Why was the Italian army so bad in WW 2 ?

O'Leprosy

Maybe some would suggest it's more for the History forum,but since most of you people are more knowledgable about military stategy etc rather than the politics, names, dates etc behind the scenes I thought it would be better to post it here. Has there ever been an attempt to explain their generally poor performance ?

Zambia

O'Leprosy wrote:

Maybe some would suggest it's more for the History forum,but since most of you people are more knowledgable about military stategy etc rather than the politics, names, dates etc behind the scenes I thought it would be better to post it here. Has there ever been an attempt to explain their generally poor performance ?

I would ask you to at least name a few italien disasters as starting a post should require more than. "Everyone tell me about the italian army" ...

What makes you think they where that bad?

therecklessone

Zambia232 wrote:

What makes you think they where that bad?

Suggested starting points

1. Collapse of Italian 10th Army in North Africa in face of Allied Operation Compass...130,000 Italian POWs for under 500 Allied KIA.

2. Greek Army counter-attack in late 1940, forcing Italian forces into retreat and occupying one quarter of Italian-controlled Albania, requiring German intervention in early 1941 with far-reaching consequences (delayed Operation Barbarossa)

Judt

Ahem, the Italian army in WWII was potentially the follow-up winner of "Best retreats, ever." The French win it, of course, but I think that stories of British counterattacks on forces which outnumbered them hugely leading to mass surrenders was a highlight of the campaign in North Africa.

Still, we can thank them for winning the war for the allies: It was their botched campaigns that had the Germans delay the invasion of Russia while they went down to sort out the Balkans for the Italians.

The reason is simple: They were not a well trained, well led army. The difference between a force that is well trained, well led and motivated versus one which is poorly trained, led by officers with their heads in the First World War and poorly motivated is apparent in both France and Italy. Other good examples might be many of the campaigns the Rumanian's fought in the First World War, where German recon squads encountered a major position, fired a few shots at it during the process and suddenly found themselves with a company or two surrendering to them.

A well trained army is nothing without good leadership, as we saw from the British in 1914. A well motivated army is no good without good training and leadership, as we saw with the French army in 1940. A poorly trained, but relatively well led and motivated army can do the job, if it has the numbers, as we saw on the Russian Front. A poorly trained, poorly led and poorly motivated force is no good to anybody, for the most part, as the Italian army of WWII proved.

homercleese

Hey Zambia, i reckon he was alright asking a general question. In fairness, they had over a million men,well armed, and had a negligible effect on the axis war effort in proportion to their size. Dont be high fallutin, asking the chap to qualify his enquiry, when what he said was enough, and you can't even spell Italian. Go record your voice on a cassette tape and play it back to yourself, seeing as you seem to like the sound of it so much. Great question i reckon O'leprosy, and one i've often thought about whenever the Italians in WW2 are mentioned. Not too sure the answer though

Zambia

homercleese wrote:

Hey Zambia, i reckon he was alright asking a general question. In fairness, they had over a million men,well armed, and had a negligible effect on the axis war effort in proportion to their size. Dont be high fallutin, asking the chap to qualify his enquiry, when what he said was enough, and you can't even spell Italian. Go record your voice on a cassette tape and play it back to yourself, seeing as you seem to like the sound of it so much. Great question i reckon O'leprosy, and one i've often thought about whenever the Italians in WW2 are mentioned. Not too sure the answer though

Well I dont think he was , OLeprosy has started enough posts to know that even a little info always gets things going. All that happens now is generalisation's on how bad the Italians (Thanks I was having trouble there) that wont last very long as opposed to an actual discussion on valid pionts.

Hey I could be wrong lets see how long this little Italian bashing session goes on...

The Italians were not prepared for a war like WW2. They had previous campaigns against the Abyssianians, but they were a poorly armed opponent. When they invaded Greece and France , the Greeks especially responded very strongly. Their spring offensive drove the Italians back to Albania. IN terms of Morale, the Italians didnt have the stomach to fight.

In terms of equipment, the Italians found it difficult to operate on the on doorstep. What I mean is, the Italian Navy was a mere pup compared to the might of the Royal Navy. They didnt engage them in open battle.

In regards to their armour...well, the Italians were crap. They constanly under- armed and armoured their tanks (M11/39, M13/40). They were glorified armoured cars. While the allies were certainly 2nd to Germany in regards tank quality, they still punished them in the open and flat deserts of nothern Africa. 47mm guns didnt cut it against the likes of the Sherman.

Dyr

From what i remember reading certain units of the italian armed forces performed very well given the adverse conditions they faced.

Their air force got their designs wrong, their pilots resisted closed cockpits etc, underpowered engines and armament.

OS119

the Italians were - as a military culture, ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-lead, and had rather too much concern for image over substance.

like many militaries in dictatorships the Italian army was mainly for internal political consumption, like in the German army, what should of been military decisions became political ones.

the Italian army had a signal that was full of bombastic aggressive patriotism, lots of 'Fatherland', 'to the last man', and 'drown the enemy in his own blood'. it was the signal from one unit to another that they were about to surrender.

extravegant uniforms, extravegant language, extravegant planning. little of the boring, unglamorous stuff of logistics, promotion on merit regardless of political affiliation, field exercises that officers actually took part in, and the total breakdown, like in the German Army, of the concept of the General Staff saying 'no' to political whim.

jmayo

OS119 wrote:

the Italians were - as a military culture, ill-trained, ill-equipped, ill-lead, and had rather too much concern for image over substance.

....

extravegant uniforms, extravegant language, extravegant planning. little of the boring, unglamorous stuff of logistics, promotion on merit regardless of political affiliation, field exercises that officers actually took part in, and the total breakdown, like in the German Army, of the concept of the General Staff saying 'no' to political whim.

The Italians had a tough enough time dispatching the Abyssianians and the Libyans in 1930s never mind meeting the Allies.
According to stories immanating from Rommel, they were particularly fearful of the Aussies in North Africa.
They were the ones that the Allies targeted as the weak link in all the encounters in North Africa.

Also not really sure what they added to the Battle at Stalingrad but they got decimated and the Italians surviving on Eastern Front were removed back to Italy..

Their main fighter at outbreak of war was a Fiat Biplane and their main tanks were Fiat-Ansaldo M13/40s, which were more light tanks than supposedly medium tanks.
I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly would not like to go to war in anything built by Fiat.

Hagar

Judt wrote:

Ahem, the Italian army in WWII was potentially the follow-up winner of "Best retreats, ever." The French win it, of course

Anyone remember Dunkirk ? More than 300,000 in that retreat.

O'Leprosy

homercleese wrote:

Hey Zambia, i reckon he was alright asking a general question. In fairness, they had over a million men,well armed, and had a negligible effect on the axis war effort in proportion to their size. Dont be high fallutin, asking the chap to qualify his enquiry, when what he said was enough, and you can't even spell Italian. Go record your voice on a cassette tape and play it back to yourself, seeing as you seem to like the sound of it so much. Great question i reckon O'leprosy, and one i've often thought about whenever the Italians in WW2 are mentioned. Not too sure the answer though

Thanks homercheese, zambia has the hump because of a little 'altercation' we had on another forum. I would have thought it was a generally accepted fact that the Italians performed badly in WW 2, (naturally there was the odd exception), didn't think it neccessary to elborate with unneeded facts. It appears most of the people who have posted so far also think so.

Manic Moran

Egads, an intelligent topic on the Military forum.

I think the Italians are given somewhat short shrift in popular culture, much like the French are. They suffered a few major problems.

1) Equipment. When Mussolini came to power, he started a massive re-armament campaign. Not being subject to Versailles-type scrutiny, he could openly and quickly procure modern systems. As a result, in 1936, the Italian army was one of the best equipped in the world, with good levels of motorisation, some good tanks (The 47mm gun was outstanding), well trained artillery. (Granted, the Blackshirt divisions didn't help much, but as long as nobody relied on them too much, no great issues.). The 90mm was just as good as the German 88. The problem was that WWII didn't kick off in Europe in 1936, so Italian military strength actually peaked too early. By the time the Desert War was in full swing, Italian units in five-year-old equipment were facing modern UK equipment, and it didn't get any better over time: Later vehicles like the M13/41 were simply developments of the pre-war tanks, facing off against monsters like Grants.

2) Motivation. "Why are we fighting, again?" The Italians had no particular grudge with Greece at that point, why get killed over it? The lack of overall support for the entire Axis concept was demonstrated when the Italian army switched sides and actively fought against the Germans. It's not much noted, but Italians fought better against the Germans than against the Allies, they also suffered more losses against the Germans than they did against the Allies: They were motivated to stick their necks out.

3) They were allied with the Germans. The Germans had an 'us first' attitude, going to the level of appropriating for German units equipment and resources which had been intended for the Italians.

4) Pasta. Italians ate lots of pasta in their rations. Pasta cooking requires lots of water. Water is a rare commodity in the desert.

5) Officer/Enlisted interaction. In many units, there was very little mutual respect between the officer corps and the enlisted soldiers. Officers were oftentimes uncaring of the issues of the juniors, and the juniors were not well motivated to follow the officers as a result

Now, on occasion, when the stars were aligned, and you had motivated troops with good officers, the Italians would put up one hell of a fight. The Artillery Corps was particularly noted for its tenacity, even fighting over open sights as retreating infantry ran through their positions. However, there were also occasions when much larger formations, such as X Corps at Gazala, caused the British much trouble.

NTM

Zambia

O'Leprosy wrote:

Thanks homercheese, zambia has the hump because of a little 'altercation' we had on another forum. I would have thought it was a generally accepted fact that the Italians performed badly in WW 2, (naturally there was the odd exception), didn't think it neccessary to elborate with unneeded facts. It appears most of the people who have posted so far also think so.

I never said other wise but its not a debate, they where muck in world war 2, Once everyone has had their say this will end. But I will stand corrected that the posts have been very interesting so far..

I dont remember our last altercation but I look forward to the next mate...:)

O'Leprosy

There was one or two exceptions, from what I remember reading down the years, regarding the poor performance of the Italian armed forces. They had an Alpine battalion who performed very well, and also an early commando force similiar to todays US Navy Seals who performed extremely well. Their commanding officer, (who was killed in a raid, he beleived in leading from the front ) was held in very high esteem by the Germans. But from what I know, the rest were dismal.

Hard to beleive these guys were the desendants of the Roman legions isn't it ?

O'Leprosy

Manic Moran wrote:

It's not much noted, but Italians fought better against the Germans than against the Allies,
NTM

Good point. The Italian Partisans probably fought even better again against Mussolini's fascists.

Clare gunner

The Italianios;We da lovers, notta da fighters!
Italian surplus war rifles for sale.Never fired ,only dropped once:D

But seriously,alot of revelant points have been made ,like poor equipment,poor leadership,political bombast in a conscripted army, a much overrated belif in what they were capable of,and a serious underrating of their enemies.Does not make for a good army.The reason the partizans fought so well was because they were Communist,and they had motivation by being oppressed for so long,not to mind a hope of a Red Italia.
In fairness to them they did pioneer the idea of Underwater Demolition Teams with good results,and did start to develop the then new aqua lung,and two man subs.
Their Alpine unit while good,was drawn alot from the south Tryol Alps,that had been lost by Austria to Italy post WW1.So there was a strong Austrian in put into that unit.Not to mind the Italian units had horrible casualties in ww1 against the Austrians,but seemingly put up a more spirted fight than the next gen in ww2.
All in all they had place in military history 2000 years ago.When Pax Roma ruled the then known World.

soldering iron

what about the Italian navy, by all accounts (on paper) it was a very strong fighting force, but did not fair well when confronted by the royal Navy.

TerrorFirmer

soldering iron wrote:

what about the Italian navy, by all accounts (on paper) it was a very strong fighting force, but did not fair well when confronted by the royal Navy.

On paper, during the second world war, Italy had an army that although lacking in modern equipment in most areas, still technically had the means to pose a significant threat to the allied side by joining in the fray while France and Britain were tied up with fighting Germany.

They were totally unprepared for a lengthy war though, their industry totally incapable of supporting the armed forces. Their equipment was woeful. Most of the tanks brought into service during the war were already completely obsolete by the time they entered service, artillery was mostly of vintage type, and the airforce was in a similar condition.

Worst of all was the total lack of will to fight - Italy was one of the few nations that truly did not wish to fight or indeed have any reason that was universally accepted as a valid one by her people - they weren't invaded, and they had no quarrel with those that they were forced to go to war with. Huge amount of prisoners surrendered at the slightest opportunity in most cases. In North Africa they didn't just have a numerical superiority, they had massively overwhelming superiority, in the region of close to 10:1. Yet they still lost, loosing enormus amounts of equipment and men in the process. It was joked that 'never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few'.

There were exceptions of course. The Italians fought quite well on the Eastern front, and fought very well during operation uranus and saturn, even though along with their romanian allies they were blamed for the encirclement of 6th army. That was due to the lack of any sufficent AT equipment for the armies holding the flanks, but to their credit, the issue had been raised with Hitler and he ignored it, so they aren't solely to blame for that disaster. Generally they fought better on the eastern front then they did in Europe, although most say that it would have been some task to perform any worse.

The navy wasn't as bad - it was quite large actually, although Italian ships were noted for inferior armament and armour. The main reason for its inefficiency was the structure of command more so then anything else really. The Italian navy succeeded in gaining supremacy over their British counterparts a few times.

micdug

Excellant Article here covers the subject indepth......

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1988/HEG.htm

MUSSOLINI: The Greeks now have a ten-mile salient.
The salient maneuver I have been hearing about for such
a long time must be carried out without delay. We have
got to maneuver.
BARTIROMO: Orders have already been given.
MUSSOLINI: We have got to start maneuvering, engaging
the enemy's attention, we must put an end to this
passivity.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
MUSSOLINI: But the maneuvering I have heard talked
about has never resulted in our counterattacking in any
direction.
BARTIROMO: Unfortunately it has never been possible to
assemble the forces.
MUSSOLINI: But you have divisions.
BARTIROMO: They are not complete.
MUSSOLINI: Are there many prisoners?
BARTIROMO: We have no news of the 77th Infantry; I
think some have been lost (on January 16 the 19th
Battalion of the Greek 15th Division had surprised the
77th Regiment belonging to the Lupi di Toscana Division
and had taken about 300 prisoners).
MUSSOLINI: Bartiromo, there is only one way out.
Attack, attack! I have been saying that for two weeks.
BARTIROMO: I know that that is his Excellency
Cavallero's [Cavallero was Chief of Staff at this time]
intention, but something has always been lacking, in
particular, ammunition.
MUSSOLINI: They tell me that shiploads of ammunition
left yesterday.
BARTIROMO: I have been informed that something has
left.
MUSSOLINI: Bartiromo, we must counterattack, we must
break the spell that for the past ninety days has been
making us lose ground, position after position. If it
goes on like this, we shall find ourselves in the sea,
and there will be no more position. The Greeks will
soon reach the Skumbi, which they are making for.
BARTIROMO: There is no time to lose.
MUSSOLINI: In short, forces must be assembled on the
right principles. We must maneuver and avoid this
passivity.
BARTIROMO: That is what we are doing and have always
been trying to do.
MUSSOLINI: I am going to Germany. The first question
they will put to me is whether I shall be able to hold
the present line. What am I to answer?
BARTIROMO: His Excellency Cavallero told the German
colonel that he was confident he would be able to hold
on.
MUSSOLINI: There is only one way out. Attack!
BARTIROMO: That is true, and it is his Excellency
Cavallero's intention.
MUSSOLINI: Report what I have said to his Excellency
Cavallero. 9

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote:

Anyone remember Dunkirk ? More than 300,000 in that retreat.

that was a tactical re-deployment:p

I remember hearing a WWII veteran getting angry about remarks made against the Italians. He considered it an insult not only to them but also to those who fought against them. Bad leadership and organisation does not make them cowards.

here is also another Churchill mis-quote about Italy, he called it the under belly of Europe, not the "Soft" underbelly as is usually claimed.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

that was a tactical re-deployment:p

I remember hearing a WWII veteran getting angry about remarks made against the Italians. He considered it an insult not only to them but also to those who fought against them. Bad leadership and organisation does not make them cowards.

good point. The British can't have it both ways. They like to paint the Italians as a disorganised, unmotivated rabble but then always insist that they beat "Rommel" and "The Germans" in the desert.

In fact there were comparatively few Germans in the desert. I believe the Afrika Korps at peak strength comprised only three divisions. The rest of the desert army were all Eyeties and the bulk of the German army was in Russia.

jmayo

One reason for Italians fighting well on Eastern Front was they would not get easy time if they did surrender. Any that did surrender met the same fate as their German allies. This was not the case if you surrendered to Allies in North Africa.
I once knew an old Irish guy that had survived Dunkirk and then as reward he got to guard Italian POWS. He said they actually had to separate them into pro Mussolini and Anti Mussolini groups becuase they used to try and kill each other. So not such a united army.

BTW the great Roman Army was not just people of Roman extraction. They made use of their conquered Romanised tribes thourghout the empire and in later times used Barbarian tribes and Barbarian horsemen.
Another debate me thinks.

micdug

jmayo wrote:

BTW the great Roman Army was not just people of Roman extraction. They made use of their conquered Romanised tribes thourghout the empire and in later times used Barbarian tribes and Barbarian horsemen.
Another debate me thinks.

Only from the 2nd Century on... one of the key reasons for the fall of the Western Empire was the dependence on "Barbarian" tribes to fill the ranks as Romans became less inclined to do Military Service. This had the effect of having much reduced loyalty to the state, leading to political instability and eventually the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Regarding 1900 and on, the simple reason was that the Italians were too civilised for War! That and they had zero loyalty to Mussolini, his wars and certainly his allies....

O'Leprosy

Snickers Man wrote:

good point. The British can't have it both ways. They like to paint the Italians as a disorganised, unmotivated rabble but then always insist that they beat "Rommel" and "The Germans" in the desert.

In fact there were comparatively few Germans in the desert. I believe the Afrika Korps at peak strength comprised only three divisions. The rest of the desert army were all Eyeties and the bulk of the German army was in Russia.

I remember watching a programme about Rommel and a Chief Rabbi ( I think of Tunisa ) said he had no experience of a single vindictive incident large or small carried out by the Germans under Rommel's command. He also defied Hitler's infamous Commando Order (to execute captured Commando's) and captured Jewish soldiers.

But it's generally portrayed as Rommel v Montgomery as if both commanders had an equal number of resources at their disposal, which a long way from the truth. Indeed it was far from been just a solely British victory as almost half of the forces invovled were from Austarlia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Rhodesia along with Free French and Polish. I beleive the Australians fought exteremely well. ( Must be all that Aussie Rules footy they play that toughens them up )

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote:

In terms of equipment, the Italians found it difficult to operate on the on doorstep. What I mean is, the Italian Navy was a mere pup compared to the might of the Royal Navy. They didnt engage them in open battle.

Actually they did engage in open battle. Only one german battleship the Bismark fought the royal navy, not sure if any Japanese battleship fought them, but lots of French and Italian ones did. Combat was a little onesided because they didn't have radar and their codes were broken so were at a disadvantage. Also they got hit with the Taranto raid, the precursor to Pearl Harbour.

IIRC the industrial output of Italy was about 1/5th that of the UK

Where they had comparable equipment they were able to hold their own in the desert.