Austro-Hungarian Aircraft for Flying Circus?

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Airborne2001 said:

Nice info! So this settles it then, the G.I should generally be avoided in favor of other lighter bomber designs (both naval and land-based). Perhaps it could be a collector for a much later date, but with the other planes we might be good by that point.

Part of me wants the Aviatik (von Mises) Gr.I or even the Lloyd LK.I 40.08...

Anyway, please push back on any part of the plane list - it encourages additional research and clarifying potential issues. For instance, if I hadn't been encouraged to pay more attention to the UFAG C.I - I likely wouldn't have realised that there isn't evidence that the Aviatik (Berg) C.I carried bombs (much like the Italian SAML S.2 or the French Nieuport N.12 - it appears these were largely used as observers and escort fighters)!

[Airborne2001]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Part of me wants the Aviatik (von Mises) Gr.I or even the Lloyd LK.I 40.08...

Anyway, please push back on any part of the plane list - it encourages additional research and clarifying potential issues. For instance, if I hadn't been encouraged to pay more attention to the UFAG C.I - I likely wouldn't have realised that there isn't evidence that the Aviatik (Berg) C.I carried bombs (much like the Italian SAML S.2 or the French Nieuport N.12 - it appears these were largely used as observers and escort fighters)!

Interesting that some of these designs did not carry bombs! That is for sure a major consideration. And yeah, some of these prototypes would be cool for sure, but alas we have to make do with what we have.

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Airborne2001 said:

Interesting that some of these designs did not carry bombs! That is for sure a major consideration. And yeah, some of these prototypes would be cool for sure, but alas we have to make do with what we have.

There was an order at one point in 1916 Germany that all observation flights over enemy lines also had to carry bombs for targets of opportunity. Early in the war the French tried massed bomber raids (Voisin III/V, Caudron G.IV), and late in the war the Entente had enough numerical superiority that they shifted more of their fleet towards bombing. As a result we tend to think of two-seaters as having a bombing capability.

However, observation was more important - and in some periods two-seaters were almost as fast (and were better armed) than single-seat designs - so there were multiple attempts to maximise their air combat capabilities. The Nieuport N.12, Hannover CL.II/CL.III, Junkers J.1, Rumpler C.VII - none of these carried bomb racks as standard either. That isn't to say that some two-seaters (Albatros J.2, Armoured Caudron G.IV variants, Voisin VIII, Hansa-Brandenburg C.I s.429) weren't primarily intended for ground attack, just that observation or even interception (including night fighting) were also important roles.

[Avimimus]

So, some slightly unfortunate news:

- I've yet to find cockpit references for the Macchi L.3/M.3. I've yet to find photographic evidence of the Macchi L.3/M.3 carrying a cannon.

- I do have partial cockpit photographs and cannon mountings for the Macchi L.1. However, by 1917 it was considered obsolete and was being replaced by the Macchi L.3/M.3 which had a superior power-to-weight ratio and speed (145 km/h vs. 105 km/h for the L.1) which could allow it to compete with the UFAG K (Hansa-Brandenburg FB).

Edit: In January/February of 1917 all but one of Venice's flying boats were all Macchi L.1 or FBA types. However, by June the L.1 have been replaced with L.3/M.3!

[catch]

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I've yet to find cockpit references for the Macchi L.3/M.3.

Maybe it's not too different from the M5 or perhaps identical. This site illustrates the M5 cockpit layout in 3d. I'm not sure how accurate it is or even if that is the thrust of your impeccable research but there you go for what it's worth.

MACCHI M5 - Cockpit - 3D model by gliarchiviritrovati (@gliarchiviritrovati) [3657346]

[Avimimus]

Above is a photo of an L.1 with what I suspect is a 37mm cannon and a Villars-Perosa twin-barrelled submachine gun (in addition to a pair of bombs). Ammunition for the cannon can be seen in three different racks. In at least one case a pair of these flying boats landed on the water and proceeded to surprise the Austro-Hungarians by sitting off the coast and extensively shelling the shore (before eventually escaping back into the air).

Below we have an L.3/M.3 which was extensively redesigned to save weight. The layout is the same but all of the details have changed and the design is more compact. With a mere ten additional horsepower it appears to have gained an additional 40 km/h in speed as a result. However, I have doubts that the cockpit has either the room or the strength to mount a cannon (instead we see a Hotchkiss mounted on the right side of the cockpit and a Villars-Perosa mounted on the left side of the cockpit:

14 hours ago, Catch said:

Maybe it's not too different from the M5 or perhaps identical. This site illustrates the M5 cockpit layout in 3d. I'm not sure how accurate it is or even if that is the thrust of your impeccable research but there you go for what it's worth.

MACCHI M5 - Cockpit - 3D model by gliarchiviritrovati (@gliarchiviritrovati) [3657346]

If it meant getting one of these aircraft - I'd be quite happy for the developers to make some educated guesses from related types! Others may feel differently.

That said, I've hardly exhausted all of the archival records for these types (I haven't even picked up the Windsock Datafile for the L.I - which would be a good start).

 

[catch]

Great stuff. Keep it coming. Flying boats over picturesque Northern Italy and the Adriatic Sea make for a compelling WW1 scenario. 

8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

In at least one case a pair of these flying boats landed on the water and proceeded to surprise the Austro-Hungarians by sitting off the coast and extensively shelling the shore (before eventually escaping back into the air).

And what a fantastic mission this would make when they remake the WW1 air war with a new title including a new theatre in a new engine. It almost feels Porco Rossoish. I feel your research is leading toward this. 🙂

[JollyJack]

If ever (?) some of the above planes get implemented the name of FC should be changed to Flying Crates. 

[Avimimus]

On 8/5/2026 at 11:47 PM, catch said:

Great stuff. Keep it coming. Flying boats over picturesque Northern Italy and the Adriatic Sea make for a compelling WW1 scenario. 

And what a fantastic mission this would make when they remake the WW1 air war with a new title including a new theatre in a new engine. It almost feels Porco Rossoish. I feel your research is leading toward this. 🙂

Thanks! I think so too. I'm at least mapping out what could be possible (and learning a lot in the process).

I've now processed the numbers for all Austro-Hungarian Aces (using the lists on https://theaerodrome.com). This isn't perfect - aircraft are often misidentified by pilots, shared kills means that the same aircraft can appear two or three times, and aircraft that were hard to intercept tend to be left out of the list (as fewer were shot down) - even if they were militarily effective and important designs. However, it does provide a basic answer to the question: 'What did skilled pilots think they were shooting at?'

We  get some interesting results:

- The type aces scored the most kills while flying was (unsurprisingly) the  Albatros (Oeffag) D.III with 212 kills. However, the second most important type is the Hansa-Brandenburg C.I - with aces scoring 106 kills while flying this type! The 'unsuccessful' Hansa-Brandenburg D.I follows with 66 kills - while the Phönix D.I and Aviatik (Berg) D.I only have about 20 kills each! Aces flying seaplanes scored about 22 kills with about half of these kills in single-seat types.

- Nieuport (N.11, N.17, N.27) are the most like likely single-seat opponent to be shot down by an Austro-Hungarian ace (66 kills), but the second most likely claim is a Sopwith Camel (31 kills), followed by Spads (27 across all types). The manoeuvrable Hanriot HD.1 accounts for a mere 12 claims - while the 'uninterceptibly fast' Ansaldos count for 8 claims!

- The most common Italian two-seater claimed is the Farman MF.11 (71 claims), with other pushers such as the SP.2/SP.3 derivative and the Voisin also contributing. Overall, 105 of the claims are against pusher designs. These make up a substantial portion of the Hansa-Brandenburg C.I and D.I (early 1917) kill claims.

- The most important tractor design claimed is the SAML S.1 (25 claims), and these are particularly common in Albatros (Oeffag) D.III claims (16 claimed), with the D.III claiming 51 tractor aircraft compared to only 14 pusher aircraft (showing how the mix of Italian aircraft had changed by the end of 1917). The Pomilio PE/PD appears to have been difficult to catch, with only five kills being claimed against it (four of which were claimed by the D.III).

- 32 bombers (likely almost all Caproni types) were claimed by Austro-Hungarian aces.

Overall conclusions:

For historical accuracy purposes the SAML S.1 is a higher priority than the Pomilio PE/PD. Furthermore, the MF.11 would need to be included as an AI aircraft.

On 8/13/2026 at 12:33 PM, JollyJack said:

If ever (?) some of the above planes get implemented the name of FC should be changed to Flying Crates. 

They're all string bags - like the Swordfish which crippled the Bismark.

[Avimimus]

Amended with that information, we'd could imagine modules along the following lines:

 

Vol. 1 could provide a basic mid-1917 to mid-1918 campaign:

Nieuport (Macchi) N.17

Hanriot (Macchi) HD.1

Albatros (Oeffag) D.III s.153

Aviatik (Berg) D.I s.138 (and/or s.38)

SAML S.1 (two-seater)

Hansa-Brandenburg C.I s.29.5 (two seater)

Collector: Caproni Ca.3 450hp (bomber)

Collector: Hansa-Brandenburg W.13 (seaplane bomber)?

AI: Caproni Ca.2 350 hp (or Ca.1 300 hp)

 

Vol 2 could expand the campaign to late 1916, late 1918, and the Adriatic:

Nieuport (Macchi) N.11

Hansa-Brandenburg D.I s.28

Ansaldo S.V.A.5

Phönix D.I

Macchi M.5 160 hp

Hansa-Brandenburg CC or W.18

Collector: Albatros (Oeffag) D.III s.253

Collector: Ca.42?

AI: MF.11

 

Criticisms of the above:

- There is no Italian two-seat seaplane (i.e. Macchi L.1 or L.3/M.3). Furthermore the Hansa-Brandenburg W.13 appears a bit late, meaning that there would be no Austro-Hungarian two-seat seaplane before March 1917 (i.e. for the first four months of the campaign).

- There are no high performance two-seaters. Candidates include the Pomilio PD/PE for Italy, the multirole UFAG C.I for Austria Hungary (or late model Hansa-Brandenburg C.I), and the Aviatik (Berg) C.I s.137 which often also served as a fighter. This would raise two-seater speeds from about 150-160 km/h to about 180-190 km/h - giving them more of an ability to avoid interception in 1918.

- The Caproni Ca.42 is very visually striking late war aircraft (being a giant triplane bomber). Its inclusion as a Collector plane, or even as an AI aircraft, would be good for marketing, but it arrived too late to be very historically important.

- Approximately one hundred Nieuport N.27 were used by Italy. However, it isn't in this plan. Similarly late war Austro-Hungarian fighters could have some market appeal the Phönix D.IIa improved on the power-to-weight ratio and speed of the D.I, and the the Aviatik (Berg) D.II represents the fastest Central Powers fighter to reach units (>210 km/h), even if it was just six aircraft and may not have seen combat.

There is one 'Collector Plane' slot left - but it would be hard to choose!

I suppose, if a lack of cockpit references means that the CC/W.18 has to be an AI aircraft... that could free up a second slot (note: I think that it still makes sense as at least an AI aircraft - since it represents one of the first two Austro-Hungarian fighters, being contemporaneous with the 'star strutter').

So what two additions would you pick?

[catch]

Wow that is one comprehensive synopsis! I shall take my time to digest the contents over a morning coffee or two and maybe a quality single malt later and perhaps offer some insights although I feel any contribution on my part would be somewhat lacklustre in comparison.

 

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

They're all string bags - like the Swordfish which crippled the Bismark.

 

This is true and entirely unsurprising. If the Brits had the Hawker Fury Hitler wouldn't have dared or even thought about it.

[catch]

On 8/15/2026 at 4:59 AM, Avimimus said:

So what two additions would you pick?

I don't know. It's tough. But maybe these two?

Francesco Baracca, Italy's top ace of WWI with 34 confirmed victories – posing in front of his SPAD S.XIII

 

SIA 7B  reconnaissance-bomber

[Avimimus]

On 8/14/2026 at 11:30 PM, catch said:

Wow that is one comprehensive synopsis! I shall take my time to digest the contents over a morning coffee or two and maybe a quality single malt later and perhaps offer some insights although I feel any contribution on my part would be somewhat lacklustre in comparison.

I think I feel the same way too! It is pretty overwhelming.

On 8/16/2026 at 1:17 AM, catch said:

I don't know. It's tough. But maybe these two?

Francesco Baracca, Italy's top ace of WWI with 34 confirmed victories – posing in front of his SPAD S.XIII

SIA 7B  reconnaissance-bomber

Good thoughts!

 

1) Regarding the SPAD S.VII and SPAD S.XIII - these were directly from French production lines (unlike many of the N.11, N.17, and Hanriot H.D.1 which were license produced by Nieuport-Macchi and thus would differ in detail). As a result, these SPAD aircraft would be identical to ones already available as part of a Western Front module.

This applies to several more types: Sopwith Camel, Sopwith Strutter, R.E.8, Bristol Fighter, D.H.4/9, Sopwith Type 184, German versions of the Albatros (both D.III OAW and D.V), DFW C.V, Albatros C.III, Rumpler C.IV, Fokker Eindecker and AEG G.IV all also come to mind - they appeared in Italy, but weren't license produced, and could already be released as part of other modules...

It is definitely a good observation though, as a depiction of the Italian front without SPADs or Sopwith Camels would be inaccurate.

 

2) The SIA 7B had significant structural issues with limited its use (including seeing most examples withdrawn from the front). Even when at the front, some aircrews were afraid to manoeuvre the aircraft for fear of wing failures. As a result the SAML S.1 and the Pomilio PD (or PE) seem like more desirable choices:

• The SAML S.1 had a considerably longer service career. It also served as a stop-gap interceptor with several Italian fighter groups (augmenting the Nieuport and increasing the variety of opponents). In several cases units equipped with the SIA even reverted back to the SAML!
• If one desired a higher performance Italian two-seater, the Pomilio PD or PE would likely be a better choice. While the Pomilio PD/PE was plagued by engine issues and structural issues, these were gradually resolved, and the type was considerably more successful.

So that was my reasoning! This is helpful though - as it caused me to go back and double-check some information!

[catch]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

2) The SIA 7B had significant structural issues with limited its use (including seeing most examples withdrawn from the front). Even when at the front, some aircrews were afraid to manoeuvre the aircraft for fear of wing failures. As a result the SAML S.1 and the Pomilio PD (or PE) seem like more desirable choices:

• The SAML S.1 had a considerably longer service career. It also served as a stop-gap interceptor with several Italian fighter groups (augmenting the Nieuport and increasing the variety of opponents). In several cases units equipped with the SIA even reverted back to the SAML!
• If one desired a higher performance Italian two-seater, the Pomilio PD or PE would likely be a better choice. While the Pomilio PD/PE was plagued by engine issues and structural issues, these were gradually resolved, and the type was considerably more successful.

Ah I see. This is why you are the master and I am merely a pupil with much to learn. 🙂 

[Avimimus]

On 8/16/2026 at 11:39 PM, catch said:

Ah I see. This is why you are the master and I am merely a pupil with much to learn. 🙂 

Well, the trick is to (1) create a text file on the subject (I started one back around 2012 in preparation for a poll about Rise of Flight); (2) keep updating those notes occasionally, and keep a spreadsheet with basic information for the aircraft; (3) read up on the aircraft at www.flyingmachines.ru whenever a question comes up; (4) don't worry about whether such a module will ever exist... just explore what it could look like in a joyful way.

If you copy these four steps, I'm sure you can surpass me!

[Avimimus]

So I stitched this together from some pre-war Austro-Hungarian maps.

Some labels have been added to help us orient to what an October 1916 to October 1918 period would look like.

The three major ports are Venice, Trieste, and Pola. All three had seaplane bases. Pola was also the site of the attack by Italian treaded torpedo boats, as well as bombing raids (e.g. from Ferrara) and naval actions. The smaller city of Udine is significant as a major militarised point supporting the Italian troops along the Isonzo river. The Piave river is also significant.

The Italians controlled most of the Carnic Alps north of Venice, with fighting along the Marmolada glacier leading to the Austro-Hungarians creating the famous 'ice city' fortification. To the west of this the Austro-Hungarian mountain salient reached as far south as Asiago, threatening encirclement (in theory, if not in practice). Fighting took place at several peaks, such as Monte Piana up to the east west line of valleys (periadriatic seam) just north of Piana with the front then curving down to the upper reaches of the Isonzo.

A simplified timeline (starting in October 1916):

- Fighting has stagnated along the Isonzo river (Eighth battle of Isonzo is underway, out of a total of Twelve battles of the Isonzo).

- Over the course of 1917 the Austro-Hungarians renewed their offensives in the mountains (e.g. Mount Piana). This partly acted as a distraction, limiting the ability of the Italians to redeploy troops for the major offensive.

- On October 24th 1917  use of poison gas produces gaps in the Italian defences, the battle of Caporetto is underway. The Austro-Hungarian and German troops are able to advance beyond the trenches and warfare becomes mobile! They advance 100 kilometres until supply shortages cause them to halt at the Piave river. They have advanced almost two thirds of the way to Venice. In clear weather the troops fighting on top of Mount Grappa can even see Venice. A simultaneous advance out of the mountains through the Asiago plateau (aimed at Vicenza) gets stopped. By November the front line stabilises along the Piave River.

- In June 1918 the Austro-Hungarian forces make a final assault across the Piave river. They break through and establish a bridgehead which is 8km deep on the Italian side. However, the bridges behind them are destroyed - stranding the attackers without supplies or reinforcement. Austria-Hungary is forced back onto the defensive. The front line remains along the Piave.

- On the anniversary of the battle of Caporretto (October 24th 1918), the Italian forces launch their offensive  across the Piave with the aim of moving the front line to Vittorio Veneto. Within four days the Austro-Hungarian empire is beginning to fracture internally. The Italian advance is rapid. An armistice is signed on November 3rd 1918. Over those ten days the Italian troops have advanced almost half of the distance to the Isonzo. On the day of the Armistice the Italian navy steams into Trieste.

Spoiler

Crudely added markers:

By the way - the area of this map is smaller than the size of many Great Battles maps, and about a quarter of the size of the Korea map!

I've added some markers for clarity, but it is pretty ugly - so that version is behind a 'spoiler'.

[catch]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

So I stitched this together

More like a magnificent tapestry expertly woven by hand on a loom. 🙂 I think this theatre of war would make a marvellous module. I have to thank you for your ongoing research into this fascinating front. To my eternal shame I must admit I knew very little about it. There was a brief section at the end of Into The Blue by Norman Macmillan where he is transferred to Italy in a Camel Squadron and that's all I knew about it. How could I not know about the beautiful lines and majesty of the remarkable Macchi M3/5 and her predecessors and influences?! I was young that's why and besotted by the Western Front and the Edwardian beauty of the Be2c and the very French Morane-Saulnier Type L Parasol amongst others. Also I played outside a lot with neighbourhood mates on scooters and roller boards (that's what we called them then before skate boards become the common name) and generally roaming the streets as a gang of well behaved citizens. A slingshot in the back pocket was mandatory. But that's still no excuse.