Blenheim Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 And thanks to the help of a idiotic pesky Italian dictator and his army, that was intelligent enought to realize they were wasting their time, the USSR had a better chance to survive. The world was saved by Italy, you see. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulletproofest Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Yeah, we all know that when the Roman empire existed, they kicked Greece in the shins and really f'd em' up. The next thing you know, here's Italy(a part of Rome) trying to take Greece again, and get kicked out by the Greek resistance? An army vs. a battalion or something, I mean gosh, no offense but thats kinda pathetic don't cha think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Italy has no recent tradition of successsful military leadership...at least since the Renaissance. This makes it difficult to breed a warrior class and ethic like the Germans seem to produce with such natural ease. The Italian people like to think back to the time of the Roman Empire and identify with its glory, but not with the price to attain it. They do not have the stomach, on the whole, for war. I consider that a positive character trait. Many Italians got caught up in the Fascist fervor of the 20's but this was more out of hope for an organized way out of economic anemia than any particular desire to take over the world. By and large, Italians are more comfortable identifying with their town or region than with any national identity per se. Mussolini did a few good things for Italy, and a whole lot more that were bad, as we all know. He dressed up a nation for war as if they were going to a masked ball, then took them into the real thing. After a while, he paid the price for his arrogance. BTW I appreciate the balanced replies I've seen here on the topic, it's really refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 The weather beat Germans in the race to Moscow...Right. The 8 million or so Soviets under arms in 1941 had nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Luftwaffe: Ummmm, no. I really respect Italians in WW2, troop wise and vehicle wise. Their ligt vehicles along with their anti tank rifles will be a formidable force Yea, right. Tell that again with a square face. Wherever they went they got a gooood ol' spanking. What did they do in tha Balkans just before Barbarossa? Got a spanking, and the Germans had to go to the rescue, delaying the assault with known consequences...</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potential Italian Player Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by bulletproofest: weren't we talking about Itlaian vehicles? :confused: Like these ? Take a look to this site: http://www.kithobbyist.com/regio/tanks/home/main/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potential Italian Player Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by gunnergoz: Italy has no recent tradition of successsful military leadership...at least since the Renaissance. This makes it difficult to breed a warrior class and ethic like the Germans seem to produce with such natural ease. The Italian people like to think back to the time of the Roman Empire and identify with its glory, but not with the price to attain it. They do not have the stomach, on the whole, for war. I consider that a positive character trait. Many Italians got caught up in the Fascist fervor of the 20's but this was more out of hope for an organized way out of economic anemia than any particular desire to take over the world. By and large, Italians are more comfortable identifying with their town or region than with any national identity per se. Mussolini did a few good things for Italy, and a whole lot more that were bad, as we all know. He dressed up a nation for war as if they were going to a masked ball, then took them into the real thing. After a while, he paid the price for his arrogance. BTW I appreciate the balanced replies I've seen here on the topic, it's really refreshing. gunnergoz do you know this site ? http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/dpf/Fascism/Home.html It's a very interesting account about the Exhibition in the Department of Special Collections which was prepared at the Memorial Library of the University of Wisconsin-Madison(July through September 1998). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Luftwaffe: Ummmm, no. I really respect Italians in WW2, troop wise and vehicle wise. Their ligt vehicles along with their anti tank rifles will be a formidable force Yea, right. Tell that again with a square face. Wherever they went they got a gooood ol' spanking. What did they do in tha Balkans just before Barbarossa? Got a spanking, and the Germans had to go to the rescue, delaying the assault with known consequences...</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by SnarkerII: The Italians had no problem with fighting any way they could to kick the Germans out of Italy. Probably shocked the Germans, LOL.the italians *kicked out* the germans out of their country even less than they *helped* the germans "kick out" the russians out of russia. the kicking out was done by the western allies. italian contribution was minimal. btw, IIRC ww2 ended with german troops still on (capitulating on) italian soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Gaylord Focker: I believe it was the multiple fronts that cost Germany the war. America entering the war tipped the scales completely in the Allies favor. While I won't debate with you on your other points, I strongly feel that by the time America entered the war the USSR was already heading towards almost certain victory over Germany. The price paid in lives would have been heavier but with the same overall result. In fact, had the Americans not landed the USSR could have chosen to do a little conquest of its own after Germany collapsed. Also, American lend-lease helped make things easier for the Soviet forces when they needed supplies to support and mobilize their massive forces. [ July 23, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Uh-oh, methinks this thread is about to warm up FWIW I have just re-read Barrie Pitts 'Crucible of War' trilogy on the Western Desert campaign. He suggests that Italian infantry usually fought adequately well up until they realised that the battle was lost and attempted to disengage from the enemy. That's when they struggled to maintain morale and cohesion, and often chose the sane option of surrender instead. Some Italian units (eg. Folgore and Ariete) were well thought of and respected by Rommel throughout the campaign. Italian troops also fought very tenaciously at Keren in East Africa. Pitt also rates Italian artillery as very effective, and the gunners were not afraid to fight their guns through to the bitter end. He is scathing of Italian officers though. Finally, IIRC there was an Italian tank in 1943/4 which mounted an adapted 90mm AA gun, so that's at least 1% of Italian tank production you have to be wary of! Muccilenie would have been proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audace Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Oh Jeez.... what a gaggle of bulls*its! Again, to the Finnish "Prinz Eugen" and to bulletproofest You clearly show a lack of knowledge regarding the Greek campaign. (and you show a lack in other fields too it seems...) 1st myth to collaps: Greeks were more numerous than Italians, as they were ready for the attack months before the war. We attacked with only 5 divisions a country that was defending herself with every possible means. After the sinking of the Cruiser Helli, they began to build up a good Army, and to pre-plan counter attack manouvers. 2. It wasn't the standard Italian soldier's fault. It was a political one basically. Ciano considered the Greek campaign as a personal affair, and Mussolini actually listened to him and to General Visconti Prasca. This General was sure that with just 5 Dvisions Greece would collaps (remember, each Italian divisions had only 2 infantry regiments instead of 3, so it was basically a Brigade. This is something so many forget too often. Some had a blackshirt regiment). Visconti Prasca, it seems, didn't want to be replaced by a "superior" General, and he wanted to be the main man, the General who could beat Greece. Greek forces were waiting for the Italian soldiers, some kilometers behind the front line, after a first line of scarce defence. No other soldiers in the world would have done any better. You arm-chairs herr generals seem to forget that fighting with bad weapons, very bad equipment, with your uniform that would collaps as it was of bad manufacture, without food for days, without a logistical army, without ammunition (probably the worst), without good artillery support (and the Greeks were really good with 81mm mortars), frostbitten, without the will to fight a strange war, is something to praise on rather than say stupid stuff. What our soldiers did in WW2 was something out of the ordinary, given their positions. So many men died, and suffered just to be remembered by casual idiots who tend to forget that war was not fought "like a game" . Show at least some respect. Giocatore Italiano: io mi sono proprio stufato di leggere sempre le stesse cose. Ci sono e ci saranno sempre gli idioti. Come mi diceva mio zio "La madre dei cretini è sempre incinta!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Originally posted by Luftwaffe: Ummmm, no. I really respect Italians in WW2, troop wise and vehicle wise. Their ligt vehicles along with their anti tank rifles will be a formidable force You are correct in that their anti tank guns were decent. Learned from lessons in fighting superior British armor in Africa, the Italian's had to improvise by creating new anti tank vehicles, for instance mounting the 65/17mm alpine troop gun to trucks and using captured Morris cars and mounting 20mm guns on them. [ July 23, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SnarkerII Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SnarkerII: The Italians had no problem with fighting any way they could to kick the Germans out of Italy. Probably shocked the Germans, LOL.the italians *kicked out* the germans out of their country even less than they *helped* the germans "kick out" the russians out of russia. the kicking out was done by the western allies. italian contribution was minimal. btw, IIRC ww2 ended with german troops still on (capitulating on) italian soil.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Originally posted by The Commissar: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker: I believe it was the multiple fronts that cost Germany the war. America entering the war tipped the scales completely in the Allies favor. While I won't debate with you on your other points, I strongly feel that by the time America entered the war the USSR was already heading towards almost certain victory over Germany. The price paid in lives would have been heavier but with the same overall result. In fact, had the Americans not landed the USSR could have chosen to do a little conquest of its own after Germany collapsed. Also, American lend-lease helped make things easier for the Soviet forces when they needed supplies to support and mobilize their massive forces.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulletproofest Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Audace! aaahhhh yeah, you spelled collapse wrong there buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Gaylord Stalin had no fear of invasion by Japan anyeay - the Sov's had thumped the Japs in 1939, and there wasn't much strategic to lose in Siberia at the time. What's far more important is the release of troops from the west if America didn't enter the war. The Eastern front always had at least 2/3rds of the Whermacht fighting there, but if the western Garrisons could have been made smaller then this might've been able to be increased by another 10% or more. Also without the strategic bombing in 1943-4 there would have been still more resource to send east .....And there would never have ben an operation Torch, Italy wouldn't have been invaded and there would ahve ben no Stewarts, Grants, Sherman or P-40's for the Brits in Nth Africa. All these are far more telling than fantasies about Stalin worrying about the Japs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Okay, this thread has veered far off the original question so I am closing it up now. Yes, all minor nations will have vehicles and that includes Italy. I don't have time to post any pictures in further info on this right now though. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts