I thought it would be interesting to know what other people think in my opinon the Italian and the French. Please say why. Thank you for comeing Yours turly Jewman.
Accounts I have read speak very highly of the italian artillery in North Africa and I think their armoured division troops were not bad - even though their tanks were deathtraps. Overall, though, they had a serious morale problem in Africa. By some accounts they did much better in Russia. The French also had a big morale problem in 1940, but this cannot be applied to troops of the 1st Army in 1944/45 and particularly to the Free French brigade at Bir Hakim or the 2nd Armoured Division in Europe.
I addressed your question in the section on "Best troops of the war." Didn't see you'd added the thread. Check over there. Some other points: Most of the Italians who fought in World War II actually went to Russia, marching all the way to the Don River, where some of Italy's best mountain regiments (in the plains, of course), were slaughtered in Operation Little Saturn, part of the Stalingrad counterattack. The Italians had one moment of glory in the campaign: the Savoia Cavalry caught some Soviet machine-gunners from the flank and executed the last cavalry charge in history to rout them. Many Italians would up killed or dying in captivity in the Soviet Union. The Italian Army regained some honor late in the war, when its British-equipped Co-Belligerent forces performed well in the breakthrough into the Po Valley. These troops proved pretty adept, once they had good equipment.
It is too vague to tarnish an entire nation as producing the 'worst soldiers'; the worst led, trained and equipped overall, and the least successful, consistently, overall, yes: in this respect Italy and France did not perform anywhere near their full military potential during the course of WW2 and I am inclined to agree. However, the failure of Dieppe, the fall of Singapore and the loss of Tobruk does not show that the Canadians, British & Australians & Indians and South Africans respectively were poor fighters overall, although they lost, and often to numerically inferior forces: it was just that the French could not afford the time to learn or move on from such mistakes in 1940, as we had the chance to do (and rebuild and retrain our forces following Dunkirk). Aside from the chronic problems within the badly trained, equipped and motivated Italian armed forces, in 1940 the French were hamstrung by poor leadership and tactical communications and a lack of public solidarity to repel the invaders. Without the Channel and consequently the shield provided by the RN and RAF, the UK could very well have gone the same way. Richard
Yes i would have to agree that the Italians were not all so bad but being far superior in numbers and in equipment , where not able to defet the British and accutualy retreated constantly in Africa during 1940 and 1941. I guess i could reword my question which counrtys armed forces did the poorest in world war 2. specificaly Infranty. Long time reader JEWMAN
Originally posted by jewman@Nov 22 2004, 08:30 PM Yes i would have to agree that the Italians were not all so bad but being far superior in numbers and in equipment , where not able to defet the British and accutualy retreated constantly in Africa during 1940 and 1941. I guess i could reword my question which counrtys armed forces did the poorest in world war 2. specificaly Infranty. Long time reader JEWMAN [post=29624]Quoted post[/post] Numbers do not tell the full story. They never do. Disraelis talked about "lies, damned lies, and statistics." Numbers are useful. But they make it sound like the winner simply hit the loser over the head with a ledger book and made him crumple to the floor. You talk about numbers of tanks and the Italians in 1940 outnumbered the British by a huge number. But the British Matildas were far superior to the M13/40s of the Italian Army. The British were also more operationally and tactically skilled and better trained than their opponents. Those points don't appear on a statistical table. You also have to look at how these numbers were used. And, as the old saw goes, you have to study logistics. The finest tank in the world is no good if it lacks gas and ammunition. Even the best documentaries rarely convey those subjects.
