Any insights on Italian equipment/troops?

[The Hapless General]

To quote Anthony Eden (who himself was paraphrasing Churchill, after 20,000 Italians, with 200 guns and 120 tanks surrendered to 3000 Brits while trying to evacuate Benghazi):

"Never has so much been surrendered, by so many, to so few."

[Gambara]

True, because the Brits always had it all mapped out with all the fire exits clearly marked. With neon signs stating "run don't walk".

(oh, read my quote! )

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Gambara:

True, because the Brits always had it all mapped out with all the fire exits clearly marked. With neon signs stating "run don't walk".

(oh, read my quote! )

Your continued gibbering has still done nothing to prove that the Italian Army was superior to the British Army in any way, shape or form, or in any single category you would choose to name, if that was your intent.

Aside from graceless cheap shots, did you have anything of substance to add? Your use of the word "dialectic" was an interesting twist, but you've still managed to turn a commentary on tactical skills, training, and equipment into a pointless round of "but they needed oil from Iraq and wool uniforms from the US and troops from South Africa, Canada and Down Under, so how could they be considered good"?

A look at Firepower by Bidwell and Graham might open your eyes to the enormously successful system of controlling indirect artillery fire (giving one forward observation officer on the ground, for example, the ability to call in fire from all guns of an entire field regiment (Mike Target), the entire divisional artillery (Uncle Target) or even the supporting guns of an entire Army Corps (Victor Target), dependent on target suitability of course.)

No one is claiming these lessons weren't hard won, but the fact that Britain could live through such dark days of defeat is itself indicative of their resolve; that they could develop truly useful methods of training (Battle Drill), fire control (as described above), or equipment (Churchill Crocodile, anyone?) should speak volumes to you.

Did you care to suggest a single piece of Italian equipment that was world class in nature, on the order of the 25-pounder field gun with its circular firing platform and legendary rate of fire, or the reliability and accuracy of the Bren Light Machine Gun?

Perhaps you'd care to discuss why Italian squad and platoon level training was superior to Battle Drill (a method of training Montgomery felt stressed individual procedures too much at the cost of company and collective training). I'd be interested in that.

[ March 21, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[PiggDogg]

Gambara,

Some knowledge might be gained by studying some, actually almost any, history that accurately covers the Italian army in WW2. As JasonC and others have stated, the Italian WW2 army was almost always miserable with a few infrequent times of bare competence.

I am an American of Italian extraction (Cuccia as surname), and I have no ax to grind against Italians. I would love for the WW2 Italian army to have been good. However, to put it bluntly, they sucked.

Hey, the Romans conquered and controled the civilized western world for about 1000 years. Also, their Roman civilization is the basis for present day western civilization which is the best and top dog in the world today.

So do your homework, learn, and be unbiased.

Cheers, Richard

[ March 23, 2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I trust Gambara is getting his research notes together, I look forward to his dissertation on training methods in the Italian Army and how they were superior to that of the British.

I do hope he doesn't make the mistake of superimposing grand strategy - for which Tommy Atkins was not responsible - overtop of the actual competency of the Army, or skill-at-arms, as it were.

[xerxes]

The Italians did have the best tankettes and the best ATRs of the war. Too bad WWII didn't start 5 years earlier, the Italian equipment would have been unbeatable.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by xerxes:

The Italians did have the best tankettes and the best ATRs of the war. Too bad WWII didn't start 5 years earlier, the Italian equipment would have been unbeatable.

As unbeatable as

the French Char B1 bis circa May-June 1940?

the British Matilda circa May 1940?

the Soviet T-34 circa 1941?

the German King Tiger circa 1944?

Not sure I understand the point about tankettes. What made them the "best", and what tactical role did they really play on the battlefield - either 1935 or 1941?

The British, for my money, had the best socks. Those nice crisp ones that came just over the top of the calf. Highlanders got to wear their hose top flashes with them, very jaunty. And those khaki puttees were something else, too.

How were those Italian ATRs employed?

[ March 23, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Romulus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I trust Gambara is getting his research notes together, I look forward to his dissertation on training methods in the Italian Army and how they were superior to that of the British.

Maybe I didn't read carefully Gambara's posts but it doesn't seem to me that he has ever said that Italian training methods are better than British ones. As I have already pointed out above, he was just maintaining that similar events are judged and interpreted in different ways depending on the country you consider. That's it. So I can't really understand what the training methods have to do with Gambara's statements.

I apologize if I didn't catch the real meaning of what you are saying.

Regards

Peppe

[Robohn]

Did anyone mention that the Italians had a much shorter supply line to Africa than the British did? With internet shopping everyone knows more about the cost of shipping these days!

Also, forcing an Expeditionary force off your coast, when their principal ally folds like a house of cards (France) is not really that huge an accomplishment (folding France in three weeks was though!). Had it been easy to fight a cross channel conflict the Germans would have done it now wouldn't they?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Romulus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I trust Gambara is getting his research notes together, I look forward to his dissertation on training methods in the Italian Army and how they were superior to that of the British.

Maybe I didn't read carefully Gambara's posts </font>

[JasonC]

It is simple, he wants Italy to be to the Axis as Britain is to the Allies, and all the rest to reflect mere winner's bias. Which is revisionist, nationalist bilge, entirely analysis free, and makes contact with actual history nowhere. It is mere spin. Fundamentally, his position is that all history is mere spin so he can make up whatever he likes. Which is just horsenuance.

[ March 24, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Matthias]

hes posts were very anti british for some reason...but hes biggest mistake was taking on JasonC about any fact, ever in ww2 (i am english myself and i find it very insulting to have my country's army of ww2 to be compared to the italeins in any way )

[Wisbech_lad]

To be fair, the performance of the British Army probably was the "worst" of the three services (RAF & RN the other two)

We sometimes forget how much political training had to be done to persuade T. Atkins that the war was not WW1 redux. And from late '44 onwards, there was a stong attitude of not being the last to die in a war already won.

Sword of Honour trilogy by E Waugh is good on the British Army, especially early war - as, in its way, are Milligan's memoirs.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

To be fair, the performance of the British Army probably was the "worst" of the three services (RAF & RN the other two)

We sometimes forget how much political training had to be done to persuade T. Atkins that the war was not WW1 redux. And from late '44 onwards, there was a stong attitude of not being the last to die in a war already won.

Sword of Honour trilogy by E Waugh is good on the British Army, especially early war - as, in its way, are Milligan's memoirs.

But don't you think the Army grew far more than the RAF or the RN did, in the way it adopted modern tactics, equipment and techniques? If Tommy was digging trenches on Salisbury in 1939 while wearing a kilt, he had perfected and pioneered a lot of stuff that would remain standard for 60 years afterwards - the infantry section (and its component teams) as the basic tactical unit, the aforementioned artillery system, the co-operation of tanks and infantry, the use of the armoured personnel carrier, etc.

Meanwhile, did the Navy really learn much that would be (or would have been) useful in the Cold War (or a presupposed hot war against the Eastern Bloc)?

What about the RAF? Would learning to fight 1000 plane bomber raids really serve it in great stead in the nuclear age?

[JasonC]

Well, I don't think I have much to do with it frankly. He just picked an entirely indefensible thesis. Mike or anybody else could show as much, readily. He overplayed a "put" - jumping to conclusions about me - and obviously doesn't know people on this forum very well. But if his position had more merit those would be minor matters.

[Wisbech_lad]

M. Dorosh - Arguably the CW armies had learned all that by 1918... well, apart from the arty radios. So it was more a case of rediscovering them. Tactically, there was more change 1914-1918 than 39-45 in all armies - I can only really think of platoon level ATW's (and even then, ATR's appeared at the end of WW1). Heck, the British Army of 1918 even recognised that 0.303 was overpowered, and wanted to move to 6mm.

One of the oddities of the interwar period is the way the Germans studied 1918 in detail, while much of the British army seemed to relish getting away from the professional mass army doctrines & lessons of WW1, and returning to being an class based imperial police force ASAP.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

[QB] M. Dorosh - Arguably the CW armies had learned all that by 1918... well, apart from the arty radios. So it was more a case of rediscovering them.

I disagree. They weren't using rifle teams (we call them fire teams today) in 1918, nor armoured personnel carriers, and the sophistication of the artillery system was much more complex in WW II as a result of the desert warfare. The infantry platoon was still unwieldy in 1918, with its section of bombers, another one of Lewis Gunners, another one of riflemen with cold steel, etc. I think the British learned far more than you give them credit for in WW II.

But even if you don't agree, what exactly did the RAF and RN learn?

[Wisbech_lad]

M. Dorosh,

I didn't say that the other services learnt more than the army, just that their overall performance (especially early war) was better.

Didn't Plan 1919 call for APC to allow troops to keep up with Whippet tanks?

[flamingknives]

Mk IX APC

Granted, it's only a prototype, but this was developed about the time the British Govt. decided that it was not gonna study war no more, so full production was unlikely.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

M. Dorosh,

I didn't say that the other services learnt more than the army, just that their overall performance (especially early war) was better.

Didn't Plan 1919 call for APC to allow troops to keep up with Whippet tanks?

Where were they from 1939 to 1944, then?

[flamingknives]

Being rediscovered?

The Loyd carriers were originally designed as troop carriers and later the White HTs were APCs, albeit not very good ones.