult or cospiration, anyway, my english is too bad to be read by our fellows (=)).

A Giampié, ma sé sempre 'r solito eh? Purtroppo il libro non è più disponibile, ma se vuoi ti mando lo scanning delle pagine in cui t'ho detto la qual cosa.

Per l'autorotazione del Re.2000, è una lettera che molti anni fa un discendente diretto di De Prato scrisse a RiD. Lì diceva che il Re.2000, secondo suo nonno, aveva due caratteristiche sicure: una 'maledetta tendenza a cadere in vite', e una sicura discendenza/clonazione del P-35. Sulla seconda cosa potremmo non essere troppo d'accordo, ma sulla prima, la conferma è data dal crash che uccise quel tenente nel '41. Sul motore P.XI, beh, dev'essere stato un vero disastro (gli ungheresi del resto adottarono armi e motori propri, per non saper né leggere né scrivere). Una cosa inquietante è che bastò aggiungere delle corazze per alterare l'assetto dell'aereo, rendendolo pericolosamente prone alla vite. Io non ci credo, magari fu anche per il motore e armamento diversi, ma sopratutto quell'aereo era chiaramente afflitto da qualche serio problema d'assetto, altrimenti non sarebbe mai partito in viti piatte incontrollabili. In definitiva, anche se appariva più brillante del C.200, gli aviatori (e sopratutto i meccanici!) non furono affatto afflitti dalla sua assenza nei reparti di volo, anzi..

Sull'autonomia del Re.2000GA, mi pare ovvio che 3.000 km sia un dato scorretto, infatti se dividi 1.000 litri per 8 ore (3.000 km a 460 kmh) hai circa 120 litri di carburante/h, il che a 460 kmh è un dato del tutto improponibile: nonostante la sua efficienza (iniezione diretta), il DB-601 poteva beversi oltre 3 litri al minuto in crociera normale, e raddoppiare a piena potenza. I formidabili A6M2 consumavano normalmente 132-150 litri/h, per arrivare sulle Filippine (2.000 km+) dovettero ridurre a 60-70 litri/h, il che significava però solo 218 kmh (il che vuol dire, idealmente, che i 132 litri/min erano stimati a circa 320 kmh al massimo, e infatti l'autonomia con 730 litri era normalmente di circa 1.600-1.800 km, ovvero 5-6 ore). Per cui penso che, complice la rarità dell'aereo, si sia sballato qualche dato (e sul Reggiane ce n'é un'abbondanza, pesi e prestazioni spessissimo non combaciano tra una fonte e l'altra). Sul sito Reggiane! Reggiane! c'é la tabella delle comparazioni: il Re.2000 poteva fare un'autonomia di 538 km a 6.000 m, volando a 469 kmh e con 260 kg di carburante. Il Re.2000 aveva un'autonomia superiore perché poteva arrivare a ben 460 kg di carburante (che, con 640 litri di capacità, significa circa un peso specifico di 0,72), il che ci darebbe, a parità di velocità (difficile dato il carico extra): circa 950 km (posto che, con 200 kg extra, potesse ancora fare 469 kmh, il che è impossibile perché il peso doveva essere compensato in qualche modo). Ma ci dice anche dell'altro: che il consumo orario del Re.2000 era di 538 km/ 469 kmh= 226 kg di carburante/h a 469 kmh. Per questo, il raggio che avrebbe potuto garantire a tale velocità sarebbe stato (460 kmh, stesso livello della potenza motore, ma con peso aumentato) pari a circa 700 kg: 226 kg/h x 460 kmh, ovvero circa 1.500 km, consumando fino all'ultima goccia di benzina. Per arrivare a 3.000 km avrebbe dovuto quindi avere altri 700 kg di carburante extra (troppo per continuare a fare 460 kmh), oppure scegliere una velocità di crociera straordinariamente economica, al limite dello stallo e forse nemmeno questo sarebbe bastato, perché se avesse dovuto volare a 3.000 km di distanza, con 1.000 litri/700 kg di carburante, avrebbe dovuto scegliere un 'settaggio' del motore tale da fargli consumare un niente. A mio avviso, 2.000 km sarebbero già stati una notizia: in fondo perché no, il GA apparentemente aveva solo il 50% di carburante extra, e per raggiungere i 2.000 km di distanza avrebbe dovuto per esempio, volare 6 ore a 330 kmh, consumando giusto 120 kg/h (il che è verosimile, se controlli le leggi dell'attrito, con la resistenza che aumenta al quadrato rispetto alla velocità, per passare da 330 a 460 kmh devi idealmente quasi raddoppiare la potenza e quindi passi da 120 a 230 kg/h).

Una cosa ancora: non sottovalutare i caccia americani solo perché a te sembrano rottami. I P-40, secondo la tua opinione, sono ferrivecchi. Anche molti storici americani la pensano così, Joe Baugher e Joe Brennan, per esempio li considerano 'mediocre fighters'. Ma il P-40 aveva quel tipo di qualità che -quando le si vuole sfruttare- possono causare problemi a chiunque. Ai sovietici, per esempio, piacevano molto, ma non è solo questo. E' che il P-40, indiscutibilmente troppo pesante per il suo motore, era pur sempre un cattivo cliente, robusto e maneggevole, con quelle micidiali M2 Browning sempre pronte a sbriciolare quel che gli si parasse contro. Tu dirai, ma in Africa vennero massacrati in quantità. Vero, ma ricorda sempre il contesto strategico: i P-40 facevano molta aria-terra, spesso i piloti erano più attenti a questo che altro. I Bf-109 e C.202 potevano piombargli addosso da quote maggiori e colpirli con precisione. Ma i P-40, con validi piloti e giuste tattiche, si dimostravano temibili per quasi qualunque avversario. Ovviamente è un'esagerazione, ma se vedi i racconti che puoi trovare in siti come www.p-40.com effettivamente qualcosa di vero c'é. Sul sito www.russianbattlefields.ru o qualcosa del genere c'era anche un'intervista ad un pilota sovietico che lodava i P-40. Diceva che dal suo aereo avevano rimosso tutte le armi eccetto che due mitragliatrici. L'intervistatore chiedeva 'ma erano sufficienti?' e il pilota 'più che sufficienti! Erano così potenti!'. Effettivamente, un P-40 ultima versione con solo 2 M2 poteva causare qualche problema, persino ai FW-190. Considera che il P-40N, nella configurazione iniziale 'pulita-pulita' faceva 608 kmh a 3.000 metri, il che significa che a quella quota era più veloce di circa 50 kmh rispetto al C.202 e una velocità comparabile a quella di C.205, Bf-109G e FW-190. Finché restava a bassa quota, era un cliente bruttissimo per chiunque. Che poi divenne presto così appesantito che la maggior parte delle sottoversioni stentava a fare 550 kmh anche senza bombe.. beh è vero. Ma che avrebbe fatto un C.202 con sei Breda e 600 kg di bombe?--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Macchi C.202
Re:May be you dont know or you forgot, with so many plane to take care of, but the improvement of the 202 compared to the MC.200 was not only the engine, but the much more streamlined and aerodymanic fuselage, so the quote is correct. Please do not delete it again--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Sorry, don't know what you mean? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that perhaps You dont know (sorry but it seems so) that the major improvements of the MC.202 (compared to the MC.200) were the new in-line engine and the NEW FUSELAGE. But dont worry, you cant know everything, the problem is when you delete contributs without kwoning exactly what are you doing... Best regards from Roma--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've got the wrong culprit, and please re-read your statements. You can't be that pompous?! FWiW, ...and your credentials again?? LOL Bzuk (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Nope, don't mean your personal credentials as a Wiki writer, but merely that your work appears to be entirely derived from sources that concentrate on the merits and exploits of wartime Italian aircraft. One of the most important aspects of historical research is to find diverse references, and also accept diverse opinions. Characterizing my contributions as not being knowledgeable also flies in the face of what the majority of my edits of your submissions represent, and that is merely "line editing" of grammar, syntax and format issues, not content. Making facetious comments such as "you can't know everything", "not knowing exactly what you are doing" are just plain silly, and I treat them with a "water off a duck's back" approach. FWiW, please note the following proviso, that appears on most Wikipedia pages: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * re: Credentials? You mean "Barnstars" and all that ridiculous stuff? No I dont have them, sorry! And I dont care about them... or You mean "books"? My "Credential" books are on the bibliography... and they are not only Italian books... it seems that here somedoby dont want to loose the chance to underestimate Italian aircraft, I start to consider it an "en wiki" habit... nothing new under the sun... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NO, you are wrong, sorry! YOU have ever read Sampson low guides? Please, have a look!!! How can you say that those sources treat better Italian aircraft? Those two important aviation historians (much more competent that you and - of course - me) write well (even too well for my opinion) about american-english airplanes. But not only, they write good things of Japanese, German, but even Soviet and French and Australian and Swedish aircraft, but when they deserve it, and they criticize heavily airplanes of all those air forces, Italian included... See my contributs about the Breda Ba 88 for instance...  and please note that I added some instances about the Macchi 202 defects at the end of the lead article, while you cant find anything similar about most of american and english planes, even the worst planes are not too much undervalued (See the Fairey Battle)... but we spoke many times about these things... and it is not useful as en wiki has this habit...  I am sorry for You but I will keep on writing on wikipedia until I see how badly are writtne many articles... and please explain all these "Fwwiw" and similar words, I dont understand them. God forgive us...--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please leave God out of this?! (LOL= Laughing out loud, at a comment taken as a joke, hopefully!!) For What it's Worth (not much, as my opinion is simply my opinion), I am sure he is too busy to spend any time on our worldly concerns. Be cognizant that your efforts to "set the record straight" and to fight "major demons", are considered the attributes of a Tendentious editor. Your claims to make Wikipedia "more useful," and how many articles are "badly written" can only be taken at face value, that is, you are not clear on the concept of the Wikipedia project. It is not a singular or independent project taken on by an individual but the creation of a comprehensive reference source like the Wikipedia encyclopedia is the global effort of many contributors. Your facility with the English language notwithstanding, much of your informal commentary shows a lack of comprehension of the everyday idioms and useage of the language, and that can be understandable as my ability in Italian would only stem from poorly framed translation that you would find equally incomprehensible, such as your comment about "God". Keep at the work but remember that others may not see the same overriding issues about Italian aircraft as you do. FWiW, my 2¢. Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * my 2¢... What does it mean this "my 2¢"? I know that my english is bad, that's why I am trying to buy english written books... I have ordered almost everything is on the market aboout WWII aircraft. About the eventual intolerance of other contributors... they should respect the rules, right? If a sentence has a reference, why they should remove it? Only if it breaks the rules... There are the rules for them, right? You know, I would like to avoid all this work and concentrate on my books... I dont like to write in english that is not my language so sometimes I cant explain well... I say that some articles are not well written because they seem to me not enough balanced... Honestly, can You tell me that - before my overriding contriguts - the articles about Italian aircraft were balanced and acknowledged ( I dont know if the verb is correct) the qualities (sometimes outstanding) that (some) Italian planes had? Honestly, please.--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2¢ comment is derived from an old adage that opinions can be worth about that amount or 2¢ worth. As to submissions being challenged there is a need to balance or provide context although it can lead to issues of WP:WEIGHT or just how much information provided weighs the balance in one way or another. The wartime Italian aircraft articles in which you have concentrated your work, like every Wikipedia article come under scrutiny by a host of editors who have an interest in aviation topics. One of the main drawbacks in drawing parallels with the Italian aircraft in World War II was that many types had a short production run and subsequently an abbreviated combat history. A variety of reasons can be attributed as to why there is not more coverage of the topics but for example, these two types: Macchi C.202 on English Wikipedia: 50 kilobytes, on Italian Wikipedia: 44 kilobytes, Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 on English Wikipedia: 66 kilobytes, on Italian Wikipedia: 45 kilobytes, show that the coverage of Italian combat aircraft from that era is more than adequate. Making sweeping statements about their capability however referenced, leads to the issue of WP:Peacock. FWiW, remember, not much... BTW (by the way), I was also a high school teacher. Bzuk (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Qualitative analysis of the various types in combat is a difficult area to address as much more than just the aircraft is involved. That is one reason that the Wikipedia aircraft articles tend to stay away from that type of judgment because it delves into the area of "fanboy" (excessive fan worship of an object, event or person) adoration of one aircraft type over another. See the recent brouhaha over the Eurofighter Typhoon compared to the Lockheed F-22 Raptor; the arguments quickly devolve into "my plane is better than yours" diatribes, even complete with references. Staying with objective and factual data eliminates this type of conjecture. As to writing, I became an author after working as a high school librarian, and retiring after a heart operation at the age of 57 (we can choose early retirement at 55 with a bit of loss of benefits). I then began to work as an aviation writer (10 books, dozens upon dozens of articles), filmmaker (13 films as screenwriter, technical consultant and director) and then began work as a training coordinator and executive director of an aviation trade organization, a post I am presently leaving (we taught up to 1,000 students annually on flight safety courses). FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC).

Franco Lucchini
Hi Gian, a pleasure to hear from you again: I see your problem - I see the article also has a Clostermann, a Hartmann and a Litvyak! I would suggest that you create a page titled (for example) Franco Lucchini (Regia Aeronautica officer): if you look up "Johnnie Johnson" for example, you will go to a disambiguation page because there is more than one "Johnnie Johnson" on Wikipedia - by adding the sub-title (RAF officer) the link is automatically directed to the right person. Hope this helps Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: My brother and his wife, who live in Sydney, Australia, are going on an extended holiday to Italy starting September 1. ENVYENVYENVY Never mind, study comes first...*sigh*.

Yerkaterina Budanova
Hi Gian piero; yep, if that photo is not Budanova it should be taken off straight away; hopefully a photo of the REAL Budanova can be found to take its place. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fw 190
Hi Gian. Thank you for the information. I have moved them to the evaluation section on the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history article as they are much better suited there. Thanks again. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

D.520 and Gorrini
Senti, non vorrei essere sgarbato, ma non è che tu stai 'sterzando' un pò troppo verso la pubblicità-proitaliana? Gorrini sugli aerei francesi che ha portato in Italia, diceva 'è come paragonare un triciclo (i nostri) ad una Ferrari (i loro)'. Da dove salta fuori questo discorso sul fatto che il D.520 era meglio del C.200 solo in armamento? (cosa falsa). A questo punto a chi credere, alla nostra intelligenza, oppure a Gorrini(=))? Ritorniamo al discorso sugli abbattimenti che i perfidi angloamericani hanno negato alla R.A., che non si è accorta di avere vinto la guerra? Ti saluto. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Anche se hai fornito la 'fonte', questo potrebbe essere ancora un undue weight, non puoi cavartela semplicemente mettendo le fonti che più ti aggradano, ti è già stato spiegato, mi pare. Giampiero, io comincio seriamente (non da adesso!) a sospettare che tu abbia troppo a cuore le PR per l'aeronautica italiana. Quanto al D.520, c'é scritto questo e c'é scritto quello, in buono e cattivo. Devo ricordarti che nel 1940 i Macchi 200 facevano notizia sopratutto per le autorotazioni che avevano, uccidendo i loro piloti? Mentre ai nostri piloti, al contrario, il D.520 piaceva per come uscisse rapidamente dalla vite. Quindi cerchiamo di non fare i faziosi, e di portare acqua al proprio mulino. Sai benissimo o dovresti sapere che il D.520 era: 1-più veloce (530 km/h, più o meno come il Re.2000), 2- aveva maggiore tangenza operativa (11.000 metri), -3e che aveva maggiore autonomia (620 litri, 1.500 km circa), quindi almeno in altre tre cose era superiore. Non parliamo poi del cruscotto e dell'impianto radio che era standard fin dal 1940. Quindi quella dichiarazione di Gorrini non descriveva la realtà e sarebbe il caso di dirlo, oltre ad essere chiaramente in disaccordo con se stesso, visto che nelle interviste Gorrini ha anche detto Il morale era molto alto. Credevamo inoltre di averci degli aerei validi, ma quando abbiamo cominciato a vedere cosa aveva il nemico, in questo caso la Francia, parlo dei Dewotine e dei Morane, ci dovemmo ricredere. Io poi ho conosciuto quelle macchine in seguito, quando mi recai in Francia a prendere alcuni loro aeroplani che erano rimasti al Governo di Vichy (cominciavamo a scarseggiare dei nostri ed avevamo bisogno di tutto). Era come paragonare un triciclo ad una Ferrari... http://www.italia-rsi.org/farsianr/gorrini.htm.  Poi, se Gorrini un giorno dice X e il giorno Y, allora a maggior ragione non c'é da fidarsi.  E tu, faresti meglio a non cedere alla tentazione di curare così l'immagine degli aerei italiani: questo non è un sito fanzine, è un'enciclopedia, possibile che ancora non l'abbia capito? A proposito, non ho sentito alcun 'grazie' per le pagine che ti ho postato sul Re.2000. Forse non ti sono arrivate per mail, o forse quel che c'era scritto non collimava con la tua visione del mondo e del Re.2000? Anche Malizia è inattendibile? (=)). A proposito, con riferimento a quanto scritto sopra, guarda che anche i C.205 vennero abbattuti in quantità dai P-51, o dai P-47, come accadde a Giulio Torresi il 1 luglio 1944, abbattuto assieme ad altri quattro dai Thunderbolt che non ebbero alcuna perdita pur distruggendo tre G.55 e due C.205. Cose che capitano. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

Even if you quoted the source, that could still be an undue weight, you can’t get away with it putting the sources that you like more, they alreay explain it to you, it seems to me, Gian Piero. I seriously start (not now!) to suspect that you have at heart the PRs for Italian Air Force. Regarding to the D.520, there is written that and this, good and bad. I have to remember you that the Macchi 200 were famed mostly for the autorotations, that killed our pilots? While our pilots, on the contrary, liked how the D.530 got out easily from spin. SO let’s try not to be biased, and to make your interest. You know very well, or should know it, that the D.520 was: 1- faster (530 km/h, more or less how the  Re.2000), 2 – it had a higher ceiling (11,000 meters), - 3 and had a longer range (620 liters, about 1,500 km ), so in at least three things it was superior. Let’s not talk about the dashboard and the radio equipment, that was standard since 1940. That quote of Gorrini do not represent reality and it should be said. Moreover he disagrees with himself, as in another interview he said also: ''Moral was high. We believed to have valid aircraft, but when we saw what the French had, I am speaking of the Dewotine e dei Morane, I had to think differently. I could appreciate those machines when I went in France to ferry some of their planes that were still in force of the Vichy government.. It was like to compare a tricyle to a Ferrari...'' http://www.italia-rsi.org/farsianr/gorrini.htm. Then, if Gorrini one day says X and the following day says Y, well, that makes him even less reliable, and you should not trust him. So you should not be tempeted to care so much about the look of Italian aircraft, this is not a fanzine, but an aenciclopedya, is it possible that you still don’t understand it? By the way, I still have not thanked me for the pages that I sent you of the Re.2000. Maybe you have not received them or what was written in there did not fit your visione of life and of the Re.2000? Even Malizia is not reliable? By the way, consider that a number too of C.205s were shot down by P-51s and P-47s; it happened to Giulio Torresi on 1st of July 1944, when he was shot down along with four more ANR pilots, by Thunderbolts that had no losses, while destroying three G.55 and C.205. It happens, sometime. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Ciao. Bene, GP, pare che tu abbia esaurito il tuo credito di 'buona fede'. La mia impressione è quanto sopra, e ci siamo capiti. Dal momento che sospetto che tu abbia solo un'agenda personale, e che non pare tu capisca la questione, adesso farò così: mi controllo i tuoi edit, specialmente quelli sugli aerei italiani e affini. Oramai l'idea che ho è che tu non sia particolarmente interessato a rispettare un'enciclopedia come tale, e che editi per tuo interesse con notevole livello di 'spinning'. Questo non è accettabile. Ora mi vado a guardare le cose che tu hai postato e 'referenziato' e vediamo cosa trovo. Sì lo so, sto editando in italiano e questa è un'enciclopedia in inglese. Ma voglio essere solo sicuro che tu abbia capito di cosa stiamo parlando. Da quello che mi posti nella mia talk, a dire il vero, pare proprio di no.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No GPM, i am only be sure that you don't fill with NNPOV or unbalanced stuff wikipedia articles. Such, as example, to cite air victories 'claimed' without a cross-checking of 'the other side': it's too easy to claim 'today we shoot down 30 planes', but what about if 'the other side' claims 'today we lost only two planes and shot down ten'. If you quote the first, then you should quote the second as well, or the reader will be 'confused' (what a greaat fighter Macchi/Fiat/Reggiane was!! Wow, it shot down 17 Spitfire for two losses, oh wait... perhaps they 'claim' to have shot down 17 Spitfire but really had two losses?). Do you understand? And don't threat me. Have a nice day.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And please, instead of scream that i am 'wasting' your edits, try to answer properly to the above mentioned FACTS. That is not exactly call to burn me. RegardsStefanomencarelli (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Yes, GP, but we are here especially to find out what BOTH sides say, right? I don't use one-side stuff, this should be an heavy error. Do you talk about overclaiming, right. But:


 * 11 november 1940, RA claimed ten kills over Britain =none ever found in RAF sources; 23 nov, CR claimed five or six more while loosing two, but RAF didn't suffered any losses
 * 20 feb 41, RA claimed 10 kills vs Gladiators= none ever found in RAF sources. RAF claimed three, one G.50 was effectively lost
 * 4 sept 1941, C.200 claimed in two battles over Malta, something like 21(!!)RAF Hurricanes and Beaufighters, while losing three. Only two Hurricanes were lost.
 * 10 May 1942, RE.2001 and C.202 claimed 9 over Malta, in fact, none was lost, but RAF shot down two italians
 * mid June 1942, during Harpoon, RE.2001s fought a battle and claimed 11 Sea Hurricanes (out of 12 really present in the air!!), losing one. Only one Hurricane was shot down (1:1), even if another crashed on landing (but this cannot be a 'confirmed kill', since happened 20 minuts later!)
 * 20 Apr. 1943: RA claimed 15 Spitfire, none confirmed, while suffering 3 losses
 * 3 August 1943: RA claimed 11-12 P-38, while losing 1 C.202, but USAAF suffered 0 losses.

So we have: 10+5+21+9+11+15+12= 83 air victories, while RAF/USAF lost effectively 3!! Those evil anglo-americans. Only about these combats, there are rougly 2-3% of all italian claims. RAF/USAF claimed overall 20-30 victories, but RA effectively lost (only shot down and crash-landed during the fight) 16. So: RA claimed 83:16, Allied claimed 20-30:3, the real score was 16:3. Is it marginal to you? I think it's not! Well, G.50 is a better article now, even if i did not delete any of your editing. Have a good dayStefanomencarelli (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Ok, it seems that you are particularly interested to 'trim' your articles, shitxxg D.520 and whetever 'threats' your beloved Macchis (Hurricanes, P-40, Spitfires, ecc. ecc.).. So i am an 'autolesionistic' guy, that don't like 'my land'? Once i wrote 1 MB of stuff about Savoias, Macchis, Fiats, and whetever else, and nobody asked to me to do so. Now i have an 'autolesionistic taste'^?? Oh, so? I shall remember to you, that IF S.79 have HERE a better and bigger page, than wikipedia.it, this is due to me (2007, when S.79 in Italian was 10-15 kb)? Shall i remember to you that once i defended you from critics here? And you now can insult me with your statements? Oh, i am a 'motherland traitor'.. Perhaps you confuse an ENCYCLOPEDIA with a FANZINE. All your answers about any argument i asked to you, were/are higly evasive. It's not enough to 'post sources', and i'll not repeat myself. Why you are so interested to find out (negative) stuff about D.520s, while you don't post instead Malizia book in RE.2000? Is him an 'autolesionist'? Well, then you don't be surprised, but since now i'll take a look of your contributions, and i'll re-balanced them when i'll see them 'too much Italy-friendly'. This is not to delete the things you write, on the contrary, this is simply to add stuff that you are not interested to post. And if you was really capable to understand this, then you'll appreciate that i wrote about the downing of Smudgeon Smith by a G.50. I can not write this and bye-bye, instead i rated to be honest to write about Smith's downing as well. So please, don't make me laugh about your anti-patriotic accuses. Have a good day.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is getting a little overheated is it not? One reason direct comparisons and descriptions of air-to-air combat is being actively discouraged in various articles is for this very reason: that there will be endless claims and counter claims being made about how many aircraft were actually lost, versus claims made in good faith, but in the heat of combat, by pilots who cannot see everything that is happening around them. Gian Piero I am surprised! Accusing another editor of being an unpatriotic traitor because he chooses to remain neutral towards Italian aircraft and combat claims of the RA is beneath you. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Messerschmitt Me 262, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ( Hohum @ ) 22:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Litvyak claims
Hmmm, if there are problems with whether Litvyak made any claims on July 31 it would be better to remove it, unless some evidence can be found - citing a webpage isn't really good enough.Minorhistorian (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tommaso Dal Molin
Hi Gian Piero, there isn't an article yet on one of the greatest Italian aviators, would you like to collaborate on its creation? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

talk page accident
Somehow your name got appended to a coarse threat made by an anonymous user on the Brutaldeluxe talk page. I realize it's not your post, but it might cause some confusion in the future. It is immediately above your last post to Brutaldeluxe and is struck out. I just thought you should be aware of this unfortunate accident.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Marseille
Hello Gian

I don't think it is a good idea just to include any bits of information for the sake of it. The sources seem a little flaky. It generalises too much, and I think any pilot that is about to be shot down would feel helpless. So I don't think it is a point you can apply to Marselle's victims alone. I also think that far too much weight is given to the effect of Marseille on morale. Most Desert Air Force personnel had never heard of Marseille until after the war, and their morale was always high, even though they got the worst equipment in the entire RAF until June 1942.

Can this citation be merged into another paragraph so it is not wasted? Dapi89 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tate, Robert. Hans-Joachim Marseille: An Illustrated Tribute to the Luftwaffe's "Star of Africa" . Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 2008. ISBN 978-0-76432-940-1. Page 100:


 * "Marseille in Theatre How well was Marseille known to DAF personnel in the Desert? Apparently not so well. Although there is little indication that some Allied pilots may of heard of Marseille, this information did not readily make its way down to Allied Squadrons. Fanciful stories abound of how pilots knew of one another and hoped to duel each other in the skies. This was more than likely not the case"


 * This is probably how things were. Though a communiqué was allegedly issued instructions on how to deal with a pilot called 'Marseille'. Tate seems to be unsure about the truth of its existence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding Gian. I'm not sure, sometimes with these subjects it is rumour vs counter rumour and noone is really any the wiser once all the sources have been seen. I think this might be such an occassion. I thought that it might be better to reinsert your edit somewhere else. So I added it here where it better serves the article. Dapi89 (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Aviation Historian Dan Ford
Since you have doubts over the scholarship attributed to Dan Ford and have inserted "dubious" and "verifiable?" labels in the Brewster F2A Buffalo article, I have removed them and acting upon "B-R-D" (Bold-Revert-Discuss), invite your comments on the article talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Your book
Re: (Copy/edit from my home talk page) "Good morning, excuse me, you are much more experienced than me: as my first novel is going to be released next 20 November (a literature book, not aviation's), is is possible to quote it in my personal page os it if forbidden? Maybe without writing the title? Moreover, I do not understand what you wrote about the picture of the Tiger in the Sturmovik page AGF? What is it? (Is is possible to use pictures of other articles and to copy them for other pages, f.i. in pilot's page, yes? Thanks in advance.)"
 * Giano, first of all, congratulations! Having your first book published is always a wonderful event, and there is no reason for you NOT to proclaim the news in whatever place you choose, your Facebook page, your Twitter, your MySpace, and your Wikipedia Home Page. As to the other question, the WikiAircraft Project group has discouraged the use of ANY galleries, and instead has been promoting the use of WikiCommons photographs for a consistent location for additional images. As to using a picture of a tank in a gallery on the Il-2, why not a picture of a Bf 109 which shot down the Il-2 in great numbers, a picture of Moscow, where Il-2s were stationed, and so on. The use of what I felt was an "unrelated" image or at least one that didn't make a clear connection to the Il-2 although I agree it made a good "target" is what also struck me as unnecessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

Erwin Mayer... or Meyer or Maier or whatever;)
Re: The Litvyak article. As you are obviously very knowledgeable about WW2, I find it strange that the statement '3 times recipient of the Iron Cross' doesn't immediately bother you. Iron Crosses were awarded in the order 2nd class, then 1st class. After that Luftwaffe aces were (usually) awarded the German cross in silver and gold before being awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross followed by it's various higher orders. Just because a printed/published book or source states something does not mean that it is factually correct. In particular this is a well known phenomena in Russian sources! The USSR regularly lied about the achievements of many of its soldiers/sailors/airmen in the interests of propaganda, so the fact that a statement like '3 times recipient of the iron cross' as quoted from the publication by Amy Goodpaster-Strebe about Soviet Airwomen doesn't surprise me in the least. She may well have been quoting a source of her own that may have been propagandistic, or unreliable, or may have gone through several translations, or may have been shortened for brevity. The fact remains however that that statement is confusing, inaccurate/incorrect and therefore brings the accuracy of the rest of the article into question. That is why I feel the 'clarification needed' tag should be there and should stay until someone can find some source that will clarify what your source meant. Ciao my friend! 1812ahill (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)



Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reggiane 2000 or Heja?
Copyedit from my talk page: Dear Bzuk, how are You? I need Your help: 1) The Transylvania crisis seemed to lead to a conflict between Hungary and Romania, but the conflict did not exploded... how to say it? :)2) In 1943-1944 the Reggiane 2000 producted on licence, in fact the Hejas, were still used in combat, even against American bombers... shall I write these informations on the page of the Reggiane or on that of the Heja, or on both? That is the question(s)... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, include the information on both articles as the aircraft variants were both in use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Vozdushni Voiski Dewoitines
Not enough there, sorry. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC); for a rough measure of "more than a stub", see Felixstowe F5L, an article I just expanded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Sorry, misunderstood, I thought you wanted to create a sub-article, not a sub-section- no, go ahead, there's engough information for a new section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Battle of France
Hi Gian.

I have request concerning the above campaign. Do you have any sources regarding Italian losses from Italian-language sources? Dapi89 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gian. Very interesting. But I meant casualties of Italian ground forces. I should have made that clearer in my initial request. But now you mention it, any air loss information would be greatly appreciated as well. Dapi89 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Chianti Raiders
Hallo Gian Piero: I've just bought a book The Chianti Raiders which is an account of the Regia Aeronautica's contribution to the Battle of Britain - on first reading it takes a balanced point of view and describes events from the perspective of the Italian airmen as well as British civilians and airmen: as far as I know this is one of the few B of B books which deals with the Italians. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Soviet airwomen
Hi Gian; It would really depend on whether your book has been published by a reputable third-party publisher or has been funded and published by you. Two places to look up on Wikipedia policy which may help: Self-published book and Independent publishing. The problem is that there are many self-published books which are excellent sources of information, it's just that Wikipedia has not been able to develop a policy which acknowledges the fact. As an author himself Bzuk should be of more help than me. All the best Minorhistorian (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: A book well worth reading Italy's Sorrow: James Holland which deals honestly with the last year of the war in Italy.


 * Gian, wikipedia probably will not allow you to quote yourself. But if you were to be quoted by another person, well that would be a different matter......and well within the rules. Dapi89 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Giano, there is a way to use your own material and that is precisely the way that Dapi89 suggests. You work with another editor and rather than submitting your own work, the other editor will verify and selectively quote from your publication. It has happened before on Wikipedia but it does require some coordination. When I was looking at the same dilemma, I worked specifically with an administrator so that all contributions were carefully vetted. Good luck. FWiW, there are a number of admins who have a background in aviation history that may be of help:
 * Airplaneman
 * Akradecki
 * CambridgeBayWeather
 * Maury Markowitz
 * MilborneOne
 * Mjroots
 * MoRsE
 * Rlandmann Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
 * I volunteer for that. Of course Gianpiero would have to send me a copy! (As a skint student I can't afford to buy it!) Mayor of Yurp (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have much on them, but if you remind me Gian, I have some basic stuff from Bergstrom that may help as well. At least it will make the bibliography more impressive if you are stuggling for sources. Dapi89 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Gian, the follwoing I have handy:
 * . ISBN 978-1-85780-270-2.
 * . ISBN 978-1-85780-276-4.
 * . ISBN 978-1-903223-88-8.

I also have Black Cross, Red Star, but it has gone for a walkabout at the moment. Dapi89 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention I also have Bergstrom's Bargration to Berlin volume as well. Dapi89 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no easy answer to that question. According to Toliver and Constable, Hartmann's log book indicated 16 Yak 1s between the 1-9 August 1943. However, a combat report of the 1 August 1943 readily identifies a Soviet Yak 7, shot down on 1 August - his 244th sortie and his 44th air victory. Other, less reliable sources give the type as LaGG 3. Dapi89 (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to be able to give you an answer Gian. Unfortunately I can give no indication on who Hartmann's victims were in the combats of 1 August 1943. If your sources say that it was not Hartmann's gruppe - at least they were not in that battle - then I think on the balance of probability is that it was not Hartmann. Dapi89 (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good for you. Sorry I could not be of help. If you find out, let me know as I'm interested. Viel Glück. Dapi89 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gian. Good work! May I ask how you found your information, or is your source confidential for any reason? Is it primary or a secondary source? Do you know what happened to Merkle? I'm sorry I can't help with those figures, they don't mean much to me. Are they coordinates of some kind? Are they Soviet or German figures? Perhaps it relates to an army sector in the vicinity instead of established longitude latitude pattern? Dapi89 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder, if 88 267 does not relate to the German 88th Infantry divisions 267 Regiment. I know the 88th was deployed in the Southern Ukraine in the autumn, 1943 and fought during the withdrawal to Kiev. It was eventually destroyed at Cherkassy. I don't know if the 267th was attached to it at the time, or if it was ever attached. It is just a stab in the dark. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. So they are definately Luftwaffe, as opposed to Heer coordinates. I hadn't understood that you meant Luftwaffe figures. I don't know about pictures, you would have to look around. Maybe you could ask Misterbee1966. He would no more about that. Dapi89 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

et voila!
You appear to be cited at Lydia_Litvyak. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and at Yekaterina_Budanova. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Valentina Grizodubova‎ The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * New article: Nadezhda Popova. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * New article: Raisa Vasil'evna Beliaeva. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Kursk
You maybe interested in a new book Air Wars Over Kursk: Turning Point in the East. I was skeptical at first, as its author Dmitriy Khazanov, tried to discredit Erich Hartmann's record with shoddy research. But its okay, and worth the cheap prices. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note
Gian,

I picked this up on my travels. It may help you in your crusade;

Timofeeva-Egorova, A Red Sky, Black Death: A Soviet Woman Pilot's Memoir of the Eastern Front.

Certainly for people more interested the human experience of being an airwoman/man. Dapi89 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited CANT Z.506, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AOC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Gian. When you edited CANT Z.506, you created a link to AOC. Click on it; it isn't an article. The bot is asking you, what does AOC stand for? (I couldn't figure it out myself.) If you let me know, I'll fix the article so you can see how this is done. Cheers, -- Ja Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 01:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 92 Squadron RAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heliopolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Season's Greetings and welcome to 2013
Hi Gian Piero,

All the best to you and yours for 2013, and congratulations for completing your book on Soviet airwomen. Cheers ◆ Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk   11:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lockheed P-38 Lightning
You have heard of WP:BRD, I'm sure. Take your proposed text to the talk page and get consensus for it. Do not continue to put it into the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Fiat CR.42 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Agram, Stab, Gorica, Staffel and Grabovica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565538666 your edit] to List of World War II flying aces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * | Vladimir Bobrov || Soviet Union  || Soviet Air Force || 43 || —
 * ] || 16 (+32 ground, alone or shared) + 1 in Spanish Civil War - Biplane top scoring ace in WWII || —

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592397936 your edit] to List of World War II flying aces may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * | Vladimir Bobrov || Soviet Union  || Soviet Air Force || 43 || —
 * | Guido Fibbia || Italy || Regia Aeronautica || 6 (+ 3 Spanish Civil War) || —

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teresio Vittorio Martinoli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teresio Vittorio Martinoli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594795495 your edit] to Macchi C.202 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * with S.79s), and it was planned to use Folgores also as 'Mistel', with an AR.4 "radiobomba" a sort of remote-control kamikaze bomber.

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macchi C.202, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Teresio Vittorio Martinoli
Frank Collin, even when writing as Frank Joseph, is simply not a reliable source. See for instance the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. If you think he is you can join in the discussion there. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures on wikipedia
In response to your question about posting a photograph on Wikipedia, the simplest way is to go to the tools menu on the left side of the screen, and select "Upload file". Choose a way to upload the file from a source, using either the "File Upload Wizard" or one of the other options. Once you identify the photograph as a public domain image, it will be available for use on Wikipedia or the Commons. If you need more help, I will upload an example and go through the process with you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Send the image to me via email (you will find the link on my home page) and I will post it for your friend. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiat CR.42, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drenova (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiat CR.42, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages No. 94 Squadron and No. 80 Squadron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically List of World War II flying aces, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, I have used only pictures that have already been used on other article of the same type, I do no know you gives you the authority to interfere in others' work

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a matter of policy, the usage of non-free files is very limited. Usage in List of World War II flying aces isnt allowed. Werieth (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at List of World War II flying aces, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No comment

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pattle
Hi Gian, I hoped after editing Wikipedia all these years your English would have improved. Your message doesn't really make sense. I have already addressed your additions on the article talk page. There are three main reasons as to why I had to take them all out. I put in a table about his claims. All aspects of over claiming should be there, not dumped at the end of paragraphs (and you had left a number uncovered by citations). Secondly the format was also wrong. I've dragged this article up to Good article status and had to jump through hoops (as usual) to get it there. So I didn't appreciate it when you used improper methods of citing your work. If you wish to cite websites, copy the format that is already there. That brings me neatly to the quality of the source you are using. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/commonwealth_pattle.htm is not a reliable source. It has numerous errors in the biographies. More to the point, you say in some edits that "other historians" noted bouts of over claiming. This website is not written by historians. In fact, we have no idea who wrote these biographies and where they get there information because there are no in-line citations. The home page says that Håkan Gustavsson put the website together. But we have no proof of that, which is precisely why we should use published sources. We should also bare in mind that not all of Pattle's claims are known with complete accuracy because his Squadron's records were lost in April 1941. We can only produce a list from multiple sources. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gian, the article is impartial. In fact, it says many times, including the example you use, that often RAF claims did not match the records of the Italian air forces. That is a perfectly acceptable way to say it. No where in this article does it say that those 27 claims were ever verified. It is clear that they were not in line with what Italian records claim. Dapi89 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gian, the paragraph starts with On 4 March 1941, Pattle claimed three enemy Fiat G.50bis fighters, so that defeats your complaint the writing treats these as certain kills. Further, Pattle saw both of these aircraft crash. The second battle was a one-versus-one situation. It is impossible for a pilot to mistakenly see an aircraft nose into the sea. He did, or he didn't, and since Pattle is not a proven liar, we have to believe he did. Do these people, these writers (they're not actually historians) actually discuss the possibility, that like the Germans, Italian forces at that time were less than honest, or diligent in their record keeping? I have examples of Luftwaffe and Regia records swearing they suffered no losses in some battles, yet they would struggle to explain why and how several of those Italian and German participants came to end up in British custody in the midst of them. Dapi89 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gian, you're still failing to grasp the point. The best you can say, is that German and Italian records claim that they suffered no losses. In their case, dishonesty, lost papers, and inefficiency were also at work. A pilot doesn't mistake the wing coming off an enemy aircraft. German and Italian records are not definitive proof. And it is not as if they have been ignored in this article. Dapi89 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Gian, I don't believe you're that naïve. The former Axis nations have produced their own official histories of the war. Dapi89 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jagdgeschwader 27, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leck. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have corrected, thanks

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Greco-Italian War. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''I already gave you a final warning on Talk:Greco-Italian War for implying that I vandalise the article. As I explained on the article talkpage, on Wikipedia, this is considered a personal attack. But today you came back with more insinuations of vandalism. You simply have to understand that this is not OK on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am leaving this official final warning on your talk, as a record of your attacks at Talk:Greco-Italian War. '' Dr.   K.  18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see any personal attack, so to me it is better to put the question in the hands of an admin "super partes". When I wrote If you delete, as you have already tried to do in the Greek aviation article, a useful contribution of mine with a reliable source, this is vandalism and I will be asking for a block of your profile if you continue to do so, wikipedia is not your private garden. I was referring to your deletion of this contribute of mine in the article about "Hellenic Air Force" that I had to put back in the article : << On 30 October, two days after the start of the war, there was the first air battle. Some Henschel Hs126s of 3/2 Flight of 3 Observation Mira took off to locate Italian Army columns. But they were intercepted and attacked by Fiat CR.42s of 393a Squadriglia. A first Henschel was hit and crashed, killing its observer, Pilot Officer Evanghelos Giannaris, the first Greek aviator to die in the war. A second Hs 126 was downed over Mount Smolikas, killing Pilot Officer Lazaros Papamichail and Sergeant Constantine Yemenetzis.[4]>> . Regards

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice about the Balkans
Dr.  K.  18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansaldo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Article request
Hi. I've been looking for multilingual WWII buffs for a while in hopes of expanding Soviet aviation content on other Wikipedias. Do you think you can write an Italian-language Wikipedia article for Amet-khan Sultan? Thanks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Formatting
Hi again. I saw your edits to Zoya Parfyonova and noticed a couple of formatting mistakes. Here at English Wikipedia, the Bibliography section is supposed to go below the "references" section. Each "cite book" template in the bibliography section should have the "|ref=harv" parameter, and the SFN template should be used. For example, instead of putting in " ", it should be " ". Also, please see this difference as an example of how spaces between words and citations are needed, as well as how copy-editing machine-translated text is nessesary. If you have any questions about how a translated sentence should be fixed, citation formatting, wikitext, or anything like that, please feel free to ask me.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe Cenni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augusta ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Giuseppe_Cenni check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Giuseppe_Cenni?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)