Which army was worse: Italian Army during WW1? or Italian

>>2200960
Well the Italians' won their campaigns in ww1. Not so much in ww2

>>2200960
Italians in WW2. WW1 Italians were crippled by Cadorna being in overall command for most of the war, but were still able to succeed despite that (some of the Isonzo battles were Italian victories, despite Cadorna's best efforts).

They also made the best WW1 tank that never fought (like seriously the Fiat 2000 was basically an interwar tank with the full-rotation turret, decently sized main gun, and actual engine compartment separate from the crew)

arditi did nothing wrong

File: 152504.jpg (63KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 633x758px

>mfw seeing threads like this as an italian

The army wasn't bad in either war, it was the commanders and leaders that fucked us.

>>2200971

You might spite Cadorna for the Isonzo, but the two victories at Monte Grappa were due to the forts and defences Cadorna ordered built.

>>2200988
Fortifications are useful, but ruining his own side's morale and army through killing his own men for retreating and use of decimation had a much worse effect.

>>2200960
You can't even make a comparison.

WWI Italy performed surprisingly solid contrary to the Cadorna meme. Victories at Monte Grappa, the Piave River, and Vittorio Veneto were some of the most impressive victories of the war that ultimately dealt the deathblow to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

WW2 Italy however wasn't so much bad troops, but a lack of resources to wage war on a global scale.

Italy ran out of oil by October 1942, and thus the Italian Navy was stuck in port for the rest of the war due to the shortage.

you can have good troops all you want, but if you can't keep the war machine fed with fuel and have enough industrial output to replace losses, it's a hopeless effort against Industrial titans like Britain and the US.

File: 1483008773235.png (256KB, 498x446px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 498x446px

Friendly reminder that during WW2 the Italians literally gave supplies, weapons and vehicles to Ethiopian rebels because their leader had promised to start fighting the British if they were well supplied

>>2200960

didnt italian recruits in ww2 learn how to surrender in 6 languages?

>>2201520
Wat?

>>2201156
This guy is accurate. WW1 Italy is very underrated; WW2 Italy wasn't quite as bad as the memes suggest but was still pathetically useless for a great power its size.

>>2200960

Just Italian Army

File: images.jpg (9KB, 270x186px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 270x186px

>>2203678
Why, yes

>>2200988
>Isonzo
You mean Soča?

>>2203830
all famine jokes aside Ethiopian food is actually delicious

>>2201536
that's just an old joke
>what's the first command a new recruit in the italian army learns
>retreat

>why was the italian navy so useless during ww2
>the cannons were too heavy so all three dinghys sunk

>what is the shortest book in the world
>italian heroes of ww2

>>2200960
Roman society and conquest was definitely the pinnacle of Italian military, everything else was very much a downhill slide.

>>2204098
Every contemporary source lists the battles as "Battle of the Isonzo". Makes no sense to change their name because the river is now calles Soca.

File: FCM.jpg (137KB, 1024x648px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x648px

>>2200971
>They also made the best WW1 tank that never fought (like seriously the Fiat 2000 was basically an interwar tank with the full-rotation turret, decently sized main gun, and actual engine compartment separate from the crew)

That's not the FCM 1A.

>>2201156
>Victories at Monte Grappa, the Piave River, and Vittorio Veneto were some of the most impressive victories of the war that ultimately dealt the deathblow to the Austro-Hungarian Empire

Can't be serious. First two were defensive successes against an Austrian army that was already bled white and not exactly famous for its offensive capabilities. Third one happened when AH was already falling apart by its own.

>>2200960
WW2 had worse training, equipment, and overall strategy compared to WW1 (in relation to the other countries).
WW1 Italy was actually not that bad at all, Cadorna aside.

>>2201156
>you can have good troops all you want
Not that they did. Special units aside, ww2 Italy basically did not train its soldiers for lack of funds.

>>2200971
>They also made the best WW1 tank that never fought
Does it count as "made" if they barely put out two prototypes? It never went into production.

>>2200967
They tried 8 times to beat the Austro-Hungarians, the weak, already beaten, tiny Austro-Hungarians and still got pushed back.

They only started winning when Austria-Hungary had imploded internally. if you want proof just look at Entente opinions. After Italy first failed to push in to Austria they didn't bother send anything but Artillery and basically just wanted them to pull troops off the eastern front.

WWII Italy was good according to Rommel, and other German commanders who had their troops. But they were equipped with weapons designed before WWI, and its really not their fault either because Mussolini knew they wouldn't be ready for war until 1942.

It was Italian soldiers who failed at Stalingrad, but in my opinion, why were they even assigned to such a critical task as holding the flanks? They had rifles designed in like 1861 against massive well equipped red army forces.

They should have been left to perform minor combat roles like marching up the caucuses or something.