How terrible exactly did the Italians perform in World War 1?

Not too terribly considering they were trying to push through one of the most defensible borders in Europe.

>>1701357

Rommel has said that the average Italian infantry was good but the officer corps was lacking.

they were italian

>>1701357
Not as bad as the austrians or russians.
I'm sure they threw more spaghetti than grenades.

Considered that the last offensive they took was the final blow to A-H, not terribly, even compared to the other players in the War.

Cadorna had good ideas (such as prioritizing artillery and understanding the usefulness of machine guns in warfare) but they were very much executed badly, what with the fact he insisted to use human wave tactis as THE primary way to win in all cintexts and all. Armando Diaz was much better as a General and was ultimately the one that lead Italy to victory.

>>1701357
Terrible leadership, wonderful Soldiers.
Maybe a lack of equipment and logistical problems (not so sure, cant find any sources that say the Italians where lacking or had a surplus when it came to equipment in ww1)

>>1701396
>Terrible leadership, wonderful Soldiers.
This. Waste of good men.

>>1701375
>understanding the usefulness of machine guns
>insisted to use human wave tactis
How could he concurrently hold both these ideas?

>>1701888
If my understanding is correct, it was a matter of him assuming that the machine guns were useful only in chokepoints, and that, even then, artillery could root them out.

>>1701357
Italy was up to snuff with the rest of Europe during WWI, and performed well enough to defeat Austria-Hungary and deliver the killing blow.

but as for raw casualties on the Italian front, Italy suffered a combined total of 1,604,886 killed/wounded/missing. While Austria suffered 1,611,000 total casualties if wiki's records are correct. So both sides were almost evenly matched, with Italy inflicting just barely more casualties on the Austrians, not bad.