>Italian tactics
how is a defeat like this even humanly possible?
>>1974715
It appears that when your "tanks" are literally just armored cars and your planes can't take off because no fuel and destroyed airstrips, having more soldiers doesn't really help.
Who knew.
>>1974715
Lots of experience and a strong military tradition of this kind of thing.
>>1974715
Can't believe the Italians couldn't figure it out, despite having the tactically strongest ally in the war.
I'd still argue that Japan was a worse ally though, because even though they were good and extremely dedicated fighters, they pushed America into the war. Imagine if the Americans joined in '42 or '43 instead, any later and they wouldn't join at all.
>>1974715
>331 aircraft
>564 casualties
fucking wops
You know you got wrecked when you lose more aircraft than had.
>>1976646
I think the 331 was peak strength, they replaced some of their losses and then lost those as well, repeatedly.
>>1974715
their forces were spread out outside of mutual support range and defeated in detail. it didnt help that the officers were largely inexperienced at modern warfare and the rank and file poorly motivated and led to expect a easy victory, their morale collapsed in the face of the british attacks.
one key advantage the british had was that the matilda II tanks which formed part of the armored force were impervious to the antitank weapons available to the italians while the 2 pounder gun could penetrate everything in italian service and was carried by most of the british tanks.
the funny thing about operation compass is that it was far more successful than the british anticipated, the british only expected to knock the italians back across the border not destroy their army and were not as well prepared to exploit their success as they would probably have been had they believed such a success was likely, the operation was planned as a 5 day raid