Africa Before Rommel -1 reply

Please wait...

terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

5th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#21 16 years ago

Don't forget the east african theater (well i guess its still sort of north)r- ethiopia. The Italians did of course manage to take ethiopia over in the 30s, but the british fough the italians stationed there to liberate it early in the war (I think like around 41 or so) Whats really wierd was the italian resitance fighters there after the italians lost control to the british. Now THAT some wierd fighting- the revived ethiopian army still under the auspices of britain fending of italian resistance fighers late in ww2. And people say CBI theater is under-popularized.....




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#22 16 years ago
SkipsterI think those maps would be cool. It would be a similar situation to the early French... A lot of the reasons they did so poorly would not be represented in-game, so I think the Italians would have a better chance.

The French at least had the technological advantage. Their equipment was top-notch. Their military strategy, though, was not.

Italians had neither.. :uhm:




Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#23 16 years ago

I have just a few things to say:

One: I saw someone post about Italians having low casualty rates. Now, no disrespect to Italy, but this is because the Italian soldiers would fire until they started to take losses and then surrendered. Two: The Italian arty was yes, rather obsolete. But, in combat, the Italian arty proved to be elite. THey would hold out against all odds, fought like hell, and would only give up with almost no ammo left, and many guns lost. Read the book "The Desert War." The author, a british newspaper man, talks highly of the italian arty. Three: The main reason the Italians lost was idiocy on part of the generals. One of their great defense networks was a big fence, not barbwire, not electrified, but a noral, everyday, chainlink fence, that ran the length of thier lines. Also, they tried not to adapt tot the desert, but make the desert adapt to them. They wasted tons of resources on making statues, carting in fresh cheese, wine, beer, meat, everything. Mail everyday, fresh, cold water. All in all, not to berate the Italians, they did not do well. now, the average Italian soldier could have been good, as seen with the Italian arty, could preform wonderfully. But, due to poor generalship, equipment, etc....they deafeated themselves.




terminal-strike

terminal-strike

50 XP

5th May 2004

0 Uploads

2,313 Posts

0 Threads

#24 16 years ago
OhioanThe French at least had the technological advantage. Their equipment was top-notch. Their military strategy, though, was not. Italians had neither.. :uhm:

both countries like most had there strong and weak points. The french still had 500 FT tanks used in battle in 1940, in 1939 they had a few times that and actualy attacked germany with them during the phoney war. They also did not have nearly enough fighters of high enough quality.

The italians also did have some quite good eqipment, inlcuding submachine guns and some (yes there were some) of there aircraft- which were mainly held back by a lack of engines. There tanks were actually pretty decent for the early war period, they just never updated them enough for the demands of the mid-war period. These are details though, as a generalization even if it is perhaps over-sensational I will agree with what you say there ohian.




Draygonis

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

14th January 2005

0 Uploads

43 Posts

0 Threads

#25 16 years ago

here's a good site on the italian military in ww2 http://www.comandosupremo.com




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#26 16 years ago

The Italians in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa fought very well and the technology disparity was not near as bad since the Soviets had mostly BT's and T-26's which the M13/40 could handle. One Italian General fought well enough to be awarded a Knights Cross by the Germans for bravery.

@Von Mudra: Depends on the unit. Colonial troops fought like crap. Other units like the Folgore Parachute regiment fought very hard and were respected by their enemies. New Zealand troops spoke very highly of them.

For those that think the Italians only had crap you are gonna be screaming bloody murder when your tanks get toasted by a Semovente 75/18 firing a effetto pronto warhead or your T-34/76 gets toasted by a Italian 90mm L/53 gun.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#27 16 years ago

We need a Sidi Barrani map and a Tobruk map




UTHER

ARTE ET MARTE

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

551 Posts

0 Threads

#28 16 years ago

Thats it then chaps, we all agree.

I say devs how about it? early Africa maps please.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

29th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#29 16 years ago

Oh we have Tobruk, its shitty and DiCE, but we have tobruk. *cries*

The Desert is one of my favorite theaters. Great open lands allow for massive tank combat, plus it is more fast paced with light(er) tanks than on the other tank maps.

What we need now is an African Breakthrough. Large tank battles accompianed by extended infantry engagements, so not Supercharge.

Like all armies, some of the units fought well and hard, and others, well, sucked. The idea that all of the Italians were terrible soldiers is absurd. The idea that all Americans were heroic is equally false. Each army has its good and its bad, its well equipped and its poor. Italy is no exception.




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#30 16 years ago
OhioanThe French at least had the technological advantage. Their equipment was top-notch. Their military strategy, though, was not. Italians had neither.. :uhm:

True, I guess it would be more like post-43 US vs. Japan maps. And hey, they're still fun! :D Although I wouldn't say the French had a tech advantage, but certainly no disadvantage. The Brits, French, and Germans all had pretty comparable equipment in 1940. The Germans just had the best equipment and tactics for the type of war they were fighting, which as the aggressors, they get to dictate. Of course, the fact that the Allies were not a unified command, and the French high command was riddled with Vichy sympathizers didn't help either.