Slitherine

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: P.S. For the person who mentioned the Germans, there were NO Germans in 1813. There were many large states, and a huge number of small ones, that were all used as pawns by the A-H's, the British, the French, etc. They were always switching sides looking for advantages, or to get out of wars. They often fought each other. Prussia and Bavaria were bitter rivals, so it's wrong to call them all Germans and suggest they may have been betraying a country that was over 50 years away.

quote:

Originally posted by amatteucci: almost all of the cavalry officers assigned to mechanized units voluntary failed the driving test to be reassigned to horse units because it was considered a dishonor for a cavalryman to belong to a non mounted unit!

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Il carabiniere: Dannazione al mio scarso inglese!!! Per rispondere a tono a questo mucchio di pirla(vorrei usare un altro termine più acconcio ma poi mi censurano) mi toccherà tirar fuori vocabolario e grammatica inglese, e pensare che avrei altro per la testa (da tre giorni sono padre di una splendida bambina, non c'entra nulla, ma volevo dirlo comunque...)Comunque per il momento mi rivolgo agli altri italiani, avete visto che tono falsamente sussiegoso, molto political correct, e tutto per ritornare sui soliti luoghi comuni. Personalmente tiro un sospiro di sollievo che l'Asse non abbia vinto la guerra, ma questo non vuol dire che voglia farmi prendere per i fondelli. Mi sembra che il problema dovesse porsi così:in Spwaw esistono eserciti con valori realistici oppure no? ed invece ecco la solita canea di quelli che ci prendono in giro sulla nostra qualità di costruttori di strade e sul numero di retromarce dei nostri carri. Ma su quali testi di storia si basano questi signori? Ma ve li immaginate i loro baldi G. I. men a trovarsi nelle identiche situazioni nostre in Grecia in Africa o in Russia. Certo due o tre eroi si trovano dappertutto, ma a Luigi Durand De La Penne o a Salvo D'Acquisto voi altri chi potete opporre. Abbiamo perso,e chi dice il contrario, ma la guerra non è un torneo di football o di basket, a costo di sembrare retorico ricordiamoci che in guerra si muore e si soffre e i primi a restare disgustati sarebbero proprio i morti,i nostri e i vostri, a guardare noi che comodamente stiamo a discutere se i morti italiani sono morti goffamente mentre i morti americani sono elegantemente caduti come tanti piccoli John Wayne. Se mi chiedo perchè i francesi abbiano perso nel 1940 non mi rispondo perchè si erano ubriacati di champagne o avevano tirato fino a tardi al Molin Rouge, cerco di liberarmi dei luoghi comuni e lascio da parte le occasioni per trite battute - e se qualcuno conosce il carattere di attaccabrighe litigiosi di noi fiorentini può capire quanto ciò mi costi.Cerco solo di capire per il mio esclusivo piacere di comprendere le cose e non per fare facili battute Prometto che ora prendo il vocabolario....

Fossi in te non me la prenderei cosi tanto. Non esistono sordi piu` sordi di chi non vuole sentire. L'Italia di oggi, con tutti i suoi problemi, e` tra le prime potenze economiche del mondo e batte regolarmente gli Inglesi al calcio, loro sport preferito. Italiani e Anglosassoni sono molto diversi. Tutti e due i gruppi hanno molto da imparare l'uno dall'altro. Vivendo in Inghilterra mi rendo conto che spesso loro non avvicinano piu` gli Italiani con un cosi` netto senso di superiorita`. Il declino della loro nazione li rende piu` insicuri, e questo li puo` anche spingere a cercare rassicurazioni nel loro passato decisamente piu` glorioso. Gli Americani sono un'altra storia. Essendo la potenza geopolitica dominante pensano di avere sempre ragione. Ma per ogni Americano informato ce ne sono cento ignoranti. Ci saranno sempre persone dalle due parti che preferiranno restare ignoranti e basarsi sul passato per giudicare. Essenzialmente in questo dibattito ci sono due posizioni: una dice che il risultato finale e` l'unica cosa che conta. Sotto questa ottica l'Italia ha uno dei records peggiori perche` ha quasi sempre perso, e quasi sempre in modo spettacolare. L'altra dice che si deve considerare la posizione relativa dei combattenti per esprimere un giudizio bilanciato. Questa e` la mia posizione. Gli esponenti delle due posizioni non potranno mai essere d'accordo perche` i metodi di analisi sono diametralmente opposti. Congratulazioni per la nascita della tua bambina. [/B][/QUOTE] Hmm.. after this very long speech in italic I would kindly ask all to speak english again. How can I know weather you are making fun of us others if ya speak languake wich we can't understand.So this leads to simple solution : speak .. errr... sorry it should be write in english so we all can understand your insults and reply them correctly. Or would it be fun if started to respond in finnish to all your comments?

_____________________________

HallelujaaGobble!

(in reply to Semachus)

quote:

Originally posted by Grumble: Well it's been a slow morning, so I'll add my 5 Lire worth: When Mussolini decided to declare War in 1940, the Italian General Staff was OPPOSED. Their rearmament and reorganization plans were predicated on going to war in 1941 or even 1942. Basically their planning and equipping was caught short by the political leadership. The only service that considered themselves battleworthy in 1940 was the RM (an assessment certainly justified). With the death of Gen Balbo in 1940 in an air crash, the prospects for an aggressive and visionary Italian COS died as well. Now concerning SPWAW: The historical record is unflattering at the tactical level. One may make an impassioned plea about bravery and inadequate equipment but the hard truth of combat is that junior leadership and TRAINING, both of which contribute to that other vital component MORALE, win battles. Excellent equipment helps, sure, but history would surely be different if only the best-equipped forces won the day. In these respects the Italian Army was lacking- period. To my mind then, the representation in SPWAW is in fact aligned with the historical record. GAMEWISE, it might be advisable to do what the old Avalon Hill ASL series did; concentrate on scenarios with Alpini, Bersaglieri, Folgore and San Marco Marines as primary forces. Their historically proven superior (to "average" line Italian troops) leadership and morale should help to balance scenarios. FWIW, some of my favorite and well balanced games involved the Italian "Savoia" (sp) Cavalry on the Eastern Front.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon Grasham: In a scenario, it's up to the designer if what quality the troops are. If you are playing a random battle, or campaign, and want "elite" Itallian troops, just turn country training off, and set it that way. May make the other side be off a bit, but you can guestimate for them. (or, if in a campaign, simply turn it off, buy your troops, and after the 1st batt,e turn it back on, and repeat before/after the refit section. Not really "cheating" since the better troops are not there under normal circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by amatteucci: I'm not an expert about the Italian Army of WW2, nonetheless there are I can point out a few things that may be worth of consideration. 1. In my opinion the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war is money (i.e. natural resources, industrial potential, factories and know how) 2. Of course if you have, say, a 100 potential and you use 50 to produce things that are irrelevant to war effort you may be beaten by someone that has only 70 and completely switched to a total war economy (hint: this is why IMHO Soviet Union defeated Germany. Germany had a slightly higher industrial capacity but switched to a 'total war' gear only in late 1943, the USSR did it in ... 1931!) 3. Having said so: Italian Armed Forces were comparable to their european counterparts until late '30s. (Just compare planes and tanks of the period) After that while the others were starting developing new weapons and tactics (after the Czech crisis and the civil war in Spain) Italy simply remained idle. First because the wealty industrial that accepted Fascism as a lesser evil (for them) compared to a Socialist revolution were not willing to adventure in somehing that could ruin their plans. On the other hand Mussolini had not all that power to force FIAT at al. to do otherwise. And he thought that he would always been able to 'ouwit' his opponets and force victory out of clever timing and opportunistic moves. Italy really entered war thinking that all would have been over in a week or so and all that Mussolini needed was (in his own words) "a few causalties just to have right to sit at the victors' table in the ensuing Armistice conference". The fact that timing was the only concern an no one was really thinking about a general war can be seen by the fact that Italian Units in North Africa were not given any clear order and the stockpiling of resources in Lybia started well after the declaration of war (so it was done UNDER Royal Navy attacks, if Italy was actually planning for a prolonged effort it would have been done before!) 4. Last but not least, the doctrinal and training aspects were not good. It was not a lack of qualities in the junior officers (both my Grandfathers remember that the majority of the officers they meeted had universitary education) but consider that, for example, almost all of the cavalry officers assigned to mechanized units voluntary failed the driving test to be reassigned to horse units because it was considered a dishonor for a cavalryman to belong to a non mounted unit! And that's all for now. Amedeo

quote:

Originally posted by Molotov: I have to say that I don't think money is not the only single factor relevant to winning or losing a war . I think the army's morale and will to fight is much more important factor to win or lose. OK, having money and recources is good thing. But there are examples in history of fighting succesfully with poor equipment and with poor economic situation. USA went to Vietnam and thought it would be a piece of cake but we all know how it ended. We have to agree that in harsh conditions the defender has always better changes win a battle even with poor equipment. Good example is Winter War's Raate Road battle in Finland Suomussalmi where Finnish were equipped with rifles and molotov coctails: Finnish guerilla tactics and -40 degree Celcius temperature freezed the soviet tank invasion with huge russian casualties.