Italy in WWII (England, Hitler, Japanese, France)

[j_k_k]

Own your words, and put aside the emotional stuff. You're trying to make the Italian war record look better than it was, which was dismal with a few bright spots. Get as temper-tantrumy as you want, but while you do, tell me the number of major sea battles in which the Italian surface fleet challenged the Royal Navy--and won. I'll wait. (Hint: you would get a lot more mileage out of the Italian submarine force, which was actually something the British had to deploy ongoing escorts to try and combat. Lots of people are here praising aspects of the Italian war effort; they just realize that overall, it was dismal.)

[alte hornise]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

I've heard that old wives tale before, it's about as false as Mussolini hearing warnings about the economy & putting his fingers in his ears making noises.
The high commands of Mussolini & Badoglio & later Cavellero were horrible, but most of the commanders were average, along with a few great ones like Amedeo, Messe & Graziani who did exceptionally well.
The Regina Marina had a lot more modern battleships then the Royal Navy, plus, they doubled the Mediterranean forces. Both held half of the Mediterranean until the takeover of Greece, allowing naval supremacy over 80% of the sea. Plus, as for the British victories, you think they were only bailed out by the Commonwealth in North Africa.
As for aircraft, the Italians were the pioneers of long-ranged bombing, & their fighters were at least average.
That's because most of Italy's resources were sucked out by Hitler, they were funding the Nazi War Machine.
Enough of that crap! They didn't resort to using, they just used it, probably just because. You people make it sound like they were losing before they used it. They won 7 out of ten battles & the French predicted they'd take twice as long as they did.
They invaded France two days before the Armistice, of course they didn't take much.
Taranto only lost one battleship & one destroyer, along with another of both damaged, I'm pretty sure that's not even a fifth of their navy.
As for Greece, they only lost because of the RAF reinforcements, & the Italian reinforcements were twice as the entire Greek army, & along with invaders from the north against Yugoslavia, they didn't even need the Balkan reinforcements, little less the German ones.
For Libya, that's mostly what I was saying, but you can't possibly consider the Italian forces bad in a war with three on one. Rommel was just evening it out!
Ethiopia falling was because of all the force that were freed up because of the Commonwealth reinforcements in North Africa, plus, Keren falling was a matter of luck!
They turned on the Nazis, enough of this 'cowardly switching sides' horses**t!!

I commend you on your pride in what I assume is your native country, but your take on Italy in WWII is terribly misguided and counter-factual.
Just a few points, if I may. If you actually believe that the Regia Marina had "80% supremacy" over the Mediterranean at any time between 1940-1943, you are sadly mistaken. Please consult any reference source on the fate of most of the Italian Navy's major combatants of the war; they were sunk. primarily by the Royal Navy. Ever hear of the Battle of Cape Matapan, for example?
The Italian invasion of Greece was a major debacle, and they had to be reluctantly bailed out by the Germans.
The Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia was virtually annihilated in 1942-43, despite fine service by the Alpini & other units.
We all know what ultimately happened in both East Africa, and North Africa.
Please don't let your patriotism, admirable as it is , cloud your understanding of actual history.

[NJGOAT]

The OP is one of the most amusing pieces of spin I have ever read on the topic of WW2, lol.

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

How else did the US have so much quicker success then the British AND Commonwealth AND Colonial AND Partisan forces? They were barely off the coast as the US took half the island!

"Lucky" Luciano himself was widely quoted as saying that the entire thing was a scam to get out of prison early. He said, he might have helped a little with keeping the dock workers from striking in NYC, but he was of little to no help in the Italian campaign. He also hadn't set foot in Italy since he was 10 years old and had a particular distaste for Sicilians, so his ability to help via his contacts would be questionable at best.

Plus, the main reason they won was because of the consistent flow of reinforcements, which was easily allowed because the Mafia had stolen the schematics for an Axis naval blockade, which allowed them to maneuver though it.

Axis naval blockade? The Italian navy from the beginning of 1942 on had such a lack of fuel that their main fleet basically remained in port. The Allies completely owned the Mediterranean by the time of the invasion of Sicily and the only Axis resistance were limited air attacks against the landing forces.

Also, the fact that the Mafia's against them is what probably killed their morale.

Yeah, because it couldn't have anything to do with them being seconded to German command and then finding out that the Germans were quietly abandoning them and using the Italians to screen their withdrawal...

The Italian forces allowed for the German evacuation at Stalingrad, & while many prisoners were taken, their would've been a lot more. They also fought in Caucus, the furthest expansion into the Soviet Union. Plus, the Soviets had overwhelming numbers as it was, another skilled force is very important.
What are you talking about, many German generals were incredibly mean to their Italian forces, even if not to their faces. Many were even sore enough losers to blame Italy on them losing the war!

All the Axis suffered horrendous casualties in the Soviet Union, why are you just pointing out the Italian ones?

I think your issue is that you take umbrage to the implication that Italians themselves are "cowards, incompetent or poor fighters". An implication that no one here is making, except to **** you off. You need to separate the war record from the stereotype that grew out of it. There were several very good Italian units in the war that performed as good as any others. There were many more that had no interest in fighting the war and were outclassed by their opponents. No one thinks that Italians are "poor fighters, cowards, etc." but they didn't exactly have the best reputation in WW2 for reasons that went well beyond the influence of the average foot soldier. Trying to counter the stereotype by glossing over the Italian record in WW2 does more harm than good.

Maybe you wanna actually look at the weapon & armor statistics of the Italian tanks, because most a much stronger then the British.

M13/40 Valentine MkI
Main Gun: 47 mm Main Gun: 40 mm
Armor: 42 mm Armor: 28 mm

M14/41 Crusader Mk I
Main Gun: same Main Gun: same
Armor: same Armor: 40 mm

M15/42
Main Gun: same
Armor: 50 mm front
42mm sides

I broke down the tank comparisons in the other thread. What I will say here is that you are comparing the earliest and weakest versions of British tanks to the best the Italians had. The Italian tanks were slow, being roughly equivalent in speed to the Matilda's. Their armor was of decent thickness, but was riveted, not welded, which caused issues. Their main gun was good against the early cruiser tanks, but was completely useless against the infantry tanks like the Matildas. The British 2pdr, despite being only 40mm, was high velocity and had no problem slicing through the armor on the Italian tanks. The British cruiser tanks were also nearly twice as fast as the Italians.

What ended up happening is this...

Versus early British cruiser tanks, they could both knock each other out, but the British tanks were much faster and could were better at firing on the run. Advantage British.

Versus early British infantry tanks, the Italians couldn't penetrate the armor of the British, the British tanks could knock out the Italians with ease. Their speed was roughly equivalent.

Once the A15 cruiser tanks showed up, it was all Britain as the 6pdr guns could knock out even the German Pz.IV's and the armor was more than a match for the Italian guns and early German guns on the Pz.III and Pz.IV.

As it was though, the biggest threat to the Italian tanks were anti-tank guns. The British infantry had a healthy supply of 2pdr AT guns and these easily knocked out the Italian tanks. Also, artillery proved highly effective against the Italian tanks. The Italian tanks were slow and their riveted armor meant that near misses turned the rivets into shrapnel inside the tanks.

Then how were the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 and Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 bombers and Fiat CR.42 fighters the best fighters in the East African Campaign!?

The CR.42 was among the "best" in the East African campaign, because it was facing mainly obsolete British aircraft and only a small number of Hurricanes. By August of 1940 it was evident that the CR.42 was an anachronism and the only way it survived was by having superior maneuverability and the skill of the Italian pilots. Basically, the modus operandi of the CR.42 was get them to chase you and when they shoot, break into a half-roll and dive for all you're worth. Eventually the British pilots figured out that the only way to beat them was to climb higher and then come in fast and hard.

Well that's not insulting!!

Why are you so insulted?

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by alte hornise

I commend you on your pride in what I assume is your native country, but your take on Italy in WWII is terribly misguided and counter-factual.
Just a few points, if I may. If you actually believe that the Regia Marina had "80% supremacy" over the Mediterranean at any time between 1940-1943, you are sadly mistaken. Please consult any reference source on the fate of most of the Italian Navy's major combatants of the war; they were sunk. primarily by the Royal Navy. Ever hear of the Battle of Cape Matapan, for example?
The Italian invasion of Greece was a major debacle, and they had to be reluctantly bailed out by the Germans.
The Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia was virtually annihilated in 1942-43, despite fine service by the Alpini & other units.
We all know what ultimately happened in both East Africa, and North Africa.
Please don't let your patriotism, admirable as it is , cloud your understanding of actual history.

This is one area where the record would sort of go back and forth. The British had early success in engagements with the raid on Taranto and the battle of Cape Matapan. However, the Italians did strike back sinking HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant with limpet mines planted by Italian motor boats. British Force K then suffered a major disaster when they ran into an Italian minefield off of Tripoli.

Following that the entire central Med was under uncontested Italian naval control for the next several months. The Italian Navy then won a series of battles; Second Battle of Sirte, Battle of Mid-June and Oeprations Harpoon, Vigorous and Pedestal. All were Axis victories, some major.

It wasn't until the Torch Landings when Allied naval and in particular air forces gained supremacy that the Italian Navy basically became confined to port except for running the convoy route to Tunisia which became nicknamed the "route of death".

One of the big issues for the Italian Navy is that they were unable to replace losses and they lacked radar and sonar. They were basically a "line of sight" navy when it came to fighting and had trouble at night or in poor weather; facts the British used to great advantage. The British also had broken the Italian codes, so they had better intel on Italian movements and convoys. Finally, the issue of replacing losses made the Italian commanders hesitant to engage their forces even when they had the advantage. The Italians lost many opportunities because any engagement had to be approved at the highest levels.

[Escort Rider]

O.K., let's check our technical knowledge:
Question: How many gears did a WWII Italian army tank have?
Answer: Four in reverse and one in forward in case they were attacked from the rear.

[easthome]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

O.K., let's check our technical knowledge:
Question: How many gears did a WWII Italian army tank have?
Answer: Four in reverse and one in forward in case they were attacked from the rear.

Beat me to it! lol :-D

[Italian Commando]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

O.K., let's check our technical knowledge:
Question: How many gears did a WWII Italian army tank have?
Answer: Four in reverse and one in forward in case they were attacked from the rear.

I wasn't insulted until now, what the f**k!!?

Originally Posted by easthome

Beat me to it! lol :-D

Don't encourage his racist horses**t!!

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

This is one area where the record would sort of go back and forth. The British had early success in engagements with the raid on Taranto and the battle of Cape Matapan. However, the Italians did strike back sinking HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant with limpet mines planted by Italian motor boats. British Force K then suffered a major disaster when they ran into an Italian minefield off of Tripoli.

Following that the entire central Med was under uncontested Italian naval control for the next several months. The Italian Navy then won a series of battles; Second Battle of Sirte, Battle of Mid-June and Oeprations Harpoon, Vigorous and Pedestal. All were Axis victories, some major.

It wasn't until the Torch Landings when Allied naval and in particular air forces gained supremacy that the Italian Navy basically became confined to port except for running the convoy route to Tunisia which became nicknamed the "route of death".

One of the big issues for the Italian Navy is that they were unable to replace losses and they lacked radar and sonar. They were basically a "line of sight" navy when it came to fighting and had trouble at night or in poor weather; facts the British used to great advantage. The British also had broken the Italian codes, so they had better intel on Italian movements and convoys. Finally, the issue of replacing losses made the Italian commanders hesitant to engage their forces even when they had the advantage. The Italians lost many opportunities because any engagement had to be approved at the highest levels.

Now here are some accurate points, although I don't necessarily believe they couldn't replace what they lost, just not as well as the British, being their colonial empire. Just wanted to clarify that point a little, other then that I'm glad we can agree on some things.

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

The OP is one of the most amusing pieces of spin I have ever read on the topic of WW2, lol.



"Lucky" Luciano himself was widely quoted as saying that the entire thing was a scam to get out of prison early. He said, he might have helped a little with keeping the dock workers from striking in NYC, but he was of little to no help in the Italian campaign. He also hadn't set foot in Italy since he was 10 years old and had a particular distaste for Sicilians, so his ability to help via his contacts would be questionable at best.



Axis naval blockade? The Italian navy from the beginning of 1942 on had such a lack of fuel that their main fleet basically remained in port. The Allies completely owned the Mediterranean by the time of the invasion of Sicily and the only Axis resistance were limited air attacks against the landing forces.



Yeah, because it couldn't have anything to do with them being seconded to German command and then finding out that the Germans were quietly abandoning them and using the Italians to screen their withdrawal...



I think your issue is that you take umbrage to the implication that Italians themselves are "cowards, incompetent or poor fighters". An implication that no one here is making, except to **** you off. You need to separate the war record from the stereotype that grew out of it. There were several very good Italian units in the war that performed as good as any others. There were many more that had no interest in fighting the war and were outclassed by their opponents. No one thinks that Italians are "poor fighters, cowards, etc." but they didn't exactly have the best reputation in WW2 for reasons that went well beyond the influence of the average foot soldier. Trying to counter the stereotype by glossing over the Italian record in WW2 does more harm than good.



I broke down the tank comparisons in the other thread. What I will say here is that you are comparing the earliest and weakest versions of British tanks to the best the Italians had. The Italian tanks were slow, being roughly equivalent in speed to the Matilda's. Their armor was of decent thickness, but was riveted, not welded, which caused issues. Their main gun was good against the early cruiser tanks, but was completely useless against the infantry tanks like the Matildas. The British 2pdr, despite being only 40mm, was high velocity and had no problem slicing through the armor on the Italian tanks. The British cruiser tanks were also nearly twice as fast as the Italians.

What ended up happening is this...

Versus early British cruiser tanks, they could both knock each other out, but the British tanks were much faster and could were better at firing on the run. Advantage British.

Versus early British infantry tanks, the Italians couldn't penetrate the armor of the British, the British tanks could knock out the Italians with ease. Their speed was roughly equivalent.

Once the A15 cruiser tanks showed up, it was all Britain as the 6pdr guns could knock out even the German Pz.IV's and the armor was more than a match for the Italian guns and early German guns on the Pz.III and Pz.IV.

As it was though, the biggest threat to the Italian tanks were anti-tank guns. The British infantry had a healthy supply of 2pdr AT guns and these easily knocked out the Italian tanks. Also, artillery proved highly effective against the Italian tanks. The Italian tanks were slow and their riveted armor meant that near misses turned the rivets into shrapnel inside the tanks.



The CR.42 was among the "best" in the East African campaign, because it was facing mainly obsolete British aircraft and only a small number of Hurricanes. By August of 1940 it was evident that the CR.42 was an anachronism and the only way it survived was by having superior maneuverability and the skill of the Italian pilots. Basically, the modus operandi of the CR.42 was get them to chase you and when they shoot, break into a half-roll and dive for all you're worth. Eventually the British pilots figured out that the only way to beat them was to climb higher and then come in fast and hard.



Why are you so insulted?

Operation Underworld was designed to target Axis agents, not dock workers, who were already in Mafia control anyway.
He WAS Sicilian, how could he have a distaste for them!?

Then how do explain the numerous ground forces? Already you argument isn't any better then cheese, full of holes.

Well, those are other factors to the low morale as well, but you can't possibly think that their own people, to which is a force that was taken out years ago, turning on them isn't a morale killer.

I wasn't think any of that, until of course a previous comment.

I was comparing each of the best tanks from each side of that current year, & those are the results. also, at the bottom of this War in the Mediterranean page is some informative info. Also, you talk of AT guns & artillery like they weren't a large threat to another countries tank fores while on a battlefield.

You say that like it doesn't show the superiority of the Italian pilots.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Italian Commando

I wasn't insulted until now, what the f**k!!?

Don't encourage his racist horses**t!!

Italians are now a race? I live in one of the most Italian areas of the country and I've never met anyone as over the top with their "viva l'Italia" as you show yourself to be.

Now here are some accurate points, although I don't necessarily believe they couldn't replace what they lost, just not as well as the British, being their colonial empire. Just wanted to clarify that point a little, other then that I'm glad we can agree on some things.

They couldn't replace what they lost in terms of ships. This is why they acted so cautiosly with the fleet. This is why their two aircraft carriers stayed incompleted in drydock for the entire war. AFAIK, the Italians didn't launch any ships larger than a torpedo boat during the entire war. They did refit and repair mutliple vessels including some captured ships they pressed into service, but they didn't build and launch anything major.

Operation Underworld was designed to target Axis agents, not dock workers, who were already in Mafia control anyway.
He WAS Sicilian, how could he have a distaste for them!?

Operation Underworld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The operation was launched after the Normandie was sunk in NY Harbor. Albert Anastasia claimed responsibility and the Feds launched Operation Underworld using Luciano to control the dock workers, prevent sabotage and limit the flow of goods into the black market.

Yes, he was Sicilian, but he did not like the whole amico nostro ceremony and the titles and trappings that he considered to be "Sicialian anachronisms". He may have been from Sicily, but he left when he was 10.

Then how do explain the numerous ground forces? Already you argument isn't any better then cheese, full of holes.

What are you talking about?

Well, those are other factors to the low morale as well, but you can't possibly think that their own people, to which is a force that was taken out years ago, turning on them isn't a morale killer.

In Luciano's own words he said he did "nothing for the Allies in Italy". I think the Germans using the Italians as human shields while they crossed the Straight of Messina first was more of a morale sapper.

I was comparing each of the best tanks from each side of that current year, & those are the results. also, at the bottom of this War in the Mediterranean page is some informative info.

Your comparison is poor as is what was written in that article. Gun caliber doesn't matter nearly as much as velocity. A German Panther and the American Sherman had the same caliber gun, the difference was that the Panther's gun fired with a much higher velocity. The American M1 Abrams has a smaller gun than the Russian T80, but the M1 is much more effective. The Italian 47mm was sufficient against the Mk1 (A9), Mk2 (A10) and Mk5 (A13) cruiser tanks. It was ineffective against the Mk6 (Crusader). The Mk2 (Matilda) and Mk3 (Valentine) infantry tanks were impervious to all but the heaviest guns such as the German '88'.

On top of that, the article praised the engine for being diesel. While this was definitely praise worthy, it ignores the fact the Italian tanks were slow. As slow as the British infantry tanks.

When it comes to armor, again the fact that the Italian tanks used rivet construction instead of welding was a major issue for the Italian tank crews.

So in 1940, the Italians would have faced Mk1, Mk2 and a limited number of Mk5 cruiser tanks. They would have also faced the Mk2 and Mk3 infantry tanks. Any of the British tanks were capable of destroying the Italian tanks. The Italians could knock out the cruiser tanks, but couldn't do anything to the infantry tanks. The British cruisers however, were much faster than the Italians giving them a distinct advantage in an otherwise equal fight. When the Crusader was introduced in 1941 it not only was faster, but had armor that could resist the Italian gun and had even more powerful 6pdr main gun that could take out even the heavier German tanks like the new Pz.IV variants.

Also, you talk of AT guns & artillery like they weren't a large threat to another countries tank fores while on a battlefield.

Of course they were. However, the Italians had a severe lack of effective artillery with almost their entire available artillery being WW1 vintage. The one exception was the Cannone da 47/32 M35. This is the same gun mounted on their tanks. The problem was that it was only available in small numbers and they had a hard time towing them around with axle spindle breakage being a constant problem. On average, an Italian infantry regiment would have very little in the way of organic anti-tank gun support, while every British regiment had organic 2pdr guns. The 2pdr was also an incredibly reliable and easy to use weapon.

You say that like it doesn't show the superiority of the Italian pilots.

I don't think the Italian pilots were any better or any worse than those from other nations. They proved that when some units received BF109's and BF110's which gave them a modern plane equal to their opponents.

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

I am half-Italian and have no love for Mussolini's Italy. This "puffing" by the more-Italian-than-thou fellow on here is annoying. Personally, I don't think most Italians had the will to fight. However dictatorial Musslolini's Italy was, it wasn't a nation like Nazi Germany that inculcated a radical nationalism and a radical hatred for "the Other". I don't recall many Italian leaders committing suicide after disgracing their leader.

[Oak1776]

Originally Posted by Atai J.

Italian soldiers fought bravely in some battles. But mostly they had not will to fight. In Russia, in North Africa, etc. In Russia Italian troops suffered terrible casualties. They had not enough modern weapon and transport, their tanks was too easy to destroy, and the planes couldn't fight against soviet, british and american planes. They easily surrendered (e. g. Stalingrad, Bedda Fom, Nibewa Fort etc.). Some soldiers were trained perfectly and they fought stoically. Bersaglieri and Alpini. At the same time Italian partisans fought against German occupants. As we can see, Italian soldier could fight if he knew what he fight for.
In total, it was a big mistake to join the Hitler for Italy in WWII. Italy should was being neutral. On the other hand, it was a fault of Allies that they lost Italy, and had allowed it to join Germany.

They did have a few fighter planes that fought well against the American and British (keeping Russia out because i do not think these air craft never flew over the Eastern front). Reggiane 2001-20005, Macchi 200, 202, and 205 and Fait 55 where the top fighters. Each performs well in the air against the spits, p-51, P-38, Hurr to name a few. Germany had tested them and some German pilot would preferd of some Italy fighter, especially Fait 55. However, the drawback is production. Italy did not have a huge production for many air crafts.