Who mostly won WW2? (war, Egypt, Great Britain, general)

[Italian Commando]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I get where you are coming from given the name, but let's face reality here. The Italians had early success against completely unorganized and underpowered British colonial forces. Once the Brits organized and went on the offensive, they tore the Italians to pieces.

Let me just start off by stating that I am an Italian-American, since my profile's been made private.

First of all, the forces they fought weren't just colonials, there were British forces too. In fact, at least half if not more were British. Also, the victories were in Somaliland, Sudan, Kenya & THEN Egypt. These were one-on-one engagements between Italy & Britain, when the Commonwealth came, it was all the sudden a victory. That's also why the Axis lost after the American arrival, there wasn't another Axis force to even the playing field. Amedeo showed clearly how far the Italian forces could go, even with all of the disadvantages Mussolini inadvertently presented them with.

Also guy, seriously, don't just look at me as an Italian Revisionist on WWII & just automatically think 'oh man, we bias blind nationalist, let's barely listen to him'

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

Let me just start off by stating that I am an Italian-American, since my profile's been made private.

First of all, the forces they fought weren't just colonials, there were British forces too. In fact, at least half if not more were British. Also, the victories were in Somaliland, Sudan, Kenya & THEN Egypt. These were one-on-one engagements between Italy & Britain, when the Commonwealth came, it was all the sudden a victory. That's also why the Axis lost after the American arrival, there wasn't another Axis force to even the playing field. Amedeo showed clearly how far the Italian forces could go, even with all of the disadvantages Mussolini inadvertently presented them with.

Also guy, seriously, don't just look at me as an Italian Revisionist on WWII & just automatically think 'oh man, we bias blind nationalist, let's barely listen to him'

I'll just say that in all of the years I have studied WW2 and the past few that I have discussed it on this forum and others, you are the only person who has ever tried to build a case for Italian military competency. I'm not saying that their commanders were horrible (not all of them were) or that their soldiers weren't brave and skilled (many fought valiantly), just that the overall appartus under Mussolini was very poor.

The only Italian "victories" sans German support happened when Italy possessed a massive advantage in manpower...

When the East African Campaign opened Amedeo had ~250,000 troops at his disposal with another 208,000 men stationed in Libya. That meant in June 1940 in Africa, the Italians had 458,000+ troops.

The British under Wavell had 30,000 men to face Amedeo with another 56,000 in Egypt and the Middle East. Total British forces in Africa and the Mid East command amounted to 86,000 troops.

So...in the immediate theater...250,000 Italians vs. 30,000 British, that's an 8.3:1 advantage.
In the overall theater...458,000 Italians vs. 86,000 British, that's a 5.3:1 advantage.

Now, the British did benefit from better equipment and better supply lines. However, the Italians held every other advantage including a 3:1 ratio in the air.

The most dashing Italian victory was when they siezed British Somaliland...25,000 Italians vs. 4,000 British soldiers. From there it was a defensive war until the British built up their forces and absolutely devastated the Italian forces in a sustained drive in East Africa. As this was all playing out, Graziani under pressure from Mussolini, was leading the Italian 10th Army into its doom in Egypt which ushered in German involvement and Rommel.

[Italian Commando]

Only with German support!? I just named four without, to which the British had none before the arrival of the Commonwealth!

Devastated in East Africa!? They only were able to attack when the Commonwealth freed u enough British forces, & even if, they attacked it several times until they got lucky, where's the superiority there!? Also, Compass happened way before the start of the fall of Italian East Africa.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

Only with German support!? I just named four without, to which the British had none before the arrival of the Commonwealth!

Devastated in East Africa!? They only were able to attack when the Commonwealth freed u enough British forces, & even if, they attacked it several times until they got lucky, where's the superiority there!? Also, Compass happened way before the start of the fall of Italian East Africa.

You are kidding right? Sudan, basically a series of border raids which the Italians lacked the fuel supplies to exploit. Kenya, they took a border fort and then managed to move about 60 miles into the interior from there before their supply lines broke down. Somaliland, they outnumbered the small British garrison by over 5:1. Egypt, the British screening forces slowed the Italians down as they advanced towards Mersa Matruh where the main British forces waited. The Italians didn't even make it that far before their supply lines broke down, so they dug in and then got mauled by the British during Operation Compass. After that, it was the Germans forming the core of the army and Rommel leading them.

Got lucky in East Africa? The entire Italian East African Army ended up dead or POW's including their commander Prince Amedeo. Total casualties for the campaign were 4,000 British/Commonwealth dead vs. 6,000 Italian dead and 230,000 prisoners. Yeah, the Brits got lucky.

[Italian Commando]

What was taken in Sudan & Kenya was defended very well & the rest of said territories were bombed, which also included Rhodesia. As for Somaliland, it was the British's fault for not having enough troops garrisoned in a colony that borders their enemy, plus, the Italians just recently took Ethiopia, & they still got that many more troops there. As for North Africa, does most of them seeing larger force & running while leaving an even smaller forces to lose a third of Egypt make it any better!? Their later defeat was from a lack of enough armor, & they got a lot of their own when Rommel came as well. Plus, the Italians outnumber the German forces 4:1 in North Africa, you can't seriously think they were the only reason they achieved anything in North Africa!?

They attacked Keren twice & finally succeed the third time & were counterattacked twice as well, that's nothing but luck!

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

What was taken in Sudan & Kenya was defended very well & the rest of said territories were bombed, which also included Rhodesia. As for Somaliland, it was the British's fault for not having enough troops garrisoned in a colony that borders their enemy, plus, the Italians just recently took Ethiopia, & they still got that many more troops there.

I'm just wondering how you can build your case of Italian martial ability in WW2 on the fact that they overran some isolated and undermanned British garrisons. A fact, that you admit was true. The fact the British only had 4,000 troops in Somaliland may have been a British mistake, but that doesn't prove the 25,000 Italians who fought them were great soldiers.

As for North Africa, does most of them seeing larger force & running while leaving an even smaller forces to lose a third of Egypt make it any better!?

You have zero concept of stategy if you think the British were running away. Wavell shortened his supply lines and strengthened his forces by falling back into the interior. He wore and slowed down the advancing Italian army with the screening force who eventually ran into supply issues. He then unleashed hell upon the Italians and drove them halfway across Libya destroying the entire Italian 10th Army in the process. Are you seriously going to pretend that Wavell's strategic fallback was some sort of great Italian victory?

Their later defeat was from a lack of enough armor

The British had the same amount of armor as the Italians. British armor was simply superior in terms of equipment, organization and supply and was put to better strategic use.

they got a lot of their own when Rommel came as well. Plus, the Italians outnumber the German forces 4:1 in North Africa, you can't seriously think they were the only reason they achieved anything in North Africa!?

What did they achieve? Rommel made some of the same mistakes that Graziani made. The Italo-German forces drove across the dessert until they ran out of gas and then the British kicked them back to Libya. Eventually the British gained the momentum permanently and drove them out of Africa. As for the 4:1 advantage, there was a big difference in the combat value (aka quality) of the German forces vs. the Italian. Rommel used the Germans for attack and used the Italians to hold the line.

They attacked Keren twice & finally succeed the third time & were counterattacked twice as well, that's nothing but luck!

All of these "attacks" were part of the same battle. The first two were meeting engagements as the British forces approached and tried to gain position. The third was a set-piece battle with all of the units in place and the British succeeded. The Italian forces acquitted themselves well, but they still lost. This is like saying the British "won" at Dunkirk because they held the perimeter for a while.

[scaramouchebluez]

As much as I would love to say the USA. No one could touch the soviets. Had the soviets decided not to stop in Berlin, the Americans would not have been able to stop them, not at that point. It was the Russians who wiped out the nazis army. strangely had Hitler been born in Russia instead of Austria then the whole world would be russian

[Italian Commando]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I'm just wondering how you can build your case of Italian martial ability in WW2 on the fact that they overran some isolated and undermanned British garrisons. A fact, that you admit was true. The fact the British only had 4,000 troops in Somaliland may have been a British mistake, but that doesn't prove the 25,000 Italians who fought them were great soldiers.



You have zero concept of stategy if you think the British were running away. Wavell shortened his supply lines and strengthened his forces by falling back into the interior. He wore and slowed down the advancing Italian army with the screening force who eventually ran into supply issues. He then unleashed hell upon the Italians and drove them halfway across Libya destroying the entire Italian 10th Army in the process. Are you seriously going to pretend that Wavell's strategic fallback was some sort of great Italian victory?



The British had the same amount of armor as the Italians. British armor was simply superior in terms of equipment, organization and supply and was put to better strategic use.



What did they achieve? Rommel made some of the same mistakes that Graziani made. The Italo-German forces drove across the dessert until they ran out of gas and then the British kicked them back to Libya. Eventually the British gained the momentum permanently and drove them out of Africa. As for the 4:1 advantage, there was a big difference in the combat value (aka quality) of the German forces vs. the Italian. Rommel used the Germans for attack and used the Italians to hold the line.



All of these "attacks" were part of the same battle. The first two were meeting engagements as the British forces approached and tried to gain position. The third was a set-piece battle with all of the units in place and the British succeeded. The Italian forces acquitted themselves well, but they still lost. This is like saying the British "won" at Dunkirk because they held the perimeter for a while.

Just like on Historum, you people will always have some lame 'logical explanation' as to why multiple British defeats are insignificant, but why one Italian one is so important.

He left a third of his main force that got torn apart in a week & lost a third of the colony. That force had to be replaced by Australian & New Zealand Forces. He wouldn't have crossed past the Libyan border without them.

No they didn't, your probably thinking of their tankettes, in fact the M13/40 was the best tank on the battlefield against all the British tanks in the campaign. Don't believe me, look up the gun & armor statistics.

Your argument would at least made sense if you tried saying they couldn't do anything until Rommel, that's what a lot of people say, but now your saying he's no better!? Rommel's forces couldn't have done any offensive it alone & never did! Ever hear of the Centauro I & II divisions, or the Ariete I & I divisions, all fighting side-by-side with the Afrika Korps.

Well 'battles' talk about multiple assaults, the battle of Monte Cassino took four tries & it finally took Anzio & the Summer for them to succeed. The same was with Keren.

[Atai J.]

Both US and USSR, but US mostly. US had a casualties, but they was not critical.
USSR became more powerful, but years of the war and german occupation had ruined much its economy and industry. USSR had got all East Europe, but US became a leader in the region of both Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean.

Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez

As much as I would love to say the USA. No one could touch the soviets. Had the soviets decided not to stop in Berlin, the Americans would not have been able to stop them, not at that point. It was the Russians who wiped out the nazis army. strangely had Hitler been born in Russia instead of Austria then the whole world would be russian

Disagreed.
Hitler had playing his role, he was just a puppet of the militarists (until 1939 for at least), who sponsored his NSDAP and his election campaign in 1933.
If he would born in Russia he would became a one of the communist leaders or he would became an anarchist or some one else.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

Just like on Historum, you people will always have some lame 'logical explanation' as to why multiple British defeats are insignificant, but why one Italian one is so important.

It's about the overall campaign and its outcome, not a few insignificant battles in that campaign. Look at it as a boxing analogy. The individual punches and combos are battles, the rounds are campaigns and the fight overall is the war. The Italians won round 1 because they landed some early blows that caught the British by surprise, then they lost the rest and the fight overall. Do we talk about who won the fight or about who won round 1? The fact they lost doesn't mean that they didn't land some good blows in some of those rounds.

He left a third of his main force that got torn apart in a week & lost a third of the colony. That force had to be replaced by Australian & New Zealand Forces. He wouldn't have crossed past the Libyan border without them.

The choice to leave that screening force behind was purposefuly and succesful. The point of that force was to slow down the Italian advance and force them to consume their supplies. It worked. The Italians didn't even get as far as the British thought they would. As for Commonwealth forces being added, what does that matter? They were still British forces.

For that matter, the Italians also used non-Italian troops. Over 70% of the Italian Army in East Africa was made up of Askari. They are still counted as being the Italian Army.

No they didn't, your probably thinking of their tankettes, in fact the M13/40 was the best tank on the battlefield against all the British tanks in the campaign. Don't believe me, look up the gun & armor statistics.

Um, no. The M13/40 was a decent tank. It's strength was a good main gun for the 1940/41 time period. Outside of that it had a couple of critical flaws. While the armor thickness was average, the lower hull armor was virtually non-existent making the tank highly vulnerable to mines. The armor was also riveted instead of welded, meaning even deflected hits often knocked off armor plates or sent rivets flying throught the crew compartment. The rivet issue was especially noticable when it came to artillery rounds landing nearby where the concussive force could blow out half the rivets in the tank. The suspension system was derived off the Vickers design, but was purpose built for mountain terrain, not desert terrain. The engine was underpowered for the size of the tank as it was a carryover from the M11, despite the M13 being much heavier. The suspension and engine combined to give the M13/40 a very low operational speed.

The British Matilda Mk II infantry tanks were slow, but their armor was impervious to the Italian tank guns. The Matilda's also sported a 2pdr main gun that could easily punch through the armor of the best Italian tanks. The British cruiser tanks such as the A10 had light armor, but were fast and packed a punch with the same gun as the Matildas. The A13 was a heavier cruiser with armor equal to the Italians, but much faster and again with the same 2pdr gun. When the A15 "Crusader" showed up with even heavier armor, higher speed and a 6pdr gun, it was game over for even the early German Pz.III and Pz.IV's in North Africa.

The M13/40 is now classified as basically a light tank. While it was effective against the early British cruisers, the cruisers were nearly twice as fast giving them a distinct advantage. Either tank could knock the other out, so it came down to who could land the blow first. The British also had much better command and control via their radios and utilized superior armored tactics.

Your argument would at least made sense if you tried saying they couldn't do anything until Rommel, that's what a lot of people say, but now your saying he's no better!? Rommel's forces couldn't have done any offensive it alone & never did! Ever hear of the Centauro I & II divisions, or the Ariete I & I divisions, all fighting side-by-side with the Afrika Korps.

I've posted plenty on my critiques of Rommel. Rommel was a brilliant tactician, but the fact that he often overran his supply lines which resulted in his forces getting cut-off and mauled does lead me to question his overall "strategic brilliance". Even the Italian commanders thought Rommel was a little too aggressive. Of course, the Afrika Korps couldn't do it alone, I never said they could. What I said was that they were the "schwerpunkt" of Axis forces in Africa.

As for the Centauro, they weren't there for either El Alamein and basically arrived to help try and defend Tunis. They performed well at Kasserine in concert with the Germans against poor American defenses. The Ariete division was arguably the best Italian force in North Africa and performed very well in concert with the German forces.

Well 'battles' talk about multiple assaults, the battle of Monte Cassino took four tries & it finally took Anzio & the Summer for them to succeed. The same was with Keren.

See boxing analogy above...