Most Underrated Army in WWII
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Most Underrated Army in WWII
Well, I would like to mention the Italian Army. Yes, they had their poor units, but they also had some excellent units. Their armored formations ill-equipped at times fought well and had high morale (Rommel himself rated the Italian 132nd Armoured division -- the Ariete -- high), the Alpine troops, combat engineers (Guastatori), Bersaglieri, cavalry regiments, Paratroops (check out the Folgore's combat record at El Alamein) etc. For a poor record in combat the case could be made that some Italians felt that they were fighting the wrong enemy. In 1935, plans were being made with France to deal with a belligerent Germany (be an interesting hypothetical series of games). Anyway, it is easier sometimes to feel confident and supreme when one has the best of equipment...but to go into battle knowing that you may not have the best - but still to go out and to try to do the best job possible.....isnt that something to ponder?.....and in the confines of this great game SPWAW it may be interesting to try and do....
I'm really not convinced that the Italians are underrated. It's no distortion of history to say that they lost miserably. They got beaten badly by the Greeks, hardly a world-class military. There were a few elite formations, but this does nothing to overshadow the fact that their equipment was junk, their industrial capacity was terrible, and they folded in '43. Too bad. If the war had been based on aesthetics, the RM and RA would have ruled the sea and sky. Unfortunately, beauty never won a war, that I know of. I kind of root for them when I watch documentaries, but you know from the start they're headed for the toilet. Underdogs yes, underrated, no. In fact, considering what might have been reasonably expected of a large European military, perhaps a bit overrated, at the time of course.
I would pick the Chinese. This may strike you as odd, but think about it. What do you ever hear about the Chinese? Yes, they seem to have done poorly, but I've never seen any source that gives them more than a few pages. They managed to fight the Japanese to a standstill, and even beat them in several battles. Shortly before the Rape of Nanking, they inflicted a sharp defeat on the Japanese. I've seen some very old magazine articles (Fortune, from 1937) about another victory, but can't remember details. Even if they were just plain bad, they're still underrated by virtue of being ignored. A huge manpower effort at the very least.
I would pick the Chinese. This may strike you as odd, but think about it. What do you ever hear about the Chinese? Yes, they seem to have done poorly, but I've never seen any source that gives them more than a few pages. They managed to fight the Japanese to a standstill, and even beat them in several battles. Shortly before the Rape of Nanking, they inflicted a sharp defeat on the Japanese. I've seen some very old magazine articles (Fortune, from 1937) about another victory, but can't remember details. Even if they were just plain bad, they're still underrated by virtue of being ignored. A huge manpower effort at the very least.
agreed. Russophiles will say "But Finland lost both times..." and their point is? The Finnish Army backs down from no one. They ripped their independence away at the close of WW1 and will be damned if they let anyone take it for free. Hats off to 'em and wish all free nations had that attitude.Originally posted by warhead:
The Finns, hannds downn.
regards,
sven
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
-
Desert Fox
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Well, I don't know that the Finnish were ever underrated. Possibly only by Russian officers attempting to avoid a purge. The finns were tenacious, but does that make them underrated? I really don't think so. They fought hard, and cost the russians a lot for their victories, but so did the Japanese and the Germans. They all lost.Originally posted by sven:
agreed. Russophiles will say "But Finland lost both times..." and their point is? The Finnish Army backs down from no one. They ripped their independence away at the close of WW1 and will be damned if they let anyone take it for free. Hats off to 'em and wish all free nations had that attitude.
regards,
sven
I think that for anyone to ever be considered underrated, they must perform above and beyond, amidst the popular belief that they could not possibly perform that well. I really don't think the Finnish, Germans, or Japanese fought much better than was expected, nor did anyone, really think that they would not fight as they did.
If any army was underrated, it would have had to have been the US Army. The British had basically the same mentality of the US that they did in WW1--that they could not fight. The Japanese also believed that there would be no will to fight after such a horrible disaster at Pearl Harbor. However, the performance of the US eventually impressed even Montgomery and proved very quickly that the Japanese idea was completely wrong.
So again I have to ask if this topic is on how their performance was expected before the war or is the idear on how their performance is judged today by common sense ? If its on historic expectations than I woud agree that the Finns are high on the List . Stalin expected to invade them with almost no resistance and the rest off Europe shared this . If its on todays opinion than I would say the Poles are most underrated because their good performance with bad equipment is always forgotten . 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 . They knew that they had no chance from the start because off being virtualy surounded from the start and their only hope was to relie on france which had the poorest performance in its history in this war and not even had a plan to help the Poles . Also it has to be seen that they had to fight against both the Germans and the Red Army
-
troopie
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
The Chinese. Especially the Eighth Route Army (Chicom) Japanese radio said the Eighth was the real enemy to fear. Not only did this underequipped army fight the Japanese even, it proceded after the war to take all of China.
or the Yugoslav Partisans. I was told by a non-Yugoslav that when the Red Army reached the Danube it met Tito's partisans who told them, "You can go north to Austria now comrades. Jobs all done here"
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
or the Yugoslav Partisans. I was told by a non-Yugoslav that when the Red Army reached the Danube it met Tito's partisans who told them, "You can go north to Austria now comrades. Jobs all done here"
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Pamwe Chete
The Italian Army in its 1939 cultural state was unready for maneuver warfare: true.Originally posted by Drake666:
I think it most be. The one good thing Rommal had to say about them is that they were good road builders. Gess they needed them for all the retreating they did.
We practiced an highly centralized control and communications between different layers were poor (a situation similar to the 1940's France).
Italy suffered a lot of problems at a strategic level: all that influenced out tactic operations but our combat records are not as bad as portrayed by English literature.
SPWAW is a tactical level game and Italians OOB are ridiculous.
I'm sorry to see just how strong your prejudices are.
--------
Regards
Regards
I agree with Ed. The Italian army suffered reverses comparable to those suffered by French, Soviet, American and even British (Singapore) forces.
Like the French, their situation in the war did not give them the opportunity of redeeming themselves by winning big at some other time.
British propaganda created the concept of Italians being fight shy and "having one gear forward and twelve reverse gears" on their tanks.
This stuck after the war, and Anglo-Saxons are fond of perpetuating these prejudices.
A number of more objective Anglo-Saxon, German and Soviet commentators have expressed a more balanced view.
Italians themselves do not normally like to talk about this subject because they are not proud of that period in their history.
Being from Switzerland, having lived in the UK for 25 years, and being of Italian culture (I come from an Italian speaking Canton) I am probably in a unique position to understand the problem.
Italians fought well and won against the Austrians during 1914-1918.
Their political leadership leading into the Second World War was deeply flawed. Their commitment to their alliance with Germany was never solid. Opportunism and fear played a big part. In this they were hardly alone in Europe.
Italy was far from ready for war when Hitler got going, and their early adventures were efforts aimed at keeping up and not being left out. They were ill advised and doomed to failure.
Again, the results of a complex and difficult geopolitical situation are being oversimplified to come to a judgement about the Army of the country in question.
Over-rated, under-rated... what does it matter?
History has recorded that italian soldiers fought, suffered and died in hundereds of thousands, just like other soldiers in other Armies that at one time or another shared adverse fortunes.
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair?
------------------
Fabs
Like the French, their situation in the war did not give them the opportunity of redeeming themselves by winning big at some other time.
British propaganda created the concept of Italians being fight shy and "having one gear forward and twelve reverse gears" on their tanks.
This stuck after the war, and Anglo-Saxons are fond of perpetuating these prejudices.
A number of more objective Anglo-Saxon, German and Soviet commentators have expressed a more balanced view.
Italians themselves do not normally like to talk about this subject because they are not proud of that period in their history.
Being from Switzerland, having lived in the UK for 25 years, and being of Italian culture (I come from an Italian speaking Canton) I am probably in a unique position to understand the problem.
Italians fought well and won against the Austrians during 1914-1918.
Their political leadership leading into the Second World War was deeply flawed. Their commitment to their alliance with Germany was never solid. Opportunism and fear played a big part. In this they were hardly alone in Europe.
Italy was far from ready for war when Hitler got going, and their early adventures were efforts aimed at keeping up and not being left out. They were ill advised and doomed to failure.
Again, the results of a complex and difficult geopolitical situation are being oversimplified to come to a judgement about the Army of the country in question.
Over-rated, under-rated... what does it matter?
History has recorded that italian soldiers fought, suffered and died in hundereds of thousands, just like other soldiers in other Armies that at one time or another shared adverse fortunes.
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair?
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
About the Italians: Rommel actually rated the Italians very highly. Well, at least the privates. He felt the officer class was the real problem in the Italian military, and especially the upper echelons. His feeling was as much based on his experience against the Italians in the World War One, when his unit consistently defeated numerically superior Italian forces for reasons he attributed to faulty command. Similarly, some of the German officers in WW2 have written that Hungarian and Romanian troops weren't of poor quality, simply poorly equipped and poorly led.
By the way, the Finns were definitely underrated. Everyone, not just the Russians, thought Finland was foolish for risking war with Russia in 1939. And everyone thought they would lose... which they did. But at a cost to the Russians which was unbelievable.
KC
[This message has been edited by von Curow (edited 07-07-2000).]
By the way, the Finns were definitely underrated. Everyone, not just the Russians, thought Finland was foolish for risking war with Russia in 1939. And everyone thought they would lose... which they did. But at a cost to the Russians which was unbelievable.
KC
[This message has been edited by von Curow (edited 07-07-2000).]
The closer you are to Caesar, the greater the fear.
Fabs wrote: "History has recorded that italian soldiers fought, suffered and died in hundereds of thousands, just like other soldiers in other Armies that at one time or another shared adverse fortunes.
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair? "
Fabs don't read or analyze history if that is how you feel. I mean God knows that each and every personality in our history books thought that they were "doing the right thing" even the biggest villains. If you don't want to discuss it then don't.
Personally history is the pursuit of understanding what has led us to where we are. I do a disservice to the misery that was endured by our antecedents by not analyzing, questioning, and learning from the past. I am not sitting at my PC in 2000 America thinking I know what they went through, but neither would they understand what warfare has become in the post ww2 era either. That is the nature of civillization it mutates, changes, and invariably endures one way or another. Analysis does not equal personal attacks.
regards,
sven
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair? "
Fabs don't read or analyze history if that is how you feel. I mean God knows that each and every personality in our history books thought that they were "doing the right thing" even the biggest villains. If you don't want to discuss it then don't.
Personally history is the pursuit of understanding what has led us to where we are. I do a disservice to the misery that was endured by our antecedents by not analyzing, questioning, and learning from the past. I am not sitting at my PC in 2000 America thinking I know what they went through, but neither would they understand what warfare has become in the post ww2 era either. That is the nature of civillization it mutates, changes, and invariably endures one way or another. Analysis does not equal personal attacks.
regards,
sven
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
Sven,
I must disagree.
To analyze one must have an open mind. Too many of the posts under this heading and the other one are clearly laced with prejudice.
The questions are framed in a way that envites that.
If one wanted to ask analytical questions they could be framed in less general, more specific terms, and without resorting to approaches more suited to sports than history.
I do not see a conflict between feeling the way I do and studying history, something that I have done keenly all my life.
The study of history should not encourage the taking of judgemental positions.
I do not see the opinions expressed as personal attacks. I see them as ill informed generalizations.
If history is your interest and analysis your aim, you should ask different questions.
Regards,
------------------
Fabs
I must disagree.
To analyze one must have an open mind. Too many of the posts under this heading and the other one are clearly laced with prejudice.
The questions are framed in a way that envites that.
If one wanted to ask analytical questions they could be framed in less general, more specific terms, and without resorting to approaches more suited to sports than history.
I do not see a conflict between feeling the way I do and studying history, something that I have done keenly all my life.
The study of history should not encourage the taking of judgemental positions.
I do not see the opinions expressed as personal attacks. I see them as ill informed generalizations.
If history is your interest and analysis your aim, you should ask different questions.
Regards,
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
This is what I remember reading not just by Rommel but also by Alan Moorhead, the Australian war correspondent.Originally posted by von Curow:
About the Italians: Rommel actually rated the Italians very highly. Well, at least the privates. He felt the officer class was the real problem in the Italian military, and especially the upper echelons. His feeling was as much based on his experience against the Italians in the World War One, when his unit consistently defeated numerically superior Italian forces for reasons he attributed to faulty command. Similarly, some of the German officers in WW2 have written that Hungarian and Romanian troops weren't of poor quality, simply poorly equipped and poorly led.
By the way, the Finns were definitely underrated. Everyone, not just the Russians, thought Finland was foolish for risking war with Russia in 1939. And everyone thought they would lose... which they did. But at a cost to the Russians which was unbelievable.
KC
[This message has been edited by von Curow (edited 07-07-2000).]
Good soldiers, poor and insufficient equipment and mediocre Generals caused the reverses suffered by the Italians. Hardly a unique case in Europe and elsewhere between 1939 and 1942.
By late 1943 the country was in the grips of a virtual civil war, and was occupied by the Germans who fought the Allies all the way up the Boot.
Italians fought with the Germans (under the Fascist puppet Republic of Salo), with the Allies (alas, they did not cover themselves with glory) and as partisans of various political hues.
Italian troops excelled in suffering. The accounts of the retreat of the Italian Army from Russia make harrowing reading.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
Originally posted by Fabs:
I agree with Ed. The Italian army suffered reverses comparable to those suffered by French, Soviet, American and even British (Singapore) forces.
S-Yes, except it kept suffering reverses. The French went much quicker. The Italians had three years to redeem themselves, and never really did. The most I'll say for them is that they were probably better to have with you than against you, just by virtue of their manpower. Okay, so they did beat the Ethiopians very convincingly, but that really wasn't much of a match-up.
British propaganda created the concept of Italians being fight shy and "having one gear forward and twelve reverse gears" on their tanks.
S-Their mass surrenders are outclassed only by the hordes of Soviets who were captured early in Barbarossa.
This stuck after the war, and Anglo-Saxons are fond of perpetuating these prejudices.
S-What, that the Italians lost? That the riduculous posturing of their comic-opera dictator was just a lot of hot air? If they won, they should have let us know.
Italians fought well and won against the Austrians during 1914-1918.
S-No they didn't win. They were on the winning side. They were just lucky that Italy vs. Austro-Hungary was a clash of junior partners. Economically, they were actually a drag on the allies, and the allies had to call off offensives to prop them up. Luckily, A-H was possibly even worse, and the Germans had to expend a lot of effort keeping them from collapsing. At any rate, nearly the entire war in that theatre was fought in Italy, and for every big victory, there was a crushing defeat. Remember Caporetto? Anyway, they did much better in WWI, and I would agree that they fought well, or at least decently.
Their political leadership leading into the Second World War was deeply flawed. Their commitment to their alliance with Germany was never solid. Opportunism and fear played a big part. In this they were hardly alone in Europe.
S-Well, that's true, mostly. Actually, not very much fear, and a heck of a lot of opportunism. They were very brave to give the Germans the brush-off whenever Adolf asked how the jews were doing. But they were quite craven in their desire to absorb as much of their neighbors as they could. No worse than the rest of east/central Europe where everyone wanted a piece of everyone else.
Italy was far from ready for war when Hitler got going, and their early adventures were efforts aimed at keeping up and not being left out. They were ill advised and doomed to failure.
S-Right, because their military was very bad. When the Greeks counterattack you, and nearly chase you out of Albania in the bargain, it really doesn't say much for your military power.
Again, the results of a complex and difficult geopolitical situation are being oversimplified to come to a judgement about the Army of the country in question.
S-Well, if you decide to fight people, and you get whipped, I don't see how that can possibly have nothing to do with your military. Even if the decision to fight rests squarely with the leadership, which I actually doubt in the Italians' case, the performance of the military is the most important thing in actually winning.
History has recorded that italian soldiers fought, suffered and died in hundereds of thousands, just like other soldiers in other Armies that at one time or another shared adverse fortunes.
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair?
S-Please, enough of these ludicrous 'that's not funny, my brother died like that' lectures. Here I come fifty years later, and say that someone lost. Oohh, what a mean guy I am. This is not a subjective thing. The Italians did very badly. Those are the facts. You know, whenever there's more than one of anything, one of them is better. That's the way it is. Tough luck if the guys you like are worse. If all of the countries had been equal, we'd still be fighting today. You know, I had relatives in the Polish army, but I don't fly into ridiculous histrionics every time someone says they lost. The Germans wiped the floor with them, end of story. I feel really bad about it, but it's the truth. Yes there were local actions where every army performed incredible deeds of valor, but all the anecdotes you can throw up here don't change the fact that they lost. And, quite frankly, I don't think I'm out of line to say they were fighting on the wrong side and I'm glad they did badly. At a distance of fifty years, I can even let myself root for them in war movies and think they made some beautiful airplanes, because the world is safe.
I agree with Ed. The Italian army suffered reverses comparable to those suffered by French, Soviet, American and even British (Singapore) forces.
S-Yes, except it kept suffering reverses. The French went much quicker. The Italians had three years to redeem themselves, and never really did. The most I'll say for them is that they were probably better to have with you than against you, just by virtue of their manpower. Okay, so they did beat the Ethiopians very convincingly, but that really wasn't much of a match-up.
British propaganda created the concept of Italians being fight shy and "having one gear forward and twelve reverse gears" on their tanks.
S-Their mass surrenders are outclassed only by the hordes of Soviets who were captured early in Barbarossa.
This stuck after the war, and Anglo-Saxons are fond of perpetuating these prejudices.
S-What, that the Italians lost? That the riduculous posturing of their comic-opera dictator was just a lot of hot air? If they won, they should have let us know.
Italians fought well and won against the Austrians during 1914-1918.
S-No they didn't win. They were on the winning side. They were just lucky that Italy vs. Austro-Hungary was a clash of junior partners. Economically, they were actually a drag on the allies, and the allies had to call off offensives to prop them up. Luckily, A-H was possibly even worse, and the Germans had to expend a lot of effort keeping them from collapsing. At any rate, nearly the entire war in that theatre was fought in Italy, and for every big victory, there was a crushing defeat. Remember Caporetto? Anyway, they did much better in WWI, and I would agree that they fought well, or at least decently.
Their political leadership leading into the Second World War was deeply flawed. Their commitment to their alliance with Germany was never solid. Opportunism and fear played a big part. In this they were hardly alone in Europe.
S-Well, that's true, mostly. Actually, not very much fear, and a heck of a lot of opportunism. They were very brave to give the Germans the brush-off whenever Adolf asked how the jews were doing. But they were quite craven in their desire to absorb as much of their neighbors as they could. No worse than the rest of east/central Europe where everyone wanted a piece of everyone else.
Italy was far from ready for war when Hitler got going, and their early adventures were efforts aimed at keeping up and not being left out. They were ill advised and doomed to failure.
S-Right, because their military was very bad. When the Greeks counterattack you, and nearly chase you out of Albania in the bargain, it really doesn't say much for your military power.
Again, the results of a complex and difficult geopolitical situation are being oversimplified to come to a judgement about the Army of the country in question.
S-Well, if you decide to fight people, and you get whipped, I don't see how that can possibly have nothing to do with your military. Even if the decision to fight rests squarely with the leadership, which I actually doubt in the Italians' case, the performance of the military is the most important thing in actually winning.
History has recorded that italian soldiers fought, suffered and died in hundereds of thousands, just like other soldiers in other Armies that at one time or another shared adverse fortunes.
Here we come, fifty years later, with no concept of what it must have been like, and set ourselves up as judges.
Is that fair?
S-Please, enough of these ludicrous 'that's not funny, my brother died like that' lectures. Here I come fifty years later, and say that someone lost. Oohh, what a mean guy I am. This is not a subjective thing. The Italians did very badly. Those are the facts. You know, whenever there's more than one of anything, one of them is better. That's the way it is. Tough luck if the guys you like are worse. If all of the countries had been equal, we'd still be fighting today. You know, I had relatives in the Polish army, but I don't fly into ridiculous histrionics every time someone says they lost. The Germans wiped the floor with them, end of story. I feel really bad about it, but it's the truth. Yes there were local actions where every army performed incredible deeds of valor, but all the anecdotes you can throw up here don't change the fact that they lost. And, quite frankly, I don't think I'm out of line to say they were fighting on the wrong side and I'm glad they did badly. At a distance of fifty years, I can even let myself root for them in war movies and think they made some beautiful airplanes, because the world is safe.
Fabs:
I do not agree with your statement that my question is a historically invalid one. Armies judge each other in peacetime and project the relative power of potential rivals.(and indeed in American planning even our allies during the early part of the century) This analysis lends itself to overrating, and underrating threats.
Allow me to put forth leading questions that I would find much more abrasive, and lending themselves to ill informed generalization.
1)which nation had the least will to fight, and the worst doctrine?
2)Which nation deserves the "Ms. Congeniality" award for outstanding performance without strategic gain?
3)Which nation had the bravest soldiers?
These are all questions that I have heard in my college WW2 course that I found to be very offensive. My question was simple and at no time did I expect people to act as though I were trying to set the over-under for a Cincinnatti Reds game. I expected people to back up their opinions and give reasons for their thoughts.
What offends you so greatly about it? I have been a soldier. My wife is a soldier. Soldiers fight, and at no time would I ever call the personal honor, or integrity of someone who served their nation into question. Having said that analyzing the relative performance without wanting to engage in exchanges of college dissertations is not the great blemish that I think you are making it out to be.
In my opinion we do a greater disservice to the men and women who are forced to fight when we do not analyze and understand command failures by nations in war. I would rather learn from the disaster of the French army after the "sitzkrieg" period than have my country suffer from a similar fate. I look at the tactics employed by the Red Army and shake my head in amazement at the wanton waste of soldiers that some of their tactics involved.
Sorry if i do not feel myself to be a villain for asking which army performed below the expectations of the world at the time of the war. War is the single most wasteful endeavor that man can engage in. It is also sometimes extremely necessay to engage in it. I think that by taking an objective look at the past war efforts of various nations and their mistakes that errors that make war even more wasteful can be avoided.
regards,
sven (the "insensitive" one)
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-07-2000).]
I do not agree with your statement that my question is a historically invalid one. Armies judge each other in peacetime and project the relative power of potential rivals.(and indeed in American planning even our allies during the early part of the century) This analysis lends itself to overrating, and underrating threats.
Allow me to put forth leading questions that I would find much more abrasive, and lending themselves to ill informed generalization.
1)which nation had the least will to fight, and the worst doctrine?
2)Which nation deserves the "Ms. Congeniality" award for outstanding performance without strategic gain?
3)Which nation had the bravest soldiers?
These are all questions that I have heard in my college WW2 course that I found to be very offensive. My question was simple and at no time did I expect people to act as though I were trying to set the over-under for a Cincinnatti Reds game. I expected people to back up their opinions and give reasons for their thoughts.
What offends you so greatly about it? I have been a soldier. My wife is a soldier. Soldiers fight, and at no time would I ever call the personal honor, or integrity of someone who served their nation into question. Having said that analyzing the relative performance without wanting to engage in exchanges of college dissertations is not the great blemish that I think you are making it out to be.
In my opinion we do a greater disservice to the men and women who are forced to fight when we do not analyze and understand command failures by nations in war. I would rather learn from the disaster of the French army after the "sitzkrieg" period than have my country suffer from a similar fate. I look at the tactics employed by the Red Army and shake my head in amazement at the wanton waste of soldiers that some of their tactics involved.
Sorry if i do not feel myself to be a villain for asking which army performed below the expectations of the world at the time of the war. War is the single most wasteful endeavor that man can engage in. It is also sometimes extremely necessay to engage in it. I think that by taking an objective look at the past war efforts of various nations and their mistakes that errors that make war even more wasteful can be avoided.
regards,
sven (the "insensitive" one)
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-07-2000).]
All this is good fun. 
You have not offended me, Sven, and I don't believe that you set out to offend anyone.
This is sadly not true about some of the other posts, the contents of which had little to do with historical analysis.
On other matters, we can agree to disagree.
The sort of questions I would ask start with "Why.." as in "Why did a powerful and well equipped army such as the French Army in 1940 collapse in three weeks?".
Once you try to compare (most over-rated/under-rated) it becomes extremely difficult to produce sensible answers because judgement and generalizations are introduced.
This does not mean that you are not perfectly entitled to ask the question.
There is room in the world for my approach as well as yours and others.
Regards,
Fabs (the Pedantic but passionate about history and wargaming one)
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-07-2000).]
You have not offended me, Sven, and I don't believe that you set out to offend anyone.
This is sadly not true about some of the other posts, the contents of which had little to do with historical analysis.
On other matters, we can agree to disagree.
The sort of questions I would ask start with "Why.." as in "Why did a powerful and well equipped army such as the French Army in 1940 collapse in three weeks?".
Once you try to compare (most over-rated/under-rated) it becomes extremely difficult to produce sensible answers because judgement and generalizations are introduced.
This does not mean that you are not perfectly entitled to ask the question.
There is room in the world for my approach as well as yours and others.
Regards,
Fabs (the Pedantic but passionate about history and wargaming one)
------------------
Fabs
[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-07-2000).]
Fabs
This is the sort of simplistic codswallop that I was getting at in my postings.Originally posted by JJU57:
All the Italian supports try to defend them by crying about poor equipemnt, leaders or government. Well this made them a poor army. You will always find a hero or two and some units did fight fairly well. But overall they stunk.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs