They were fighting 4 infantry divisions with a highly mobile corps. The Italians were immobilized by logistics issues after Mussolini talk Grazziani to advance into Egypt as deeply as possible regardless of supply issues and military preparedness so that when the soon-to-come peace deal happened he could bargain from this position. The problem was peace did not come and the British counterattacked in a very good supply situation with a totally motorized force.OPERATION COMPASS - 30,000 to 40,000 total British troops take something like 130,000 Italians prisoner. I would say that says something about the overall competence of the Italian Army.
Don't you dare bring logic and reason into this.Much as we hate him, he really cannot do this for he is just one part in a machine.
What would have happened if the training, doctrine, and equipment of the US army in World War 2 was just really bad, like throw down rifles and run away upon contact with the enemy bad?
If you have to get rid of Marshall or any of the other IOTL American generals or sideline them to do this, that's fine.
Don't mention the M4 Sherman.I don't frequent the Chat threads, but I'm not surprised, they get very wound up about the Sherman tank as well.
Perhaps its this idea of American exceptionalism.
OPERATION COMPASS - 30,000 to 40,000 total British troops take something like 130,000 Italians prisoner. I would say that says something about the overall competence of the Italian Army.
That's because Mussolini kept throwing the Italian army at fights in horrible terrain, with no equipment worth of note, and - and by god, this is important - for which there was no plan. The invasion of France is egregious in that regard: the Alpine Wall garrison, emboldened by troops that had not been trained for that kind of terrain, were told to rip all their defensive plans and attack France a week from that day. See the frostbite victims? That happens, when you're said that in two weeks you must be on the other side of fortified 4km high mountains and you never prepared for that situation.Our of three major solo operations; Compass, the invasion of Greece and the invasion of France... well the Italian Army had issues in each.
![]()
Rommel didn't piss on their their troops in the field, much the opposite, but in his writings he did their higher level officers.
Rommel didn't piss on their their troops in the field, much the opposite, but in his writings he did their higher level officers.
Well, he did more of less single-handedly capture an entire Italian Division in the First War, Twice!
It might have influenced his opinion
Then do what Montgomery did make your enemy fight the type of battle that your army is trained for.The Italian command was, for the most part, not equal to the task of carrying on war in the desert, where the requirement was lightning decision followed by immediate action
Perhaps Ike and Patton don't exist ITTL and there are more Friedenhalls and Mark Clarkes? IOTL Patton and Ike nearly died during a towing accident in the 1920s. Without Marshall being available and Ike and Patton dead perhaps less skilled men take over and degrade performance, say disregarding de Gaulle and the Free French instead of placating them, while taking the arguments to Monty and thumbing their nose at the Brits as they get more power within the alliance.
My memory is that Italian soldiers generally fought well on an individual basis. There poor performance was due to poor leadership starting with Mussolini and poor equipment. ...
As to senior leadership, with Roosevelt and Marshall you have two competent leaders. At a certain point it gets difficult to get rid of everyone unless you go with the various fascist or populist scenarios explored on the board. But at that point, you've moved far enough from reality that you can start making stuff up.
Whoa, let's not get carried away there.Square divisions anyone?
It may also then keep the US out of the war, because if they aren't give stuff away on loan, then Britain can't continue the war into 1941.Probablly would not exist as we know it, maybe not in any form. A Congress led by the crowd that ran it in the 1920s might not even repeal the Neutrality Acts. That would leave Britain and the USSR SOL for anything the US might build. It would also mean US arms industry is not jumpstarted in 1939, but stagnates on until the US is up against the wall.