Why did the Italians lose?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#21

The article “Rising Sun” posted is informative [Italian Army in WW-II] and it does show the Italian mechanized forces were quite good and I do recall that histories of the Africa Korps also make mention of this. That the Italian mechanized units worked well along side the German mechanized Divisions. Lack of mechanization in campaigns , where ones enemies are mechanized, puts one at a decided disadvantage in such battles/campaigns. Essentially you must cede initiative to your adversary. However mechanized units consume twice as much supplies compared to simple leg-mobile infantry units of corresponding size and this became a critical problem for the Axis.

With reference to the naval situation, I was reading O’Hara’s “Battle for the Middle Sea” and it looks like the Italian navy did very well in its primary mission of supplying the forces in North Africa. It seems that despite occasional incidents like the RN attack on “Beta convoy”, most such convoy attacks were failures. Overall something like 90% of the supplies and troops, the Axis sent, reached their destination. In its worse incarnation only in late 1942 did the supply fall to maybe 3/4 reaching destination. Infact a primary factor in the Axis defeat looks like the arrival of the Americans in late 1942.It was just too much for the Axis to handle.

Further if you look at the combined aero-naval campaign the Axis waged against the Allied forces in the Med, it was quite effective through late 1942. Through out 1940 the Italians convoyed 5 times as much supply as the Allies did and as long as the RM functioned, Allied convoys from Gibraltar through Alexandria were impossible. In Malta during 1942 only 1/2 the supplies sent to the Island actually arrived, forcing the inhabitants into starvation diets of 1200-1800 calories a day. At several points the Governor of Malta reported they were just a couple of months away from having to capitulate, because of this situation.

#22

UBC,

another point is ULTRA. The British Secret Service knew everything about Italian convoys thanks to Ultra. The 90% of convoys reached safely NA until the first months of 1941 when the communication codes were only Italian, after that time with the German arrival, the German communication were punctually intercepted… and the convoys sunk…
And of course the British forces like to spread voices about “Italians chatterboxes”… This fable remains…

#23

Of course it was absolutely false. Obviously the Soviets attacked the “weak points” around Stalingrad: Hungarians, Rumenians and Italians, all lacking of AT guns, heavy artillery, motorization and tanks. All left, by the German command, to cover positions too wide for infantry moving by feet.
And even with this obvious consideration, the cause of the failure of German leaders becomes “the cowardice of Italians and Rumenians”. Nazi fables. Read the book of Adolf Galland…
And nevertheless, Italian Armir resisted more than the others allies armies, and his first backdown was caused by the sudden and not communicated retreat of the German 298th division that should had reinforced the Italian line… The Alpine corp resisted fiercily, mpuntain troops wasted in the steppe plains by the German command that should use it in Caucaso.
Another think was true instead: of course Italian soldiers fought just for duty, and not for hate. Perhaps many of them hated the communism, but certainly not the Russian people.
When the Soviet-German war was an annhilation war between the soldiers and the civilians too and an old affair, Italian soldiers simply did their duty without hate in a far country. You should know that Russian people used to say “Talianski karasciò” “Italian good people”, especially respect to the hard German ruling… German people had been brooding spirit of revenge for 20 years, Italian people hadn’t.
Italy was pushed into the war just for political reasons, realistic or cinic, but of course they never are enough to make into a people a “fierce will” against a “political” enemy that’s not too an “historical” enemy (like for example Austria for Italy in WWI).

http://www.ww2incolor.com/?g2_view=comment.ShowComments&g2_itemId=572721

#24

I believe to summarize the main reasons of the Italian defeat - far from a complete view of course - repeating what I wrote in an another discussion.
Apart the big lack of industrial output, the Italian war was just a bet over the idea that “Germany has already won, just some months and a bit of blood and we’ll seat among the winners”. The Comando Supremo, apart the fact the the armed forces would still needed at least 3 years of preparation to be quite ready for a great conflict (like agreed in the Steel pact) guaranteed 6 months of authonomy for such a conflict. If the war had lasted less, that would had been perfect, but after that time, nothing could be assured.
In fact what strategical planes were prepared for the war? None. “Now we enter into the war, then we’ll see what to do”. To delay the invasion of Malta after june 1940 was a mistake consequenting a big general mistake based on these mistaken basis. The war against Greece was another worse mistake in the mistake. After the German military intervention in Romania, Mussolini wanted its own success in the Balkans. Mussolini, Ciano and general Visconti Prasca prepared a useless campaign without the mininum good sense, political and military. Few and insufficent troops, without moral motivation, in the worst season for an attack, should suddenly attack an enemy clearly stronger, morally fierce and motived in defending the homeland, and alerted by months of useless menaces, if the fate was to attack and not just warning about some disliked political attitudes. Apart the political disaster by Ciano and Mussolini, Visconti Prasca should be shot for inaptness and airiness.
Still in 1941 the economy was not a war-economy: the Duce, the first year and more wanted to limit the fatigues of the population, under the usual idea the war should last no long.
Even in september - october, the veterans in Albania were dismobilited, for the same reason: Mussolini, would a peace-time attitude in the homefront. A few weeks later those men were recalled with the confusion - many already at home - and the moral conseguences easily guessable.
Troops that would hardly served in Africa, were wasted in Greece, without useful motivation and in the worst possibile military conduction. Discredit covered the Italian armed forces, that fought well, as usual, in their duty, for the ineptitude of the political and military leaders. Being not finished after december 1940, the war was already lost for Italy, as the Comando Supremo itself had already meant 6 months before. After that time Italy was towed by Germany, and this was not in the intentions. To send the CSIR and the ARMIR in Russia, was another military mistake, even if the political reasons of the move were understandable. Especially considering that the Germans wasted the Alpini Corp in the steppe’s plains and not in the Caucaso mountains, for wich it was allotted.
So, apart the army not ready, apart the completely insufficient industrial output, the absence of deep moral motivations, the Italian war was a big mistake from the start, with other and worse big mistakes in the tecnical conduction…
So, considering all this, as the famous historician of the US navy Morison wrote, it’s not surprising that Italy lost the war, it’s surprising that was able to resist three years!
And over with the RSI.

#25

The Italians had penetrated the RN Codes and knew when the British knew about convoys.Infact the 90% figure is for the entire naval war. O’Hara reports that from June 1940 to Sept 1943, 98% of the personnel and 90% of the supplies convoyed by RM, reached their destination. So for the most part RN commerce warfare against the Axis was a failure in the Med, while RM was successful in its convoy mission.

If the supply to North Africa was a problem it was not due to convoying. But probably more to do with the quantity sent. From what it appears, the Axis had ~30 divisions deployed across North Africa, while the bulk of these were infantry/Garrison divisions with little or no vehicles, they all needed food ammo and water to survive. Given 2.15 million tons delivered over 1188 days this averages out to 1810 tons per day . During the peak stretch in 1941-42 daily tonnage reaching NAfrica topped 2000-2700 tons. In combat the daily reqirment would have been in the region 10-12,000 tons including Africa Korps + LW and coastal naval traffic & civilian needs. If the needs of garrison divisions is cut to 1/3 , this might reduce the needed daily tonnage to 7,000-9,000 ton region. It still means the Axis Troops in N Africa were getting at best 1/4 to 1/3 of the supplies they needed to function properly in combat.

#26

Anyway the tankers convoys were punctually sunk by the British forces… and this stopped the Axis movements and made worse the Mussolini’s ulcer…

#27

Um, do you have any literary basis for that statement or are you just making shit up again?

#28

Hard to imagine over 98% of personnel and 90% of supplies got through when over 2000 Italian Merchant Vessels were sunk from 1940 to 1943.

In one convoy of five Merchant ships escorted by 3 RM ships all 5 merchants and 2 of the escorts were sunk for the loss of one allied ship.

#29

I agree that its hard to believe especially if you read British Histories of the war. The case you site is the exception rather than the rule.

Nick as usual your lack of respect does you in.

I already pointed out the source, so go read it. O’Hara “Struggle for the Middle Sea” and it is also mentioned in his collaberative work “On Seas Contested” where they state…

" Between 1940 and 1943, section B deciphered 13.3 % of British Radio traffic-slightly less than the 13.75% British Code breakers achieved against Italian traffic. …Sighting reports of Italian submarines and convoys were routinely intercepted , allowing the threatened units to take avoiding actions".
pp 131

BTW even the germans penetrated the RN codes before the war.

#30

What ubc is saying matches with some Italian sources and statistics about the matter. Some links:

http://digilander.libero.it/planciacomando/WW2/convogli.htm
http://www.regioesercito.it/articolivari/battaglia%20dei%20convogli.pdf
http://www.regiamarinaitaliana.it/Battaglia%20dei%20convogli.html

#31

You can now get to a different point though and that is that the Italian Merchant fleet was decimated during 1940 to 43. Even if the transports were sunk empty that impacts on their possibility of being available later on.

If they are not there especially the tankers then no troops or supplies can be carried in them, so can’t be sunk. Supplies were so short that fuel was being flown in rather than tankered why would that be.

Was there always a surplus of shipping that meant that the Commando Supremo decided not to supply the forces in Africa, or was there a shortage of shipping due to allied interdiction.

#32

From one of the websites (excuse the translations)

Hence the shocking truth: the desperate efforts of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine in the hardest 29 months in which the battle took place the Libyan convoys made it possible to deliver 91.6% of men, 80% fuel, 88 % of vehicles and weaponry, and 86% of the other loads

November 1941
The month of November was indeed tragic was lost 70% of the material transported and more than 90% of fuel senca count all the ships, military and merchant ships, lost.

Jan to July 1942 (Malta neutralised)
Ultimately though, in the months that some have called decisive, during this long period as much as 96% fuel and 93% of the material was handed over to Libyan ports.

Tunisia
Men 93%
Fuel 71%
Vehicles and spares 80%
Weapons and Ammunition 68%
Other stores 70%

I have picked all the figures quoted and I cant see how the figures could be as high as you claimed.

#33

The Italian merchant fleet was decimated before the war started: the 37% of the vessels over 500 tons (the most important), plus others, were surprised abroad by the Italian declaration of war and lost; another clear demonstration that the Italian war was a sudden decision trusting on the behaviour of a “conflict already over”.

#34

I noticed on several websites the figure of 212 merchant ships over 2000 tonnes (many the newest) being caught out of the Med when war was declared.

Seemed like Mussolini was hoping for a quick easy victory.

#35

Like someone said here before, they just weren’t very motivated. I also think it was because of who they are as a people. I mean no offence, but just look at them since the war up until today. They have had like 40 or 50 different governments and they can’t even agree to pick up the trash arond Naples. (That has been going on for years now). It’s ironic, Americans of Italian descent fought well in WW2 and all our succeding wars. John Baslione the Medal of Honor winner is one name that comes to mind. I think it is more in the Italian national character to eat good food, drink good wine, and to make love than to fight in wars. The modern Italian simply has no similarity to any of Caesar’s legions.

#36

Sorry, but I have to disagree totally. You are talking about the usual cliches about Italians “spaghetti & mandolino”.
I have to say, first of all, that the shit politicians that rule Italy from 1945 are here thank to you Americans… do you remember Calogero Vizzini and the other mafiosi that were soon installed as new political leaders of “free Italy”? The actual shit dedscends from those… like Andreotti and Berlusconi. Prodi and Berlusconi are two massons, the first a man of Goldman too and the second a mafioso too. And yes, thank you America for saving Italy from communism, but after the war Italy was ruled just by an oligarchy of stelalers some slaves of USA and CIA and some of CCCP. Your own slaves were and are just shit.
If Mussolini di not entered the war, he would had been here still now, and most likely Italy - as a state entity - would not be the shit that is now.

As you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSrrxBhiHnA

Italy of 1939 was a century before the trash of nowdays, in every sense. And that’s not fault of the Italian people, but of the shit politicians and camorristi - that is the same - that ruled this country, thanks to you, since 1945.
I cite, for reaching a conclusion, an opinion of James Gregor, professor at UC Berkeley. In his book “Interpretation of Fascism”, the author points out that the Italian industrial production, compared to 1913, went up 81 points in the years before the great depression. Italy stunned the world, writes James Gregor, presenting an increase of 41% of overall production globally, outstripping France (40%) and German (31%), American (26%), the English (16, 5%) productions. Add to this that in those years, the regime offered to workers and their families, a number of social proposals, hitherto unknown not only in Europe but worldwide. Yes, of course, Italy had still a big delay respect to the western industrialized countries, but this gap was reduced as never before. And the economical basis and structures put in the Fascist years permitted the reconstruction and the Italian ecomical boom after the war.
And yet James Gregor stating: <A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR>.

#37

Laconia forgiveness but I fully agree with DVX, it is still fun in the 21st century the American you still have this kind of vision of European countries, it is not only wrong, but they prove that you are still living in your small world, without knowing anything about the mentality or a life of European peoples, it is high time to wake up. Also your view of politics, that of Italy notament is childish, and you ask the study a little closer, you’ll find that you will remove a lot of things.
Friendly Fred

#38

Just without personal insulting. I just was quoted the original Hitler’s oppinion that Albert Speer posted to the the true in his memours.
as fo me , i absolutly agree with you that catastrophe in Stalingrad was determined NOT by “Italian cowardice”. Actualy the real catastrophe has happend when the Red Army had stopped the tank group of Mainstein, which went to Stalingrad to de-blocade the frozen 6 army.
But for sake of true i have to ad that Germans also had lack of AT artillery and ammo at all.So their allies wasn’t an exclusion.

And nevertheless, Italian Armir resisted more than the others allies armies, and his first backdown was caused by the sudden and not communicated retreat of the German 298th division that should had reinforced the Italian line… The Alpine corp resisted fiercily, mpuntain troops wasted in the steppe plains by the German command that should use it in Caucaso.
Another think was true instead: of course Italian soldiers fought just for duty, and not for hate. Perhaps many of them hated the communism, but certainly not the Russian people.

that fact the GErmans knew for sure…
therefore they never actualy trust enough to Italians.But this is not your failure.:slight_smile:

When the Soviet-German war was an annhilation war between the soldiers and the civilians too and an old affair, Italian soldiers simply did their duty without hate in a far country. You should know that Russian people used to say “Talianski karasciò” “Italian good people”, especially respect to the hard German ruling… German people had been brooding spirit of revenge for 20 years, Italian people hadn’t.
Italy was pushed into the war just for political reasons, realistic or cinic, but of course they never are enough to make into a people a “fierce will” against a “political” enemy that’s not too an “historical” enemy (like for example Austria for Italy in WWI).

… that is just another one more point against …Mussoliny. Who let Hitler to involve italia into the sensless ( for you) war.

#39

You did not see yet whom they have installed on …Germany;)

And yet James Gregor stating: &lt;A good reason can therefore support the thesis that fascism was a dictatorship of development and modernization of mass dedicated to the modernization of the Italian economy (in contrast) for example to the disastrous decline in agricultural and industrial production which characterized the first decade of Bolshevik rule in the USSR&gt;.

But why then such an “industrialized and mechanized” Italian army has come to Russia on horse traction,without single AT guns and tank:)?Where they were suddenly attacked by bolshevick army with tanks and artillery. Seems to me the James Gregor nothing read about second decade of Bolshevic rule;)

#40

Didn’t Italians vote for Italian governments?

How did America control all post-war elections?

Since when has the mafia been an American creation? I thought it went the other way, with the Italian mafia infiltrating American public, commercial and criminal life. If so, why is it America’s problem if Italian mafia infiltrated Italian politics, as well as Italian commercial and criminal life?

Your complaint seems to me like the usual anti-American ‘blame America for everything that’s wrong in the world’ approach. I’ll happily agree that America has been outstanding in some clumsy international ****-ups of mammoth proportions and an awful lot of smaller stuff and that American arrogance at times is unbearable, but that has also been the case for just about every lesser nation in proportion to its own conception of its own political and military power before and after WWII. Not unlike Italy’s misadventures in Ethiopia, Libya and Greece leading up to and during WWII.

While those of anti-American sentiment will never admit it, America was the lynchpin in facing down the now forgotten aggressive communism which emanated from the USSR, and to a lesser extent a more isolationist China, in the first few decades following the end of WWII. Given a choice between living in a world run by Eisenhower or Kennedy and Stalin or Kruschev, it’s a no-brainer for anyone who prefers a good and free life to government regulated deprivation and misery.

I think the original purpose was to defeat the Axis powers, of which Italy was one of the two main ones in Europe.

Why do you focus in your earlier comments only on the US while ignoring the USSR when you regard both as members of an oligarchy which ruled Italy?

Well, Mussolini did enter the war, so you’ll just have live with that decision by an Italian to start the process you claim subordinated Italy to American control. However, if Mussolini was here now he would be about 128 years old, which is about as likely as some of his ambitions and some of your anti-American complaints. And that was a purely Italian decision by an Italian running Italy. I don’t see how it’s America’s fault that an Italian dictator started a war and then lost it, unless you think America (and Britain and New Zealand and Brazil and others) should have taken a dive in the ninth round to make Mussolini look better than he was.

Could you show how it is that the Italian people have been excluded from voting for their governments since 1945 and that these governments have all been imposed by the US, CIA and USSR?

It seems to me that you want to blame America for everything that’s gone wrong in Italy since Mussolini started a war. It also seems to me that it might be fairer to blame Mussolini for starting the war, and to blame the Italians for the governments they have elected since.