Sorry i neglected to insert the link:
Both suggest aileron correction exacerbated the roll (wing stall?)
Or am I reading it incorrectly?
Thank you for your explanation.
The links change the context of your question quite a bit. In your initial question, you're asking about roll control in a situation in which the aircraft is at least 23% faster than the stall (mandated tolerances for V2 and approach speeds). Roll control is quite normal at these speeds.
But, these F14 accidents happen much slower and actually involve something called Vmca1. Minimum control speed with one engine out. If you have an engine failure at very low speeds, it's possible that you won't have enough rudder authority to actually stop the yaw (and the roll it causes). Vmca1 wasn't an issue in the 380. Even Vmca2 was very slow, but not so slow that you didn't have to be wary of it. The reason the power setting that was applied is relevant, is because the more power applied, the sooner you'll run into Vmca1. Conversely, there's no such thing if you pull all of the engines to idle. The snippet of the Canadian F18 crash at the start of the video is a classic example.
Thinking about a wing, and aileron. When you move the ailerons, the aileron that goes down increases the camber of the wing, and produces more lift. So, that makes you roll away from that side. But, that wing will also produce slightly more drag, which will give you more yaw into the wing's side, thus requiring even more rudder. That's all normal. But, when you get near the stalling angle of attack, another effect comes into play. A wing with greater camber (curvature) will create more lift, but it stalls at a lower angle of attack. If you're right on the edge of the stall, application of aileron to 'pick up' the wing can stall that section of the wing over the aileron, and lead to a very rapid increase in roll in the wrong direction.
It could be induced in the Macchi, but at much higher speeds. If you really hooked into a roll, using full aileron and rudder together to get the maximum rate, and then suddenly reversed the aileron to stop the roll, the roll rate would actually increase. These were really vicious control inputs, and I'd expect that most students (and probably instructors too) never tried quite that hard. What was happening here was that the down -going wing in the roll had an appreciably greater angle of attack than the other wing. Application of full aileron would reduce the stalling angle of the outboard section of the wing, it would stall, and then rapidly flick.
Point to consider... a wing doesn't necessarily stall at the same time along it's full length.