Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5715
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 10:50
Location: Spain

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Ironmachine » 19 Aug 2020 17:38

John Hilly wrote:Always when ljadw appears to the conversation, it is spoiled.
I always try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but that's also my experience...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12927
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 18:20

Sid Guttridge wrote:
19 Aug 2020 15:53
Hi ljadw,

The poster on Quora is effectively anonymous.

1) You won't give their name.

2) Even if you did, we couldn't know if it was genuine.

They have absolutely no evidential value, even if they did mention the Italians, which they do not!

Your three more recent "sources", all off the internet and untraceable, also do not mention the Italians at all, let alone blame them for anything.

So far, it is only you who is jumping to this conclusion and inserting the Italians into the equation. Even your own "sources" don't mention them.

I am perfectly willing to believe you, if you would only provide some substantive evidence. So far you have not.

Cheers,

Sid.
Battle of the Mediterranean : the loss of supplies proved fatal for the Axis armies in NA .
Who transported these supplies ?
Answer : the Italians .
Thus the claim is that the Italians were responsible for the Axis defeat in NA .
About Quora : if you had read it, you would know that his name was John Dewar Gleissner .
And Gleissner said that with more supplies Rommel would have won, but that these 'more '' supplies did not arrive because many of them were lost by British submarines .(Gleissner was wrong two times ) . As we know that the Italians transported the supplies, it is obvious that Gleissner blamed the Italians for the Axis defeat in NA.
And Gleissner said in the same post : Rommel complained that the Italians were not delivering as promised ( here also Gleissner is two times wrong ) .
By saying this, Gleissner attacked the Italians .
And Daily History said in'' Why was Rommel defeated at Alamein ?''
1 The lack of supplies meant that the Axis were at a deciding disadvantage during the Battle of Alamein (wrong/unproved )
2 The Allies restricted Axis shipping ( wrong )
And as we know that the shipping was done by the Italians, this is another attack on the Italians .
And, an other : who said that the Italians were only a useless ballast ? Martin Van Creveld .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12927
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 18:57

And the last source is the best one : SID HIMSELF who said in post 4
1 On the whole the Italians did not perform well ( something which is wrong and meaningless )
2 The Italians generally performed poorly (also wrong and meaningless ).
Thus, Sid, you parrot Dönitz, Kesselring and Westphal .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12927
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 19 Aug 2020 19:15

What to think about Liddell Hart who wrote in ''The German generals talk'' ":Italian jealousy of the Germans had helped save Egypt .''

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 19 Aug 2020 19:50

ljadw wrote:
19 Aug 2020 15:35
The truth is that 75 years after the end of WWII a serious discussion about the role of Italy/its armed forces ,during WWII is still impossible .
Not correct ! Complete tosh !

It is very easy for to have serious discuss on topic Italy army performances and roles for to undertand good history.

It is problem when mens decide not want to discuss history and only write opinions again and again.

Look at topic.

Topic was start with good analysis on Italy army performance.

Message 4 and many messages after.
Gutteridge was write gutteridge opinion and no historical datas or evidences. Opinion opinion opinion. Nothing on historical datas for to discuss.

Later and many messages.
Ljadw was write ljadw opinion on other mens opinion. No relevant historical datas or evidences. Opinion opinion opinion. Nothing on relevant historical datas for to discuss.

The truth is some peoples was only want for to write self opinion again again again.

Until 18 pages and still wait for evidence and historical datas on how Germany army was benefit Italy army performance.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9827
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Aug 2020 20:17

Hi ljadw,

Yet again you are using the same questionable internet sources, which do not even mention the Italians, to blame the Italians. The only one introducing the Italians into the equation is you.

You contend there is some sort of conspiracy of "Anglo-Saxon" historians against the Italians. If the people you are quoting were part of it, don't you think they were perfectly capable of naming the Italians outright?

And I would remind you that van Crefeld is Israeli, not "Anglo-Saxon".

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4403
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Urmel » 19 Aug 2020 21:02

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
19 Aug 2020 19:50
ljadw wrote:
19 Aug 2020 15:35
The truth is that 75 years after the end of WWII a serious discussion about the role of Italy/its armed forces ,during WWII is still impossible .
Not correct ! Complete tosh !

It is very easy for to have serious discuss on topic Italy army performances and roles for to undertand good history.

It is problem when mens decide not want to discuss history and only write opinions again and again.

Look at topic.

Topic was start with good analysis on Italy army performance.

Message 4 and many messages after.
Gutteridge was write gutteridge opinion and no historical datas or evidences. Opinion opinion opinion. Nothing on historical datas for to discuss.

Later and many messages.
Ljadw was write ljadw opinion on other mens opinion. No relevant historical datas or evidences. Opinion opinion opinion. Nothing on relevant historical datas for to discuss.

The truth is some peoples was only want for to write self opinion again again again.

Until 18 pages and still wait for evidence and historical datas on how Germany army was benefit Italy army performance.
This is entirely and absolutely correct. What could have been a reasonable thread with some interesting discussion was ruined by Guttridge and ljadw. And the mods stand by and do... nothing.

:welcome:
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4403
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Urmel » 19 Aug 2020 21:03

Ironmachine wrote:
19 Aug 2020 17:38
John Hilly wrote:Always when ljadw appears to the conversation, it is spoiled.
I always try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but that's also my experience...
Yup.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9827
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 Aug 2020 22:52

Hi Urmel,

You are probably the leading specialist on Italy here.

Yet, when I put a perfectly reasonable post to you containing some questions, you refused to answer. That is your prerogative, but it does tend to lump you into the category of those you identify as disrupting the thread.

All I put to you was this:

"I have been having a closer look at Bir el Gobi.

It was undoubtedly an Italian success. But shouldn't it have been?

On one side we have the better part of an armoured division with a balanced, all arms force, that had had time to prepare its position. And not just any division, but arguably the best and most experienced division in the Italian Army.

On the other side we have an inexperienced British tank brigade in its first action. It had little artillery or infantry and so was an unbalanced force incapable of properly preparing the ground for an assault or occupying any ground it might take. Its only obvious advantage was slightly more tanks of a better quality and its reconnaissance element. In infantry and artillery it was totally overmatched. In terms of manpower it was also
probably heavily outnumbered. Both sides' tanks were vulnerable to the other's tank and anti-tank guns, but the Italians had a lot more of the latter.

One has to wonder what the British alternatives were, presuming they were going to engage at all? They seem to have attempted an unimaginative tank charge in order to panic the Italians out of a position they certainly couldn't effectively occupy themselves. Given previous Italian performances, was this really totally unrealistic? They seem to have had some success and inflicted at least as much damage as they suffered.

What makes it a clear Italian victory is that it entirely frustrated the British plan.

But should the outcome be regarded as in any way surprising, given the type, size and experience of the two forces engaged?

Was there an indirect approach the British could have adopted that would safely have avoided the Ariete? Or did they have to go through it to reach the German rear?"


I would still welcome a reply.

Cheers,

Sid.

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007 22:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Dili » 20 Aug 2020 00:18

Let's compare

The performance of Italian Army vs Greek Army and US/British Army vs Germans in Italy.

The debacle of Compass and the British debacle in Malaysia

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9827
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Aug 2020 06:23

Hi Dil,

I am happy to do so. Perhaps you could open a thread in the subject?

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12927
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 20 Aug 2020 07:03

Sid Guttridge wrote:
19 Aug 2020 20:17
Hi ljadw,

Yet again you are using the same questionable internet sources, which do not even mention the Italians, to blame the Italians. The only one introducing the Italians into the equation is you.

You contend there is some sort of conspiracy of "Anglo-Saxon" historians against the Italians. If the people you are quoting were part of it, don't you think they were perfectly capable of naming the Italians outright?

And I would remind you that van Crefeld is Israeli, not "Anglo-Saxon".

Cheers,

Sid.
Did you read what Liddell Hart wrote in The German General Talk ? ''The Italian jealousy had helped save Egypt " .This is what the chief of the Rommel lobby said .
Van Creveld writes in English and can rightfully be considered as belonging to the Anglo-Saxon historian community .
And why would the internet sources be questionable ?
You were the first to attack the Italians in this thread ( post 4 ) .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12927
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by ljadw » 20 Aug 2020 07:18

In 2 months the WDF eliminated 150000 Italians (of whom 90 % was taken POW ) against a loss of 2000 men ;for the enemies of what is Italian this is a proof that the Italians were doing poorly in WWII.
The Dutch army lost 200000 men in 5 days (almost all POWs) in May 1940.
The Belgian army lost almost 600000 POWs in 18 days in May 1940 .
This is not used as a proof that the Dutch, Belgians were doing poorly in WWII.
In the Malayan campaign Britain lost 150000 men (90 % POWs) : did Britain do poorly in WWII?
The majority of the Germans at Stalingrad preferred a Soviet capture to a glorious death for the Führer (they were doing as the Italians in operation Compass ) : did Germany perform poorly in WWII?
The majority of the BEF losses were POWs,a big part of the Highland division was taken POW in St Valery.
But only the surrender of Italians is a proof that they were doing poorly .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9827
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Aug 2020 07:23

For anyone wondering what ljadw considers my attack on the Italians, it was this, which still seems eminently fair to me and not an attack at all;

The fact that the article has to cherry pick a handful of good Italian performances to make its point, only serves to illustrate the wider point that on the whole the Italians did not perform well.

Indeed, one would be hard pushed to find a single occasion where they did perform well before German intervention in North Africa gave them cover to do so.

The poor Italian reputation is based almost entirely on the events of December 1940 - January 1941, when the British Commonwealth forces had a massively lopsided victory over the Italians on their own. This proved difficult to live down. (My grandfather had Italian relatives and spoke the language fluently. At the end of 1940 He was sent to Egypt to take thousands of Italian POWs to camps in India. We still have a silver cigarette case made by the POWs for him when he left in early 1943.)

There are multiple perfectly good explanations as to why the Italians generally performed poorly, none of which have their basis in the Italian national character (if there is one).

I have mentioned before a story told by my boss at work some forty years ago. He had been a tank driver in the desert. He recalled over running an Italian trench system. An Italian officer stood up in front of his tank firing his pistol at it until run down. This is suicidally brave but "ce n'est pas la guerre".

It is also worth recalling the Italian hostage Fabrizio Quattricchio in Iraq who shouted "Vi faccio vedere come muore un Italiano!" ("I'll show you how an Italian dies!") when he realised he was about to be executed.

But none of this takes away from the fact that Mussolini's Italian Army as a whole performed without conspicuous success against any of its opponents over 1935-43 and suffered some spectacular defeats and collapses.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9827
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Aug 2020 07:38

Hi ljadw,

Van Crefeld is Israeli. That is a simple fact. You can't spin it that he is "Anglo-Saxon", however convenient that may be for you.

You post, "In 2 months the WDF eliminated 150000 Italians (of whom 90 % was taken POW ) against a loss of 2000 men ;for the enemies of what is Italian this is a proof that the Italians were doing poorly in WWII." Yup. What else would you suggest?

Are you trying to spin the Italian performance on this occasion as a draw, like Monty Python's armless and legless Black Knight?

You post, "The Dutch army lost 200000 men in 5 days (almost all POWs) in May 1940.
The Belgian army lost almost 600000 POWs in 18 days in May 1940 .
This is not used as a proof that the Dutch, Belgians were doing poorly in WWII.
In the Malayan campaign Britain lost 150000 men (90 % POWs) : did Britain do poorly in WWII?"
Yup, yup and yup, these are all examples of "doing poorly" and, like for the Italians, there are often explanations for this.

No, less than half the Germans trapped inside Stalingrad survived to surrender. If I remember correctly, about 230,000 were trapped inside the Stalingrad pocket and only about 92,000 went into captivity. Of these, only about 5,000 came home.

Cheers,

Sid.

.

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”