Was the italien soldiers more worse soldiers then others?

[Kenshiro]

The only reason I see for all the italian defeats during the WWII is just lack of organitation and planning.
There was no plan for the invasion of France, soldiers was just smashed against French fortifications with no support at all, maybe few guns from a nearby fort (but not always) or the temporary support given by a armored train of the navy.
But the troppers had to fight almust alone and with no heavyer weapon than a HMG (must of the time). So I take my hat of when those guys managed to break throug the french defences and move near Menthon.
After all the French had all the firepower they could dream of, the italians had almust nothing. What was Il Duce's idea? the war is few days from the end.
In Greece the same, just move over the border, there want be any resistance....and in Africa? when the troopers reaced El Sidi Barrani the soldiers asked there commander...what now? he (Graziani ) just raised he's shoulders and answered...I dont know.
Ok that's a littlebit exagerated, but it give you the Idea. Later when everything when wrong they just blamed the soldiers...and sadly even to day there are some naive persons who belive in this crap.

But if the Italians had some plans the invasion of France would have another end, and the same goes for Greece and Egypt. In all those campign there was not a single plan. That was the reason, not the low morale or the lack of motivation for a war people didnt understand and bla bla bla...that's just crap. The reasons was lack of planning and organitation. And at the head of this there was the conviction of the leader (Mussolini) that the war was over. He even gave order to he's troop to not open fire aginst the allies, but to make signals (the firsts days of war).
And of course the troops werent equipped to the fight!! If the US marines was sent to Irak with no plan, no supplies and no equpment they would have been destroyed and forced to surrende less than a week!!!!

[Martyn R]

And of course the troops werent equipped to the fight!! If the US marines was sent to Irak with no plan, no supplies and no equpment they would have been destroyed and forced to surrende less than a week!!!!

Do not agree the US Marines would still have their training and "esprit de corps" no matter what weapons they would had (although some guns would have been good). Ofcourse this won't win wars on its own but it does help!

The Italian army inparticular had so many weaknesses that the cumulative effect was devastating. However, I still think that with

a) smaller army - with best troops concentrated in fewer elite units
b) better training
c) more German trained officers
d) better tanks
e) a strategy to attack UK forces

They could have produced a more effective offensive force in 1940-41.

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

Well, from my research I'm going to have to be brutally honest and say that the Italian Armed Forces had so many weaknesses that I find it difficult to believe they would have been able to pull off their objectives.

Like, people have mentioned the complete lack of planning by the Italian Government and the huge role that played in Greece, true. Yet even so, the specific reason for that failure (as a campaign) was due to generals being COMPLETELY incompitent and not securing the population by guarding the the roads and convoy routes and leaving no reserves who would have been able to counter an insurgency should it pop up (and oh my, it did). Like, I'm no general, but I think even I would leave a division or a few regiments to guard the bloody road I walked into the country on. When there were still unconquered lands to the north of there which were a perfect staging ground for the greeks.

Second, the Supremo Commando, as mentioned, was completely incompetant. Not only where they old fashioned and led from behind the lines, their communication infrastructure was so screwed up each arm of the forces had to act almost completely independently and this not only led to them loose operation after operation, but costed many of their own soldiers lives in stupid friendly fire mistakes. Many say that modern warfare began with Mussolini's invasion of ethiopia, and subsequently in Spain. Well, whatever lessons they we apparently supposed to have learned in those two campaigns they quickly forgot. The nation that Italians claim 'pioneered' the joint operations campaign that led to the blitzkrieg was the worst out of ALL the great powers in mounting a joint operation between the arms of the forces during the second world war.

This leads me to the third point; the Italian Army was able to act decently whenever large numbers weren't involved. As in, one division or a small tactical operation involving the airforce and navy, etc. whenever entire armies got involved, entire air groups, and fleets, this co-operation fell through the roof. For some reason they were always able to carry on decent combat on one front at a time, but the larger the and more seperates the fronts became the worse they acted.

This leads me to the fourth point; the Italian Army did put out some good divisions. The Armoured division Ariette, which has been mentioned. But uniformly, they weren't able to keep a decent standard through the entire army. The 'average' italian was using outdated machinery like the 'modernized ex-austrian artillery' , when they were using updated hardware it was substandard (cough, most of their tanks, excellent designs were rendered useless in the production phase and were very substandard), it just goes on and on and on and on.

What the Italians needed to be effective was a complete and rebuilding of their army. If they wanted a modern army, they would have to sacrifice their old infantry based army for a smaller motorized, mechanized, armour, marine, paratrooper, based elite army. They didn't want to do this because they thought that a "million strong army" sounded good on paper and the plan put forth by Balbo would have limited the size of the army to appr. 12 divisions. Well, who would take them seriously with that? I'm sure 12 divisions doing well, striking from the beaches and air, supported by the navy and airforce, and incredibly mobile and able to transfer from front to front in no time would have gotten more respect in that war than the 'million' bayonets which lost every major engagement they fought in (with the exception of those in Russia who did very well at the beginning of the campaign).

Before I go, know that I am Italian and I am therefore not trying to make a racial statement here. The fact that the Italians were able to put out a handful of decent divisions, that they were able to build a well trained and disciplined air force, and that the navy had the POTENTIAL to be a real player in that war if it wasn't for the oil restrictions and a cowardly set of admirals, should show to people that a strong Italy wasn't unimaginable. That the people if properly motivated, if given the tools and trained right, if given a competant set of generals who could co-ordinate with each other, could have made a decent go of it.

BUT, to say that in 1940 Italy could of done anything about this and miraculously done well in the war is simply not being in touch with reality. The kind of changes that were needed would have taken a decade, the kind of changes needed to WIN that war in the med. Fine, change a general here, give your troops some motivation they might not have done so poorly, but in my opinion they would have still lost.

- MVSN

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

c) more German trained officers

Germans had some poor officers too, but I'll admit their officer corps as a whole was generally better.

I'm trying to say that although sending officers to germany to train would have been an option, Italy could have made use of the handfull of decent officers and generals they put out (like messe, who was well respected by the germans and quite competant) in training others like them.

- MVSN

[Kenshiro]

I agree partially, because they got in war without a decent plan.
Italians should have build up a offensive already from day one, with L3 tanks equipped with ap bullets and many M11/39, and not wait weeks and months before that.
And before going into war, a rearm was necessary and a doctrine in tank war fare.

I have this link : http://www.comandosupremo.com/ItalianArmy.html

a complete analisis of the italian army prior to war

and

http://80.180.50.9/regioesercito/artico ... espcor.htm

sadly in italian only (I hope they soon makes the English section) this one is a higly dettaliet article on the N/A campaign under Balbo and Graziani, this is wery istructive.
I wrote to them about if they have some plans to translate this in English but so far I didnt get a answer.

[PanzerKing]

I'd rather have 12 divisions full of the right equipment, with three infantry regiments, and proper supplies instead of 40 divisions that just look good on paper!

[Molisani]

I must say that this question always brings a multitude of thoughts on how Italy performed.I am not a specialist,however my entire family has served with the Alpini through it's entire history even in the present.I must say that Italian Alpini officers and thier men were very respected and well cared for,this comradery was more in line with German units.My older relatives served in East Africa,Albania,Yugoslavia,Russia and Italy.Never did they surrender to any opposing force such was thier belief in honor and the Alpini tradition.Even during the tragic armistice they went over to the Yugoslav side rather than surrender thier weapons and selves to the Germans and fought on.Thier tales of cohesive fighting tactics and unwillingness to give ground was legendary with the Germans and Russians alike.I was in Ukraine recently and met an old Russian veteran who faced the Alpini after Stalingrad,he told me in 4 years of fighting they were amazed at the tenacity the Alpini showed without regard for surrender or escape,brave soldiers he said.Part of this mentality is they had excellent officers and NCOs that cared greatly for thier men and welfare.It is also common knowledge that these strong,hard headed,keen hunters came from very rugged,tough regions where dying was better than dishonor.I asked my Uncle who is 80 how they endured in Russia?His answer was it was our duty not our choice but our regimental flag will always remain unstained of cowardice and weakness.Our officers were the best and led from the front,bayonet attacks were for when we ran out of ammo in Russia and that is the true measure of a soldier!I have hunted with a m-91 rifle for many years,I can attest to it's accuracy and killing abilities.Some of my friends are amazed when they see my relic to go hunting,but when they see it's capability the conversations change to praise.Again the Italian doctrine itself was for Alpine warfare and thier morale and confidence in leadership never wavered."Sergeant in the snow" is an excellent account by Mario Rigoni Stern, a former Alpini NCO in Russia and Albania.Just for interest,when I was in Ukraine a week ago it was 20 degrees below.My tears froze in my eye sockets!!! and to think of all the men that endured this it's unthinkable especially for entire winters.I know I have great pride in the Alpini.But I hope this sheds some truth and light that Italian troops varied greatly in leadership,morale and supply.There are many others as the Bersaglieri and such that deserve their due respect for valor.By the way my rifle came from my Uncle on my 10th birthday,it went to Russia with him and back home where as a boy I greatly admired these soldiers.It is my greatest possesion.

[GRAN CAPITAN]

After having read with interest all the previous posts, I believe taht the main problem with the Italian army had nothing to do with weaponry, tactics or leadership. The French army, which was supposed to be as powerful as the German one, was utterly defeated in 1940, despite its heavy tanks, massive artillery and prestigious generals. On the other hand, the poorly trained and supplied Greek army of 1940-41 performed superbly against heavy odds, up to the bitter end.

In my opinion, Italians were a very clever people, they simply were not ready to die for a man such us Mussolini. If Italy had been attacked and its very existence or integrity had been in danger, I bet that the Italian army would have fought with great courage and honour, not for Mussolini, but for Italy. But what was the point in getting killed for fascism in the Balkans or in Russia?

After having visited Venetia, Rome and some other wonderful Italian towns, full beautiful buildings, statues and paintings, If I still have in my pocket the little money I need to taste a glass of red wine and some "risotto alla pescatora" in a sunny trattoria placed in front of some 16th century church or palace... I think you all would need something better than a German instructor and new rifle to persuade me to invade (not even liberate or defend) Russia or Egypt. So, stop putting the blame on the Italian guys of WWII; they were not cowards they were wonderfully human.

[Andy H]

The Italian's are generally observed to be on a lower platform than Germany.

However it must be mentioned that Germany did the minimal possible in support of the Italian campaign in NA. With better and more consistent support the chances of the Italians reaching attainable goals were very good. The Italian Intel was far superior than Germany's and they were convinced that the the German enigma had been cracked. Yet Germany denied this everytime Italian Intel approached them with there evidence. German arrogance and superiority complex in this instance worked against.

Italy was on the brink of brookering a deal with Russia for 100,000 tons of fuel oil when Germany invaded Russia, thus denying Italy a resource of which its Navy would surely need over the coming month's, especially since Germany renaged on many of its promises to supply suitable amounts of oil.

Andy H

[Strovalnyk]

I must say that Italian Alpini officers and thier men were very respected and well cared for,this comradery was more in line with German units.My older relatives served in East Africa,Albania,Yugoslavia,Russia and Italy.Never did they surrender to any opposing force such was thier belief in honor and the Alpini tradition.Even during the tragic armistice they went over to the Yugoslav side rather than surrender thier weapons and selves to the Germans and fought on.Thier tales of cohesive fighting tactics and unwillingness to give ground was legendary with the Germans and Russians alike.I was in Ukraine recently and met an old Russian veteran who faced the Alpini after Stalingrad,he told me in 4 years of fighting they were amazed at the tenacity the Alpini showed without regard for surrender or escape,brave soldiers he said.Part of this mentality is they had excellent officers and NCOs that cared greatly for thier men and welfare.It is also common knowledge that these strong,hard headed,keen hunters came from very rugged,tough regions where dying was better than dishonor.

If I may ad just one thing; recruitment of each regiment in Italian infantry divisions come from several different regions and was stationed in yet another region. In contrast to that each battalion of Alpine division came from tightly bound mountain communities of a particular valley and in this way creating cohesive regiments (similar to German and British regimental system which apply regional recruitment), and this, with everything that Molisani said, created "esprit de corps" that made Alpine division good fighting units. This unique Italian experience offer very valuable lesson for every army based on conscript system.

[Napoli II]

The only problem with that is if a whole regiment or division from the same area were to be destroyed or take very heavy losses................so would the heart of those comunities.

You may find that was the reason for recruitment from different area's not that it made a great difference anyway when some families from my mothers town lost up to 4-5 sons in different conflicts.

I would say recruiting from the same area would give better moral though.

Also hard to say about moral, in some regiments it was high, in other low, no consistancy.
My father remembers his uncle coming back from Russia saying Moscow would fall to the Axis and being proud of being part of something as things wernt going too bad at the time.
His brother served on the Don and was in the path of the Russians and got to be one of the lucky ones who came home and is still alive to this day with one hell of a story and intracatcy of it, he differs in his moral after that moment of time.
Was a horrible site these men coming home, at times my father says due to conditions over there maybe 2 out of three men died anyway after 2 or three years after coming back to Italy due to ireversable health, bad respiratory and frost bite.

Depends on how you look at it, yes some men were cowards like in any army, but some brave..........all depends on what your fighting for at times.

[Kenshiro]

In my opinion, Italians were a very clever people, they simply were not ready to die for a man such us Mussolini. If Italy had been attacked and its very existence or integrity had been in danger, I bet that the Italian army would have fought with great courage and honour, not for Mussolini, but for Italy. But what was the point in getting killed for fascism in the Balkans or in Russia?

IMO the only reason are not Italians being "clever" than others, but if the entrance in the war was organiced a little better, maybe with one or two years of preparation, Italy would have another weight in the war.

[Strovalnyk]

The only problem with that is if a whole regiment or division from the same area were to be destroyed or take very heavy losses................so would the heart of those comunities.

Yes indeed, this is strong contra argument against regimental system. Scars from WW I. in some communities in Great Britain are still deep after all those years.

Butt I would like to point out one more benefit of regimental system; after the war soldiers that stay close together (more likely if they come from same region) and still maintain "esprit the corps" more easily overcomes combat stress and have lesser percentage of PTSP cases.

[FB]

The same happened in Italy during, and also after WWII. For instance the Cuneense Alpini Division was never rebuilt (and neither was it after WWII at a brigade level), because the losses suffered during the war (Greece, where its losses were something more then 50%, and above all Russia (where the Division was sent after being rebuilt), from where of this Division returned only a little more than 1.000 men of the original 20.000 that had left Italy less than a year before), simply deprived the traditional drafting area of enough boys to build up a unit of that numerical importance.

Best regards

[luigi]

IIRC the fact that common infantry units were drafted from all over Italy instead of on local basis is very true for peace time. I seem to recall, however, that in war time things were different. In WWI at least some brigades had region names according to the provenance of the mayority of conscripts: I don't know if the same happened in WWII however.

Regards