“Never in the field of human conflict....

[plan_D]

That's the only defence anyone has for the Italians - but let me remind you ... they were beaten by Greece!

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by plan_D

That's the only defence anyone has for the Italians - but let me remind you ... they were beaten by Greece!

I think they were also defeated by Albania as well as by a British force a tenth of their size in North Africa and by the (almost defeated) French in the Alps just before France fell. They were crap it was down to everything though training, leadership, Mussolini as well as the fact they could not sustain war.

[cheddar cheese]

The British force was 1/3rd their size...

They werent crap though. Their Planes were damned good from 1941, and initially so was their navy, but their tactics of leaving it in port is why they got hammered by the British there.

They could sustain war - Just not at a very high rate. All of their factories suffered severe poundings too, and as a lot of there equipment was manufactured in just one place it hurt them badly.

Their pilots were very capable, but the fact that they had such poor outdated planes when they entered the war was why the losses were so high. Had they had MC.202's from the outset it may well have been different.

Training and Leadership were, really, the only two bad things.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but their tactics of leaving it in port is why they got hammered by the British there

well that still makes the italians bad! that's like saying they won the war if you don't take into account they lost

All of their factories suffered severe poundings too, and as a lot of there equipment was manufactured in just one place it hurt them badly

well that's still makes them a bad warfaring nation! don't produce everything in the same place!

[plan_D]

Yes, CC, you're just telling us everything we already knew. Everything you're pointing out is showing us that the Italians were no good at waging war. Italy lost, they were beaten by practically everyone they fought against. That, in itself, is proof enough - they were nowhere capable of fighting ...well, anyone!

They had out-dated planes ... well, if only the Kriegsmarine had the size and scope of ships as the USN did in 1945 - they might have won the battle of the Atlantic ...


The British in Eygpt were out-numbered 6:1 by the Italian forces when Italy invaded. The British counter-attacked, and captured 100,000 Italians, with a loss of 1,200 wounded or killed - hardly a good case for Italy.

And the Italians actually had the right idea by keeping their fleet in Taranto, but it should have been better protected from the air. The idea is known as "fleet in being" - which was a term coined by the Royal Navy in the 17th Century.
It means that while your fleet is still in existance, you divert enemy forces away from other active theatres to watch over yours. Italy knew that a pitched battle against the Royal Navy would be a loss, and the best option they had was use the fleet in being tactic to divert the Royal Navy from the Atlantic and North Sea. But ...the Royal Navy proved naval supremacy once again, and with courage, speed and surprise destroyed the incompetant Italy navy ... During World War I - "fleet in being" was used by most forces since they didn't want their Dreadnoughts destroyed.

You haven't provided any evidence that Italy was capable of waging modern war. They lacked skill, equipment and trained troops...for god sake, Greece beat them!

Oh yeah, and what book are you readin'!? Is it "The Chianti Raiders" by Peter Haining!?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah that's the book he's reading.......

[v2]

It was war when Italian pilots fought well. I think about war in east Africa ( 1940- 1941 ) when R.A. was fighting with RAF and SAAF. It was "last biplanes war".