"Italians" Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleExperimenting with an idea for storing 15mm figures and vehicles...
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
spontoon | 12 May 2018 10:31 a.m. PST |
What rules deal with Itlaian wepons and armour most fairly? |
princeman | 12 May 2018 2:27 p.m. PST |
Seems to me they are fairly represented in most rules. I think command control, training and moral are the problem areas. |
VVV reply | 12 May 2018 3:09 p.m. PST |
Italians were a real problem to develop army lists for. Rifles and LMG both weak, so I down graded them. But gave them the option to be upgraded to the 7.35 cartridge, when they get standard rifle stats. But they are cheap, roughly half the cost of a German rifle squad (in points). BTW Japanese are very similar, Its very difficult with both players units to actually do any damage by shooting. And as for a special national characteristic (the Japanese have loads) just one thing I could think of, Italian tank armour was so weak that AP shells could go right through the tank without doing much damage. So its actually harder to destroy an Italian tank with AP ammo. The Italian army is not bad in the early war but just did not upgrade their weapons (as other nations did). If you think thats a fair assessment then go to the Yahoo group link and look in the files section for the rules |
kevanG | 13 May 2018 4:12 a.m. PST |
the italian army was very poor at the start of the war and improved dramatically despite generally using the same equipment or replacements with marginal improvements. Their failures were very much above platoon level and were inherently in organisation. The vehicles were slower generally and rifles were a bit short ranged for effective fire which gave some problems in the desert, but that was the shortness of the barrel (and age of the weapons) not necessarily the cartridge. They also used their weapons differently. i.e. Their light mortar was a development of a ww1 trench mortar for assaults and had more explosive and incorporated smoke than a traditional fragmentation round. It had a low impact in casualties , but high noise /morale effect on targeted troops until they got used to it. The original PBI had a rule for "old rifles" for Italians and they were useless for getting support. I haven't found any ruleset which doesn't give you the tools somewhere in them to reflect the fallibility of Italian troops accurately. In terms of the lmg's they are not the best, but some "deficiencies" were not actually that important. e.g inaccuracy for barrel changes when you compare it to the bren for example. The bren had a late war adaption to make it more like a normal lmg as it was too accurate, to the point that it could be used for long range sniping. Morale wise, they should be poor in 1940 , but getting up to regular for the motorized units by late 41 and 42. by 43 in Tunisia, they are as good as the Brits and best Us infantry Overall, it is fairly easy to represent Italian's accurately in most if not all rules. |
VVV reply | 13 May 2018 5:55 a.m. PST |
not necessarily the cartridge. OK lets look at the ammuntition linkAnd let us not forget Italian troops being sent to Russia with cardboard shoes! link |
kevanG | 13 May 2018 6:56 a.m. PST |
not sure that their shoes will have much effect on the cartridges…. So specifically what do you think was wrong with the cartridge in ww2 bearing in mind that the cartridge was the same one used in their Hmgs? The cartridge from ww1 had issues but even it was successfully used in the Hmg's from your website "7,35 x 51 This cartridge was designed after 1935, and first entered service in 1938, together with the new M38 short rifle variant" This rifle was replaced by the much better Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/41 (6.5×52mm) which had adjustable sights and 27.2 inch barrel. six inches longer than the previous rifle. Here is what I said "rifles were a bit short ranged for effective fire which gave some problems in the desert, but that was the shortness of the barrel (and age of the weapons) not necessarily the cartridge" The other issue which was sorted in the 41 version was introducing adjustable sights over fixed ones, but the principle problem was getting an effective rifle design that used the cartridge properly, not the other way round The japanese navy also had these rifles and they couldn't get them to work effectively even using their own cartridges. …Kind of tells you it wasn't the cartridge |
VVV reply | 13 May 2018 12:46 p.m. PST |
Or you might like to take this onboard
The 6.5mm cartridge with its heavy, ballistically disadvantaged roundnose bullet has a rather curved trajectory. Considering that the battle sights of all M91 guns started at 300 metres, they would shoot too high at the closer distances where most fire was conducted. A flatter-shooting, faster bullet with a streamlined shape was needed. The shoes with cardboard soles in Russia were just another example of the poor equipment the Italian soldiers were given. |
SeattleGamer | 13 May 2018 1:42 p.m. PST |
Given that most games take place at ranges of 100 yards or so (assuming 1" = 6' and thus a tabletop 48" wide = 288 feet), the differences in rifles is not much of a factor. Italian artillery was considered elite, and there are many stories of gunners manning their weapons until they were overrun. I would have to respect ANY Italian tanker who willingly climbed into his Iron Coffin to do battle, knowing they were not heavily armoured. Considering that in the desert, to be on foot was a HUGE disadvantage, once you are cut off from your supplies, it is not unreasonable to think surrender was the more humane thing to do. There is only so much ammo you have on-hand, not to mention water, and the sun is unrelenting. My (personal) issue with how Italians are presented in games is their command and control. They are almost always treated like any other nation. And I get why this is done. If they were given their typical structure, they would be very hard to play. The typical infantry platoon had two squads of 18 men each. The squad was divided into an LMG group, and a rifle group. An NCO led the whole unit. Tactically, the corporal responsible for the LBG grou (with 2 LMGs) was to set up in a covering position,a nd lay down suppressive fire, sot he sarge and his rifelmen could advance. Then when a signal was given, the corporal would advance up the two LMGs and once again, take up a position to lay down covering fire. But I have not encountered a single set of rules that hamstring the Italians by having a squad of 18 men led my ONE guy giving orders, and those orders apply to the entire squad. They always have squads the same size as anybody else, led by someone who has command of the unit and can give orders. Italian NCOs were like sergeants in any army. They had leadership responsibilities. Their corporals, however, will not be thinking for themselves. They would be following the specific orders of the sergeant. So … for gsaming, and having fun, I get why the Italian command structure and TOE resembles everyone else. Makes for a more interesting, exciting game. I have no problem with that. Just as long as people interested in actual history understand that they were, in reality, constrained by a command structure that had much less flexibility than other nations, and THAT is the primary reason on a tactical level, they were often bested by other soldiers that, if you took them one-on-one and put them through an obstacle course, they would have appeared equal. |
VVV reply | 13 May 2018 3:14 p.m. PST |
I would have to respect ANY Italian tanker who willingly climbed into his Iron Coffin to do battle, knowing they were not heavily armoured. There is a book on the subject Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts. I have the rifle squads as 11 strong and the LMG squads as 10 strong. I found this on the tactics of the Italian squad but it does make for a difficult read PDF linkbut I will think about it. And I found this which seems to confirm everything you said PDF linkThe rules are here focusedfirepower.co.ukThanks for that. Its been very handy. I see change in the Italian army list coming on. |
jdginaz | 13 May 2018 4:17 p.m. PST |
@SeattleGamer – technically it's two sections each with two squads one with the 2 LMGs and the other with the riflemen. Both IABSM and CoC use that org. |
SeattleGamer | 13 May 2018 5:59 p.m. PST |
When I think "Sections" I think of the British terminology for "Squad". Basically, an independent unit with a combat leader. I am fine calling it a squad of two sections, but for maneuver, it is really one entity, run by one NCO. I have spent years tracking down Italian TOEs for WWII, and here is what I have for the basic Rifle Platoon for the early war years: Rifle Platoon (Plotone Fucilieri) (38 men): 1939 – Mid 1941 HQ section (2 men): 1 Officer (pistol) 1 Runner – 2 x Rifle Squads (18 men each): 1 x Rifle Group (9 men): 1 NCO (Rifle) 8 other ranks (Rifles) 1 x LMG Group (9 men): 1 Corporal (Rifle) 2 x LMG teams (4 men each): 1 gunner (Breda Mod 30 LMG, pistol) 1 loader (Rifle) 2 ammo carriers (Rifle) The NCO is in charge. The Corporal is in charge of the LMGs but only so far as "somebody" needs to be in charge. He can tell them where to dig in, where to provide covering fire, etc. He is not really trained to come up with a plan for battle. And his group is joined at the hip to the rifle section. He is not going to lead his group anywhere the NCO doesn't order. So effective, it is one combat team of 18 men. Sources: x Ministero della Guerra n.3704 – Addestramento della Fanteria Vol 1 – Roma 1939 x Addestramento della Fanteria Vol 2 – Roma 1939 tavola A. x Manuale de Regolamenti per I corsi allievi ufficiali de complemento – Roma 1940 tavola A & D. x Impreso e Addestramento Tattico – Ministero della Guerra – Roma 1940 (tactical procedures and training) x Nozioni di Organica 1941. x Also cited by Eugenio on TMP. x Also cited by Arturo on Italianisti (MSG #891) This Rifle Platoon evolved and from Mid-1941 to 1943, the structure was as follows: Rifle Platoon (Plotone Fucilieri) (42 men): Mid 1941 – 1943 HQ section (2 men): 1 Officer (pistol) 1 Runner 2 x Rifle Squads (20 men each): 1 x Rifle Group (11 men): 1 NCO (Rifle) 10 other ranks (Rifles) 1 x LMG Group (9 men): 1 Corporal (Rifle) 2 x LMG teams (4 men each): 1 gunner (LMG, pistol) 1 loader (Rifle) 2 ammo carriers (Rifle) Basically, the rifle sections each gained 2 more men, and the LMG section remained the same. There was a shortage of trained tactical leaders (NCOs), and rather than create new units with fresh sergeants, they found it better to simply grow the number of soldiers in a unit, to be commanded by the same NCO, with a Corporal as LMG team leader. Sources: x Prima serie di aggiunte e varianti all'Addestramento della fanteria.Vol I (16/07/1941) (and would have applied from July 1941 through the end of 1942) x Le Squadre Della Fanteria (1943) x Italian Army Order of Battle (Madeja) x link x Also cited by Longino on ComandoSupremo x Arturo on Italianisti agreed on the 42-man platoon when he read the 1943 publication The above applies to your basic infantry/rifle platoon. And this is why they were harder to lead in battle. It was a larger combat unit, and other nations had long realized that smaller teams each with a skilled leader were easier to direct and coordinate. Other units were not quite as unwieldy. Bersaglieri Infantry Platoon (46 men) 1940 – 1943 HQ section (1 man): 1 Officer (pistol) 3 x Rifle Squads (15 men each): 1 NCO (Rifle) 1 gunner (LMG, pistol) 1 loader (Rifle) 2 ammo carriers (Rifles) 10 other ranks (Rifles) The Bersaglieri were organized into three squads, not two. That was a 50% increase in Sergeants. And the structure had the LMG folded into the squad, not as a separate section. The Alpini had a similar structure: HQ section (2 men): 1 Officer (Pistol) 1 Runner (Rifle) 3 x Rifle Squads (13 men each): 1 NCO (Rifle) 8 other ranks (Rifles) 1 gunner (LMG, Pistol) 1 loader (Rifle) 2 ammo carriers (Rifles) Again, a three squad structure, thus three sergeants, and the LMG was an integral component of the squad. So no surprise, there is a reason the Alpini and Bersaglieri units acquitted themselves better in combat than the regular Italian infantryman. They had a smaller team and more leaders. Again, I can see why, for a game, it might not be much fun having restricted command options because you actually have fewer, but larger units. But that was their reality. |
VVV reply | 13 May 2018 10:42 p.m. PST |
I use points values for army lists. So if I get this right you would have the rifle detachment and the machine gun detachment, bought together, so they are always in a force as a pair? That can be done BTW I would say that the Bersaglieri squads were also large, at 15 strong, I think you can have fun with Italians, after all with points both sides will be balanced, The Italians will just have more figues on the table. |
advocate | 14 May 2018 10:19 a.m. PST |
For platoon actions under 200 metres, Chain of Command. Company level equivalent would be I ain't been shot, mum, but don't know how they treat Italians. Since they use historical orbats rather than points, they probably work. |
VVV reply | 14 May 2018 12:30 p.m. PST |
Even Orbats are not right. Think about it, on the day squads would likely below strength. So our games only manage an approximation of reality. Points give another illusion of fairness, as terrain and the tactical situation can alter the effectiveness of troops. Then you put the troops in the hands of players and anything can happen. |
SeattleGamer | 14 May 2018 8:41 p.m. PST |
A full-strength 15-man Bersaglieri is still a little unwieldy, but trimming that down a few figures to account for losses, it would make sense to field, say 12. But a rifle squad, which might normally have 18-20 men would likely have been pulled from the line if it suffered 50% casualties. So games that have you field a 10 man (or even less) squads are just making the squads "about even" with other nations. Fine for gaming, not so good for historical outcomes. IABSM (and I am not being critical here, again, games need to be fun or people won't play them) has an Italian rifle company with 3 platoons), and each platoon has four 8-man squads (no, they had two squads of 18+ men). Battlefront WWII (which plays one level up) at least shows an Italian company with 6 rifle sections (which would be two squads per platoon, x 3 platoons). Disposable Heroes gets it right, actually. Their rules have this to say Note that the Italians use a highly unusual squad of 20 men, two of these making up the platoon, with only a 2 person command section. Because this is somewhat unwieldy for play balance, any Italian platoon has the option of purchasing up to one "short" squad of only 10 men, but must field at least 1 "full" squad of 20 men. This option is provided, once again, not in historical accuracy but for game balance. To they do force the Italian player into fielding at least one full-size squad (as a penalty), and will then let you purchase a second half-strength squad so the Italian player isn't totally hamstrung. Nuts tries somewhat to get it right. They know a rifle platoon in the desert has 2 squads, but the size of each squad is 12 men. And they eliminated the LMGs! Rules of Engagement get it wrong. A rifle platoon has four squads, two rifle, and two LMG. And because each separate "unit" has access to company support, it allows you to bolster them way, way beyond what they had available to draw upon. At best it should be two company assets, not four. Like I said, I understand why this happens for gaming. If not for the thread asking about "most fairly" I would not have posted. |
VVV reply | 14 May 2018 10:31 p.m. PST |
OK so both 'squads' bought together. I will drop the NCO from the MG squad (and replace with rifleman), both squads have to remain within 12 and MG squad will have their fighting skill in close combat reduced by 1 (to stop them being used for assaults). All at reduced points cost of course. One last question, should the MG teams be allowed to split from the MG squad? |
kevanG | 16 May 2018 3:07 p.m. PST |
From the italianisti site The Squadra was authorized a sergente maggiore or a sergente as the squad commander. The vice squad commander was either a caporale maggiore or caporale.There are three additional caporali authorized, of which two are the LMG team leaders. The third was in the squadra fucilieri. The commandate di squadra controlled both gruppi, but generally moved with the gruppo mitragliatori. The vice commandante di squadra moved with the gruppo fucilieri. The three caporali controlled their respective elements Sources: 'Addestramento della fanteria' vol I 1939 and 'Le sqaudra della fanteria' 1942. |
VVV reply | 16 May 2018 10:47 p.m. PST |
Italian list updated. Thanks all. |
|