I would need to check, but I believe that is correct. Again note that the Italians wanted to retake the position, but the Germans said no. As important, why does this matter? There were bridgeheads in German sectors throughout the war that the German didn't/couldn't eliminate.
Not a question. Again comparing the Italians to the Romanians. Why is Romania having more divisions in Russia than Italy important? Russian was the main theater (heck the only theater) for Romania. That is not the case for Italy.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 17:28I did say, "For many reasons Italy seems to have found it extraordinarily difficult to project more than a minority of its army onto active main battlefronts." You provided some of those reasons. My point was that, just as the Italian role has been downplayed, so had the Romanian. In terms of division/ months on a major battlefront over June 1941 to September 1943, the Romanian contribution exceeded that if Italy.
Again a statement. The main decisive front for Italy was the Mediterranean, not Russia.
I guess the impact/role of seapower escapes you. France in 1943-44 was only occupation/police duties for the Germans.
As the 8th Army was one of the best equipped Italian armies, this is not true. A common point of discussion is whether that material had been used in the main Italian theater of war instead of being sent to Russia. All the Italian divisions on occupation duties were fit for combat. The general question in this thread is how effective were those divisions?
Not a question. Why is this important in a discussion on Italian military effectiveness?Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 17:28Romania, a much smaller country, had armies on only one main battlefront, but its commitment there at one time or another involved every single Romanian division and all were literally or functionally destroyed at least once. Its only occupation duties were in Transnistria, where one fortress and three security divisions were created. This was not remotely equatable with Yugoslavia.
Not a question. So what?Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 17:28I was not making an attack on the Italians. They had numerous problems, not least that Mussolini's eyes were bigger than Italy's stomach. I always think of Italy as one third industrialised like parts of northern Europe and two-thirds (the centre/south) as agrarian and more resembling the Balkans. Mussolini had ambitions that could only be supported if all of Italy was like its industrialised north,
No, that is why I read Italian.
There is an article on the issue of archive. I will cite it once I am home.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 17:28And do you know why the Italian military archives are so difficult to gain access to? The Vatican has recently opened all its WWII archives and facsimiles of all the Dead Sea scrolls have now been published, and yet it still seems to be extraordinarily difficult to view Italian military archives? Above we were arguing over Italian casualties in Ethiopia. This would presumably be easily resolved in the archives.
You can't compare Italy to Romania in terms of commitments to the Russian front. Two completely different strategic situations. Stop trying to compare them.