Most Underrated Army in WWII

[JJU57]

Simplistic or not the fact remains that almost every last historian rates the Italian army as very poor.

Your arguments are like saying a sports team tries hard but even though their record is 2 and 50 they shouldn't be ranked as a bad team cause their practice facility isn't as good as the others and they have a bad coach. My point is so what. Thats why they stink. And thats why the Italian army stunk.

[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....

------------------

[warhead]

I'm enjoying the hell out of these debates. Its like point-counterpoint worldwide and mostly between very intelligent people. Just when I think someone has the upper hand, the other counters. Lions 5, Christians 0.

[Desert Fox]

Can anyone translate what the Italian fellow said? I would like to understand what he was saying.

[Kluckenbill]

Not that I want to interfere with all the great Italian Army controversy, but I think that the most underrated army of WW2 was the Romanians. Most casual historians remember that they broke and allowed the entrapment of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. But they were equipped even more miserably than the Italians. I've always thought it was one of the stupidest actions of the German high command to place great responsibility on their allies and provide them with so little materiel support.
During his campaigns in 1942 Manstein thought the Romanians to be good soldiers and the better Romanian units (the mountain divisions) were as good as a typical German division.
FWIW I have no axe to grind here, I'm an American without an ethnically Romanian bone in my body.

[Fabs]

On this subject I have said all I want to say.

Some of the other posters clearly have a different way of looking at things.

I respect that, but beg to disagree.

And Seth, as a matter of fact, my preference as far as Nations are concerned in World War 2 has always been for Britain and the Commonwealth and Empire Nations.

Being Swiss I have no axe to grind in any direction.

I do have some sympathy for the Italians. They did lose, they did pick the wrong side and their Armies performed badly by all accounts.

I just find it galling that they should keep getting their nose rubbed into it after fifty years, and disagree with the generalizations that go with that.

On the other hand, since the war, they have been whipping everybody at Football. These days it is sometimes hard to discern which is more important.

------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]

[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.

------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]

[Fabs]

Originally posted by Desert Fox:
Can anyone translate what the Italian fellow said? I would like to understand what he was saying.

He is, not unnaturally, upset by some of the things that have been said about Italians in the war.

He says, among other things, that he is glad that the axis lost, but that that does not mean that he will put up with being gratuitously and ignorantly derided.

The points he makes are of a similar nature to those made by others sympathetic to the Italian cause.

He deprecates his lack of English skills, because he would very much have liked to join in the debate and say a thing or two about his perceived detractors.

He has just had a beautiful baby daughter.



------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-08-2000).]

[Fabs]

Originally posted by Fabs:
He is, not unnaturally, upset by some of the things that have been said about Italians in the war.

Among other things he says that he is glad that the Axis lost the war, but that does not mean to say that he will put up with being gratuitously and ignorantly derided.

The points he makes are of a similar nature to those made by others sympathetic to the Italian cause.

He deprecates his lack of English skills, because he would very much have liked to join in the debate and say a thing or two about his perceived detractors.

He has just had a beautiful baby daughter.

[sjuncal]

Originally posted by talon:
The Germans needed dar more ammo to destroy a polish inf div in 1939 than they needed in France for a allied so they put up a harder fight .

Hmmm that's specious logic. in 39 there were some distinct differences in technology and circumstances which far batter explain this ammo factor:

1) AFV's in 39 more than probably needed to fire more to hit something. They also certainly needed to fire more to KILL something, the Germans had those undergunned Tanks, obviously there's a serious diference between an 88 gunned Tiger firing at an infantry squad and a 37mm firing at a squad.

2) In 44 the Germans were supplying two fronts with ammo and fuel, could bring relatively less material into a fight. At that point they were also hardened one could speculate less "trigger happy".

Lastly if you turn this qualification around, and look at the US army, which from what I've read fired less than any other army in the world, this would tend to reflect poorly on the German's that (Bradley and Patton) helped push back to Berlin.

Frankly considering well known results I think it's not a case of how much ammo you expend but how effectively you expend it... German Soldiers fighting the Poles hadn't seen combat since WWI, if indeed they had ever seen combat.

Simon

[amatteucci]

Just a few thoughts about this discussion about 'how well fared the Italians in WW2"...

I think that what really upset some of my compatriots in this forum was not the fact that
others are stressing the fact that Italy lost WW2 while they think that it was the opposite,
but the fact that is often considered implicit that Italy lost not only because they had
incompetent leaders, a poor economic situation, a backward industrial system and poor
equipement but because Italians are basically a bunch of inepts & cowards.
I'm not saying that anybody in this forum said this, but this refrain is often heard abroad
and in Italy and actually became a cliché.

First, I'm still waiting for something that clearly shows why the lacklustre performance
of the Italian Armed Forces in WW2 should be considered so worse than that of the Poles or
the French or anyone of the Allies (UK and USSR included) in the opening years of the
conflict.
Of course Free French forces and Polish units fought with valor in the ending years of WW2 at
the side of US/UK/USSR troops. But the combat record of many Italian units like the Armoured
divisions and the Parachutists in North Africa and the Alpine Corps in Russia was not
dissimilar.
And for what concernes Greece... well when you have to fight in a geographical nightmare
against troops that are fanatically defending their country and outnumber (yes...
outnumber) you failure is at hand.

For what concernes the September 1943 Armistice, well many think that it was the final
act of ineptitude and cowardice but IMHO it was the only logical thing to do.
After all the Germans did the same in 1813 with Napoleon and I never heard anyone
styling them traitors or cowards.
With the exception of WW2 almost no war was fought to the last man, and when there was no
more to do it was logical to surrender. I see no shame in the fact that not all of my
compatriots' minds were so clouded to be no more able to see the difference between good
and evil. The motto "wrong or right, it's my country" is a colossal idiocy that led
to the greatest tragedies of history. And if someone still thinks that the Armistice was
simply an easy way to escape a difficult situation, please consider that the difficult
days were still to come, to testify
this there are the thousands of Italian soldiers that were executed by the Germans,
preferring death to collaboration, not counting the retaliations against civilians.
Who is the fool? The Italians that did what they did in 1943, or the Germans that after
Overlord and Bagration continued a pointless fight causing some more million deaths and
countless destruction for nothing? It was not a football match, when you're fighting for
the viliest cause ever it's a contradiction to be afraid of losing your 'military honour',
as if you could still consider to have honour at all after what happened.

Et de hoc satis.

Amedeo

[Fabs]

Well said, Amedeo.

------------------
Fabs

[Tombstone]

Well, to relate this to our most beloved game... I don't quite agree with the the ABYSSMAL representation of the italians only because gameplay-wise they're totally useless. Although Rommel said the Ariete was of high quality they were still mostly relegated to 'easy' tasks. The soldiers themselves were no different than the soldiers in other armies except when a man is under poor leadership and has piss-poor equipment he feels isolated and afraid. So when things get crazy they don't feel like things are gonna go they're way. Next thing you know, they bolt. They weren't pansy whimps that ran at the sound of gunfire... but they were worse than many other country's soldiers. It's fair to rate them poorly...

COMMENT: I feel that some of the earlier posts are kind of inflammatory. Thats disappointing.

Tomo

[Ed]

Ok, I'll try to relate the debate more closely to SPWAW.
Italy performed badly, but these performances were determined to an extended degree by problems at a level higher than the one modeled into the game.
Right now, Italy's bad performances are modeled trough extremely poor values into the OOBs.
What I’m trying to say is that we should improve the OOBs to a more reasonable level taking some of the problems back to the strategic level.
What I really like about war gaming is the "what if" component.
What if I could determine the composition of the Italian Expeditionary Force in North Africa? Could I manage to drive Montgomery back to London?
Well, with the OOBs as they are is - almost - impossible (I've managed to kick some Matildas into the Mediterranean anyway ).

Ed

Ps
Zory for mi englis

[Seth]

So are you saying that the equipment is shown as too bad, which I don't think I'd agree with, or are you saying that the troops are shown as too bad, which I'd be willing to consider? The problem is that the poor morale and experience are used to model bad leadership. Example: the 1941 Soviets are a huge rabble that freeze up, retreat for no reason, etc. Yet I do not think that this is meant to reflect cowardice which was largely not there. This is just supposed to show what happens when you kill your officers and replace them with incompetent party bootlickers. Leter in the game, the Soviets are very solid soldiers. I don't think they got much braver, but they certainly got real leadership. I will say that units that performed as a consistent elite (no palace guard types who had all the best and folded in combat), should not be painted with the same brush as that used for the regular units, no matter what country they belong to. The Blackshirts spring to mind as a wanabe elite, and the Alpini as real elite.

[Seth]

P.S. For the person who mentioned the Germans, there were NO Germans in 1813. There were many large states, and a huge number of small ones, that were all used as pawns by the A-H's, the British, the French, etc. They were always switching sides looking for advantages, or to get out of wars. They often fought each other. Prussia and Bavaria were bitter rivals, so it's wrong to call them all Germans and suggest they may have been betraying a country that was over 50 years away.

[amatteucci]

Originally posted by Seth:
P.S. For the person who mentioned the Germans, there were NO Germans in 1813. There were many large states, and a huge number of small ones, that were all used as pawns by the A-H's, the British, the French, etc. They were always switching sides looking for advantages, or to get out of wars. They often fought each other. Prussia and Bavaria were bitter rivals, so it's wrong to call them all Germans and suggest they may have been betraying a country that was over 50 years away.

Indeed there were a LOT of Germans in 1813.
Maybe you wanted to say that there was no unitary german state, like the later Deutsches Reich, in 1813. That is true but I didn't write the the opposite. Nor was I suggesting that all the German states were acting as a single entity. But indeed from late 1812 (when York signed a truce with the Russians and later forced Friderich Wilhelm III to denounce his alliance with France), to late 1813 (when the Rheinbund states one by one switched side) there was a sort of
'concerted' political moves amongst them.
In fact after 1814-15 the basis for the final rise of Prussia were laid.
Of course my intention was not to compare the host of german states in early '800 to Nazi Germany. But only to point out that switching side when necessary was not only typical of the incostant 'latin' soul.
regards,

Amedeo

[Seth]

But did they think of themselves as Germans? Almost none did, that mostly started in the Romantic period and around 1848. And some 'Germans' didn't switch sides. Some had been fighting Napoleon the whole time. Of course, they may have been conquered, and some became puppets. I'd be willing to bet that as dependencies of England, Hesse and Hannover were not French allies. Even as late as 1870, there was some question as to whether the French could convince some of the smaller states to take their side. Anyway, there is a difference between dropping an ally and surrendering when invaded. There were plenty of countries who kept fighting until they were pretty well wiped out, like Poland, Belgium, and Germany, and there were some who gave up, like France, Italy, and Romania. I won't factor switching sides into an assessment of military performance, it's purely political. However, if you get to a point where you have to make that choice, things aren't going well. Anyway, I'm way off topic now.
P.S. I never said anything about Nazi Germany. Touchy, touchy

[amatteucci]

I think that they really started to think about themselves as Germans much before. Even Italy became an unitary state only in 1861 but well before this date the inhabitants of the peninsula styled themselves Italians and considered themselves to be linked for culture, literature and language. So AFAIK did the Germans, in fact the true romantic period was 1790-1820. And surely they were thinking about themselves as 'Germans', if not about politics, surely about culture and language.
But now I'm really going off topic...
bye

Amedeo

[Fabs]

This is really getting interesting!

There are some parallels between what is being said about Germany in the 19th Century and Italian history.

Although there are strong regional traditions in Italy that go back centuries, Italy as a united nation is a much more recent concept.

It was largely a Piedmontese (Savoy)project, started well into the 19th Century, and reaching maturity at the end of 1914-18.

The events preceeding the Second World War and the war itself had a huge impact in the development of this young nation.

The outcome of the crisis in the aftermath of the war was in the balance for a while, but in the end a democracy emerged, covering most of the territory and aligned with the West.

The people that make up the Italian nationality are quite diverse, and there have been strong regional differences in the economic development after the war.

These have led to tensions and the formation of a separatist party in the North.

Of all the nationalities involved in the Second World War, Italians were possibly the ones whose sense of national identity was less deeply rooted, and that would have been an important factor.

Mussolini had much less political credibility in Italy than Hitler had in Germany.

He liked to posture, and the crowds responded to this, but he could not be taken as seriously as Hitler had been by the Germans, because it is not in the Italian nature to follow a leader like that.

Fascism had the political centre stage. A lot of people would scream and shout about it because it was fashionable, and the histrionics appealed to the masses.

As in Germany, some support was due to the perception that under the Fascists economic stagnation had been overcome, and that they were cleaning up aspects of Italian life that needed a strong hand.

Once things got serious, it was not in the nature of the people to rally united behind the flag and fight to the end.

Germany was never a comfortable ally. Mussolini used to look down on Hitler, having got his Fascist movement going and established as the dominant political force in his country earlier.

Eventually he realized that for ambition, vison, determination and ruthlessness he was quite simply out-classed by his Teutonic counterpart. This made him very uncomfortable.

There are some obvious incompatibilities between Germanic and Latin people. The Germans of the thirties and forties were totally convinced of their racial superiority, and were not exactly tactful about it.

Italians resented this, while at the same time recognising the German superiority in matters military and organisational. They were badly sorted bed-fellows.

What differentiates the Italians from other nationalities in the war is much more related to these situations than to some definable element of "national character".

I am no stranger to the prejudices that have stuck to the Italian military and national image because of their vicissitudes in the war.

Coming from the Canton Ticino, an Italian speaking protusion of Switzerland, I have experienced it first hand.

People from the Ticino always had a mild resentment for their more numerous, noisier cousins south of the border.

This reached its peak under the Fascits, which people from my side of the border found insufferable, partly because they used to come in and brag about how, sooner or later, we would be forcibly taken back into the national fold.

Imagine their delight when the Fascists started getting their arses kicked by all comers!

My father was a young man at the time, and his view of Italy has been heavily coloured by that period.

This is all well and good, and even some Italians (particularly in the North) can see why it has happened.

However, it has nothing to do with historical analysis.

------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-10-2000).]