History

[Manitou]

My youngest daughters gym class could whip the Italians in a war...

[Warborn]

they had a pretty ok airforce though

During the early stages of the war (read: when they almost had their entire armed forces annihilated by a small garrison of British troops) they were using bi-planes from WW1. Frickin' bi-planes. Can you imagine flying one of those against a Hawker Hurricane or even a Spitfire? Needless to say, they didn't stand a chance.

They Italians did have a good Navy though... before the British sunk most of it, anyway. And what little the Italians had left, they were afraid to use.

So whose worse- as a culture and fighting force - the french or the italians?

Good question. I'd have to say the French though. The basic Italian soldier was OK if you made mixed units of Germans and Italians, because the Italians didn't like being outdone (they were fairly cocky, despite the fact that they sucked) so they'd pick up their socks in an effort to show the Germans they were sharing a unit with that they were good fighters too.

The French, on the other hand, were very fond of surrendering. Most of the French Army was made of conscripts, and many of them were drunk when the Germans showed up. For all the men and tanks they had, they put up an exceedingly meager fight. So, as a nation, I'd have to say that the French were worse. Although, they definitely had better officers. Italy's terrible officers were a big part of why the rest of their fighting forces sucked. You can't have good soldiers if your officers are panty-waist tree-huggers like Nicholas Cage's character from Captain Corelli's Mandolin.

[Sputty]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
So whose worse- as a culture and fighting force - the french or the italians?

The Italians. Oooohhh...look at me!!!! I like to change sides to whoevers winning!

[Warborn]

They changed sides because there was a rebellion and Benito "The Lapdog" Mussilini was removed from power. Honestly though, I can't see that it made a difference. They Italians just sucked, and they wouldn't have stood a chance against the Allies, especially given that they had Patton and Monty on their ass.

[mistled]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
So whose worse- as a culture and fighting force - the french or the italians?

Who the hell knows?? The French have never actually finished a war, have they?? They might be badasses if they'd get their tails from between their legs.

mistled

-- ok, that's crap... they'll never be badasses... sorry....

[Sputty]

They weren't that bad 500 or so years ago....

[Navaron]

Yes they were.

[Doobz]

the italians had a pretty good airforce, and if i scrounged i could find the names of some of the planes that entered somewhere in the middle, and they were pretty good planes. the pilots were well trained as well

[Warborn]

Yes, once most of their bi-planes were shot down, they did begin producing more modern aircraft. However, from a histroy viewpoint, that's moot. Even if they were creating the best aircraft in the war, their ability to actually utilize said aircraft would be so poor that they might as well be flying bi-planes again. The Italians were all talk, and very little substance. However, I will say this: Their airforce was poor enough that there's virtually no mention of any important victories or battles it had fought. So, I'm not sure where you read that they had a good airforce, but from what I've read (which, I admit, wasn't focused on the Italians -- comparatively few books are), they were overall a very poor fighting force during the war.

[Doobz]

yes, but i wasnt trying to put my statements in line with overall significance

[Warborn]

I'd still like to know where you read that. Not to challenge it, but to see for myself. I really don't know a great deal about the Italian air force.