Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The worst armies in history

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9101112>
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The worst armies in history
    Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 11:26
Hello tou you all
 
After rereading my sources I agree that the Turks generally had more troops in 18th century wars with Russia but I am still with my point that the Turks were both outgunned and outnumbered in 19th century wars in addition to losing far more land to Russia during the 19th century than in the 18th.
 
In the 1787-1792 war, Russia took only the Crimea, which was under Ottoman vassalage no direct rule, as well as the nothern plains of Ukrine which belonged to the Cossacks were formally annexed. The Dniester was the European boundry as well as the Kuban river (near today's Krasnodor in the Upper caucasus) which meant that only Odessa was lost according the treaty of Jassy (signed on Jan 1792). In the subsequent war in the 19th century gave Russia direct control on Bessarabia and Moldova as well as all the caucasus (including parts of current day turkey for a long time) as well as independence for Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 12:50
Dear Al Jassas,
 
Turkey lost to Russia in the 18th century southern ukraine, Crimea (the cities were mainly inhabited by the Turks). and the whole region of the north caucasus and north eastern shore of the black sea.  These territories were larger then eastern georgia, kars and bessarabia which Turkey  lost to Russia in the 19th century.
 
Concerning the wars of the 19th century, there were 4 wars. War of 1806-1812-Turks outnumbered Russians in most of the battles, 1828-29 Turks again outnumbered Russians in most of the Battles, Crimean war 1853-1856-I can't call this war strictly "Russian-Turkish war," because there were many nations participated on the Turkish side, but generally speaking Allied troops again outnumbered the Russian troops they faced. War of 1877-78-yes, this is the only war where Russian forces clearly had numerical superiority over Turks.
 
But I want to add that I don't think Turkish army "sucked" in these wars. Turkish army was strong and soldiers were famous for their bravery, the thing one should keep in mind, that the Russian army was one of the most powerful in Europe at that time.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 01-Sep-2007 at 15:52
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 14:24

Hello Sarmat12

If you return to maps as well as the Jassy treaty, you will find that the Asiatic front did not change in the 1787-1792 war and here is a link:
Turkey only lost part of Moldova and southern Ukraine and here after war map links:
 
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Ottoman.jpg in 1798 although there are some inaccuracies.
 
As for outnumbering, in the 1806-1811 war, the Turks were fighting Serbian and Greek rebellions, the Russian had 80 000 men in the Balkan front without counting the volunteers while the Turks had only 60 000.
In the 1828-29 war, the Russians also had the help of Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbians as well as the Greeks who were still warring with the Turks and entered the War intially with near 100 000 men. Wiki says the Turks had 150 000 men but it is a huge exageration, the Jannisaries had already been purged (1826) and the new army was yet to be completey built (it was only 30 000 men by the start of the war) so it had to rely on irregulars who gave about 30 000 more.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 15:08
Dear Al-Jassas,
 
I didn't mean only Jass peace treaty. But I have to say that Crimean Khanate was quite a large state with huge possessions on the Northern Caucasus. Russia also had obtained territorial gains from Turkey before according to Kuchuk-kanairgik peace treate.
 
Kuban river BTW is in Europe, although it doesn't relate to discussion.
 
Those territories in Southern Ukraine were also quite large and important.
 
In fact Russia in 1806-1812 was preocupied with the wars with Napoleon, so it apriori couldn't concentrate huge numbers against Turks and if you check particular battles data Turkish forces usually surpassed the Russian ones.
 
In 1829, again quite often the number of opposing Turkish forces was bigger in battles.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 02-Sep-2007 at 12:44
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 15:28
Originally posted by Tancrde



You are severe with Italian army of WWI


Originally posted by Mumbloid



Temujin, wow you really dont like the italians huh?


was anything of what i said wrong? Italain sucess in ww1 only came in the last months, around the time when the K.u.K. army started to collapse... coincidence, isn't it? btw i did said it was worser than the Italian army in ww2, i didn't said it was the worst, but probably it was the worst of the major powers. also i like Italians a lot, but that doesn't mean their armies were crap. everyhtign yous aid for the Alpini in the Dolomites is also true for the K.u.K. and German forces there.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 15:48
Originally posted by Tancrde



True but austrians were members of coalition, they weren't lonely and they suffered many crushing defeats.
for one victory they suffered many defeats.

at Arcis-sur Aube they were 80 000 against 28 000...
At Aspern they were 96 000 against 28 000 the first day and 90 000 against 65 000 the second day.

in 1805 their army has been destroyed in some weeks practiccaly without fight (ulm campaign)


if Napoleon gets outnumbered by the Austrians its not the fault of Austria if Napoleon is careless. i could also say the Austrian Army of Ulm was outnumbered. what does it proove? you said France had crushing defeats over Austria in teh RevWars and Austria had its allies. Ok, so despite Hohenlinden, Rivoli etc, why was Napoleon never able to take Vienna then? in 1805 and 1809 he took Vienna. but then Austria had no allies but France was allied with southern German principalities. so i ask, if those defeats were so crushing, why did Napoleon never took Vienna before 1805?

Yes it was but against weak armies


so? you can also lose against weak armies.

They won some battles but lost the war


i could say the same about France in the NapWars...


Yas and Austria lost this war in one month...


fighting on two fronts....i wonder how soon France would have surrendered in 1870 if Italians had supported Prussia gain...

In WWI when they were lonely Austrian practiccaly never won
they won when germans helped them and in all fronts.


i could say the same about France and italy in ww1. and as i said, the Danube monarchy had to fight on much more fronts than any other country. Germans alone didn't helped the K.u.K. army win. it is true germany helped the Habsburg monarchy and Ottomans on all fronts, but that doesn't mean the K.u.K. and Ottoman army did nothing, German contribution to all those fronts was rather minimal.

battle of Cer : Austrian 200 000 against 180 000 Serbian,
Austrian lost

battle of Kolubara : Austrians 280 000 against 250 000 Serbian
Austrian lost.

battle Battle of Mojkovac : Austrians 20 000 against 6 500 Montenegrins
Austrian lost


as i can see, Serbians never managed to invade Austria-Hungary even though they had initially superiority in numbers and despite winning some battles. eventually Serbia and Montenegro was conquered, thats a fact.


Edited by Temujin - 01-Sep-2007 at 15:50
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 04:07
Originally posted by Al Jassas

 
 
In the Turkish Italian war of 1911, the turks and the Arab tribes defeated the italians in several battles (in the battle of Tobruk lead by Ataturk 200 Arabs and turks defeated 2000 Italians), In that war the Italians gathered 100 000 men and their entire fleet against 4000 turks and 20000 militia and despite outgunning and outnumbering the Turks (who had other things to worry about) the Italians faced stiff resistance. The first Balkan war on the other hand was a complete disaster, everything was there in front of the turkish command but no action was taken because the commanders were busy conspiring against each other rather than the common enemy.
 
Al-Jassas 
 
 
 
I don't know what  you mean by "several" ... Please note that:
1. lots of so called "battles" in Libya were little more than skirmishes,
2. that Italian Navy defeated almost every time Turkish Navy in Aegean Sea and in Red Sea 
3. that (as Englisch Wikipedia says): "The Italian -Turkish war of 1911-1912 was the first in history in which air attacks (carried out here by dirigible airships) determined the outcome":
 
Image:Zeplin%20orta.jpg
Italian dirigibles bomb Turkish positions on Libyan Territory
 
4. When war ended (not a "big" war for sure Smile) Italians had 3,380 dead 4,220 wounded and Turks 14,000 dead 5,370 wounded.
 
5. In the aftermath of the war Italy gained from Turkey Libya, Dodecanese and Rhodes.
 
 


Edited by Leonardo - 02-Sep-2007 at 04:16
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 12:11
Hello to you all
 
Well, Sarmat, after returning to the maps I found that the region below the Kuban (which by then considered part of Asia) was still considerable in size since the entire Abkhaz region as well as the steppe above it in the present day Cherkessia, adygea and the lower half of Krasnodar was still under Ottoman rule and that is a considerable area. One of the repercussions of this treaty, which was a remnant of the 1784 treaty, was the complete Islamization of the peoples of these places (except the Alans).
 
As for our friend leonardo, well, this thread is about the worst armies and I already made it clear in several posts. About the defeats of the Italo-Turkish wars that the Italinas suffered,well, in addition to the first battle, Benghazi repulsed attacks by the Italians. Then they were defeated near Tripoly on Oct 23 1911 by Arabs who only had Winchesters and Martinis. After the defeat, 100 000 more men were sent and the "walk" turned into a bitter 13 month war that only ended when the Balkan Holy league attacked the Ottomans forcing them to abandon any thought of regaining Libya. As for the Turkish navy, the turks ceased to have a real one since Navarino or even before.
By the way, why aren't any of our turkish friends comment about the issue?
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
 
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 12:57
Originally posted by Al Jassas

 
As for our friend leonardo, well, this thread is about the worst armies and I already made it clear in several posts. About the defeats of the Italo-Turkish wars that the Italinas suffered,well, in addition to the first battle, Benghazi repulsed attacks by the Italians. Then they were defeated near Tripoly on Oct 23 1911 by Arabs who only had Winchesters and Martinis. After the defeat, 100 000 more men were sent and the "walk" turned into a bitter 13 month war that only ended when the Balkan Holy league attacked the Ottomans forcing them to abandon any thought of regaining Libya. As for the Turkish navy, the turks ceased to have a real one since Navarino or even before.
By the way, why aren't any of our turkish friends comment about the issue?
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
 
 
 
It seems to me you didn't read with due attention my preceding post. For your benefit I repeat some points:
 
1. The war on the Libyan soil was little more than a series of skirmishes. The proof of this, if you are not convinced, is in the littlle number of the deads ( < 18.000) for the two parts.
 
2. Even considering the not huge number of deads in the war, the Turks had more than 4 times deads than the Italians: 14,000 versus 3,380.
 
3. Italy won the war and gained lots of territories from Ottoman Empire (or from Turkey, as you prefer).
 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 15:02
Remember Leonardo, most of the dead cited by Wikipedia (whcih is not a serious source) were either Arab irregulars allied with the turks that were executed after the Italians formally annexed Libya almost a year before the war ended and  the conquest completed (it wasn't completed until the summer of 1912) or were civilians who lost life during the bombardment of costal cities as well as Islands. If the fighting was just a skirmish then why the hell did Italy raise the number of its soldiers from 20 000 men (the invading force) to over 100 000 men after the successful counterattack of Oct 23 1911. The turks never had more than 1 regular division in the war.
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 21:24
Originally posted by Leonardo

 
 
I don't know what  you mean by "several" ... Please note that:
1. lots of so called "battles" in Libya were little more than skirmishes,
2. that Italian Navy defeated almost every time Turkish Navy in Aegean Sea and in Red Sea 
3. that (as Englisch Wikipedia says): "The Italian -Turkish war of 1911-1912 was the first in history in which air attacks (carried out here by dirigible airships) determined the outcome":
 
Italian dirigibles bomb Turkish positions on Libyan Territory
 
4. When war ended (not a "big" war for sure Smile) Italians had 3,380 dead 4,220 wounded and Turks 14,000 dead 5,370 wounded.
 
5. In the aftermath of the war Italy gained from Turkey Libya, Dodecanese and Rhodes.
 
 
 
True that it was not a huge war and not really more than "skirmishes" overall.
 
However;
 
1- The Italian Navy's supremacy against Turkish navy shall not really be a surprise. Turkish Navy was once better-equipped during the time of Abdulaziz, however it lost all its effectivity as Abdulhamid II did not make ANY investments to the navy.
 
In any case, there was no significant Ottoman naval power to stop any Italian assault or supremacy. Even if there were some navy to block or at least slow down the things, Ottoman navy was on the Aegean Sea when the war began.
 
Italy was closer to Libya than Ottoman Empire(keep in mind that Egypt was under British control, and they were in favor of Italy getting Libya). Italy was able to bring in supplies easily, while Libya was a real distant supply area for the Ottoman Empire and all the seas around was blockaded.
 
Though, Turkish navy retreated inside the Straits to Marmara Sea and never showed up against the Italian navy. Actually they never showed up because they were overpowered. Italian navy attempted to move towards the straits, though backed up under heavy coastal artillery fire. After this, they were free to run over Dodecanese as there wasn't any naval challenge.
 
All the damage Italian have given was sinking 7 gambots in Port of Confide by getting the intelligence from Idris-i Sanusi that they arrived there, and 1 corvete and 1 torpedo boat sunk in Admiral Thaon di Revel's strike to originally open free port of Beirut.
 
2- Italian gain of Dodecanese Islands was only agreed as a temporary gain in Treaty of Ouchy. However Italians just kept the control and after the WW I, it became a permament gain; for a while.
 
3- Despite the gains at the end, in terms of military warfare in the land(not in the seas, where Italians definitely got a decisive victory) I don't think this 13-month war was a victory for Italy. Italian army never managed to pass beyond the artillery fire range of their ships. A lot of inaccurate shots were made to the land by the navy and some of them even didn't explode and they were used by Ottoman forces(which included a lot of people from local tribes, organized by Ottoman officers) as their source for ammonution. That was how they were able to keep up with their limited ammo supply. No help was coming from Ottoman mainland to them. And Ottomans stood still in land against Italian forces, which really hardly showed any progress. The only reason Ottoman Empire eventually gave up and signed the Treaty of Ouchy was the beginning of the Balkan Wars. Otherwise, I believe that war would have gone on since the Ottoman troops were totally out of ammo. But thanks to Italian navy sending a lot of them into the mainland from the ships without accuracy and explosion, the source was created 
 
4- Your casualty figures are Wikipedia figures. They might be true, however I assume this 14,000 figure for Ottomans include civilian losses. Because the number of Ottoman garrison and officers was really small.
 
5- Also true that this war has brought a lot of new stuff into military aviation. It was the first war in world where air bombardment and air reconnaissance(photographing) was used and first military airplane was shot down.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 21:31
Originally posted by Tancrde

 


Yes after turkish defeat against Russia...so after the war.....
 
 
Official date of annexation is 1908, to be exactly correct


Originally posted by Tancrede




battle of Cer : Austrian 200 000 against 180 000 Serbian,
Austrian lost

battle of Kolubara : Austrians 280 000 against 250 000 Serbian
Austrian lost.

battle Battle of Mojkovac : Austrians 20 000 against 6 500 Montenegrins
Austrian lost

 
Do not forget that the defending side always has the upperhand sitting down at their positions and waiting for other army's positioning and strike. Due to concentration of armies to Russian front, it was impossible for Austria-Hungary to overrun Serbia so easily. After Italy joined, it was even more impossible, but only German aid and Bulgarian intervention made it possible. Though, I believe Austro-Hungarian war effort was quite great in 1915. They fought in 3 fronts and managed to keep tight in all.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Slick View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 93
  Quote Slick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 23:51
I'd say the Spanish army in Cuba during the Spanish/American war was pretty bad.
"Dai Ichi Dai Man Dai Kichi"
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 00:16

The tragic point on that is that the Spanish inventor Isaac Peral  presented the most advanced submarine of the time to the Spanish crown. It carried modern torpedos and was ahead its time. It passed the test but was not put into production. I wonder what would had happened if the spanish navy had pushed ahead the project.

Isaac Peral (Cartagena, June 1, 1851 May 22, 1895, Berlin), was a Spanish scientist, sailor and inventor of the Peral Submarine (built 1884, launched 1888). Intended for military use, this submarine pioneered new designs in the hull, control systems and air systems, proving a success in two years of trials. Its proven ability to fire torpedoes under water and maintain full propulsive power and control underwater has led it to being described by some as the first U-boat.

 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 11:58
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Mumbloid



Temujin, wow you really dont like the italians huh?


was anything of what i said wrong? Italain sucess in ww1 only came in the last months, around the time when the K.u.K. army started to collapse... coincidence, isn't it? btw i did said it was worser than the Italian army in ww2, i didn't said it was the worst, but probably it was the worst of the major powers. also i like Italians a lot, but that doesn't mean their armies were crap. everyhtign yous aid for the Alpini in the Dolomites is also true for the K.u.K. and German forces there.
 
First, let me say, the post you are answering to, is not mine but my elder brother, who were surfing on the web with MINE computer. I told him to open his own account if he want to partecipate on this forum (as you can see my English is not so good as my brother Martin.)
 
But enough of this, back to the topik.
 
Temujin, what you said wrong was the statement the italian army in WWI were worser than the WWII army. Witch is not true.
 
In WWII the Italians hardly did any progress alone, witch was not true in WWI. In the great war, the italians even managed to send contingent to France and Macedonia, a guarrison in Libanon and a contingent (a brigade) was in training for the invasion of Turkey .
 
In WWII the italians got defeated virtually everywere, in WWI they got a heavy smack, but they got back to their feet and knocked down the Austrians with a heavy blow first at mount Grappa and then at Vittorio Veneto (and before Caporetto, they got even a minor victory at the gorizia line, something unthinkable in WWII).
 
The Austrians (the so powerfull Austrian army) was forced to ask aid to the Germans to fight the italians. So I can postulate the royal italian army in WWI was not THAT underdog as somebody wants us to belive.
 
 
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 13:47
it seems you all not understand. the K.u.K. Wehrmacht (as it was called officially) fought on three fronts, and Italy fought on only one significant front. Italian occupied Albania was conquered for 2/3 by Austria-Hungary. and Italians on land and sea were onyl sucessfull in the last months of the year, which coincides with the collapse of the K.u.K. Wehrmacht...before that, Italy made no significant progress whatsoever and in the end it was helped by Americans. if you think its a great point to make by saying Italians send around their troops everywhere, well thats nothing special. the Danube Monarchy had a cruiser in the German port Qingdao and had send the Ottomans an Orient Korps in the form of artillery batteries, despite being hard pressed on THREE fronts.
and if we compare the achievements of both armies, then we have for ww1 Italy:
- years of stalemate, then some small land gains in south Tyrolia
- conquering, then losing, most of Albania
- Senussi movement in Lybia, but mostly put down by Britain

but for ww2 italy:
- conquering AND keeping Albania (they have already won the contest)
- conquering then losing French Alpes
- attacking then losing against Egypt
- (with German help) initially sucessfully invading Egypt but ultimately forced to retreat
- attacking then losing against Yugoslavia
- attacking then losing against Greece, being invaded by Greece in Albania but eventually conquering both countries with help of Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria
- losing both major African colonies after stiff ressistance

as you can see, the list and achievemnts for ww2 Italy is much longer, thus ww2 Italy was better than ww1 Italy.
Back to Top
Mumbloid View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Mumbloid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2007 at 16:14
Originally posted by Temujin

it seems you all not understand. the K.u.K. Wehrmacht (as it was called officially) fought on three fronts, and Italy fought on only one significant front.
 
and it seems to me you keep not understanding that the Alpine front was one of toughest front of the great war. Even the Austrian was unable to keep the stalemate and needed German help to win.
 
 
Italian occupied Albania was conquered for 2/3 by Austria-Hungary. 
 
Albania was a secundary front, the enemy was at the italian border, and that was the hotspot for italy.
 
and Italians on land and sea were onyl sucessfull in the last months of the year, which coincides with the collapse of the K.u.K. Wehrmacht...before that, Italy made no significant progress whatsoever
 
No after Caporetto, the AustrioGerman didn made any serious progress. After the retreat at the Piave front, the German advance halted...and then they were pushed back (home).
 
 and in the end it was helped by Americans.
 
economically, not military....they only started to fight the last day of war.
 
 if you think its a great point to make by saying Italians send around their troops everywhere, well thats nothing special.
 
It was, when somebody claims the italian army in WWI sucked so badly. The espeditionary corps, did a good performance everywere were they ended.
 Just look at the Italian forces in Macedonia, well equiped, with early trucks and modern weapon, in contrast to the forces of WWII equiped manly with mules!!!!
 
and if we compare the achievements of both armies, then we have for ww1 Italy:
- years of stalemate, then some small land gains in south Tyrolia
 
after tough battles against two (that time) superpowers. (Ok Austria was weak, but it still had much more economic, industrial and military power than Italy).
 

- conquering, then losing, most of Albania
 
secundary front, the enemy was at the gate to home. What teater do you think was priorited?
 

- Senussi movement in Lybia, but mostly put down by Britain
 
stilla  secundary front, the Italians dealed with them later.


but for ww2 italy:
 
 
- conquering AND keeping Albania (they have already won the contest)
 
that was before WWII.
 

- conquering then losing French Alpes
 
No, they conquered only few small forts and a coastal location (Menton) after heavy losses. IMO that's not a archivement. Not even close to what they managed to do in WWI.
 

- attacking then losing against Egypt
 
yep, and keep that in mind...10 division destroyed by a few of British.
 

- (with German help) initially sucessfully invading Egypt but ultimately forced to retreat
- attacking then losing against Yugoslavia
- attacking then losing against Greece, being invaded by Greece in Albania but eventually conquering both countries with help of Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria
 
so since Italians managed to do almust everything alone in WWI we can clearly see how bad the IT army of WWII was.
 

as you can see, the list and achievemnts for ww2 Italy is much longer, thus ww2 Italy was better than ww1 Italy.
 
excuse me, but that must be your joke, the italian archivements of WWII you mention, are only utter defeats.
 
Here are the archivements of WWI
 
-Managing to fight against two superpowers (compared to italy they were) and bind they forces for a year in Italy, before defeating them once for all (the Austrogermans were never agin able to build a effective defense line on the IT. front).
 
-Managing to build a effective fighting force, including also special ops (arditi who were responsable for the slaughter of plenty austrian-german soldiers).
 
-Managin to place a effective chain of comand (gen. A. Diaz and his staff)
 
-Increasing effectively the industrial out put.
 
-Including in the italian arsenal new and innovative weapons (tanks)
 
-Increase the fleet activity (MAS operation).
 
My point is the WWI army was a much more flexible one, capable to react better in time of need, the IT army of WWII could do nothing else than watch the empire falling apart with their hands in their poket.
 
 
 
 
The future keeps the past alive.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 16:28
Originally posted by Mumbloid

 
and it seems to me you keep not understanding that the Alpine front was one of toughest front of the great war. Even the Austrian was unable to keep the stalemate and needed German help to win.


no that was not the reason, the reason why Germans fought on the Alpien frotn was the fact that the Dual Monarchies frontline was the largest of all major war participants while Italy had to cover the least frontage and never made any significant progress at all. compare that to what the Italians had to protect, all of their African colonies for example.
 
Albania was a secundary front, the enemy was at the italian border, and that was the hotspot for italy.


well of course, but you were boasting with Italy sendign expedition corps here and there and how tough the Alpine front was, here we see how K.K. forces triumphed against Italians on even grounds.
 
No after Caporetto, the AustrioGerman didn made any serious progress. After the retreat at the Piave front, the German advance halted...and then they were pushed back (home).


Caporetto was the only sucessfull major offensive of the war, Vittorio Veneto was justa  reversal of the offensives achievemnts, Italians didn't made much progress beyond the frontlines before Caporetto. and as is said before, Italy only achieved that because they heavily outnubmered the Central Powers forces and because of the general collapse of the Dual Monarchy.
 
economically, not military....they only started to fight the last day of war.


as ic an see Foch was in Italy, i think that qualifies for major help if one of France's most popular comamdner is beign sent to the Alpine front...and it says much about  the quality of the Italian command.
 
It was, when somebody claims the italian army in WWI sucked so badly. The espeditionary corps, did a good performance everywere were they ended.
 Just look at the Italian forces in Macedonia, well equiped, with early trucks and modern weapon, in contrast to the forces of WWII equiped manly with mules!!!!


thats ridiculous, even modern Alpine forces of the 21st century still have mules simply because mules are the best means of transport in mountainous terrain with bad or no infrastructure. go and try that with "early trucks"...
 
after tough battles against two (that time) superpowers. (Ok Austria was weak, but it still had much more economic, industrial and military power than Italy).


why you always try to make a point with industry? how much industry did Chinggis Khaan posses? you make it sound like Italian factories were assaulting the Austro-Hungarian factories in their trenches... Shocked in ww1 industry only becomes important when it comes to artillery and ammunitions, and neither side lacked much of it, and it was the Dual Monarchy that was not supplied throughout the war, unlike Italian factories. planes and tanks didn't played a significant role as in ww2 and artillery wasn't lacking either, so you really waste your time on me with industry.
 
secundary front, the enemy was at the gate to home. What teater do you think was priorited?


this is not about the Alpine front but quality of the Italian troops, if the Italians can't stand their ground and if Albania was not important then why did they sent their troops there in the first place??
 
that was before WWII.


yes OK but Italy was only able to invade Albania because the attention of the world was directed on Germanys effort to dissolve Czechoslovakia, and because it was virtually fought with the same armies as later on (in that context, i also want to mention the sucessfull invasion of Abissynia).
 
No, they conquered only few small forts and a coastal location (Menton) after heavy losses. IMO that's not a archivement. Not even close to what they managed to do in WWI.


no it was almost EXACTLY what they achieved in ww1, but this time they were first sucessful and then lost, in ww1 it was vice versa.
 
yep, and keep that in mind...10 division destroyed by a few of British.


yes and after this crushing defeat they were still able to push forward again (with German support) and reverse their fortune significantly for some time, which reminds one of the Soviet Army on the eastern front.
 
so since Italians managed to do almust everything alone in WWI we can clearly see how bad the IT army of WWII was.


what exactly did they do alone? holding their ground, making no progress despite numerical superiority...
 
excuse me, but that must be your joke, the italian archivements of WWII you mention, are only utter defeats.
 
Here are the archivements of WWI
 
-Managing to fight against two superpowers (compared to italy they were) and bind they forces for a year in Italy, before defeating them once for all (the Austrogermans were never agin able to build a effective defense line on the IT. front).
 
-Managing to build a effective fighting force, including also special ops (arditi who were responsable for the slaughter of plenty austrian-german soldiers).
 
-Managin to place a effective chain of comand (gen. A. Diaz and his staff)
 
-Increasing effectively the industrial out put.
 
-Including in the italian arsenal new and innovative weapons (tanks)
 
-Increase the fleet activity (MAS operation).
 
My point is the WWI army was a much more flexible one, capable to react better in time of need, the IT army of WWII could do nothing else than watch the empire falling apart with their hands in their poket. 


nonsense. Italians didn't do any of what you said. Italians never fought against two superpowers, Italy only fought Austria-Hungary, and only a section of it. ignore the Germans there, Austria could have sent those Germans on other fronts and reinforce with native troops but since those German troops were trained for mountain warfare they were sent there and not on other fronts.
Arditi were not a native invention but copy of German invented stromtrooper tactics. tanks were also not native Italian developments obviously. don't know what you're trying to say by making an effetcive chain of command. if italy didn't had an efficient chain of comamdn than thats a serious minus point for the Italian army again.
also, the increasing industrial output has nothign to do with the army, as i already said. besides during the war the German and Austro-Hungarian ports were closed for international trade, so guess where those ressources went instead...
Italians weren't able to penetrate the Austrian border (except for the 6. Isonzo) until 1918, while the Central Powers had two sucessful offensives (first only called off because of the Brusilov offensive) themselves against superior Italian numbers, and the cause of this sucess was overextention of Central Powers forces due to too far too fast advances into enemy territory.

so what do we have for ww1 Italy? an Alpine war for three years without much progress with almost all of Italies military might and a failed offensive on the Balkans, as opposed to ww2 italy, who was able to conduct invasions to 4 different countries in the same timeframe, 2 of them sucessfull with the aid of their allies.
Back to Top
Easternknight View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 18-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 109
  Quote Easternknight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Sep-2007 at 17:15

Late Joseon era military.

Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
  Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 19:36
Originally posted by pinguin

The tragic point on that is that the Spanish inventor Isaac Peral presented the most advanced submarine of the time to the Spanish crown. It carried modern torpedos and was ahead its time.It passed the test but was not put into production. I wonder what would had happened if the spanish navy had pushed ahead the project.


Isaac Peral ([COLOR=#0000ff">Cartagena[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0000ff">June 1[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0000ff">1851[/COLOR"> [COLOR=#0000ff">May 22[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0000ff">1895[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0000ff">Berlin[/COLOR">), was a Spanish scientist, sailor and inventor of the Peral [COLOR=#0000ff">Submarine[/COLOR"> (built [COLOR=#0000ff">1884[/COLOR">, launched [COLOR=#0000ff">1888[/COLOR">). Intended for military use, this submarine pioneered new designs in the hull, control systems and air systems, proving a success in two years of trials. Its proven ability to fire torpedoes under water and maintain full propulsive power and control underwater has led it to being described by some as the first [COLOR=#0000ff">U-boat[/COLOR">.









Probably the logical reason for that was Spain did not have the resources to commision the submarine project and was having trouble enough of feeding her own citizens
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9101112>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.