That's an interesting and illuminating post there Fabs.
Tomo
Most Underrated Army in WWII
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
Yes, there are a lot of interesting parallelisms between German and Italian history.
Of course the similarities should not avoid the perception of the relevant differencies.
Piedmont practically annexed all the rest of the peninsula while Prussia had a more general
consensus amongst the other states that officially created a 'federal' entity.
Remember that the ruler's first title remained King of Prussia, and secondly German Emperor.
Likewise many principalties and kingdoms in the Deutscher Reich retained a form
of indipendent identity (mainly Bavaria, with its own King). Military units followed the
traditions of the pre-unitary regiments, state by state.
The opposite was true for Italy, but at least the King conceded to move the capital from
Turin to Florence and, eventually, Rome, while Prussia's capital ipso facto became the
capital of the new Empire.
For what concernes the parallels between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, well, one could
write down entire books about this topic.
It's worth noting however, that, as was already pointed out in this discussion, Mussolini in
Italy never managed to have the same power Hitler had in Germany. Basically because Hitler
succeded to get rid of the Presidential figure, not only because Hindenburg died, but also because
the Weimar Republic was not a rooted entity in the population soul.
The King of Italy remained the head of state and Mussolini was 'only' the prime minister.
This may seem not so relevant considering that, actually, Mussolini had a lot more power than
any of its other predecessors. He managed to make his party the only legal political force but
it never penetrated deeply the society at all levels, remember that, unlike the Wehrmacht, the
italian Army never wore party simbols on the uniforms... there were of course fascist armed
organization like the Police and the Militia (Black Shirts) but they never were the almighty
power that the SS was in Germany.
It's relevant when we consider that Mussolini lost his power basically because he had no more
all that power an popular support and in Italy there were still present all the resources to
give birth to another government. Basically the Fascist party was deeply rooted in the State
function but it was not the same, so it was possible to eradicate it without having to build
all from scratch.
Regards,
Amedeo
Of course the similarities should not avoid the perception of the relevant differencies.
Piedmont practically annexed all the rest of the peninsula while Prussia had a more general
consensus amongst the other states that officially created a 'federal' entity.
Remember that the ruler's first title remained King of Prussia, and secondly German Emperor.
Likewise many principalties and kingdoms in the Deutscher Reich retained a form
of indipendent identity (mainly Bavaria, with its own King). Military units followed the
traditions of the pre-unitary regiments, state by state.
The opposite was true for Italy, but at least the King conceded to move the capital from
Turin to Florence and, eventually, Rome, while Prussia's capital ipso facto became the
capital of the new Empire.
For what concernes the parallels between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, well, one could
write down entire books about this topic.
It's worth noting however, that, as was already pointed out in this discussion, Mussolini in
Italy never managed to have the same power Hitler had in Germany. Basically because Hitler
succeded to get rid of the Presidential figure, not only because Hindenburg died, but also because
the Weimar Republic was not a rooted entity in the population soul.
The King of Italy remained the head of state and Mussolini was 'only' the prime minister.
This may seem not so relevant considering that, actually, Mussolini had a lot more power than
any of its other predecessors. He managed to make his party the only legal political force but
it never penetrated deeply the society at all levels, remember that, unlike the Wehrmacht, the
italian Army never wore party simbols on the uniforms... there were of course fascist armed
organization like the Police and the Militia (Black Shirts) but they never were the almighty
power that the SS was in Germany.
It's relevant when we consider that Mussolini lost his power basically because he had no more
all that power an popular support and in Italy there were still present all the resources to
give birth to another government. Basically the Fascist party was deeply rooted in the State
function but it was not the same, so it was possible to eradicate it without having to build
all from scratch.
Regards,
Amedeo
Amedeo,
the points you make are crucial and help even more in understanding what was behind Italy's poor strategic showing in the war.
I expect you have strong feelings about how this is distorted into all sorts of generalisations about the quality of Italian troops, the equipment they used and the way they fought.
Perhaps you could give some examples that may help in countering these perceptions?
------------------
Fabs
the points you make are crucial and help even more in understanding what was behind Italy's poor strategic showing in the war.
I expect you have strong feelings about how this is distorted into all sorts of generalisations about the quality of Italian troops, the equipment they used and the way they fought.
Perhaps you could give some examples that may help in countering these perceptions?
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
I'm not an expert about the Italian Army of WW2, nonetheless there are I can point out a few things that may be worth of consideration.
1. In my opinion the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war is money (i.e. natural resources, industrial potential, factories and know how)
2. Of course if you have, say, a 100 potential and you use 50 to produce things that are irrelevant to war effort you may be beaten by someone that has only 70 and completely switched to a total war economy (hint: this is why IMHO Soviet Union defeated Germany. Germany had a slightly higher industrial capacity but switched to a 'total war' gear only in late 1943, the USSR did it in ... 1931!)
3. Having said so: Italian Armed Forces were comparable to their european counterparts until late '30s.
(Just compare planes and tanks of the period) After that while the others were starting developing new weapons and tactics (after the Czech crisis and the civil war in Spain) Italy simply remained idle. First because the wealty industrial that accepted Fascism as a lesser evil (for them) compared to a Socialist revolution were not willing to adventure in somehing that could ruin their plans.
On the other hand Mussolini had not all that power to force FIAT at al. to do otherwise. And he
thought that he would always been able to 'ouwit' his opponets and force victory out of clever timing and opportunistic moves.
Italy really entered war thinking that all would have been over in a week or so and all that Mussolini needed was (in his own words) "a few causalties just to have right to sit at the victors'
table in the ensuing Armistice conference".
The fact that timing was the only concern an no one was really thinking about a general war can be seen by the fact that Italian Units in North Africa were not given any clear order and the stockpiling of resources in Lybia started well after the declaration of war (so it was done UNDER Royal Navy attacks, if Italy was actually planning for a prolonged effort it would have been done before!)
4. Last but not least, the doctrinal and training aspects were not good. It was not a lack of qualities in the junior officers (both my Grandfathers remember that the majority of the officers they meeted had universitary education) but consider that, for example, almost all of the cavalry officers assigned to mechanized units voluntary failed the driving test to be reassigned to horse units because it was considered a dishonor for a cavalryman to belong to a non mounted unit!
And that's all for now.
Amedeo
1. In my opinion the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war is money (i.e. natural resources, industrial potential, factories and know how)
2. Of course if you have, say, a 100 potential and you use 50 to produce things that are irrelevant to war effort you may be beaten by someone that has only 70 and completely switched to a total war economy (hint: this is why IMHO Soviet Union defeated Germany. Germany had a slightly higher industrial capacity but switched to a 'total war' gear only in late 1943, the USSR did it in ... 1931!)
3. Having said so: Italian Armed Forces were comparable to their european counterparts until late '30s.
(Just compare planes and tanks of the period) After that while the others were starting developing new weapons and tactics (after the Czech crisis and the civil war in Spain) Italy simply remained idle. First because the wealty industrial that accepted Fascism as a lesser evil (for them) compared to a Socialist revolution were not willing to adventure in somehing that could ruin their plans.
On the other hand Mussolini had not all that power to force FIAT at al. to do otherwise. And he
thought that he would always been able to 'ouwit' his opponets and force victory out of clever timing and opportunistic moves.
Italy really entered war thinking that all would have been over in a week or so and all that Mussolini needed was (in his own words) "a few causalties just to have right to sit at the victors'
table in the ensuing Armistice conference".
The fact that timing was the only concern an no one was really thinking about a general war can be seen by the fact that Italian Units in North Africa were not given any clear order and the stockpiling of resources in Lybia started well after the declaration of war (so it was done UNDER Royal Navy attacks, if Italy was actually planning for a prolonged effort it would have been done before!)
4. Last but not least, the doctrinal and training aspects were not good. It was not a lack of qualities in the junior officers (both my Grandfathers remember that the majority of the officers they meeted had universitary education) but consider that, for example, almost all of the cavalry officers assigned to mechanized units voluntary failed the driving test to be reassigned to horse units because it was considered a dishonor for a cavalryman to belong to a non mounted unit!
And that's all for now.
Amedeo
I can just imagine the things these bright young officers would do to fail the driving test:Originally posted by amatteucci:
almost all of the cavalry officers assigned to mechanized units voluntary failed the driving test to be reassigned to horse units because it was considered a dishonor for a cavalryman to belong to a non mounted unit!
"Where does the key go again?"
"I put sand in the oil and now the engine sounds funny...."
"That's the third tree I have run into today..."
"What do these pedals do again?"
BA Evans 
Hmm.. after this very long speech in italic I would kindly ask all to speak english again. How can I know weather you are making fun of us others if ya speak languake wich we can't understand.So this leads to simple solution : speak .. errr... sorry it should be writeOriginally posted by Fabs:
Originally posted by Il carabiniere:
Dannazione al mio scarso inglese!!! Per rispondere a tono a questo mucchio di pirla(vorrei usare un altro termine più acconcio ma poi mi censurano)
mi toccherà tirar fuori vocabolario e grammatica inglese, e pensare che avrei altro per la testa (da tre giorni sono padre di una splendida bambina, non c'entra nulla, ma volevo dirlo comunque...)Comunque per il momento mi rivolgo agli altri italiani, avete visto che tono falsamente sussiegoso, molto political correct, e tutto per ritornare sui soliti luoghi comuni. Personalmente tiro un sospiro di sollievo che l'Asse non abbia vinto la guerra, ma questo non vuol dire che voglia farmi prendere per i fondelli. Mi sembra che il problema dovesse porsi così:in Spwaw esistono eserciti con valori realistici oppure no? ed invece ecco la solita canea di quelli che ci prendono in giro sulla nostra qualità di costruttori di strade e sul numero di retromarce dei nostri carri. Ma su quali testi di storia si basano questi signori?
Ma ve li immaginate i loro baldi G. I. men a trovarsi nelle identiche situazioni nostre in Grecia in Africa o in Russia. Certo due o tre eroi si trovano dappertutto, ma a Luigi Durand De La Penne o a Salvo D'Acquisto voi altri chi potete opporre. Abbiamo perso,e chi dice il contrario, ma la guerra non è un torneo di football o di basket, a costo di sembrare retorico ricordiamoci che in guerra si muore e si soffre e i primi a restare disgustati sarebbero proprio i morti,i nostri e i vostri, a guardare noi che comodamente stiamo a discutere se i morti italiani sono morti goffamente mentre i morti americani sono elegantemente caduti come tanti piccoli John Wayne. Se mi chiedo perchè i francesi abbiano perso nel 1940 non mi rispondo perchè si erano ubriacati di champagne o avevano tirato fino a tardi al Molin Rouge, cerco di liberarmi dei luoghi comuni e lascio da parte le occasioni per trite battute - e se qualcuno conosce il carattere di attaccabrighe litigiosi di noi fiorentini può capire quanto ciò mi costi.Cerco solo di capire per il mio esclusivo piacere di comprendere le cose e non per fare facili battute
Prometto che ora prendo il vocabolario....
Fossi in te non me la prenderei cosi tanto.
Non esistono sordi piu` sordi di chi non vuole sentire.
L'Italia di oggi, con tutti i suoi problemi, e` tra le prime potenze economiche del mondo e batte regolarmente gli Inglesi al calcio, loro sport preferito.
Italiani e Anglosassoni sono molto diversi. Tutti e due i gruppi hanno molto da imparare l'uno dall'altro.
Vivendo in Inghilterra mi rendo conto che spesso loro non avvicinano piu` gli Italiani con un cosi` netto senso di superiorita`.
Il declino della loro nazione li rende piu` insicuri, e questo li puo` anche spingere a cercare rassicurazioni nel loro passato decisamente piu` glorioso.
Gli Americani sono un'altra storia. Essendo la potenza geopolitica dominante pensano di avere sempre ragione. Ma per ogni Americano informato ce ne sono cento ignoranti.
Ci saranno sempre persone dalle due parti che preferiranno restare ignoranti e basarsi sul passato per giudicare.
Essenzialmente in questo dibattito ci sono due posizioni:
una dice che il risultato finale e` l'unica cosa che conta. Sotto questa ottica l'Italia ha uno dei records peggiori perche` ha quasi sempre perso, e quasi sempre in modo spettacolare.
L'altra dice che si deve considerare la posizione relativa dei combattenti per esprimere un giudizio bilanciato. Questa e` la mia posizione.
Gli esponenti delle due posizioni non potranno mai essere d'accordo perche` i metodi di analisi sono diametralmente opposti.
Congratulazioni per la nascita della tua bambina.
in english so we all can understand your insults and reply them correctly. Or would it be fun if started to respond in finnish to all your comments? HallelujaaGobble!
If you want to speak Finnish go ahead, I have no problem with that.
I wanted to reply to "il carabiniere" who does not speak English.
I am saying to him not to let what is being said about his country upset him so much.
I am not making fun of anyone here, and I do not believe that I am insulting anyone, at least not in the way in which some postings insult the Italians.
I say that Latins and Anglo-saxons are very different and that each group can learn a lot from the other.
I say about the English that they are no longer as sure of themselves because of the relative decline of their nation since the end of the war, and that some prefer to look at the past to draw comfort.
About Americans, I say that for every well informed American (talking about international affairs) there are one hundered ignorant ones, although they will mostly be convinced that they know everything.
The rest of the post is a summary of the views expressed, concluding that the people that have expressed the different points of view can never agree because their ways of looking at the question are diametrically opposed.
I have given a summary of what "il carabiniere" said earlier in the thread.
------------------
Fabs
I wanted to reply to "il carabiniere" who does not speak English.
I am saying to him not to let what is being said about his country upset him so much.
I am not making fun of anyone here, and I do not believe that I am insulting anyone, at least not in the way in which some postings insult the Italians.
I say that Latins and Anglo-saxons are very different and that each group can learn a lot from the other.
I say about the English that they are no longer as sure of themselves because of the relative decline of their nation since the end of the war, and that some prefer to look at the past to draw comfort.
About Americans, I say that for every well informed American (talking about international affairs) there are one hundered ignorant ones, although they will mostly be convinced that they know everything.
The rest of the post is a summary of the views expressed, concluding that the people that have expressed the different points of view can never agree because their ways of looking at the question are diametrically opposed.
I have given a summary of what "il carabiniere" said earlier in the thread.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
Well it's been a slow morning, so I'll add my 5 Lire worth:
When Mussolini decided to declare War in 1940, the Italian General Staff was OPPOSED. Their rearmament and reorganization plans were predicated on going to war in 1941 or even 1942. Basically their planning and equipping was caught short by the political leadership. The only service that considered themselves battleworthy in 1940 was the RM (an assessment certainly justified). With the death of Gen Balbo in 1940 in an air crash, the prospects for an aggressive and visionary Italian COS died as well.
Now concerning SPWAW: The historical record is unflattering at the tactical level. One may make an impassioned plea about bravery and inadequate equipment but the hard truth of combat is that junior leadership and TRAINING, both of which contribute to that other vital component MORALE, win battles. Excellent equipment helps, sure, but history would surely be different if only the best-equipped forces won the day. In these respects the Italian Army was lacking- period. To my mind then, the representation in SPWAW is in fact aligned with the historical record. GAMEWISE, it might be advisable to do what the old Avalon Hill ASL series did; concentrate on scenarios with Alpini, Bersaglieri, Folgore and San Marco Marines as primary forces. Their historically proven superior (to "average" line Italian troops) leadership and morale should help to balance scenarios. FWIW, some of my favorite and well balanced games involved the Italian "Savoia" (sp) Cavalry on the Eastern Front.
When Mussolini decided to declare War in 1940, the Italian General Staff was OPPOSED. Their rearmament and reorganization plans were predicated on going to war in 1941 or even 1942. Basically their planning and equipping was caught short by the political leadership. The only service that considered themselves battleworthy in 1940 was the RM (an assessment certainly justified). With the death of Gen Balbo in 1940 in an air crash, the prospects for an aggressive and visionary Italian COS died as well.
Now concerning SPWAW: The historical record is unflattering at the tactical level. One may make an impassioned plea about bravery and inadequate equipment but the hard truth of combat is that junior leadership and TRAINING, both of which contribute to that other vital component MORALE, win battles. Excellent equipment helps, sure, but history would surely be different if only the best-equipped forces won the day. In these respects the Italian Army was lacking- period. To my mind then, the representation in SPWAW is in fact aligned with the historical record. GAMEWISE, it might be advisable to do what the old Avalon Hill ASL series did; concentrate on scenarios with Alpini, Bersaglieri, Folgore and San Marco Marines as primary forces. Their historically proven superior (to "average" line Italian troops) leadership and morale should help to balance scenarios. FWIW, some of my favorite and well balanced games involved the Italian "Savoia" (sp) Cavalry on the Eastern Front.
"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel
Nigel Tufnel
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
I completely agree with your analysis regarding the fact that SPWAW is not too unfair in representing the average quality of Italian troops. I'd like to point out, however, that the tank-heavy aspect of the game and the fact that elite formations (with a plus on morale and experience) unlike the new SPWW2v3 are not possibleOriginally posted by Grumble:
Well it's been a slow morning, so I'll add my 5 Lire worth:
When Mussolini decided to declare War in 1940, the Italian General Staff was OPPOSED. Their rearmament and reorganization plans were predicated on going to war in 1941 or even 1942. Basically their planning and equipping was caught short by the political leadership. The only service that considered themselves battleworthy in 1940 was the RM (an assessment certainly justified). With the death of Gen Balbo in 1940 in an air crash, the prospects for an aggressive and visionary Italian COS died as well.
Now concerning SPWAW: The historical record is unflattering at the tactical level. One may make an impassioned plea about bravery and inadequate equipment but the hard truth of combat is that junior leadership and TRAINING, both of which contribute to that other vital component MORALE, win battles. Excellent equipment helps, sure, but history would surely be different if only the best-equipped forces won the day. In these respects the Italian Army was lacking- period. To my mind then, the representation in SPWAW is in fact aligned with the historical record. GAMEWISE, it might be advisable to do what the old Avalon Hill ASL series did; concentrate on scenarios with Alpini, Bersaglieri, Folgore and San Marco Marines as primary forces. Their historically proven superior (to "average" line Italian troops) leadership and morale should help to balance scenarios. FWIW, some of my favorite and well balanced games involved the Italian "Savoia" (sp) Cavalry on the Eastern Front.
penalizes armies heavily relying on infantry.
Regards,
Amedeo
P.S. The spelling of "Savoia" cavalry regiment is correct.
[This message has been edited by amatteucci (edited 07-14-2000).]
-
Jon Grasham
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: St.Louis, MO, US
In a scenario, it's up to the designer if what quality the troops are. If you are playing a random battle, or campaign, and want "elite" Itallian troops, just turn country training off, and set it that way. May make the other side be off a bit, but you can guestimate for them. (or, if in a campaign, simply turn it off, buy your troops, and after the 1st batt,e turn it back on, and repeat before/after the refit section. Not really "cheating" since the better troops are not there under normal circumstances.
?
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
For a single scenario there's no problem. But I really think that the variable experience/morale variations over the average values built in the OOB formations would be a great improvement for SPWAW. To simply change the values in the preference screen won't really help when you have mixed type troops (that is the norm). Of course a Volkssturm squad should not have the same base morale of the nearby SS Grenadiers squad. Moreover with this feature you could reproduce the continuous drop in quality of the average Wehrmach unit from 1942 onward without affecting, to say, the Panzertruppe that continued to enjoy superior training and quality till the very end. I do think this is a feature that could improve realism in depicting the various countries different brach of services and assets.Originally posted by Jon Grasham:
In a scenario, it's up to the designer if what quality the troops are. If you are playing a random battle, or campaign, and want "elite" Itallian troops, just turn country training off, and set it that way. May make the other side be off a bit, but you can guestimate for them. (or, if in a campaign, simply turn it off, buy your troops, and after the 1st batt,e turn it back on, and repeat before/after the refit section. Not really "cheating" since the better troops are not there under normal circumstances.
Regards,
Amedeo
-
Jon Grasham
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: St.Louis, MO, US
I may be totally wrong (probably am) but do units classified as Elite Infantry in the OOB editors (paratroops included) GET an exp bonus? I was just checking base exp values over different dates, and in late '43, I bought 2 platoons of SS Infantry, 2 of FJ infantry, and 2 Rifle platoons. The SS Infantry had 80s and 90s for EXP, same for the FJ, while the Regulars had lowest at 68 and highest at 80. (rest were in70s). This could have been coincidence, but it seemed odd the way it worked out.)
?
I have to say that I don't think money is not the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war . I think the army's morale and will to fight is much more important factor to win or lose.Originally posted by amatteucci:
I'm not an expert about the Italian Army of WW2, nonetheless there are I can point out a few things that may be worth of consideration.
1. In my opinion the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war is money (i.e. natural resources, industrial potential, factories and know how)
2. Of course if you have, say, a 100 potential and you use 50 to produce things that are irrelevant to war effort you may be beaten by someone that has only 70 and completely switched to a total war economy (hint: this is why IMHO Soviet Union defeated Germany. Germany had a slightly higher industrial capacity but switched to a 'total war' gear only in late 1943, the USSR did it in ... 1931!)
3. Having said so: Italian Armed Forces were comparable to their european counterparts until late '30s.
(Just compare planes and tanks of the period) After that while the others were starting developing new weapons and tactics (after the Czech crisis and the civil war in Spain) Italy simply remained idle. First because the wealty industrial that accepted Fascism as a lesser evil (for them) compared to a Socialist revolution were not willing to adventure in somehing that could ruin their plans.
On the other hand Mussolini had not all that power to force FIAT at al. to do otherwise. And he
thought that he would always been able to 'ouwit' his opponets and force victory out of clever timing and opportunistic moves.
Italy really entered war thinking that all would have been over in a week or so and all that Mussolini needed was (in his own words) "a few causalties just to have right to sit at the victors'
table in the ensuing Armistice conference".
The fact that timing was the only concern an no one was really thinking about a general war can be seen by the fact that Italian Units in North Africa were not given any clear order and the stockpiling of resources in Lybia started well after the declaration of war (so it was done UNDER Royal Navy attacks, if Italy was actually planning for a prolonged effort it would have been done before!)
4. Last but not least, the doctrinal and training aspects were not good. It was not a lack of qualities in the junior officers (both my Grandfathers remember that the majority of the officers they meeted had universitary education) but consider that, for example, almost all of the cavalry officers assigned to mechanized units voluntary failed the driving test to be reassigned to horse units because it was considered a dishonor for a cavalryman to belong to a non mounted unit!
And that's all for now.
Amedeo
OK, having money and recources is good thing. But there are examples in history of fighting succesfully with poor equipment and with poor economic situation. USA went to Vietnam and thought it would be a piece of cake but we all know how it ended.
We have to agree that in harsh conditions the defender has always better changes win a battle even with poor equipment. Good example is Winter War's Raate Road battle in Finland Suomussalmi where Finnish were equipped with rifles and molotov coctails: Finnish guerilla tactics and -40 degree Celcius temperature freezed the soviet tank invasion with huge russian casualties.
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
When I wrote about money and its influence in a war outcome (N.B. the war outcome, not the tactical superiority) I underlined that the relevant factor is the effective amout of money you want to invest in the war effort.Originally posted by Molotov:
I have to say that I don't think money is not the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war . I think the army's morale and will to fight is much more important factor to win or lose.
OK, having money and recources is good thing. But there are examples in history of fighting succesfully with poor equipment and with poor economic situation. USA went to Vietnam and thought it would be a piece of cake but we all know how it ended.
We have to agree that in harsh conditions the defender has always better changes win a battle even with poor equipment. Good example is Winter War's Raate Road battle in Finland Suomussalmi where Finnish were equipped with rifles and molotov coctails: Finnish guerilla tactics and -40 degree Celcius temperature freezed the soviet tank invasion with huge russian casualties.
Finland put up a hell of a fight but eventually lost the war against USSR because the USSR was willing to pay the 'extra' cost (in monet and blood) for victory. The USA lost in Vietnam simply because they were not willing to pay the price (in money and blood) required to win.
Morale and willingness to fight are important but if they are the primary factor the japanese should have ended the war parading in Washington...
I still think that money and willingness to spend it are the most important factors.
regards,
Amedeo