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.
Wikipedia has some rare content that is actually accurate, but most isn't.
WWII Database had different casualty numbers, meaning that they found other, more accurate information along with it, making it different & more reliable.
Yet all of Wikipedia's sources for that page are British...
lol, like Grandstander said...content that agrees with me is unassailable proof...content that disagrees with me is nothing but hate filled lies and mistruths...
Quote:
Are you serious!? You saying this like Italy hasn't won MANY wars before the Second World War & that they have always sucked at fighting!
I didn't say that...but if the shoe fits...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
WHAT!? I wasn't talking about just the 20th century, & apparently neither are you! Obviously you know of Roman domination, so I'll skip on to the Middle Ages. The Gothic War, Italian War of 1494, War of the League of Cambrai, Second & Third Italian Wars of Independence, Italian conquest of Eritrea & Somalia, Boxer Rebellion, Italo-Turkish War, WWI, Conquest of Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Gulf War, Somali Civil War, Kosovo War, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq & the Libyan Civil War. Italy has always been in the flames of battle & more often then not comes out on top!
Post Roman Empire the Italians spent more time fighting themselves than anyone else. Most of the wars you listed were an outside power pushing their influence over Italy with some regional faction supporting the outside power and others supporting the opposing Italian state.
I also love how you list the Boxer Rebellion. Italy committed two warships that they just happened to have in the area and 80 Marines. Of the 8 nation alliance they by far contributed the least. They sent 3% of the ships and 2% of the troops. You're really going for straws...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
he said wars Italy was on the winning side of, not single-handedly win. Stop looking for excuses.
Hey pison..that'a war, she almost over. Less a declare war on'a da losa so we can claim da victor, ay!
Quote:
They were beating the British before the Commonwealth arrived. They kicked the American's a**es in Tunisia & only won because of the overwhelming numbers of tanks & such AND the only reason why the Soviets did anything to them was by overwhelming numbers. End of Thread.
Just because you say the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. As for the Americans and Russians all they had to do was scream...
...and the Italians just gave up without a fight.
Quote:
Th only nation that has any possession that isn't a scattered island is France, by barely, they have many forces in Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East & India & Pakistan, along with Afghanistan & Bangladesh, & are #2 in amount of forces posted around the world for counter terrorism, & what century of Italy are you thinking of? Honestly!
Yep, all of those Italian support troops hanging out at US bases.
Quote:
Well no, this, like many thing in WWII, was a very long domino effect.
Well no, unless of course we're talking about imaginary dominos with no effect at all.
he said wars Italy was on the winning side of, not single-handedly win. Stop looking for excuses.
They were beating the British before the Commonwealth arrived. They kicked the American's a**es in Tunisia & only won because of the overwhelming numbers of tanks & such AND the only reason why the Soviets did anything to them was by overwhelming numbers. End of Thread.
Th only nation that has any possession that isn't a scattered island is France, by barely, they have many forces in Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East & India & Pakistan, along with Afghanistan & Bangladesh, & are #2 in amount of forces posted around the world for counter terrorism, & what century of Italy are you thinking of? Honestly!
Well no, this, like many thing in WWII, was a very long domino effect.
It is when Italian forces fight at a rate of destroying 3 tanks & gets destroyed by 8. Are you guys getting what I'm saying, relate it to what I said about the Soviets...
I think we should do a poll on who posters agree with more. NGGOAT or Italian Commando. I wonder what the results would be.
Feel free, but I think it would just result in everyone being called anti-Italian "racists".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Commando
It is when Italian forces fight at a rate of destroying 3 tanks & gets destroyed by 8. Are you guys getting what I'm saying, relate it to what I said about the Soviets...
Most tanks in WW2 weren't destroyed by other tanks. Most tanks were destroyed by artillery and anti-tank guns.
Still your anaolgy doesn't work. The Germans fought the Soviets and generally fielded less troops, but inflicted more casualties. The Germans punched above their weight. At best one could argue that the Italians acquitted themselves well despite all of their handicaps and disadvantages. If the Italians were overwhelmed than that is a fact materialized by their own shortcomings.
The largest impact Any Italian action did all war was surrendering, causing Germany to scramble for SErn Europe, and away from the Eastern front, just in time for Kursk.
Mod cut: Inappropriate; discussing forum moderation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Most tanks in WW2 weren't destroyed by other tanks. Most tanks were destroyed by artillery and anti-tank guns.
Still your anaolgy doesn't work. The Germans fought the Soviets and generally fielded less troops, but inflicted more casualties. The Germans punched above their weight. At best one could argue that the Italians acquitted themselves well despite all of their handicaps and disadvantages. If the Italians were overwhelmed than that is a fact materialized by their own shortcomings.
I never said just by tank.
Also, the Us fought terribly in Tunisia. The only thing to get the Allies to win was the fact that they surrounded them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
The largest impact Any Italian action did all war was surrendering, causing Germany to scramble for SErn Europe, and away from the Eastern front, just in time for Kursk.
In a way yes, being that this drew a lot of forces from the Eastern Front & the Nazis in Italy were destroyed, along with the rest of the Third Reich shortly after.
Italian Commando- Do you realize that the first major North African battle involved 36,000 British destroying the entire Italian 10th Army consisting of 250,000 soldiers? The Italians had a 7:1 numerical advantage, yet got routed. What is your excuse for that?
Also, are you aware that the Italian 10th Army consisted half of soldiers from colonial countries who were not ethnic Italians? You keep saying how the British were "bailed out" by Commonwealth troops, which is false. Yet you ignore that the Italians had their own commonwealth troops and they still got their butts kicked.
Speaking of the British Commonwealth troops, they were already part of the original 36,000. You act like the Commonwealth troops were of higher quality than the British as if that means some sort of Italian victory.
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.
