Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Continuing with my focus on the early war phase of WW2, I've now switched my attention to the Italians and their efforts. .

We've all heard the jokes about Italian tanks only having a reverse gear, and stories of 10,000 Italian troops surrendering to one British soldier etc etc

But is the truth somewhere in between?

Some of their fighter planes were highly rated (even by the Germans) and even Rommel seems to have lamented the destruction of the Italian divisions after the battle of El Alamein.

So what do my fellow Dakka members think about the performance of the Italian military in WW2?

They lost to inferior Greek forces in Albania. Not because they were poorly armed (they were better equipt than the greeks) They were just poorly commanded and lacked any real Zest for combat. The Greeks were fighting for their lives. After that - Hilter basically used Italian units as reserves.

 Xenomancers wrote:
They lost to inferior Greek forces in Albania. Not because they were poorly armed (they were better equipt than the greeks) They were just poorly commanded and lacked any real Zest for combat. The Greeks were fighting for their lives. After that - Hilter basically used Italian units as reserves.

I'm 50/50 on that. The Italian volunteers to fight the Russians seemed to have put up a decent show (even at Stalingrad when the Russians blitzed them) and the Ariete Division seems to have put up a good show in North Africa as well.

But as you say, for every Ariete division, there was the Albania fiasco or the Operation Compass debacle.

Don't forget the Italians got wacked by the Greeks too.

And Rommel needed all he could he had a hard time getting reinforcements.

I know their artillery was highly rated.

But he truth is has probably more to do with that they were poorly led and the common soldier wasn't as motivated in fighting in a war as the others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Someone beat me to all my arguments.

KTG17 wrote:
Don't forget the Italians got wacked by the Greeks too.

And Rommel needed all he could he had a hard time getting reinforcements.

I know their artillery was highly rated.

But he truth is has probably more to do with that they were poorly led and the common soldier wasn't as motivated in fighting in a war as the others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Someone beat me to all my arguments.

I think part of the problems stems from some poor equipment. Their tanks seemed to be obsolete (although their armoured cars were good) and one or two of their guns were really bad, especially their LMGs.

Forgotten Weapons did a recent video on the Italian LMG, and boy, is it totally unsuited for North Africa

The Sparviero was an excellent dive bomber, and the Italian mountain troops kicked all kinds of ass in the Caucasus. Doesn't change the fact that the Italian army as a whole was a horrible failure of an army.

I get the impression my grandfather thought the Italians as a whole were a complete shower and came away actively disliking them, unlike his experience with Germans.

Italy had issues with command and leadership primarily, much like France in WW2. That will result in poor performance for any military, one can see it with the Germans as well later in the war and the Soviets early in the war.

France and Italy also attempted to call it quits when the writing was on the wall, sparing their populations lots of suffering in exchange for loss of face and being the butt of jokes for the last 70-odd years. Had all of Italy (or France in 1940) been defended the way the Soviet Union or Germany had been, they'd have suffered dramatically greater casualties and property/infrastructure loss to reach the same outcomes. Both Paris and Rome were taken with very little fighting and damage, unlike say, Berlin which was utterly destroyed.

Except Berlin is probably the odd one out.

Most countries would surrender long before they get destroyed, but experiences in Berlin helped the US decide it was better and easier to nuke Japan.


As for the Italians, you can have the best troops in the world, but if they are poorly led then they will always be terrible.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Italy had issues with command and leadership primarily, much like France in WW2. That will result in poor performance for any military, one can see it with the Germans as well later in the war and the Soviets early in the war.

France and Italy also attempted to call it quits when the writing was on the wall, sparing their populations lots of suffering in exchange for loss of face and being the butt of jokes for the last 70-odd years. Had all of Italy (or France in 1940) been defended the way the Soviet Union or Germany had been, they'd have suffered dramatically greater casualties and property/infrastructure loss to reach the same outcomes. Both Paris and Rome were taken with very little fighting and damage, unlike say, Berlin which was utterly destroyed.

That is a great point. The French Leadership I would rate even worse than the Italians. They had a superior army to Germany and were ultimately defeated in a few days just due to tactical blunders and stupid assumptions. Gotta hand it to those Greeks though. Essentially infantry vs a modern army and they even had successful offensives.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The Sparviero was an excellent dive bomber, and the Italian mountain troops kicked all kinds of ass in the Caucasus. Doesn't change the fact that the Italian army as a whole was a horrible failure of an army.

In the early days of the North Africa campaign, I agree. They were a shambles, but as it went on, and as they got their hands on some German equipment, it improved somewhat.

Of course, being under Rommel's command did wonders for the Italian divisions and they gave a lot better account of themselves.

With the right leadership and the right equipment, they could hold their own. WW2 probably came 2-3 years too early for the Italians.

The British considered the Italian Navy to be dangerous, and went out of their way to neutralise it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I get the impression my grandfather thought the Italians as a whole were a complete shower and came away actively disliking them, unlike his experience with Germans.

Yeah, same thing happened in my family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Italy had issues with command and leadership primarily, much like France in WW2. That will result in poor performance for any military, one can see it with the Germans as well later in the war and the Soviets early in the war.

France and Italy also attempted to call it quits when the writing was on the wall, sparing their populations lots of suffering in exchange for loss of face and being the butt of jokes for the last 70-odd years. Had all of Italy (or France in 1940) been defended the way the Soviet Union or Germany had been, they'd have suffered dramatically greater casualties and property/infrastructure loss to reach the same outcomes. Both Paris and Rome were taken with very little fighting and damage, unlike say, Berlin which was utterly destroyed.

Don't make me regret my decision to collect an Italian force for FOW

As for your Paris and Rome point, they were declared open cities to preserve and protect the culture and the history of those two great cities. Even Florence was spared by the Germans. And thank God for that - it's a beautiful city.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except Berlin is probably the odd one out.

Most countries would surrender long before they get destroyed, but experiences in Berlin helped the US decide it was better and easier to nuke Japan.


As for the Italians, you can have the best troops in the world, but if they are poorly led then they will always be terrible.

Italy did have some good commanders in WW2, but the trouble was, they were pushed aside in favour of people who were more politically reliable to the regime or cronies of Mussolini.

Oh, the Navy was dangerous, but they're not Army...

Didn't the Italians pioneer the 'frogman' type soldier? Leading to the US Navy SEALS.

The Navy was pretty powerful, had some advanced and heavy battleships.

There fleet was quite abit more potant than there Army.

 feeder wrote:
Didn't the Italians pioneer the 'frogman' type soldier? Leading to the US Navy SEALS.

Yeah, they had mini-subs (can't remember the name) and they used them to sink a couple of British ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
The Navy was pretty powerful, had some advanced and heavy battleships.

There fleet was quite abit more potant than there Army.

The British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto inspired the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

I think Britain owes an apology to the USA for that!

Military history visualised, which is an excellent youtube channel I'd recommend to anybody, did a good video on the Taranto attack.

Worth checking out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Didn't the Italians pioneer the 'frogman' type soldier? Leading to the US Navy SEALS.

Yeah, they had mini-subs (can't remember the name) and they used them to sink a couple of British ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
The Navy was pretty powerful, had some advanced and heavy battleships.

There fleet was quite abit more potant than there Army.

The British attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto inspired the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

I think Britain owes an apology to the USA for that!

Military history visualised, which is an excellent youtube channel I'd recommend to anybody, did a good video on the Taranto attack.

Worth checking out.

Yeah first time they had used a torpedo attack in such shallow waters, it was a pretty daring and rather effective strike against the Italian Navy. A rather powerful regional fleet.

Struggle outside the med, but they could do handily In own waters.

Those battleships had atrocious fuel consumption, they could never leave the med and get very far.


Plus we had Gibraltar.

Their regular line Infantry sucked serious crap. Only superpower at that time with updated tactics and strat was Germany.

Though Italian Mountain troops were good
They had a fighter that was par of the P51 but not enough to consider mass production

The Italian fleet lacked repair and rebuild facilities. Functionally as good as the ships were the fleet itself could not sustain losses, and was stranded in the Med by land bases controlled by the British. The fleet was dangerous by existing on a strategic scale, but not so much by actually being used.

Plus Italian Naval leadership was even more horrid than the Italian Army. The fleet posed an immediate potential threat, which is why the British wrecked it, but functionally it was just that. A potential threat far less threatening once actually unleashed and damage inflicted upon it.

There were high quality units within the Italian army. But far too much of the army was made up of poorly trained and poorly motivated troops. In multiple instances they began campaigns with overwhelming numbers and gear, only to have their offensives stagnate and turn in to routs.

Greece has already been mentioned. Another instance is the outbreak of fighting in Africa - the Italians had overwhelming superiority over the British, but the Italians then proceeded to get so thoroughly smacked that Germany had to divert troops in to the country to stop the Axis being removed from the continent.

In both Greece and Africa it ended up needed German involvement to set things right. And that became a constant for the Italians - they needed German handholding to provide any kind of contribution to the Axis war effort. This is not the sign of an under-rated army

 sebster wrote:
There were high quality units within the Italian army. But far too much of the army was made up of poorly trained and poorly motivated troops. In multiple instances they began campaigns with overwhelming numbers and gear, only to have their offensives stagnate and turn in to routs.

Greece has already been mentioned. Another instance is the outbreak of fighting in Africa - the Italians had overwhelming superiority over the British, but the Italians then proceeded to get so thoroughly smacked that Germany had to divert troops in to the country to stop the Axis being removed from the continent.

In both Greece and Africa it ended up needed German involvement to set things right. And that became a constant for the Italians - they needed German handholding to provide any kind of contribution to the Axis war effort. This is not the sign of an under-rated army

A lot of those Italian prisoners ended up in your country of all places.

In saying that, I find that Italian forces in FOW play not bad, so I'll take the tabletop over historical accuracy any day of the week


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The Italian fleet lacked repair and rebuild facilities. Functionally as good as the ships were the fleet itself could not sustain losses, and was stranded in the Med by land bases controlled by the British. The fleet was dangerous by existing on a strategic scale, but not so much by actually being used.

Plus Italian Naval leadership was even more horrid than the Italian Army. The fleet posed an immediate potential threat, which is why the British wrecked it, but functionally it was just that. A potential threat far less threatening once actually unleashed and damage inflicted upon it.

A very good summary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Their regular line Infantry sucked serious crap. Only superpower at that time with updated tactics and strat was Germany.

Though Italian Mountain troops were good
They had a fighter that was par of the P51 but not enough to consider mass production

Have you any experience with world war Italian rifles? Or anybody else for that matter?

I have none myself, but forgotten weapons and C&Rsenal seem to rate them quite highly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Those battleships had atrocious fuel consumption, they could never leave the med and get very far.


Plus we had Gibraltar.

And Malta. Beautiful country.

I have read that the Italian Parachutists were quite formidable and were respected by the Fallschirmjager with whom they had contact and training, but as others have said the Italian army in general was very poorly led and motivated.

Operation Compass is truly impressive.
How can an army loose so much and so hard ?

 LordofHats wrote:
The Italian fleet lacked repair and rebuild facilities. Functionally as good as the ships were the fleet itself could not sustain losses, and was stranded in the Med by land bases controlled by the British. The fleet was dangerous by existing on a strategic scale, but not so much by actually being used.

Plus Italian Naval leadership was even more horrid than the Italian Army. The fleet posed an immediate potential threat, which is why the British wrecked it, but functionally it was just that. A potential threat far less threatening once actually unleashed and damage inflicted upon it.

Italian leadership in general was worse than most nations.
They had some good ships, planes, units and such, and totaly incompetent men leading it all ...

They might of been dangerous had they had less pure fail in charge.
Yeah, there two main campaigns... Both ended up a Gwrman bail put. Not proud general staff, and a Germany regarding them as baggage.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of those Italian prisoners ended up in your country of all places.

In saying that, I find that Italian forces in FOW play not bad, so I'll take the tabletop over historical accuracy any day of the week

I like the Bolt Action rules for Italians, you roll for quality and motivation before the game. You have little idea what level of quality and motivation your troops will show. Makes you plan for chaos as a real Italian commander would have had to

 jhe90 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The Italian fleet lacked repair and rebuild facilities. Functionally as good as the ships were the fleet itself could not sustain losses, and was stranded in the Med by land bases controlled by the British. The fleet was dangerous by existing on a strategic scale, but not so much by actually being used.

Plus Italian Naval leadership was even more horrid than the Italian Army. The fleet posed an immediate potential threat, which is why the British wrecked it, but functionally it was just that. A potential threat far less threatening once actually unleashed and damage inflicted upon it.

Italian leadership in general was worse than most nations.
They had some good ships, planes, units and such, and totaly incompetent men leading it all ...

They might of been dangerous had they had less pure fail in charge.
Yeah, there two main campaigns... Both ended up a Gwrman bail put. Not proud general staff, and a Germany regarding them as baggage.

Like I said earlier, the Italians had some good commanders, but the problem was that if you weren't friends with Mussolini, or deemed to be politically 'unreliable' you were passed over in favour of somebody who was more to the Duce's liking.

It's often overlooked how badly the Red Army and the Germans suffered from this problem as well.

Early war Red Army was stuffed with hopeless commanders, many of them Stalin's drinking buddies, and even the Germans suffered this. Yeah, they got away with it in the early days, but I don't need to remind dakka members how much Hitler's meddling cost the Germans in the field with bad decisions and hand-picked commanders selected for politics rather than military ability.
So yeah, the Italians weren't unique in this.

Hitler also had the nasty habit of replacing Generals who reasonably wanted to avoid having their entire army destroyed in favor of sycophants who he believed would hold the line. Even if the previous general had years of hard combat experience.

Although the Italians were often as bad as people think they were there were times where they acquitted themselves well under fire. Usually when commended by the Germans if I recall correctly.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I said earlier, the Italians had some good commanders, but the problem was that if you weren't friends with Mussolini, or deemed to be politically 'unreliable' you were passed over in favour of somebody who was more to the Duce's liking.

It's often overlooked how badly the Red Army and the Germans suffered from this problem as well.

It wasn't just in the dictatorships either. I was just reading about Churchill's mate Mountbatten the other day...

Probably the Americans were least afflicted, not because they had better processes for promoting generals, but because they had the strongest ethic of pulling ineffective generals off the line. Deliver or get sent back to the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Hitler also had the nasty habit of replacing Generals who reasonably wanted to avoid having their entire army destroyed in favor of sycophants who he believed would hold the line. Even if the previous general had years of hard combat experience.

This was an issue, particularly as the war went on, but it has been considerably overstated over time. At the end of the war Hitler was dead, but a whole lot of generals were still alive and keen to get their side of the story told. Funnily enough, their side happened to blame Hitler for everything, with a side element 'the Russians were infinite'. Research has since found a much more complex picture. Hitler had his share of screw ups, but he also made some big decisions against the advice of high command, such as championing the Ardennes Offensive, and refusing any withdrawal following the stalling of the offensive in Russia in late 1941. Most of the early screw ups, like the halt order on Dunkirk or the poor logistics planning for Barbarossa were at least equally shared with high command. The big screw up later on lay more on Hitler's shoulders, but they merely compounded an already fatal position for Germany, they didn't change the course of the war.

Mountbatten?

In Britain, he's generally seen as a safe pair of hands. Nothing flashy, but a solid commander.

I will have to look into that.

And on another note, sticking to the Italian theme, I forgot to mention that when Italy surrendered, the puppet fascist regime in the north, had a lot of die hard Italian fanatics in it, and they were a stubborn bunch to deal with.

So yeah, your average Italian infantryman could fight hard for a cause if he believed in it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mountbatten?

In Britain, he's generally seen as a safe pair of hands. Nothing flashy, but a solid commander.

I will have to look into that.

And on another note, sticking to the Italian theme, I forgot to mention that when Italy surrendered, the puppet fascist regime in the north, had a lot of die hard Italian fanatics in it, and they were a stubborn bunch to deal with.

So yeah, your average Italian infantryman could fight hard for a cause if he believed in it.

Same, safe, handled the complicated post war handover of India fairly well.
He had sense to relise we ain't keeping it by force. Was not the greatest, bit he was safe, and could be trusted to not utterly feth things up.

A lesson the French maybe should of learned in French indochina/Vietnam.
And maybe Algeria.

Political appointments where a big thing is most nations. Winning the big political mass of your civilian leadership could greatly benefit your service branch.
Churchill made mistakes... He also threw his support behind a experimental idea... A armoured tracked machine with guns. Seemed to work out fairly well.