"The Myth of Italian cowardice." Topic

"…At the outbreak of WWII Italy was ill prepared for battle against more modern adversaries. Italy had zero oil production, no aircraft carriers, tanks with fragile armour, artillery mainly of WW1 vintage, a navy which could not target shipping at night (no radar), and inferior aircraft.

Mussolini had a vision of reforming the glories of the Roman Empire by regaining the territory surrounding the Mediterranean "mare nostro". From the outset of Italy's intervention in WWII – Italian leadership demonstrated incompetence – 35% of Italian merchant shipping was impounded in hostile shorelines. Italy's main cities were also immediately bombed. Italy bombed British outposts in the Mediterranean especially Malta. Axis supply lines to Africa were continually hampered by British forces based at Malta denying Italo-German troops vital supplies. Hitler persuaded Mussolini to postpone the invasion of Malta (operation Hercules) until victory was achieved in North Africa.

The Italian soldier is sadly the forgotten soldier of WWII which was the most oppressive period of Italian history. At El Alamein 30,000 Italians surrendered to a numerically superior British force but it is important to note the battle casualties sustained : 25,000 Italo-German and 13,000 British dead or wounded. Such casualties proved that Italians did not surrender early in battle. The Folgore, Brescia and Pavia divisions were annihilated as they defended and shed blood heroically for 2 weeks. The uneasy relationship with the Germans was highlighted at El Alamein as they abandoned the Italians, having taken all available transport to retreat. After defeat at El Alamein all territory gained in Africa under Mussolini prior to and during WWII was lost.

Italian units demonstrated their fighting ability in the Russian campaign. History's last successful cavalry charge was by the cream of Italy – the Savoy Cavalry regiment. 600 Savoia sabre charged 2,000 Russians defending with machine guns and artillery at Isbuscenskij on 24/08/1942…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Ah yes, going to school in London in the 70s I heard every Italian joke going (being of Italian parents).

It took some years before I realised history was written by the victors and in particular the propaganda. How many times did I hear about the Italians changing sides, but was Vichy France ever mentioned in anything more than a couple sentences?

A country with little natural resources for fighting a modern war, already bled dry by supporting Franco on a huge scale.

Fighting vastly superior mechanised divisions in North Africa, or the fighting withdrawal by the Italians in Russia (at times covering German units retreating) – to the massacre of thousands of Italians troops in '43 by German forces, and a civil war that took no prisoners.

I'd like to think the readership here would be too illuminated to think mass cowardice ever really existed in the Italian forces….

I have an Italian mother – she was a war bride. I heard all the jokes as well. I grew up being called an Eyetie. Never really worried me.

The Italian Navy gets an equally bum wrap. While political weakness and simply a lack of oil kept the big ships fairly inert, their lighter forces fought a brutal war in the central Med and were respected as a tough professional force by the Royal Navy.

I read more about disillusionment with Mussolini and the Axis in general. I knew an elderly Italian gent who fought at Casssino. It would've been a very cold day in hell to hear someone call him a coward even as old as he was then . I imagine many Italians were similar. Frankly, with such poor leadership and armaments it's stunning they lasted and did as well as they did.

I thought this one dead and buried a long time ago. The Italian army fought with great skill in North Africa, particularly as the war went on and lessons were learned. They gave their opponents a bloody nose on more than one occasion, but like every tank is a Tiger, every defeat suffered by the 8th army was inflicted by the Germans when in truth it was Italian units that had out fought them.
They were poorly served by their equipment. Italy rearmed too early and they didn't have the money to do so again when needed. Their aircraft lacked decent aero engines. Until the Germans gave them the DB engine they had nothing to compete with Merlin equiped British planes.
Let's not forget they invented the human torpedo and used 3 to successfully attack British ships in Alexandria.

An interesting topic. I once worked in the graduate office of an Italian/French language program at a state university, and part of this entailed being in charge of the Italian film library, which I was free to check out and watch, and it's true what the Italian teachers (both native and merely ethnic) told me -- almost every classic Italian movie since WWII has wrestled with the topic of WWII, and usually in the most depressing and defeatist, morose way possible. It's like they can't let go of it. Maybe when the generation that lived through or was born immediately after WWII is gone, the zeitgeist will change. But the experience of the war and of defeat and the residual feelings of betrayal and deceit from their leaders seems to have left quite the impression on the Italian cultural psyche, for what that's worth.

I don't think support for Mussolini and his fascist government ever ran as deeply through Italian society as support for Hitler and Nazism did in Germany. This is of course conjecture but in addition to the mediocre or poor equipment there was nothing equivalent to Versailles or the inflation in the 1920s that needed to be avenged in Italy. Some vague anticommunist rationale is not the same thing.

Hitler also delivered stunning early victories at moderate cost [losses in France and Poland were actually quite high and often glossed over] while Mussolini seemed unable to put a foot right from the kick off.

In WW2 large bodies of every nation's troops surrendered en masse when unable to offer useful resistance. I don't think it's cowardice and often takes courage. The desert is an difficult place to fight and if water runs out then you've had it.

I'm not saying the Italians were superheroes. No nation are. The jokes can be funny [when you're a kid] but I remember asking my dad – when I was probably about 10 years old – about Italians being bad fighters and he said they had had some good units. That would be the 1970s [during perhaps the peak of popular obsession with WW2 – Airfix kits and model figures, films like the Battle of Britain etc.] So even then the better informed people knew the reality.

It's worth revisiting this now and then. It's a myth we don't want to perpetuate.

From what i read…and also from speaking many years ago with some veterans…the fact that too much if not the majority of Italian units in WW2 acted cowardly is absolutly true!….and not only during WW2 ..but also during WW1..just read Rommel's "Infantry Attacks"…
the reasons could be: total cultural gap between the high ranking officer class (corrupted and inadequate) and their soldiers…lazyness, lack of will ..from corporal up to general totally uncapable of taking decisions and act accordingly without asking permission to somebody at higher level..remenber the peformance of Italian troops during Check Post Pasta in Mogadisciu (Restore Hope)…during the battle every moove had to be approved by Rome..
unfortunatly good performances as those of very few units as Folgore ecc at El Alamein..some units in Sicily ecc..Alpine troops in Russia…are only exceptions

Italwars -oh dear I never expected comments like that from someone with your moniker (italian wars ?), where I'd expect greater understanding.

I see you are based in Italy (Italian ?) and will no doubt have access to close family, relatives and good friends who were veterans (not ignoring civilian input)like I do/did.

"the majority of Italian units in WW2 acted cowardly is absolutly true!….and not only during WW2 ..but also during WW1"

Take time to look at Italy's WW1 casualties, as a result of fighting as intense as the Somme or Verdun but at Alpine heights, with donkeys and artillery hauled up mountains by rope, unable to dig trenches but redooubts piled of stone. Lets not confuse cowardice with at times poor leadership/tactics. There is a great number of excellent Italian books on the subject, ie not just Rommel's viewpoint.

and as for regarding ww2, where would I start ?

My first hand sources never referred to incidents of cowardice (hmm are we defining that as too scared to fight and die hence surrendering ?). Maybe they saw it but were too ashamed to say ? Maybe they didn't class what they saw as cowardice ? Or maybe they didn't see much of it ?

Did the huge number of British soldiers/senior staff who capitulated so quickly in Singapore class themselves as cowards ? Did the history books class them as such ?

Maybe the discussion for Italy should have been around "appetite for war" alongside countries that only a few years before had been their deadly enemies, despite the involvement in Spain.

Had Mussolini stuck to his guns and not joined the Axis – now that's a good what-if. How many Austro/German divisions would have been needed to go over those same alps ? Would Mussolini then have lasted as long as Franco ?

In cases like this, the problem is usually found to lie more with the system than the soldier.

B

the Resonsiblity of Mussolini and above all the unfitted "Gerarchi" is another matter as compared to the behaviour of the soldiers..
For example there is a myth about the die hard defense of Decima MAS and other Italian volunteers at the Anzio front..the reality, from firts hand sources taht i visioned, is that quite a few , also if being ultra fascist vounteers, tried to desert and where put in front of an execution squad by the Germans
my sources could be varied…but of course i was'nt there
another two micro examples:
- The capture of the Koufra Oasis ….the French war diaries differs totally with the Italian ones,..scores of well equipped Italian soldiers with plenty of weapons, ammo, aerial support ecc.. surrendering to a French ill equipped column composed of few colonial trops
- Giarabub Oasis in Lybia..is one of the mst celbrated episode of Italian eroic resistance..up today…the Australian Official History that i tend to trust more than the British one..said the opposide..something similar to Bardia with Australian troops catching scores of well equiped demotivated soldiers after and advance unexpectedly easy

i agree with you..that "appetite for war" explain a lot…but it doesnt change the reality to which the question refers

"There is a great number of excellent Italian books on the subject, ie not just Rommel's viewpoint"
i cannot agree…there i'snt so much in English litterature on this subject…Italian books litterature is enourmous..with a revisionsit approach recently (minimize Caporetto)..could i trust Italian sources…not completely
A German source..but, above all from a person with a top ego like Rommel, we would have expected the best description of Italian soldiers in oder to embellish the personal victory of the author..but he honstly wrote something different..among other hings, only the first very rare edition, written before the Axis Rome-Berlin , show dramatic picts of , surrended mass of smiling Bersaglieri carrying over their shoulders their German captors…

Ok so Germanic (and North European) thinking was not disimiliar to Allied thinking ie generally downplay Southern mediterranean abilities, not that I am ignoring the obvious final outcome or the routing of large numbers of Italian soldiers. So I would also take German literature with some caution.

Again I have issue with your overarching comment:
"the majority of Italian units in WW2 acted cowardly is absolutly true!….and not only during WW2 ..but also during WW1"

It is shameful to the memory of hundreds of thousands of Italian war dead, the vast, vast majority of which I guess died fighting ?? Or were they all shot in the back running away ?

There's no smoke without fire. My Uncle Fred was a Desert Rat and he said the Italians were rubbish (he actually said something else, but it can't be repeated here) I'd rather believe him and his mates than some revisionist amateur historian with an agenda.

I tought ridicolous generalizations suh as italian cowards or french surrendering monkeys were dead long ago, with the passing away of war propaganda.

Piper909 you're absolutely right, even recent italian war movies are never about heroic soldiers, but always about poor guys sent in faraway places fighting an horrible war they can not understand nor wanted, for a cause they do not believe in. I think the main reasons for that is that except a few key figures in a discredited regime, no one in Italy wanted the war, contrary to ww1. So it is still a memory of some kind of natural disaster that just occured.

A pal's father once told us that the toughest troops that he ever faced in the North African campaign were the Italian blackshirts; far tougher than the vaunted Africa Korps.

As others state, cowardice is the wrong word to use.

Demotivated is not the same as cowardice my good friend!… your description of the Italian soldiers is quite similar to the Argentine soldiers in 1982… horrible conditions and officers who deserves the fire squad… many recruis run for their lives… but to mention them as "cowards" in general… well, I don't agree… much more of us fight as we can… I consider that maybe the Italians troops made the same move…

Amicalement
Armand

but if the topic is "Italian Cowardice" and the truth is simply that they ran away …why adding "no one in Italy wanted the war " or worst than that "a cause they do not believe" and the sad fact of thousands of deads add nothing to the question of understanding Italian behaviour during WW2
..Armand..i cannot agree with you..also from your very interesting tales about the Malvinas War and other first hand account to which i listen …the Argentinians soldiers were ill equipped, led by high ranking bad officers..but they eally wanted to defend their country and they fought accordingly…which was not the atitude of Italian soldiers (majority not all) in Western Desert, in Italian East Arica..not even in Sicily..not even during RSI period in which all troops were volunteers..not even the co-beligerant Italian troops that switched side ended being despiced by the Allies…the father of a friend of mine , came as a very young volunteer from Marocco (Italian immigrants considered worst than arabs by French Colonial Authorities) to Sicily as his first time in Italy to fight the Allies..he ende disgusted by seeing the soldiers giving up without a fight and the populace acclaiming the Allies and not helping their beaten soldiers… Augusta and Pantelleria bases where considered some kind of very hard nuts to crack..but they give up almost without a fight

some more points..
the conduct of the war lead by Mussolini had been disastrous..the man was'nt a great strategist .also if i consider his entourage worst than him..i'm saying from a military point of view…
but the Italian Army was'nt at all ill equiped…let's try to find to find on the net the Albert Speer Report about the findings, by Germans after the armistice, of the Italian war equipment (gasoline, valuable raw material, weapons, equipment, spare parts, trucks ecc…)the Germans were really amazed…i also have find different point of views about the supposed tale according to which soldiers at front did'nt receive that material..i still have to understand the truth about that

Italwars – is the problem here the use of the word "cowardice".

I am not trying to be PC here and rewrite the meaning, and despite your excellent English maybe you don't understand the meaning as a native english speaker would ?

If it is as intended, then I feel you have read everything and understood nothing.

One uncle was there facing the invasion, captured, escaped and made it back to the North spending the rest of the war as an active partisan. Hmm another coward running away…?

We all likely have examples of both heroes and "cowards" but to tar the majority as cowards is amateur at best and disgraceful at worst..

my English is poor certainly….but the title of the article was'nt choosed by me…did you noticed it?

By Paeder Hofschroer's reasoning, every one of Rommel's north African victories was in fact an Italian triumph.

Italian troops in Africa weren't defending their homeland any more than Argentinian troops in the Falklands were defending theirs. They were occupying someone else's territory because a Fascist high command had told them to. Big difference, although then ad now it's amusing that there are people who hate the British so much they'd side with Fascists against them. It explains Britain's Labour Party anyway.

without any doubts…the mass of troops at Rommel disposal…and the last force called Panzer Armee Afrika was Italian…but i doubt that the same victories could be achieved with Graziani and Bergonzoli leading them

The Hofschroer approach is to ignore actual contribution and to focus on headcount and distance marched (including marches away from the enemy).

On that basis there can be no question but that Benghazi, Tobruk, Gazala and Mersa Matruh were Italian victories.

"Big difference, although then ad now it's amusing that there are people who hate the British so much they'd side with Fascists against them. It explains Britain's Labour Party anyway"…probably you had a sun stroke to say such a stupid thing…no hate at all toward British..i'm just pointing out the opposite in those postings..i'm critising the Italian conduct of war and the bombastic propaganda of fascism as opposed to the pragmatic approach of British explain also some of the mythes that reached us after so many years..despite that, as you feel obliged to say harsh words, i cannot deny that Italian were defending their soil (Cirenaica) as did the Argentinians with Malvinas

I think once you dig into it, you'll find plenty of cases of Italian troops fighting well, however they were generally mismanaged strategically and put into unwinnable situations.

If you're a hundred miles in the desert, out of water, with officers that disdain you, allies that despise you and fighting a war you don't care about.. yeah, chucking the rifle and sitting the war out in a camp don't seem so bad.

Combined with the generally unpopular war in Italy and the results were as we might expect.

The Italian air force seems to have done very well.

It can be noted that the co-belligerent army fought quite hard to kick the Germans out of their country.

Italwars – I refer to your comment that I object to, not the topic title;

"the majority of Italian units in WW2 acted cowardly is absolutly true!….and not only during WW2 ..but also during WW1"

and actually your English is pretty good..

4th Cuirassier – I also don't understand how you have arrived at your comment,

"although then ad now it's amusing that there are people who hate the British so much they'd side with Fascists against them. It explains Britain's Labour Party anyway".

This thread shows that although we thought we had done away with the myth of Italians cowardice, it appears that sentiment still exists here of all places. How sad.

sorry..but bot of you did'nt understand at all of what i said..no simpathy at all, despite being Italian, toward Italian nationalism and chauvinism..and simpathy toward British..at least from the military point of view which is the theme of the topic!…but i cannot avoid to confess, as somebody made a comparison with a more recent event..and because the defence of his own land should have been sufficent to fight witch motivation..despite the lack of resources and poor leadership..that..in both case the 2 countries defended themselves VS British..or do you think that Cirenaica, Tripolitania ecc..(as we were focalising in N. Africa) were'nt Italian lands while being attacked among others, by British Colonial subjects..having as logistic base another British Protectorate?

but also this "fascist" stone trown at every one differs from you thinking..like me for example…it's enough..
and also because the supposed to be "fascit attitude" is exactly the blatant laptop censor stance that quite a few ones show in this and other forum

I suspect part of the problem is the absence of a countervailing image, especially in the English-speaking world. We can--and do--mock the French, but the images of Joan of Arc, The Sun King and Napoleon lurk in our memories. German and earlier Prussian mass surrenders are balanced by famous victories, and as for Russian defeats--well, Alexander I was right: it wasn't necessary to rename or blow up the Pont d'Austerlitz as long as it was recorded that the Russian Army had marched over it.

Scores of stories of Italian valor and military efficiency and a hundred reasons for bad days are fine here for the specialist. To counterbalance the myth you need an Italian victory or conquest every schoolboy knows. I don't know that you should wish for one: that sort of reputation can be very dearly purchased.

Londoncalling, unfortunately for you, you're talking to a predominantly US/UK audience. The Italians were our enemy during most of WW2, therefore we are quite happy for them to be classed as cowards.

Vae Victrix!

How far have the ferocious Romans fallen!

from my quite comprrehensive studie on Italian military history..understandably as i'm Itaian..the general overview is one way only…i always did my best to cross reference the Italian official and semi official sources and memories with foreign ones…and that approach is, in 99% of Italian studies, not even taken into account…the Italian Official Histories published from every campaign by the Historical Branch of our Army HQ are based only on Italian sources…i remenber to have been considered, during a talk with a colonel responsable for the editions, as a mad..cause i proposed him to be sent in Swedish/Danemark and Belgium to research for primary sources about the military assistance given by those countries to the Army of Haile Selassie which fought the Italian in 1936…my impression is that for counterbalancing the myth in question you can find only isolated victories..practically nothing during the Risorgimento if considered without the help of somebody help, few during WW1 because the agressed people where the Austrians and THEY fought eroically against overwelming and hesitant masses of Italians..some good ones during WW2..notably the repulse of British attack on Tobruk..operations "Agreement" "Daffodil" "Caravan"..too many defeats the rest..i cannot even see nothing better if i consider the actual involvment and general perception of Italian military contribution if i a look at today's events..which is the real contribution to the war against terrs of the Italian Army today in Afghanistan? ..practically nil…and how was the same contribution in 1982 in Lebanon..or worst in Somalia (restore hope)..nothing and in any case useless if not worst…
despite being Italian…for me that's the sad truth

link

Thank you Piers, that looks very interesting. I just wanted to except eith Italwars declaration that our troops did not have successes in the last years. Afghanistan, lebanon, somalia – these are not conventional wars and should not be compared to past conventional conflicts.

I would actually argue that italians were very succesfull in afghanistan and especially in lebanon sith their mission. Which is not go around and kill people, buf to gurantee security so that the country can be rebuilt. Balkans and lebanon are two excellent examples of the good work done by our armed forces. These places have been kept stable and secure with the help of our forces. This is in my opinion a more productive approach than that of other allies who unfortunately end up doing more harm than good. Somalia was a failure, that we unfortuately share with all the international community.

IMHO you are very right Skarper.

I believe the italian people was not really "fascist" but find themselves quite happy for a time with Mussolini…
As far as he reversed the traditional alliance of Italy and ask his people to fight the brothers in arms of the day before, namely the French and the British.

This is also backed up by the conduct of many italian units in the only circumstance they had to face the Germans at their own will, and this occured during the small and forgotten battle for Corsica in october 1943, just after the italian surrending, when most of the italian troops involved, Army and Navy, turned their guns to their former "ally" overnight to give help to the French Résistance and the small Free French contingent sent in support.
In fact, the Italians (thanks to them) supported the bulk
of the allied casualties in that battle with more than 600 KIA compared to 200 and some French.

But, anyway, and even unfair, those jokes of the 60s were quite funny …

Who knows the singularity of italian (egyptian) tanks? …
Reversed gearboxes: one gear to run forwards, and four to go backwards!

And, be listenfull enough Mrs Bersaglieri for not mistaking "A la bayonnetta" with "a la camionetta!!"

Cheers.

I think, when judging the performance of an army you have to isolate several issues and examine them separately then examine the whole. Regarding Italy:
Resources: It's been demonstrated that Italy entered WW2 as the weakest of the major powers in terms of raw materials and productivity. This resulted in the Italians being weak in heavy weapons and mechanization on the front lines. Their artillery was small in size and number and old, their tanks were out of date and the infrastructure wasn't there to upgrade them during the war.
Training: I don't know enough personally about training to comment, but I'd be interested to hear from someone how realistic the training was. From anecdotes I suspect it was not. This was perhaps Germany's greatest strength.
Military culture: As I understand it there was a massive gap between the enlisted and officers in the Italian Army. NCO's were responsible for training, officers ate different food than their men (not just separately prepared, they had different larders) and weren't generally engaged with their men. This resulted officers not inspiring their men.

So overall the average Italian infantryman was less-well equipped, trained and led than their counterparts in other armies. I would not say "shame on you" to the troops, but in a wargame this should have an effect on their performance.

Reading about the careless elitism of the officer class, coupled with a distinct lack of motivation to fight for a totalitarian government, and usually not even on your home soil, I'm not surprised that the Italian army was sub-par. Bad leaders produce bad soldiers, and if your officer or NCO core is bad, you can't expect to conjure good soldiers out of unwilling conscripts.

"This is also backed up by the conduct of many italian units in the only circumstance they had to face the Germans at their own will"
that's not exact..Italian troops…and asi Italian troops from officers to corporals..decided to fight the Germans only according the chance that the shameful changing of side (typical of Italy from pre Napoleonic era up to WW2) had or had not a chance to be succsuful…where the German units were few and isolated they attack them (Corsica just connectect with the Provence Allied landings) , Greek Islands (after having been assured by the Royal Navy and only against isolated German garrisons)..while..if they were not sure of that their supposed to "will" will fade immediatly (Creta, North East Italy..they immediatly sided with the German and formed "ad hoc" black shirt legions…

"These places have been kept stable and secure with the help of our forces. This is in my opinion a more productive approach than that of other allies who unfortunately end up doing more harm than good. Somalia was a failure, that we unfortuately share with all the international community."

i don't think the main role of and armed force (in a peace keeping and peace enforcing mode) called to protect properties, churches and civilians against extremists and guerillas (Kossovo for ex.) should be limited mainly to furnish obstetricians and distribute chocolates bars to children…in place that certainly not ended as "stables"
In Somalia, according to what i read, i remenber above all intelligence infos furnished to Aidid and refusal to help other Allies while being attacked by Somali fighters..something similar happened in Afghanistan

I will have to bow to Italwars superior knowledge of the Italian front in WW1 as I haven't studied it in any detail.
Regarding the state of the Italian armed forces in WW2 I would have to disagree on some points. Trucks and desert vehicles like the Saharina were good, but Italian tanks were outclassed by the end of 1941. The Semovente assault guns were useful, but hardly spectacular performers and present in only small numbers. Artillery was mostly WW1 vintage with some updating to allow towing by trucks. Most was of 75mm calibre and lacked the range and hitting power of British and German weapons. Italian small arms were not brilliant either, with both light and heavy MG's criticised for poor design leading to frequent stoppages in use. The Italian rifle was lethal enough, one being used to assassinate president Kennedy, but tests showed ammo stocks often mixed different batches of powder and bullets, a practice generally not done by most nations, which lead to excessive dispersion of fire. Beretta pistols and SMG's were excellent, but were prescion made and not produced in extensive numbers. Italy never produced the equivalent of the Sten or MP40, weapons made of stampings and machined only where necessary. Italian aircraft designs were good enough, but they never produced a decent aero engine and as a result were underpowered and under gunned. Not until Germany gave them DB engines did the fighters match the performance of British and American planes, but by then it was too late.
Officers came from the prosperous north, enlisted men from the poor south. As has already been said officers ate alone and had better food than the men. The whole Captain Correlli comrades in arms thing is a myth. Generals seem to have been a pretty poor bunch, lazy and lacking in many areas of military skill. Medical services, on the other hand, were excellent, better than the Akrika Korps.
In many ways the deficiencies of the Italian military are mirrored by those of the Romanian army and Romania wasn't a stellar performer in WW2 either.
Despite these deficiencies the Italian army did manage to win some victories over the British and Commonwealth troops in the desert so under the right conditions could fight well.

The impression I got from looking at a few Italian language sources and the less biased English language sources was that the Italians in Africa were poorly served by their leadership, most of whom were under the impression that it was still the Colonial Era, a bought commission was as good as an earned one, and that blood was more important than training.

By the time the Germans and Italians connected in North Africa, the Italians were pretty worked over by the modern warfare of the British, and were taken at face value by the incoming German command. Already ideologically bound to dislike the Mediterraneans, the German command promptly used them in the worst spots.

Much of the "Italian Cowardice" myth comes from German propaganda and internal blame slinging. "WE didn't lose Africa; that was the cowardly Italians."

Fred Cartwright …everything you wrote is absolutly true…but talking about the beginning of the match in both N.African/Western Deserert theatres and East Africa one..i don't see Italian opponents..the BRitish Empire so much stronger..maybe in guns..the 25 pounder performance was un reachable by Italian obsolete pieces..but the tanks--someting similar to toys..the troops..Indians units accostumated only to fight vs barefeet tribesmen in NWF..or Sudan Police mounted on camels and home made armoured trucks…against overwelming Graziani (W Desert) Army that could even afford the luxury of using aircraft for reconaissance and Vip transports…unfortunatly the soldiers , worst the European than the poor colonials natives, had a tendency to give up at firts blood…

link

Interesting link to film and some of its rushes made during the battle for Corsica and showing some italian troops fighting along with the French in september/october 1943.

It is also a gold mine for early Free French and Goumiers uniforms, equipments and weapons.

Cheers.

i don't think the main role of and armed force (in a peace keeping and peace enforcing mode) called to protect properties, churches and civilians against extremists and guerillas (Kossovo for ex.) should be limited mainly to furnish obstetricians and distribute chocolates bars to children…in place that certainly not ended as "stables"

Maintaining security in a post conflict enviromet full of competing militias, ethnic tensions, weapons and crime, and with no local authorities, is NOT giving candies to children. It requires professionalism and cold blood and is a very demanding and dangerous mission. As demonstrated by the hundreds of fallen french and us soldiers in beirout

Italwars I would suggest that the British had 3 main advantages over the Italians at the start of the desert war.
First was the Matilda II, the "Tiger" tanks of the early battles, impervious to Italian tank and antitank guns.
Second the mobile troops were all desert veterans who had been thoroughly trained in the art of armoured warfare by Hobart and put that training to excellent use.
Finally Britsh officers were simply better than their Italian counterparts the more so as you moved up the command chain. Once the British unleashed their Blitzkreig using mobile forces to outflank them the Italians proved no more capable than the French of getting to grips with the situation, proving again that small numbers of well lead mobile forces could defeat large numbers of slow moving, essentially static troops.

Agree with Fred!.

Amicalement
Armand

"aintaining security in a post conflict enviromet full of competing militias, ethnic tensions, weapons and crime, and with no local authorities, is NOT giving candies to children. It requires professionalism and cold blood and is a very demanding and dangerous mission"
of course that was expected and fulfilled for the majority of Allies.!. ..but that's exactly what the Italians refused to do and to show…from Beirut upwards …with shameful uncoperative or shady actitude..both in Beirut and Somalia