@martynrobin121 Rule britannia what? If there hadn't been the allies' support from anywhere in the world, the british would have never had any hope. When they were caught alone somewhere like in Dunkirk, Berbera or supporting the greeks in Greece, they ran away or lost the cause.
@SUPERITALIANPOWER France 1940, 13 BEF Divisions against 150+ German, Dunkirk was a success, The BEF was saved from certain defeat to fight anoutherday. Greece, 50,000 British troops helped hold the Axis for months. Remember the British Forces had 1/4 of the entire planet to protect, They were over extended and on too many fronts, The Axis were able to attack with their entire Armies, Where as Britain had to send Divisions around the world and were outnumbered,(Logistics!
@martynrobin121 In Dunkirk the british ran away through the channel because they coudn't hold the germans despite they had also the french support. In Berbera they ran away when the italians invaded the Somaliland. In Greece they lost. When the british had the empire, the Commonwealth colonial troops supported the british, not the opposite. That happened also during the WW2 and was crucial, the real turning point. The axis fought at least on three fronts : atlantic, russian and african ones.
@SUPERITALIANPOWER Well they were strong to come back from defeats. After Singapore and Dunkirk they were able to rebuild. But we must bear in mind TWO points.
1. that they were a first world power with a huge empire......whereas Italy was a second world power. Totally different wealth, resources and industrial output.
2. Britain was baled out financially by the US in 1941- Britain would have had to sue for peace if the money had not been given. Despite all the propaganda - thats the truth.
@ItaloGallese Not exactly, the british were just able to find right allies and supplies after the first defeats: the Commonwealth colonial forces debarked in Africa, the americans sent supplies, money and their military to Europe and Asia and so forth. Italy instead fought just with its means that were few after the wars won during the thirties. Germany, like ally, didn't give a bullet to supply us. No question about the resources,the british empire had an huge unlimited amount of raw materials.
@ItaloGallese Easy to speak now,but the facts were complicate.Italy couldn't avoid the war because on one side there were Britain and France that aimed to obstacle its colonial expansion, on the other side there was a powerful Germany that could be a threat if it became an enemy.So the choices had to be very quick and maybe irrational,the war couldn't be planned as due.But any european country, except Germany,was concretely unprepared, but many of them were saved from the americans and russians.
@ItaloGallese Easy to speak now,but the facts were complicate.Italy couldn't avoid the war because on one side there were Britain and France that aimed to obstacle its colonial expansion, on the other side there was a powerful Germany that could be a threat if it became an enemy.So the choices had to be very quick and maybe irrational,the war couldn't be planned as due.But any european country, except Germany,was concretely unprepared, but many of them were saved from the americans and russians.
@martynrobin121 the BEF encounterd German troops in belgium it retreated rejecting French orderes to fight on the river Seine to support the French first army. (despite being under french command).
the BEF sustained 500 casulties in the first 11 days of the campaign.
they left the bulk of the fighting to the belgiuns and French rejecting 5 orders to counterattack.
Churhill promised the French that out troops would be used a rearguard...but no such orders were given.
@martynrobin121 . Uk and France outnumbered the germans and despite all they lost. The only good thing the BEF could do was to fight to reach Dunkirk to across the channel to run away. French and british were deeply unprepared for the WW2, but Britain unlike France could resist due to the fact that it is an isle and could not be easily invaded. During the battle of Britain many foreign squadrons even supported the british to face the axis airforce. All that initially saved the british.
The Germans had total Air-Power, The Numbers on the ground were very much equal. Due to French error at the Ardennes 1940, The Allies were trapped and every attempt to breakout & counter-attack ended in disaster. Operation Dynamo was vital to save the BEF & French Forces from certain defeat.
It was impossible for the Axis to even attempt any invasion of Britain. The British were always safe from any possible invasion.
@martynrobin121 You can twist the argument, but the truth was that Britain without the channel and the allies would have been invaded and subdued like it happened to half Europe.
@SUPERITALIANPOWER What a load of bullshit, The British were prepared to fight for every beach,hill,house,street and as Churchill said "No surrender NEVER" The British were lions, "IF" The British did not make the foolish mistake to send Armies to protect 1/4 of the world, They could have put their entire Army on 1 front and the Germans & Axis would have been crushed, However the British had too many fronts it was logistic nightmare, However they won RULE BRITANNIA!!
@martynrobin121 You seem to have absorbed a stereotypical romaticised view paradying the Boys Own comics of the post war period!. Without the channel Britain would have been defeated though that is not an inherent indication of weakness....as Britain was a NAVAL power. Dunkirk was a successful evacuation after failure. (The failure was largely French as they were the land power).
It is true that Britain withheld airpower and the French made strenuous efots to persuade the UK to use it.
@ItaloGallese Without the Channel Britain would have been defeated? Very funny. You honestly do not know how lucky Germany-Italy got in France 1940.
The British would have fought for every beach,house,hill,street and would never surrender from every man women & children, Churchill gave his orders and we had to do our duty. Always Britain sent hundred of Aicraft that put Britain in huge danger just research, Only after Dynamo did Britain refuse to send more.
@martynrobin121 The british already ran away from Dunkirk, they hadn't the resources to face the axis on the ground. Just in case, only the whole global Commonwealth forces could make opposition for a while, if they had been gathered all there. So only the channel prevented the invasion of Britain and then the foreign squadrons supported the british during the Battle of Britain.
@martynrobin121 It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice.
Britain was BANKRUPT in 1941.......the US financial assistance saved us.
@martynrobin121 It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice.
Britain was BANKRUPT in 1941.......the US financial assistance saved us.
@martynrobin121 It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice
It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice
@martynrobin121 The BRITONS themselves were an obsolete and unprepared military during the WW2 and neither were a military superpower in any previous major war. Their luck was always the colonial support and the western alliances for centuries. Their former indipendent colonies like Usa saved them more times. It hadn't anything got to do with the real greatest military superpowers ever, like firstly the Roman army that ruled Europe and beyond for centuries or secondly the Napoleon's military.
You are right that it was france's fault at the ardennes- they were to blame as they were the land power.
They begged us for air support.....which was witheld.
Your perception of Britain is through rose coloured spectacles. We got away coz the French who d admittedly lost the battle formed a rearguard action. Too little-too late but it enabled us to get away. Another inconvenient fact that you ignore. Are you only reading english language sources?
@ItaloGallese France was lost after the French error at the Ardennes, The Allies were trapped and Operation Dynamo was the only option. The BEF & French were told to fight till the "Last man & round" so 150,000+ BEF and 150,000+ French could be saved to fight anouther day.
Also the British sent hundred of Aircraft and gave trade & loans,etc to France. However the Luftwaffe outnumbered the Allies 2-1 during the Battle of France 1940, Air-Power was everything BLITZREIG!
The obsolete armaments were the italian problem along all the war, because Italy spent its military during the thirties fighting victorious wars until 1939 and hadn't the time and resources to restore the army for the WW2. The italian leaderships hadn't blames, they couldn't do miracles. Graziani asked new armaments and supplies before to invade Egypt but anything was denied from Rome, so he had to stop to advance and the allies had the chance to react.
@SUPERITALIANPOWER yes and no.....it was a combination of equipment and leadership. Graziani could have done better but as said by jdewitt77 below.....the British simply moved attacking isolated settlements one by one.
@ItaloGallese The italian advance towards Egypt was preponderant compared to the british forces, only the lack of armaments turned up side down the final outcome. If Graziani hadn't had to stop the advance because of lack of means, the british would have never had any hope and maybe the consequent war theatre in north Africa would have been very different.
still the British where outnumberd more than 6-1, even though the Italians did have inferior equipment a good general could have easily used superior numbers to win. More so i think the victory was mainly because of the rather poor leadership of the Italian army and the brilliant leadership of the British ones. Mussolini should have invested in better Italian generals.
@Godzilla52 What a general can do if there aren't proper tanks, cannons, supplies or even water and food for the soldiers in the middle of a desert? Instead the british, american and german generals during the WW2 had a simplier duty, they had anything available and so could apply any tactic and idea.
Individually Italian soldier were courageous and skilled, but as an army they were rather "humorous" soldiers. They could gas Ethiopians but against a real , modern, army they were quite impotent.
@nomadnametab I would also say that on a large part it was because of the British leadership for the battle as well. The British Field Marshall and Generals present were all seasoned commanders who had seen their fair share of combat in previous wars.
@nomadnametab Humourous??. Why....because propaganda at the time cleverely and effectively depicted them as bumbling buffons or cowards in order to build morale after the Wermachts successes in the Nordic nations and France. Wery good for the time...BUT really not a serious standpoint 70 years later when discussing history with serious education.
Its called a propaganda reel for a reason. Operation Compass was not 1 battle, but rather a series of battles over 2 months that spread out over 500 kms. At no stage during this operation were the Italians able to confront the British with their full strength of 150,000. Rather the British were able to pick off the immobile Italian forces at chunks at a time as they were spread out over the 500 Kms of coastal Libya , with each chunk ranging from 5,000 to 45,000 troops. Nice bit of Propaganda.
It can happen to any country. The British outnumbered the Japanese 3 to 1 at Singapore and were not spread out like the Italians in North Africa, and were still decisively defeated by the Japanese.
The difference being that the troops in Singapore were ORDERED to surrender before the battle had even got properly under way. Same thing happened to the Americans.
The Italians had been beaten systematically and in detail. They fought bravely, especially the artillery but their deficiencies in armour and motorisation made them easily exploitable. Graziani's attack into Egypt compromised the Italian weaknesses.
Additionally, Henry Hobart had taken great pains to make sure that the little British army of Nile was prepared for the harsh realities of the desert. Key word here being prepared. Had the 7th Armoured Division not been pulled out after the defeat of the Italians there is a good possibility they would have stopped Rommel in his tracks. Instead crack formations were fatally sent to Greece andthe far east.
@SyberSid Of course....a second world power vs a first world one with a huge empire. Bit of a mismatch!. Even when the Germans intervened the Afrika Korps was a tiny slice of the German army!
i really want to see your army.. fighting whitout food, weapons, tanks.. in the deser, whit poor equipment, whitout well defined orders, led by a man who was in command only because was fascist and not for is military ability....
But they didn't fight them all at once. The Italians were spread out andwhat
what the British did was simply concentrate against each Italian position in turn and defeating it. Keep in mind that at that time the Italian Army had no heavy antitank guns so they could not knock out the British Matilda tanks which had 80 mm of armor on the turret. Besides the British were fully mechanized while most of the Italian troops had to march on foot.
Good old reliable Bren Carrier, I used to play with the rusting hulks of two of them when I was a kid about 40 yrs ago.
carlos45703030 1 month ago
RULE BRITANNIA!!!
martynrobin121 2 months ago
@martynrobin121 Rule britannia what? If there hadn't been the allies' support from anywhere in the world, the british would have never had any hope. When they were caught alone somewhere like in Dunkirk, Berbera or supporting the greeks in Greece, they ran away or lost the cause.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@SUPERITALIANPOWER France 1940, 13 BEF Divisions against 150+ German, Dunkirk was a success, The BEF was saved from certain defeat to fight anoutherday. Greece, 50,000 British troops helped hold the Axis for months. Remember the British Forces had 1/4 of the entire planet to protect, They were over extended and on too many fronts, The Axis were able to attack with their entire Armies, Where as Britain had to send Divisions around the world and were outnumbered,(Logistics!
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 In Dunkirk the british ran away through the channel because they coudn't hold the germans despite they had also the french support. In Berbera they ran away when the italians invaded the Somaliland. In Greece they lost. When the british had the empire, the Commonwealth colonial troops supported the british, not the opposite. That happened also during the WW2 and was crucial, the real turning point. The axis fought at least on three fronts : atlantic, russian and african ones.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@SUPERITALIANPOWER Well they were strong to come back from defeats. After Singapore and Dunkirk they were able to rebuild. But we must bear in mind TWO points.
1. that they were a first world power with a huge empire......whereas Italy was a second world power. Totally different wealth, resources and industrial output.
2. Britain was baled out financially by the US in 1941- Britain would have had to sue for peace if the money had not been given. Despite all the propaganda - thats the truth.
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese Not exactly, the british were just able to find right allies and supplies after the first defeats: the Commonwealth colonial forces debarked in Africa, the americans sent supplies, money and their military to Europe and Asia and so forth. Italy instead fought just with its means that were few after the wars won during the thirties. Germany, like ally, didn't give a bullet to supply us. No question about the resources,the british empire had an huge unlimited amount of raw materials.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@SUPERITALIANPOWER YES...NO DISAGREEMENT. Some Italian leadership was incompetent...particulalry Il duce.
40% merchant navy impounded in first three days of war because hadnt been informed
No attack on Malta immediately on decleration of war (would have been taken had they...)
Division of forces to Russia when material was desperate in North Africa.
Still a mismatch though.......huge advantage for the British empire
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese Easy to speak now,but the facts were complicate.Italy couldn't avoid the war because on one side there were Britain and France that aimed to obstacle its colonial expansion, on the other side there was a powerful Germany that could be a threat if it became an enemy.So the choices had to be very quick and maybe irrational,the war couldn't be planned as due.But any european country, except Germany,was concretely unprepared, but many of them were saved from the americans and russians.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese Easy to speak now,but the facts were complicate.Italy couldn't avoid the war because on one side there were Britain and France that aimed to obstacle its colonial expansion, on the other side there was a powerful Germany that could be a threat if it became an enemy.So the choices had to be very quick and maybe irrational,the war couldn't be planned as due.But any european country, except Germany,was concretely unprepared, but many of them were saved from the americans and russians.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 the BEF encounterd German troops in belgium it retreated rejecting French orderes to fight on the river Seine to support the French first army. (despite being under french command).
the BEF sustained 500 casulties in the first 11 days of the campaign.
they left the bulk of the fighting to the belgiuns and French rejecting 5 orders to counterattack.
Churhill promised the French that out troops would be used a rearguard...but no such orders were given.
Armageddon- Clive Ponting
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese Typical Internet Idiot.
The French error at the Ardennes 1940, Cost the Allies to be trapped.
The French even told Churchill, "The Battle is over, France has fallen"
Churchill gave orders for Operation Dynamo, France was incapable.
The BEF had 13 Divisons, The Germans had over 150+ Divisions. The Luftwaffe had total Air-Power, And even Italy invades the South.
The French Counter-attacked with no Air-support, It was a route.
British orders-Fight till last man round
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 . Uk and France outnumbered the germans and despite all they lost. The only good thing the BEF could do was to fight to reach Dunkirk to across the channel to run away. French and british were deeply unprepared for the WW2, but Britain unlike France could resist due to the fact that it is an isle and could not be easily invaded. During the battle of Britain many foreign squadrons even supported the british to face the axis airforce. All that initially saved the british.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@SUPERITALIANPOWER That is false.
The Germans had total Air-Power, The Numbers on the ground were very much equal. Due to French error at the Ardennes 1940, The Allies were trapped and every attempt to breakout & counter-attack ended in disaster. Operation Dynamo was vital to save the BEF & French Forces from certain defeat.
It was impossible for the Axis to even attempt any invasion of Britain. The British were always safe from any possible invasion.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 You can twist the argument, but the truth was that Britain without the channel and the allies would have been invaded and subdued like it happened to half Europe.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
@SUPERITALIANPOWER What a load of bullshit, The British were prepared to fight for every beach,hill,house,street and as Churchill said "No surrender NEVER" The British were lions, "IF" The British did not make the foolish mistake to send Armies to protect 1/4 of the world, They could have put their entire Army on 1 front and the Germans & Axis would have been crushed, However the British had too many fronts it was logistic nightmare, However they won RULE BRITANNIA!!
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 You seem to have absorbed a stereotypical romaticised view paradying the Boys Own comics of the post war period!. Without the channel Britain would have been defeated though that is not an inherent indication of weakness....as Britain was a NAVAL power. Dunkirk was a successful evacuation after failure. (The failure was largely French as they were the land power).
It is true that Britain withheld airpower and the French made strenuous efots to persuade the UK to use it.
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese Without the Channel Britain would have been defeated? Very funny. You honestly do not know how lucky Germany-Italy got in France 1940.
The British would have fought for every beach,house,hill,street and would never surrender from every man women & children, Churchill gave his orders and we had to do our duty. Always Britain sent hundred of Aicraft that put Britain in huge danger just research, Only after Dynamo did Britain refuse to send more.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 The british already ran away from Dunkirk, they hadn't the resources to face the axis on the ground. Just in case, only the whole global Commonwealth forces could make opposition for a while, if they had been gathered all there. So only the channel prevented the invasion of Britain and then the foreign squadrons supported the british during the Battle of Britain.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 week ago
@martynrobin121 It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice.
Britain was BANKRUPT in 1941.......the US financial assistance saved us.
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martynrobin121 It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice.
Britain was BANKRUPT in 1941.......the US financial assistance saved us.
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was a gamble on Churhills part....he was wise enough to know that the UK could hold out for a while as itwas an island protected by a strong navy. We were in effect able to defend ourselves in the short term but unable to defeat germany unless the US came in. he gambled on this happenening and made the correct choice
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 The BRITONS themselves were an obsolete and unprepared military during the WW2 and neither were a military superpower in any previous major war. Their luck was always the colonial support and the western alliances for centuries. Their former indipendent colonies like Usa saved them more times. It hadn't anything got to do with the real greatest military superpowers ever, like firstly the Roman army that ruled Europe and beyond for centuries or secondly the Napoleon's military.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 week ago
@martynrobin121 Im not a classic net nerd.
You are right that it was france's fault at the ardennes- they were to blame as they were the land power.
They begged us for air support.....which was witheld.
Your perception of Britain is through rose coloured spectacles. We got away coz the French who d admittedly lost the battle formed a rearguard action. Too little-too late but it enabled us to get away. Another inconvenient fact that you ignore. Are you only reading english language sources?
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese France was lost after the French error at the Ardennes, The Allies were trapped and Operation Dynamo was the only option. The BEF & French were told to fight till the "Last man & round" so 150,000+ BEF and 150,000+ French could be saved to fight anouther day.
Also the British sent hundred of Aircraft and gave trade & loans,etc to France. However the Luftwaffe outnumbered the Allies 2-1 during the Battle of France 1940, Air-Power was everything BLITZREIG!
martynrobin121 1 month ago
No cóż ból jak zawsze zorientowany
gryziindor 3 months ago
The obsolete armaments were the italian problem along all the war, because Italy spent its military during the thirties fighting victorious wars until 1939 and hadn't the time and resources to restore the army for the WW2. The italian leaderships hadn't blames, they couldn't do miracles. Graziani asked new armaments and supplies before to invade Egypt but anything was denied from Rome, so he had to stop to advance and the allies had the chance to react.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 10 months ago
@SUPERITALIANPOWER yes and no.....it was a combination of equipment and leadership. Graziani could have done better but as said by jdewitt77 below.....the British simply moved attacking isolated settlements one by one.
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@ItaloGallese The italian advance towards Egypt was preponderant compared to the british forces, only the lack of armaments turned up side down the final outcome. If Graziani hadn't had to stop the advance because of lack of means, the british would have never had any hope and maybe the consequent war theatre in north Africa would have been very different.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
still the British where outnumberd more than 6-1, even though the Italians did have inferior equipment a good general could have easily used superior numbers to win. More so i think the victory was mainly because of the rather poor leadership of the Italian army and the brilliant leadership of the British ones. Mussolini should have invested in better Italian generals.
Godzilla52 11 months ago
@Godzilla52 What a general can do if there aren't proper tanks, cannons, supplies or even water and food for the soldiers in the middle of a desert? Instead the british, american and german generals during the WW2 had a simplier duty, they had anything available and so could apply any tactic and idea.
SUPERITALIANPOWER 1 month ago
Individually Italian soldier were courageous and skilled, but as an army they were rather "humorous" soldiers. They could gas Ethiopians but against a real , modern, army they were quite impotent.
nomadnametab 2 years ago
@nomadnametab I would also say that on a large part it was because of the British leadership for the battle as well. The British Field Marshall and Generals present were all seasoned commanders who had seen their fair share of combat in previous wars.
Godzilla52 11 months ago
@nomadnametab Humourous??. Why....because propaganda at the time cleverely and effectively depicted them as bumbling buffons or cowards in order to build morale after the Wermachts successes in the Nordic nations and France. Wery good for the time...BUT really not a serious standpoint 70 years later when discussing history with serious education.
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
Its called a propaganda reel for a reason. Operation Compass was not 1 battle, but rather a series of battles over 2 months that spread out over 500 kms. At no stage during this operation were the Italians able to confront the British with their full strength of 150,000. Rather the British were able to pick off the immobile Italian forces at chunks at a time as they were spread out over the 500 Kms of coastal Libya , with each chunk ranging from 5,000 to 45,000 troops. Nice bit of Propaganda.
ElioChara1 2 years ago
Still doesn't change the fact that a relatively small army decisively defeated another that was 5 times larger.
SyberSid 2 years ago
It can happen to any country. The British outnumbered the Japanese 3 to 1 at Singapore and were not spread out like the Italians in North Africa, and were still decisively defeated by the Japanese.
ElioChara1 2 years ago
The difference being that the troops in Singapore were ORDERED to surrender before the battle had even got properly under way. Same thing happened to the Americans.
Talbot6832 2 years ago
The Italians had been beaten systematically and in detail. They fought bravely, especially the artillery but their deficiencies in armour and motorisation made them easily exploitable. Graziani's attack into Egypt compromised the Italian weaknesses.
Talbot6832 2 years ago 2
Not to mention the fact that over 25,000 Indian troops deserted and defected to the Japanese.
Isn't it funny that when a Commonwealth/Empire force is victorious they're the "Allies", but when they're defeated they're "British?
beastatlay 2 years ago 2
Additionally, Henry Hobart had taken great pains to make sure that the little British army of Nile was prepared for the harsh realities of the desert. Key word here being prepared. Had the 7th Armoured Division not been pulled out after the defeat of the Italians there is a good possibility they would have stopped Rommel in his tracks. Instead crack formations were fatally sent to Greece andthe far east.
Talbot6832 2 years ago
@SyberSid Do you know any information the ratio of British to Commonwealth troops?
UKOGBN 1 year ago
@UKOGBN
Google "operation compass" order of battle. The top link should be to a site called historyofwar.
SyberSid 1 year ago
@UKOGBN North Africa in 1941- Indian, NZ, S. african troops made up 2/3 of the British troops. British contribution was less than S. Africas!.
In 1945 British trops made up 13% of Allied troops in SE Asia.
Armadeddon- the reality behind the distortions, myths, lies and illusions of WW2 (Clive Ponting)
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
@SyberSid Of course....a second world power vs a first world one with a huge empire. Bit of a mismatch!. Even when the Germans intervened the Afrika Korps was a tiny slice of the German army!
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
130,000 Italians captured for the loss of only 500 men. Prisoners were measured by the acre.
beastatlay 2 years ago
haha italian pussy army
Perversus666 2 years ago
i really want to see your army.. fighting whitout food, weapons, tanks.. in the deser, whit poor equipment, whitout well defined orders, led by a man who was in command only because was fascist and not for is military ability....
JackSEWing 2 years ago
But they didn't fight them all at once. The Italians were spread out andwhat
what the British did was simply concentrate against each Italian position in turn and defeating it. Keep in mind that at that time the Italian Army had no heavy antitank guns so they could not knock out the British Matilda tanks which had 80 mm of armor on the turret. Besides the British were fully mechanized while most of the Italian troops had to march on foot.
jdewitt77 1 year ago
@JackSEWing Simple sense! Thank you......
ItaloGallese 1 month ago
What a great victory!
LordGeorgeRodney 2 years ago