German opinions on their allies

Folgore · Post by **Folgore** » 01 Jul 2002 23:36

This I wrote before the site’s “blackout” and was’nt able to send. (10 June).

BTW-(I Enjoyed very much the “Eternal” Hungaro-Roumanian conflict above!!)

History says that the Italian effort in WWII was a FAILURE compared to the potentials and possibilities of the country.- I totally agree-. Things went wrong because Mussolini tried a gamble... but lost it! In 1940 the Italian Armed forces were threaded (Libia 1930-32, Ethiopia 1935-36, Spain 1936-39, Albania 1938), and needed to be reordered and modernized. By 1940 only the Navy had organically started this process. Moreover, while signing the Iron Pact, Mussolini told Hitler that Italy would have not been able to enter a war till 1943. But Hitler was also a gambler, and the international scenario developed as we know....
With France collapsing Il Duce could’nt resist to the temptation, he “smelled roast beef, tried to bite it, but ended up with his teeth broken”.
The war for Italy was just a paradoxal situation in which his leader had never immagined to be involved in, and with costernation, unprepared, improvising, we tried to make what was possible, hoping in a German victory.

-To Csaba Bezce:
1) To answer your statement “Italians did’nt want to fight in the Eastern front”:
A Soviet War Bulletin of the winter of 42-43 (sorry I can’t find the number) cited:
“ONLY THE ITALIAN “ALPINE” ARMY CORP MAY CONSIDER ITSELF UNBEATEN ON RUSSIAN LAND”!!! (Directly from Stalin’s HQs for you).
2) I AGREE with you when you say Italian performance was weak in the desert. The problem was that our war tactics were outdated, and the tanks and aircraft we had were quantitatively and qualitatively far to low, compared to our enemies’ ones. It’s difficult to fight Armored Divisions with Infantrymen, in the desert. Despite these deficiencies more than 100.000 Italians (not including Navy and A.F.) gave their lives for their country in Libia, Egypt, and Tunisia, often after unequal and desperate fightings. Maybe we were lacking in technology, logistics, and equipment, but not in blood. Hundreds of gold medals were assigned in Africa, and, just to name one, the struggle and sacrifice of our parachute division at El Alamein remains one of the highest examples of military virtues in WWII:
“WE MUST INDEED BEND DOWN IN PRESENCE OF THE RESTS OF THOSE WHO WERE THE LIONS OF THE FOLGORE” (Speech of the First Min. W.Churchill to the House of Commons, London, Nov.1942).
3) About Rommel’s comments on Italian soldiers. Could you kindly tell me, since he appearently did’nt write them, which is your source ,or when has he told them to you? (Just joking).

-To MiliziaVolontariaSicurezzaNazionale-ConsoleGenerale:
1)Strong Airfoce you said.
I would say only two planes produced in a consistent number were not under average. One fighter: the Macchi MC 202, which mounted a Daimler-Benz engine, built under license. Anyway it had a relevant limitation in its armament: only two 12,7 machineguns.
And one light bomber-transport, the Savoia-Marchetti SM 79, 3 engines, nicknamed by the English: the “Damned Hunchbacked”.
The rest of the Italian first line aviation was, I must say, somewhere inbetween antiquate and inefficient.
Most of all the problem was there was not the industrial capacity to replace losses and keep up with the replacement rythm of the Allies.
2)The navy had good ships, but two handicaps made them useless: A) No Aircraft Carriers. (After Taranto the construction of two aircraft carriers begun, but the two ships “FALCO” and “SPARVIERO” were still uncomplete, in La Spezia, by the time of the Italian Armistice).
B)No radar. And the German radar which was mounted (with an “ENIGMA” code system to communicate information) in 1941 on a destroyer of the fleet, implied that from then on, thanks to “ULTRA”, the English new each move of the fleet.
3) This is a question. You spoke about Italian industrial zones in the west coast which the nazis were’nt able to take, and, if were taken, could have been very useful against Russia. Could you tell me were and what are you talking about? I think you overvalued the Italian industrial and raw material capacity. By September 1943 the country was materially prostrated. If you look to production numbers you may figure out the military production was hilarious compared to the one of the other contendants.
4) You said the Airforce proved useful because it went, mostly, with the RSI. But useful to who? Certainly not to itself. Plus the legitimate government and the King ordered to surrender, so going with the Germans could proof to be a moral or romantic choice, but not the legal one. For the country every plane gone with the RSI was a plane lost. I don’t see any usefullness in this.
Certainly mediocrity could be found in hundreds of thousands of MVSN milits, who did’nt die for their leader as they had promised, but switched sides with the rest of the Armed Forces, in which they had been incorporated in August.

-To Ovidius:
I see you often like to use the word “suck” in relation with the Italian Armed Forces.
I don’t think this is very respectful.
For this, I may think that probably our Legions, (ancestors of our Army and inspiration to many others), when two thousand years ago invented your country, and teached you to read and write, perhaps forgot to teach you good manners and respect,... probably. (I am speaking only for “Ovidius’s” ancestors, and not for all Romanians, to whom I express all my sympathy).

Regards, F.

Ovidius · Post by **Ovidius** » 02 Jul 2002 18:48

Folgore wrote:BTW-(I Enjoyed very much the Eternal Hungaro-Roumanian conflict above!!)

Yeah right - "Der Ewige Krieg"

I AGREE with you when you say Italian performance was weak in the desert. The problem was that our war tactics were outdated, and the tanks and aircraft we had were quantitatively and qualitatively far to low, compared to our enemies' ones. It's difficult to fight Armored Divisions with Infantrymen, in the desert. Despite these deficiencies more than 100.000 Italians (not including Navy and A.F.) gave their lives for their country in Libia, Egypt, and Tunisia, often after unequal and desperate fightings. Maybe we were lacking in technology, logistics, and equipment, but not in blood.

Wasted blood. It could have been better used in other place, from which the doom was going to come: the Soviet lands.

WE MUST INDEED BEND DOWN IN PRESENCE OF THE RESTS OF THOSE WHO WERE THE LIONS OF THE FOLGORE (Speech of the First Min. W.Churchill to the House of Commons, London, Nov.1942).

Easy for him to speak. If Old Drunkard Willie did want to be honest, he should have said the same thing about the German soldiers(including, but not limited to, the Waffen SS). But no, they were "bloody Nazi murderers" against whom he had to defend the Christian civilization. He and his minions saw the Italians on a position of equality.

And one light bomber-transport, the Savoia-Marchetti SM 79, 3 engines, nicknamed by the English: the Damned Hunchbacked.

Simply the best medium bomber in its class, comparable in sturdiness to the bigger B-17! The contemporary reports said it could take hundreds of holes and still fly back to base. Rather underpowered, but the Romanian engineers had cured the problem by putting in the JRS79(Romanian version built under license) two Jumo 211 engines instead of the original three radials(and also glazed the nose).

-To Ovidius:
I see you often like to use the word 'suck' in relation with the Italian Armed Forces.
I don't think this is very respectful.
For this, I may think that probably our Legions, (ancestors of our Army and inspiration to many others), when two thousand years ago invented your country, and teached you to read and write, perhaps forgot to teach you good manners and respect,... probably. (I am speaking only for Ovidius' ancestors, and not for all Romanians, to whom I express all my sympathy).

I'm sorry but neither did I think is very respectful to call the 1944 Romanians "backstabbers" or to charge them with crimes just because another member got mad at the idea they were better than his fellows, or to throw the guilt of the Stalingrad affair on the fact that they supposedly quarrelled with Magyars. Life is unfair on this forum. As for the WWII Italians, their Royal Army could do plenty of things, but not in the place where all Europeans, regardless their nationality or political creed, had to do their best: in USSR. North Africa was a matter of "colonial war", but the Eastern Front was a problem of survival. Defeating USSR was vital for both the Reich and its allies. And exactly there the Finnish, Romanian, Spanish, Magyar and other troops from the allies of Germany did their best, because they could imagine what a Soviet victory meant. While the Italians sacrificed their blood on the North African sands, but took the "softer approach" to the Russian battlefield.

~Ovidius

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 03 Jul 2002 09:36

Ovidius wrote:Simply the best medium bomber in its class, comparable in sturdiness to the bigger B-17! The contemporary reports said it could take hundreds of holes and still fly back to base. Rather underpowered, but the Romanian engineers had cured the problem by putting in the JRS79(Romanian version built under license) two Jumo 211 engines instead of the original three radials(and also glazed the nose).

The plans for the modifications were done by Italian engineers at Romanian order. The first Jumo-powered S-79Bs that belonged to ARR were built in Italy, thus the two distinct designations for the same aircraft: JIS-79B (built in Italy) and JRS-79B (built by IAR).

Mait · Post by **Mait** » 03 Jul 2002 17:50

The question I have is not on topic, but as the SM-79 popped up - has any gentleman in forum got pictures/drawings/graphics about the Romanian built version of the plane?

Best Regards,

Mait.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 03 Jul 2002 20:24

There will be information, pictures and a profile available on my site about the Romanian Air Force in WWII (http://www.arr.go.ro) in a week or two. I will let you know then through a PM.

Mark V · Post by **Mark V** » 03 Jul 2002 20:41

Victor wrote:There will be information, pictures and a profile available on my site about the Romanian Air Force in WWII (http://www.arr.go.ro) in a week or two. I will let you know then through a PM.

Hi.

I have also tried to find photos of Romanian 2-engined SM-79. Nothing so far found...would appreciate your contribution.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 03 Jul 2002 20:47

Ok, I will PM you too.

Folgore · Post by **Folgore** » 07 Jul 2002 12:06

About 450 SM79 were on line in 1940 and 1.217 of them were built during the war. According to my information 113 SM79B (transport version, 2 engines) were sold to Romania, Jugoslavia, Brasil and Iraq. I would like to know how many SM79 were sold to Romania, and how many were on line in the Romanian Airforces, plus the ones built in Romania.
The most impressing version of the SM79 was the Torpedo one. With one or even two torpedoes.
The most famous Torpedo Squadron was the "Buscaglia" one which operated from Rhodes in Eastern Mediterranean. One day an S79 of this Squadron returned with 347 holes! The resistance of this plane was legendary. Plus it proved to be quite reliable in emergency landings on the sea since it floated for some minutes before sinking. The last S79 to fly for the Italian Airforce flew in 1952. In the 60's one was found in a remote area of the libian desert by an oil-bearing expedition, its crew had survived the impact and died days later because of starvation, the plane was practically intact after the crash.

Ovidius wrote:
As for the WWII Italians, their Royal Army could do plenty of things, but not in the place where all Europeans, regardless their nationality or political creed, had to do their best: in USSR. North Africa was a matter of "colonial war", but the Eastern Front was a problem of survival. Defeating USSR was vital for both the Reich and its allies. And exactly there the Finnish, Romanian, Spanish, Magyar and other troops from the allies of Germany did their best, because they could imagine what a Soviet victory meant. While the Italians sacrificed their blood on the North African sands, but took the "softer approach" to the Russian battlefield

Italian effort in the Eastern front consisted in an Army (350.000 men), some special Navy units, some aviation and in the loss of about 100.000 men, (About 10.000 of them returned in the late 40's). It might seem a soft approach, I don't know. But it may seem even too much considering that Italian scenario was the Mediterranean, not Russia, the enemy which invaded Italy were Americans and Commonwealth and came from the south, we never saw a Russian soldier, so I think that even that "soft approach" was a mistake , precious equipment and men were wasted to fight in a front which was not ours, and from which we could fear nothing, while we were troubled at home. North Africa was not a colonial war, it was the place were to fight before fighting at home, it was our "Eastern vital front" how can you deny that?
Ciao,
F.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 07 Jul 2002 14:11

About the Romanian S-79Bs.
24 were ordered in 1938 at SIAI, but only 22 arrived (2 crashed during delivery).
The first Jumo powered S-79BS were built in Italy. 8 JIS-79Bs were delivered in 1941. Another 36 JRS-79B were built by IAR in 1941. Another 36 airplanes production batch began in 1943, but was concluded after the war. It had some small modifications and was designated JRS-79B1

BTW, they were bombers, not transports!

Wilfried Abenaschon · Post by **Wilfried Abenaschon** » 07 Jul 2002 22:19

Hi,
I haven't read all the posts (a bit boring because of the dispute btw Hungarians and Romanians) so I hope that it's a new quotation :
"I would prefer to fight against 20 italien divisions that to have 1 on my side !"
I think it's from Marshall of the Air Kesselring, and I remember to have read that this opinion was shared by most of the german generals.
Willab

Folgore · Post by **Folgore** » 08 Jul 2002 18:29

Thank you for the information, Victor. I called them "transports"because the factory which builted them gave the "B" version that name, although I imagined the ones sold to Romania were equipped and used as bombers.

-To Wilfried
Too bad for Italy Hitler did'nt have the same opinion, and pushed Mussolini to enter war at his side....

Folgore

Geppistoly Katona · Post by **Geppistoly Katona** » 09 Jul 2002 00:16

Csaba,,,,,,, your wrong, hitler did not hate the Hungarians.... And from my expirience here long before some of you i will say this......Im not comenting on this subject set up by the romanian lovers in here...

Geppistoly Katona · Post by **Geppistoly Katona** » 09 Jul 2002 00:17

Benoit, Ovidius, Victor..... Long time no see..... IM BACK

Geppistoly Katona · Post by **Geppistoly Katona** » 09 Jul 2002 00:30

I lied, I am going to comment on this subject........ I DO NOT BACK CSABA like i have backed partisans that slip to my side in the past, he has to get his facts straight, and he makes my facts look as orginized as Martha Stuarts bathroom!!!!!

Oh and the Rumanians were a bit more under equiped than the Hungarians..... i.e. the few brand new MP 40's and MP44's that the Hungarians recieved late in the war, and some old but newer versions of the MG's than rumanians, and planes, and even a few tanks...

But the fact that Rumanians made crap for their own weapons that cost them more then if they made less fancy quality weapons.... i.e. the Cugir Orita 1941....so i dont feel sorry for them....

And this is a stupid question, who cares what Hitler thought of the troops... this is the man that wanted to hold on to Stalingrad to look good, and got mad when they made the first MP 44, and wanted to exterminate more then half the worlds population..... yes hitler was a genius, and the best speaker ever.... but as far as I am concerned he knew crap about the Hungarians or RUmanians......

And as much as the RUmanian lovers in here, like Ovidius....[ known to want to exterminate Gypsies ] would like you too believe that the Rumanian army was the gutsiest most bold army ever to fight on the face of the earth.....IT IS NOWHERE NEAR THE TRUTH!!!!!! The Hungarians came close, but it is either the St. Laszlo Division of Hungary or the Finnish army as a whole...

thats my 2 cents anyway, like it or leave it

Ovidius · Post by **Ovidius** » 09 Jul 2002 01:00

Geppistoly Katona wrote:And this is a stupid question, who cares what Hitler thought of the troops... this is the man that wanted to hold on to Stalingrad to look good, and got mad when they made the first MP 44, and wanted to exterminate more then half the worlds population..... yes hitler was a genius, and the best speaker ever.... but as far as I am concerned he knew crap about the Hungarians or RUmanians......

Mr. "Geppistoly Katona",

1. Your comments above on Hitler(MP 44, Stalingrad, >1/2 of the world population) are not in accordance to historical reality, fact that I won't spend energy to prove, but can be proved by other members of this Forum, far more informed than myself;

2. The aggresiveness of your tone finds no justification in the present conditions;

3. You attribute to members of the forum phrases that were not spelled by them, but are more or less product of your fantasy.

~Ovidius

Axis History Forum

German opinions on their allies

The question not on topic, but still...