Any insights on Italian equipment/troops?

[karlis]

Hello, first-time poster, Combat Mission newbie (played about half a dozen games against the computer, playing my first two PBEM games now).

I know the Italian military did not distinguish itself during WWII, but I have a soft spot for the Italians and intend to play as the Italians with some regularity. I'm doing well so far in my first PBEM game as the Italians on an axis probe in a small map, North Africa, flat village. Any insights on what types of equipment or particular units are more effective than others? Anything that I should stay away from in most situations?

From what I know of history Italian tanks were nothing special; if the same holds true in the game I'd imagine that for the Italians, tanks are de-emphasized in favor of artillery and AT guns in a mixed force?

[The Hapless General]

Hi Karlis, and welcome.

I am currently playing a campaign as the brits vs italians in East Africa from Jul40 to Jun41. During this period, the brits have no armor and the italians have only a couple light tanks and tankettes.

This makes for very interesting games and I am sure you will be able to enjoy playing the italians in these settings (just go easy on the brits will ya? )

[junk2drive]

at the sd there are some small battles by hans that use italians vs french and brits that you would like

[kingofthehill]

Originally posted by karlis:

I know the Italian military did not distinguish itself during WWII

This is not true, it is a common place that it does not correspond to many episodes where Italian Forces was employed. Is true that the Highly HQ/ Highly command repart of Italy force they were not to the height of "Giovanni" , like "Ivan" in russian army.(this is one pseudonym in order to indicate the regular or the main of troops).

Regards

KotH.

Read folks read.....

[karlis]

As an admirer of Italy and a student of WWII, I'd like to read about occasions where the Italian military (any branch) distinguished itself.

I've read many books on various aspects of the war, and have found very little that suggested the Italian military was effective. The story of the Italian military in WWII seems to be a story mainly of defeat.

[John Kettler]

karlis,

Welcome!

The answer to your question is Halfaya Pass. Rommel was full of praise for the Italian artillerymen who not only fought side by side with the Germans, but scored quite a few tank kills on their own with 75mm AA guns. I've recently learned that Rommel issued some Italian units 88s, which were never all that common to begin with. I speculate that this was based on having seen the italian artillerymen in action at Halfaya. The book FIGHTING ROMMEL IN THE DESERT by Delaney? has an IWM photo of Italian crewed 88s firing. The Italian 90 mm SP is a deadly threat, and the Semovente makes a fair StuG substitute, especially with the new rounds someone dug up.

The fundamental problem with the Italians was not the average grunt living on "asino morte" (dead donkey, as the Italians termed their rations). It was that the men were generally poorly led and even poorly fed and watered by their fat cat senior leaders (good food, good wine, sometimes even mistresses), which compounded the ever growing technical deficiencies of the armor and other weapons. That said, the British took quite a few M-13/40s into front line service, ditto Breda MGs in the SAS, and the Germans took over and used lots of Italian armor when Italy capitulated to the Allies. The Aussies used a great deal of captured Italian artillery (and armor too?).

The Italian AB series armored cars were superb, and they, in conjunction with special desert modded trucks and cooperating light aircraft (a Ghibli) gave the LRDG and SAS fits. I can't recall the name of the outfit (Forza Saharienne?), but it was well respected by the SAS and LRDG. The Italian Navy (Regia Marina) had some excellent warships but was severely hamstrung by lack of fuel. For sheer guts, and highly leveraged special operation success, look at what the Italians did to the Royal Navy with their midget sub unit (2-manned torpedoes w/ detachable warheads crewed by divers in wetsuits) attacks in both Alexandria and Gibraltar, the latter conducted repeatedly from a specially modified wreck right under British noses. Try "De La Penne" in Google. The Italian Air Force (Regia Aeronautica) had some good planes (SM-79 used as level and torpedo bomber, Macchi MC 202 Folgore fighter) and mounted some punishing strikes. Italian subs in the Med caused a great deal of grief, too. The Italian Folgore parachute division fought superbly time and again. Rommel praised the Trento and Ariete armored divisions, even while adjusting their combat tasks to reflect their lesser combat power and survivability vis a vis the Panzer units.

Bluntly put, karlis, the Italian GIs were fine. Italy was too poor and weak in its manufacturing base to field a modern army, the care of the men was at times criminal, much of the equipment was obsolete, POL was scarce, and the leadership was basically terrible. Supply lines were long and heavily interdicted by Allied air and naval power, taking full advantage of Enigma decrypts while hiding the source. And we haven't even discused the Mussolini negative modifier. Some online digging will likely produce a bunch of official Italian combat history books, but you'll probably need to be able to read Italian. Italy did some great work in the 1930s on integrated AFV families, replete with funnies of several sorts (inter alia, FT, gas, smoke, bridging). Search for books by Dr. Nicola Pignato, the dean of Italian armor studies. At least one is available in English.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 16, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[karlis]

Thanks for the info; I'll take a look around. I had heard about Italian artillery successes, the midget sub attack (particularly at Alexandria) and read favorable reviews of Italian pilots over Malta, but they seemed to be exceptions. I did get the sense from the literature that the Italians suffered primarily under poor leadership. Italy clearly seems not to have been ready for war, with all the difficulties that entails. My Italian is at a *very* elementary level (lived in Sicily for a few months; left just as I was getting the hang of the language, have since lost most of it), so I'll have to hunt around for the English language sources.

You'll be happy to know that my Italian probe against the British in a PBEM game is going very well. I have a 75?mm on-map gun that has killed two British light tanks (both in turn one), an AT gun (with help from on-map mortars), and has caused an enemy medium tank to go into hiding (with help from anti-tank rifles). Oh, and the gun was strafed by a Hurricane fighter and did not so much as go into "alterted" mode. And I'm only on turn 4. I'll look to try the other equipment you recommend.

[Romulus]

Some good stereotype-free information about Italian military in WWII can be found at the following sites:

www.comandosupremo.com

www.italianfront.com

www.geocities.com/italianisti/

Here is a thread about the employment of Italian equipment in CMAK.

Peppe

[karlis]

Is that thread on the use of Italian equipment in CMAK from the CMAK forum? I'll have to search for it b/c the link brought me back to the battlefront main page.

Unless all of the dozens of books I've read on WWII are British propaganda (though admittedly I've not read an exhaustive account of the North or East Africa campaigns), even if the exploits of the Italian military are unfairly viewed in a negative light (which I can imagine is probably true - on the opposite side it seems to me Rommel is unfairly lionized), there are quite a few significant defeats and very few victories to point to (even if the defeats are due to marco reasons such as leadership, supply, war preparation, etc.). That said, I'm looking forward to reading about the positive aspects. Gotta love those frogmen! I've been to Malta and have seen the gaping hole in a jetty (or whatever you call it) protecting the Valetta harbor. The handiwork of an Italian E-boat.

[Romulus]

Sorry for the wrong link above.

Here is the right one.

[karlis]

Great link; much appreciated!

[Probert]

Karlis,

Echoing others, the Italian Army's officer corps was incredibly inconsistent. Some units were great but others suffered from poor morale and leadership.

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by karlis:

Any insights on what types of equipment or particular units are more effective than others?

Use the Germans.

[John Kettler]

karlis,

Here's a link to a previous thread which may be of some help (URL button not working). Have broken the URL in two to avoid the giant screen problem.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/

ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001558#000000

Also, I just realized there's another resource which may be useful to you. Long out of print, hence see www.abebooks.com, it's called WEST OF ALAMEIN, by Col. G.B. Jarrett (founder of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum and someone who was directly involved with the weapons). Provided you're careful with the captions, there is a ton of material in his book on the Italian army, with heavy emphasis on the armor and artillery, plus good coverage of at least some of the infantry weapons. Regia Aeronautica has some photos and color illos; captions seem to be useful.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Stalin's Organ]

IMO the early war Italian army is just fine - play "Beda Fomm" from the CD - if it wasn't for Matilda's the Brits would be toast!

[Gambara]

History is written by people like you and me, we all have our bias and beliefs, we're agreed up to this point I think? History books have therefore been more a reflection of the writer than what "happened". The first mistake is to overlook the background of the writer (Liddel Hart, Macksey, Rommel etc.).

All I know is that the textbooks I read in High School (Rochester NY, not the backwoods of Mississippi) mentioned nothing about the Italians even being in North Africa, it wasn't until I got into college that I found out a big piece of history was simply deleted, rendered invalid. (hang in there I'm going somewhere with this...)

The fact is most books written by the British and Germans after the war tend to discredit or simply not mention the Italian military effort, while covering their own butts. But not only that, they also gloss over their own failures tending to focus on the victories and especially the ultimate victory. In fact the ultimate victory is rarely explained in terms of abundance of resources but in terms of "doggedness".

To accomplish this magic act takes all the skill of a defense lawyer, first they divert your attention, because they mean to convince you their conduct was exemplary, by providing entertaining anecdotes about the Italians. While you are busy musing about the silly Italians you are not thinking about the BEF in France finishing at Dunkirk by abandoning a wealth of weapons on the ground, The BEF new evac in Norway, evac in Somaliland when faced by a largely motorized/mechanized force, evac in Greece, again in Crete, again in Burma, + Malaya and a big surrender finish in Singapore. Not to mention several setbacks and retreats in North Africa at the hands of the Italo-German forces, losing a few important campaigns there. They gloss over that in East Africa, completely cut out from receiving supplies from the mother country, the Italians tied up for almost 11 months a significant Commonwealth force of over 200,000 which would have been used elsewhere, had the Italians simply surrendered. The British didn't have the same air, armor and naval support against infantry that they did during Graziani's retreat. There, everything else being pretty much equal, the side which could be supplied won in the end.

What I'm saying is: question the books which are incoherent, whose arguments are obviously fallacious, for example, a British historian cannot make an assertion such as: "the Italian were bailed out by the Germans" because if so then logically you would then have to say The British were bailed out by the Commonwealth and the Americans. Inconsistent, and argumentative? I think so. If you think about it, you'll think so too.

I mean seriously, can anyone think that Britain, realy alone, not the slogan "alone", with only her own country's resources, (not the oil from Iraq, not the troops from Australia etc.) standing toe to toe with just Italy, without the Commonwealth and American help, would have fared so well? Nevermind standing alone against Germany.

And in view of the many mistakes and defeats suffered by the Brits despite all the material help they got, (while Italy could only get crumbs or troops from Germany, her only ally) why for God's sake are we talking still only about Italy losing the war? Why are we talking about the poor Italian leadership, when those same leaders in fact didn't have all the tools/resources available to their British counterpart?

And yet, amazingly, the British still suffered many defeats before winning the war, more than you can count for Italy, despite all the help they got from outside the Isles. I wonder if the US had been an Italian ally, and Italy would have got the Shermans instead of Britain, and Britain would have had to struggle for every little bit of help coming from just what the Germans would be willing to give. I wonder then how things would have looked for Britain? If we would be talking about British poorly trained troops, poor leadership and equipment?

A more interesting question then would be how one country suffers major defeats despite the resources, not how can a country without them suffers defeat. That is, if we really must deal with the usual "score-board" dialectic.

Regards,

[ March 20, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Gambara ]

[JasonC]

What unadultered balderdash. The Italian army of WW II was one of the worst on the planet, led by nincompoops, with morale in the basement. It was underequipped not only with decent tanks and first line AC, but with things like trucks, and ordinary civilian life supplies. Higher officers lived off their positions like medieval nobility, while treating their rankers with indifference.

In 1940 the entire force in NA was destroyed by a British force 1/5th its own size, wallowing in useless inactivity as rings were run around successive coast positions and the resulting pockets chopped to pieces as they tried to escape. Masses of PWs resulted. The Italians couldn't beat the Greeks, let alone the Brits. In Russia an Italian army was slaughtered in a matter of weeks when it was made the focus of a serious Russian offensive. It Sicily morale was so low they just evaporated on contact.

Their best performance of the war was not east Africa - where primitive infrastructure, logistics, and disease were the real obstacles - but under DAK from 1941 to 1942. The Italian force was reduced to shambles after El Alamein since it lacked the transport to get away. They did OK holding positions behind minefields with sufficient artillery and ammo, in the static periods of the war. Ariete, the cream of the force, was decent, able to take on a typical Commonwealth division, but lacked the punch of a real panzer division.

This is not revisionism or history by victors - who criticize their own failings mercilessly, anyway. Nor is it any surprise. The average Italian soldier had precious little interest in the whole war, the country's leadership were goons, the higher army was corrupt and unprofessional (promoted for political loyalty etc). Italy's economy was miniscule compared to the other real powers in the war. Mussolini insisted on a huge force essentially for the sake of bargain with the Germans diplomatically, with the result that it was perpetually underequipped and infantry heavy. You can draft men but have to actually build trucks.

One can explore *why* the Italian army sucked and gave such a poor combat performance compared to its numerical and organizational size. But *that* it sucked is not rationally debatable.

[ March 20, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Gambara]

Jason Jason, such anger and passion, tsk tsk, here's a newsflash, the war is over since 1945 you can let it rest! Besides, you just proved my point, for people like you it's personal, otherwise you wouldn't spit such venomous insults, and get so heated up, and note I didn't use your highly educated expressions such as "sucked", "goons" etc. If you are man enough to dish it out you should be able to take it, but it's not the case for you.

I repeat, facts speak louder than words, I quote from your eloquent speech, but with regards to the British Army of course (LOL, too bad Radio London has been long shut down;)--->>

The British Army or BEF (Back Every Fortnight):

France/Dunkirk: "disintegration"??

Norway: "evaporation"?

Malaya and Singapore: "masses of POW's"

Op Market Garden: "medieval nobility"... "treating their rankers with indifference"?

Creta: "reduced to shambles"?

Greece: "for the sake of bargain"... "was slaughtered"

Burma: "morale was so low"

British Somaliland: "couldn't beat the Greeks let alone the Brits" (I suppose the Brits here left because of the bad weather for sunny Yemen)

North Africa: "unprofessional" "led by nincompoops" you mean like Montgomery, called by his peers the best WWI general of WWII.

Almost forgot the brits retreated in Sudan too during the Italian attack to gain better defensive ground, and did.

WWII /the land lease act: "You can draft men but have to actually build trucks" ..or cruisers, destroyers, trucks, tanks etc. all courtesy of the USA. Then the US had to send troops because the materials weren't enough, so the US bailed Britain out of North Africa. Just following your logic.

Let's face it Jason, what sucks is your level of education and as you say yourself in your quote your fanatic "dogmatism", the only history you can handle is revisionistic.

As far as leaders are concerned, wasn't it Churchill that back stabbed the Poles after they protected English homes, got used as cannon fodder, only to give them up to the Soviets on a trade for Greece?

By the way I see how when the tables are turned it really stings doesn't it?? Because in the end you couldn't deny that all the British defeats I mentioned actually happened. But typically you diverted by insulting the Italians as I said in my previous your type does. lol

[ March 20, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Gambara ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Gambara:

in the end you couldn't deny that all the British defeats I mentioned actually happened.

Why on earth would he NEED to do that? Britain sucked until 1942-43. Italy sucked until... oh yeah, it surrendered. Or is there some kind of competition going on? That if Musso got hanged, he lost, but because Labour won in Britain after the war, it was only a minor defeat? :confused:

[Romulus]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Or is there some kind of competition going on?

I don't think Gambara was talking about a "competition in number of defeats" between the British and the Italian military during WW2. Guess he just wanted to point out how similar events and situations are interpreted and judged in completely different ways, depending on the country you consider.

[British Tommy]

Some excellent points raised by Gambara and well worth giving thought to.Jason also raises some good points but his anger bubbled through and almost spoilt his comments.

Let's just say each nation fought to it's best abilities and leave it at that.

[Europa]

I have a close friend from Italy whose grandad actually fought in NA during WWII. She(!) told me that he had told her when she was younger that they (the italians) only waited for an opportunity to surrender to the english and get out of there. What can be thought of as interesting is that she is and he was from Milano, I guess the city for Mussolini rule, and still her grandad and his comrades wasn't up for a war. I know that it hardly counts as evidence but when I speak to her I get the impression that most italians didn't want a war at all, and many from southern Italy actually fought on the english side later in the war, something that CM could have modelled by the way, if its true that is.

Ok, lots of speculation and actually not that much substance but I still feel that history hasn't been that unfair to Italy as a whole, besides the fact maybe that more cred should be given to them for not wanting a war at all.

Finally Gambara still has a point in my view when saying that the winners wrote the history and that it is in no way objective.

Cheers!

[JasonC]

No it doesn't "really sting", it is just comical. I'm not British. There is no anger involved, just revisionist poppycock from a partisan uninterested in the actual history. Nobody with a life cares about any of these things for reasons of honor or pride. They assess them honestly to understand the past, and in the case of wargames to model things correctly.

The Italians did not lose when they faced overwhelming odds and win otherwise. They lost catastrophically when they had overwhelming odds themselves. You don't have to read Allied accounts, German accounts will do just fine.

Assessing relative combat performance is not journalist spin nor an arcane field of mystery where everyone has an ... opinion. You can see what a division sized unit typically did or did not manage to do. The Italians sucked. No professional military assessment of the war has ever even tried to maintain otherwise.

7 Italian divisions attacked Greece. The Greeks counterattack with 3, and drove them out. Graziani, arguably the worst military commander in the entire war, lost the bulk of his 250,000 man force inside of 3 months to a force 1/5th its own size. The 200,000 man force sent to Russia by mid 1942 was essentially destroyed in a matter of weeks once targeted for a full scale Russia offensive in December.

Nobody pretends morale was high among the rank and file, or that leadership was good, or that equipment matched that of the real powers. Italy's economy shrank 15% before being invaded, in chaos and inflation, while other powers were drastically expanding theirs. Essential production was entirely dependent on imported German coal, and the whole economy was an order of magnitude smaller than other major combatants, to begin with. All the Italian commanders, themselves, complain regularly of poor equipment and supplies, chaotic chains of command, inadequate transport and fuel.

There is such a thing as a military being just plain bad, and Italy's in WW II - particularly the army - was. Its best units on their best occasions fought like comparable scale and equipped units on the other side, while entire armies dissolved with little effect at other crucial times.

Nor is this any conflating poor performance with eventually losing. Nobody pretends the Germans weren't effective tactically, far more so than comparable numbers of Russians e.g. Nothing remotely similar can truthfully be said of the Italians.

[ March 21, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gambara:

History is written by people like you and me, we all have our bias and beliefs, we're agreed up to this point I think?

Aside from insulting Jason, I've seen no evidence that you "write" history at all, much less understand it. In fact, your own misinformed comments indicate quite the contrary.

[ March 21, 2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[xerxes]

The Italians collapsed in East Africa even though they had significant advantages in men and material.

The Italians collapsed in North Africa even though they had significant advantages in men and material.

The Italians collapsed in Greece even though they had signficiant advantages in men and material.

Notice a pattern?

Arguing that the Italian military was anything but terrible is absurd. Some of the units in the Italian military were good (artillerymen, paratroopers, Ariete, etc). It was a case of 95% bad, 5% good. The 5% couldn't come close to making up for the 95%. Not having a decent general in the lot was the crowning failure.

That's not insulting Italians or revisionism. I applaud the Italians for not being interested in extending a meglomaniac facist dictatorship with their blood.