Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Italy was not really committed to the war. They were one of the countries in what I like to call the "Dont kill me pacts" of WWII, which included Bulgaria and Romania. All three joined the Germans when it seemed they would steamroll everyone, but once the war turned against Germany, they all overthrew their governments, surrendered, and switched sides, in 1943/44.
Thanks, so I made myself at home (it's offered in Russia).
Well, you can match the number of troops on the Eastern Front, its losses. Soviets exceed 1.5-2 times, not more.
North Africa: 230 ths. Italians (with allies) against 66 ths. British (with allies). 4:1
Eastern Africa: 300 ths. Italians (with allies) against 50 ths. British (with allies). 6:1
Well, with this ratio you could lose not immediately!
They were astounded because thought that the second half of another World War (new 1916) will come earlier...
Maybe against the all the axis forces on the Eastern Front, & that's a big maybe, but against the Italian forces it's at least 5-1, if not & certainly more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux
Really?
Anyway, it's hard to advance, what with the human tide of surrendering soldiers, and all that getting in your way.
'Yet the Rumanians, who were still the best of our allies, fought exactly as our experiences in the Crimea implied they would. Any illusions about the Italians' fighting capacities, of course, were in excusable from the start.' (E. von Manstein, 'Lost Victories')
Romania was Steamrolled over by the USSR & capitulated to them. The Mafia greatly helped the invasion, their leaders caused a corruption-style uprising & turned on the Nazis. Plus, not many people were against the Nazis, so any coup would not have had enough supporters to do anything without the Soviets. Also, the Romanian forces in Stalingrad were crushed before the Italians lost, & when they did, they covered the German escape.
Well yes, but I was regarding the Italian ones to Libya before that. Also, quit your trollin'.
Again, I'll ask, what about the convoys? Also, what do you mean "quit your trolling"? It's a little hard to "troll" this board if you're me, lol.
Quote:
They never planned to use them! Mussolini had his idea of the peninsula being on big aircraft carrier, so they could work on more battleships. It worked fairly well.
My God man, know your own history if you're going to argue like this. Yes, Mussolini and some of the generals believed in the whole "Italy and Sicily are aircraft carriers" thing in the 1930's. However, following Taranto and several surface engagements where a carrier would have been a tipping force, Mussolini relented and ordered the carriers built. Their production was then delayed and then started again based on the way the war was going. Construction was started in 1940/1 and continued right up until Italy surrendered in 1943.
Quote:
I use it for that to, just not as a reference, ever. Operation Underworld was different then their participation in Operation Husky, to witch they personally parachuted into by the way. Also, they demoralized them, don't be a smart a**.
Source? I have never read about mafioso parachuting into Sicily to prep for the Allied invasion. There were airborne landings carried out, but it was prior to the invasion and conducted by military units with military objectives.
Quote:
He went back on normal travel terms, along with bouncing around between the US & Cuba for organized crime.
No, he did not. The deportation was part of the agreement for his release from prison. He was taken from Sing Sing directly to Ellis Island where was deported. He then travelled from Italy to Cuba. He stayed in Cuba for a period of time conducting business until the US authorities found out. They then placed pressure on the Cuban government and Luciano was deported from Cuba.
This is the second major factual error (the first being how long Luciano lived in Sicily) you have made regarding Luciano who figures prominently in the whole Operation Underworld, mafia supporting the Allies story. For someone so invested in everything Italian and trying to portray this story as a point of pride...you know little about it or the men involved.
Quote:
Yeah, 'cause clearing out dozens of agents is pretty much useless.
Maybe had they cleared out "dozens of agents" it wouldn't have been useless. The best outcome of the entire operation was that dock worker strikes ended after Luciano got involved. Heck, the act of "sabotage" that started the whole thing was later proven to be an accident and had nothing to do with the mob, the Axis or anything else.
Quote:
Rommel's tanks were much stronger, I never said they weren't.
Some of Rommel's tanks were stronger...most were equal at best.
Quote:
Also if that next statement is true, then how did they destroy the British until they were bailed out again by the US?
The British soundly defeated Rommel and his Afrika Korps before the US became heavily involved in the fighting.
Quote:
How much of advantage does speed provide in a tank!?
Are you serious? Do you even know ANYTHING about modern warfare?
Quote:
That's like saying the Sherman was better then the Panzer because of speed, while instead they sucked against them & only succeeded because we had 100 for every one destroyed!
Panzer means tank. Which panzer are you talking about? The I, II, III, IV, Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, etc.? The Sherman outclassed the Panzer I, II and most III's. It was a relatively even fight between a Sherman and a Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger easily outclassed the Sherman but it's not like the Germans had a lot of Panthers and Tigers.
Quote:
The first installment built just as meany as most of their tank designs, over 700. Also, they destroyed dozens of tanks & preformed very well.
I never said they didn't perform well, just that they had drawbacks. In particular we were talking about North Africa and the Italians only had a handful of them during that campaign.
Quote:
Most had hundreds built.
Hundreds...they needed thousands.
Quote:
Also, they had one Pershing for each squadron.
Um...no. The M26 Pershing was the American attempt late in the war to build a heavy tank equal to the Panther/Tiger. About 310 of those tanks were sent to Europe starting in January 1945, only 20 ever saw combat. They were formed as their own units, and these were then dispersed to select armored divisions.
Quote:
That's like saying US troops were superior to the Japanese ones. Do you actually see what I'm getting at here?
You think US troops were superior or were they just better equipped and supported? See, I don't really think that US troops, in the sense you are using it, were superior. However, the US certainly fielded "superior" units. As for your statement of Italian pilot superiority...quantify it. What measuring sticks should we use to determine such a thing?
Quote:
What did that pic & semi-racist comment have anything to do with the Nazis being destroyed by the Italians in the Civil War.
During the Civil War Italian forces made up what, about 50k-60k troops? I think the Nazi's were "destroyed" by the British and Americans.
Quote:
Why would join in on this!? Well, I'm just glad that this is killing you two's credibility.
Learn to take a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
Welcome to the topic, because it's clear you know nothing about it.
Well if that's not the big fat pot calling the kettle black.
Quote:
First of all, the Soviets had horrible soldiers & won on shear overwhelming numbers
Soviets had "horrible soldiers"? Poorly trained, occasionally poorly led and sometimes poorly equipped...yes. However, the Soviet soldier endured more and triumphed over more than just about any other soldier in the war. I would never call them "horrible".
Quote:
& the Americans had a powerful economy. A Sherman on a Panzer has a different outcome when their are an average of five to one with the US.
There you go again with "Panzer". Panzer means tanks. The Germans had a lot of different kinds of tanks. Not all of them were Panthers and Tigers. In fact, most weren't and many of their tanks weren't that powerful.
Quote:
The British lost every battle against the Italians in Africa before the Commonwealth bailed them out!
The British lost a series of border skirmishes before completely destroying two entire Italian field armies. Even with Commonwealth support (which you still conveniently ignore Italy's use of "imperial" forces) the Italians still outnumbered them by 4-5:1.
I found this good article on the Italian soldier published in the Intelligence Bulletin of the US War Department in 1942...
The section on "WHAT HE IS LIKE" sums it up pretty well. Pasted here is the first paragrpah...
Quote:
One of the first things to remember about the Italian soldier is that he entered this war without any strong personal conviction that it was necessary. Italy had no Pearl Harbor to unite her people and fill them with a relentless determination to win. A private belief of this kind can go a long way toward helping men to withstand the heavy psychological strain of combat. The American soldier has it; the Italian does not. As a result, a question commonly asked by American troops--"Is the Italian a good or bad fighter?"--cannot be answered in a single word. The Italian knows how to fight well. What offsets this is the fact that his moods are anything but predictable. Sometimes, when a flood of propaganda temporarily convinces him that the battle is above all for the sake of his homeland, and that there is a fair opportunity for success, he fights with great courage, skill, and imagination. On the other hand, military reverses often have a decided effect on his morale, and can change his attitude from one of bright optimism to one of complete pessimism. It should never be said that his reactions will always be thus-and-so; only tendencies can be pointed out. It is certainly true that as the failure of Fascism becomes increasingly clear in spite of the propaganda, and as events indicate the manner in which Italy is being handed over to Hitler, the Italian soldier shows a tendency to put up a halfhearted fight and then surrender.
Romania was Steamrolled over by the USSR & capitulated to them. The Mafia greatly helped the invasion, their leaders caused a corruption-style uprising & turned on the Nazis. Plus, not many people were against the Nazis, so any coup would not have had enough supporters to do anything without the Soviets. Also, the Romanian forces in Stalingrad were crushed before the Italians lost, & when they did, they covered the German escape.
In general, English and German memoirs and studies about WW2 slightly biased against Italians. But you obviously encourage to use it against you...
Again, I'll ask, what about the convoys? Also, what do you mean "quit your trolling"? It's a little hard to "troll" this board if you're me, lol.
I said that it regards when you said they never said that their were large ships sent out, & I said what about convoys. Clear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Source? I have never read about mafioso parachuting into Sicily to prep for the Allied invasion. There were airborne landings carried out, but it was prior to the invasion and conducted by military units with military objectives.
Watch 'Secret War: The Mafia Connection' from the Military Channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Maybe had they cleared out "dozens of agents" it wouldn't have been useless. The best outcome of the entire operation was that dock worker strikes ended after Luciano got involved. Heck, the act of "sabotage" that started the whole thing was later proven to be an accident and had nothing to do with the mob, the Axis or anything else.
The dock worker strikes were Mafia influenced, that's why they stopped, & the sinking of that ship was Luciano's doing. Again, watch the video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The British soundly defeated Rommel and his Afrika Korps before the US became heavily involved in the fighting.
They only one because of the overwhelming formation of SHERMAN tanks. Catching my drift, the Lend-Lease Act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Are you serious? Do you even know ANYTHING about modern warfare?
You quoted a way earlier statment, as opposed to the one that said 'It's advantage is much like radar, not an enormous, game-changing one'! figures...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Panzer means tank. Which panzer are you talking about? The I, II, III, IV, Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, etc.? The Sherman outclassed the Panzer I, II and most III's. It was a relatively even fight between a Sherman and a Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger easily outclassed the Sherman but it's not like the Germans had a lot of Panthers and Tigers.
I meant the current model at the time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Um...no. The M26 Pershing was the American attempt late in the war to build a heavy tank equal to the Panther/Tiger. About 310 of those tanks were sent to Europe starting in January 1945, only 20 ever saw combat. They were formed as their own units, and these were then dispersed to select armored divisions.
I heard it from an American veteran from the Military Channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
You think US troops were superior or were they just better equipped and supported? See, I don't really think that US troops, in the sense you are using it, were superior. However, the US certainly fielded "superior" units. As for your statement of Italian pilot superiority...quantify it. What measuring sticks should we use to determine such a thing?
What qualifies it is that the British had better planes & they still inflicted more casualties on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
During the Civil War Italian forces made up what, about 50k-60k troops? I think the Nazi's were "destroyed" by the British and Americans.
Ever hear about the CLN or the Partisan republics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Soviets had "horrible soldiers"? Poorly trained, occasionally poorly led and sometimes poorly equipped...yes. However, the Soviet soldier endured more and triumphed over more than just about any other soldier in the war. I would never call them "horrible".
On an average rate of an Axis soldier killing five soviet & then being killed by ten, what else would the outcome be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The British lost a series of border skirmishes before completely destroying two entire Italian field armies. Even with Commonwealth support (which you still conveniently ignore Italy's use of "imperial" forces) the Italians still outnumbered them by 4-5:1.
One army, & what do colonials have anything to do with this, to which their weren't that many in North Africa anyway.
I found this good article on the Italian soldier published in the Intelligence Bulletin of the US War Department in 1942...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
