The question to ask about The Italians

[Aurelian]

So what's the question to ask about the Italians again? [:)]

[RangerJoe]

Whether or not German equipment such as the Mark IV would have enabled the Italian Army to fight longer and more effectively on the Axis side.

[Zovs]

The answer is of course no.

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
....

Bob, I mean Curtis [;)], your wrong.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Whether or not German equipment such as the Mark IV would have enabled the Italian Army to fight longer and more effectively on the Axis side.

No. And I ever wonder how this came up.

The problems in the Italian Army were endemic and not just limited to the equipment. Bad leadership from top down, for example. An incompetent "supreme leader" (Mussolini), incompetent High Command, incompetent generals, down to incompetent NCOs etc. Sure, you could find the stray competent person - who could only suffer from depression given what he saw around him.

Also, Mussolini wasted Italy's already meager forces by chasing too many dogs. Having better equipment would only have meant chasing too many dogs with better equipment. A Panzer IV in Italian hands would have meant a Panzer IV lost in one of too many fronts due to poor leadership, preparation and motivation.

The SS trained fanatically. The "Camicie Nere" (Black-shirts, CC. NN.) didn't train a lot because "their fighting prowess came from their fanatical adoration of the Duce." You can't go around something like this.

When the British launched "Operation Compass" the Italian forts they met at the frontline were "unable to support each other" and fell one by one. Being better equipped couldn't fix such an incompetence.

And just remember: the Greek Army, led with minimum competence and equipped with the same or inferior weapons, was winning the war against the Italian one. This tells you all you need to know about the "endemic incompetence" of the Italian leadership at any level.

True, Italy also deployed elite units, exp. the Alpine troops. But the "Alpini" alone could not win the war against Greece, and in Russia they were a drop in the ocean (their biggest achievement was to guarantee the retreat of a vast number of other Italian soldiers). Other troops in Russia initially fought well, but crumbled when faced by a determined and well led counteroffensive.

And the Italian troops in North Africa fought well after months and years of combat experience along with Rommel and the Germans.

TL;DR: The Italian Army needed to be reformed from top to down, with the equipment being only part of the problem. If you give a sword to someone totally incompetent you do not create a warrior overnight: he will always lose anyway against someone who actually knows how to use a knife. And, of course, under the fascist rule, thinking of sending home all the incompetent people who had gained their place via fanaticism to the party and/or sycophantism was, for all practical means, impossible.

[UP844]

I (almost) wholeheartedly agree with RFalvo69.

Perhaps, having Panzer III/IV instead of M13/40s would have somewhat increased the effectiveness of the "Ariete", but I seriously doubt the Germans would have many tanks to spare (the Eastern European allies that received some Pz IV and StuG III had a few dozens at most)

[RangerJoe]

There is no substitute for training. Do something over and over again until it becomes rote. Do it in your sleep, do it blindfolded.

I was living at an assisted living facility when someone had a serious health issue. While one aide was getting the stuff to check the vitals, the other aide froze. I told her "Help me get his jacket off him." That got her moving. Then she was fine because her training took over but she needed the guidance. I had no problem with her freezing for a moment, she was only 17 years old at the time and who knew how many such situations she had dealt with.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Whether or not German equipment such as the Mark IV would have enabled the Italian Army to fight longer and more effectively on the Axis side.

No. And I ever wonder how this came up.

The problems in the Italian Army were endemic and not just limited to the equipment. Bad leadership from top down, for example. An incompetent "supreme leader" (Mussolini), incompetent High Command, incompetent generals, down to incompetent NCOs etc. Sure, you could find the stray competent person - who could only suffer from depression given what he saw around him.

Also, Mussolini wasted Italy's already meager forces by chasing too many dogs. Having better equipment would only have meant chasing too many dogs with better equipment. A Panzer IV in Italian hands would have meant a Panzer IV lost in one of too many fronts due to poor leadership, preparation and motivation.

The SS trained fanatically. The "Camicie Nere" (Black-shirts, CC. NN.) didn't train a lot because "their fighting prowess came from their fanatical adoration of the Duce." You can't go around something like this.

When the British launched "Operation Compass" the Italian forts they met at the frontline were "unable to support each other" and fell one by one. Being better equipped couldn't fix such an incompetence.

And just remember: the Greek Army, led with minimum competence and equipped with the same or inferior weapons, was winning the war against the Italian one. This tells you all you need to know about the "endemic incompetence" of the Italian leadership at any level.

True, Italy also deployed elite units, exp. the Alpine troops. But the "Alpini" alone could not win the war against Greece, and in Russia they were a drop in the ocean (their biggest achievement was to guarantee the retreat of a vast number of other Italian soldiers). Other troops in Russia initially fought well, but crumbled when faced by a determined and well led counteroffensive.

And the Italian troops in North Africa fought well after months and years of combat experience along with Rommel and the Germans.

TL;DR: The Italian Army needed to be reformed from top to down, with the equipment being only part of the problem. If you give a sword to someone totally incompetent you do not create a warrior overnight: he will always lose anyway against someone who actually knows how to use a knife. And, of course, under the fascist rule, thinking of sending home all the incompetent people who had gained their place via fanaticism to the party and/or sycophantism was, for all practical means, impossible.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. [:)]

[RangerJoe]

Yes, my understanding is that it was not so much the Italian equipment, although it could have been better. The problem was the Italian leadership and morale for the regular units although some units were very good.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

You're so desperate to justify your vile insult. Despicable.

Yes. The Italians and Japanese were Axis Allies - before they became BELLIGERENTS! Big difference between an Ally and a belligerent!

However, you did say:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

Note the small 'a'.

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

The same judgement of them that the Allies made of them after the war!!! Collaborators!!!!

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

Official vs. de facto.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Let's say a division contains one truck. Lets say that division needs one full truck load per day to maintain supply levels.

If that truck can do a round trip of 200 miles in a day then if the division is 200 miles away then happy days. Luvverlllly jubbllyyy and everyone's a winner.

Now.

Let's say the division advances. It is now 400 miles away but it still needs a full truck load daily.

Do you see any problem here? No? Well I'll explain, firstly the division now hasn't got enough trucks and needs to call on a corps reserve.

The supply still gets there in two days. So, operations slow down, but they still get done eventually.

warspite1

HALLEUJAH!!!!!!

He's got the point everybody!!!! Curtis Lemay has actually understood the point. Yes, supply issues affect operations. The effect of the issues will be dependent on many things of course. Why was that so difficult for you to accept????? Wow.

When was I missing that point? There was a long supply build up prior to Gazala as well. Tobruk still fell.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

You're so desperate to justify your vile insult. Despicable.

Yes. The Italians and Japanese were Axis Allies - before they became BELLIGERENTS! Big difference between an Ally and a belligerent!

However, you did say:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

Note the small 'a'.

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

The same judgement of them that the Allies made of them after the war!!! Collaborators!!!!

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

Official vs. de facto.

warspite1

More faux anger - and still you don't answer the question. How very.... typical. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Third Request

By the way, please show me where Ally vs ally is a thing. Thanks

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

No. It proves that the truck supply path from Tripoli to Tobruk was sufficient to take Tobruk. Even the South Africans were better than the Spaniards. And Rommel fought through the entire 8th Army to get to Tobruk, not just the South Africans. The task dwarfs the Spanish task.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I refuse to believe that the roads in North Africa were in better condition than the roads in Spain. Spain had had a civil war years before. North Africa was undergoing a current war. And the tanks had gotten heavier since as well.

warspite1

No, we know that. You won't believe the Germany Army from primary source material, ...

Different circumstances.

you won't believe the US Army study...you won't believe anything I suggest, but we are supposed to take as read what you believe. Sure......that's equitable.

I don't believe your interpretation, because it's so obviously wrong.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




The supply still gets there in two days. So, operations slow down, but they still get done eventually.

warspite1

HALLEUJAH!!!!!!

He's got the point everybody!!!! Curtis Lemay has actually understood the point. Yes, supply issues affect operations. The effect of the issues will be dependent on many things of course. Why was that so difficult for you to accept????? Wow.

When was I missing that point? There was a long supply build up prior to Gazala as well. Tobruk still fell.

warspite1

You are missing the point because you don't seem to understand how supply works, what affects supply and that sometimes it fails. Yes, sometimes enough is delivered (but not the full supply expected) to allow operations to succeed, but not always. This is why you banging on relentlessly about Tobruk is just so damn pointless. In isolation IT MEANS NOTHING.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

No. It proves that the truck supply path from Tripoli to Tobruk was sufficient to take Tobruk. Even the South Africans were better than the Spaniards. And Rommel fought through the entire 8th Army to get to Tobruk, not just the South Africans. The task dwarfs the Spanish task.

warspite1

Lemay what are you talking about man!?!? Seriously this is just such a waste of time.

Are you really now seeking to compare the quality of the 2nd South African Division to the Spanish Army????? I mean what for???? What does that prove? What does that mean? What relevance has that got to the price of fish?

I.Just.Don't.Understand.You

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I refuse to believe that the roads in North Africa were in better condition than the roads in Spain. Spain had had a civil war years before. North Africa was undergoing a current war. And the tanks had gotten heavier since as well.

warspite1

No, we know that. You won't believe the Germany Army from primary source material, ...

Different circumstances.

you won't believe the US Army study...you won't believe anything I suggest, but we are supposed to take as read what you believe. Sure......that's equitable.

I don't believe your interpretation, because it's so obviously wrong.

warspite1

I won't answer here. We have threads going for Greek supply and German supply in Spain so no need to have yet more for no reason. I've answered both points elsewhere.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

No. It proves that the truck supply path from Tripoli to Tobruk was sufficient to take Tobruk. Even the South Africans were better than the Spaniards. And Rommel fought through the entire 8th Army to get to Tobruk, not just the South Africans. The task dwarfs the Spanish task.

The South Africans were inexperienced. The Spaniards were experienced. Since when are inexperienced troops better than experienced troops?

Tobruk's defenses had fallen into disrepair. There was no retreat path. The Spanish would have retreat paths. The Germans would have to keep advancing, lengthening their supply lines. One hand grenade onto a loaded fuel truck or a loaded ammunition truck . . .

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 'clarification' comment above, its not something even worth giving a moment's consideration to. You think the PURPOSE of Vichy France was to keep Germans out of Vichy - and then there's some weird question about the German's agreeing to stay out of Vichy or some old cobblers.... I can't make head nor tail of it to be honest and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from me. If you can make clear what you are asking and what I've said to make you even ask that question of me then I'll take another look.

Re Vichy generally, erm.... as I've said to you previously, you really need to get yourself down to the library and dig out some books.

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy wasn't to create an enclave within France that they Germans stayed out of, then why would the Germans agree to such a condition!!!!!!!

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it,

Franco.

and under what circumstances?

After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

What would it seek to achieve?

Restoration of Franco to control of Spain and a protected enclave within Spain that the Germans stay out of.

Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?

Franco gets restored to power in Spain and Germany gets Gibraltar and a peaceful Spain (which was all they wanted).

warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.