Yes, but don't get angry!
I wasn't trying to be
Ok, I think that the context is a little bit more complex than the one you described...
- Italy had low resources, but Japan suffered lack of resources too (oil, rubber and duralumin too. This last one was needed for modern aircrafts);
Yep, I didn't mention it since we all know that the reason Japan invaded was due to lack of resources, I didn't feel it necessary to mention it
Italy had low industries compared to Germany, UK, URSS and USA, but it can be compared to France (that had no resources problems) and moreover Japan;
Absolutely, but France should and could very easily dwarf Italy, the larger population and resources and land in Europe gives plenty of opportunity to rise above industrially, by quite a bit, over Italy
but horribly equipped (partially true).
WWI firearms, WWI guns, outdated tanks and tankettes, ANZAC troops in North Africa complimented the accuracy of Italian artillerymen but noted that their shells rarely exploded due to poor production, outdated air force, except for a couple of exceptions, outside of their navy and the occasional aircraft design, their military was massively ill prepared for the fighting over WWII, they didn't even have dedicated anti-tank guns that they designed and produced themselves, they had to use foreign equipment or their small WWI field guns as improvised. Yes they had some more modern equipment such as the FNAB-43 or the P26/40 but often times these would be rolled out too late or not enough to make a difference. Italy was a agrarian country still, they lacked the capabilities to enter the total war economy that a major needs to win and prove their strength.
Focusing on the first point for example: Italy joined the war and immediately lost access to resources (since they imported them from Allies); Japan started war with China, but can continue importing resources from USA, UK and Dutch Indies: when USA decided embargo, few months later Japan declared war to the West powers, but they got easy access to resources (conquering Dutch Indies and Philippines).
Key difference here is Japanese commanders knew war had changed, they struck fast and decisively and at many locations to give no time for the Allies to prepare. While Italy invaded into barely defended Egypt, they would dig in after a while since they expected the British to show up and dig their trench and they would reenact the Western Front of WWI all over, problem is the British and ANZAC knew it wasn't like that anymore so Italy got pushed all the way back despite outnumbering the Allied troops massively to the point of having to beg for German help. Then they got the bright idea of since they failed 2 fronts, North and East Africa, they should open a new one in Greece and we all know how that went.
The main problem Italy had is they weren't ready for war, if I recall the estimate was they wouldn't be until 1947-48. They needed time to gather and stockpile more resources, transfer more farmers to workers, train their commanders in the new warfare and other issues. I've already stated that to me Italy is a major minor or minor major, that middle ground tier between the big boys and little boys. They should be able to beat Yugoslavia but not France. Should be able to beat Greece but not Germany. However Italy has all the problems they did historically and I believe that the way Italy needs to be reworked in the future is that if you join historically around the same time that you will have problems fighting but through fighting and earning territory you'll speed up the process of being ready for total war, or you can take an alternate branch where you wait longer before jumping in, you lose out on more territory and it changes diplomatic missions but you're more ready for that first strike. It would make the player think, wait for their moment, when they believe they are ready, a risk reward system. To me the goal of Italy should be to become a major, to have Italy, bits of Southern France, the Balkans (outside of whatever Bulgaria), North Africa, East Africa, Syria (the region not country, so the modern countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan) and Anatolia, to be the true dominant Mediterranean power in a new Roman Empire that stretches to territory they never even had, talking about East Africa here. But that's just how I view the game, a minor should want to become a major minor or minor major, and minor majors/major minors should want to become majors while majors should want to become supers, you should want to level up your country, of course this would be more the fascist/communist/monarchist stuff, democracies will usually have a different opinion then that.
What I would say? Italy was surely bad, but I think that it was accentuated by the context where it was put. Probably 'putting' Japan in the middle of the Mediterranean sea we would have had quite the same behavior...
Doubt it, I don't think the Japanese would've faired fantastic, but they would've realized what they need and where to get it, oil in the Middle East. If you need oil so much for your two fronts, you don't start a new front by attacking a different country in the mountains when they don't even have oil.... I'm not trying to say Italy was the worst country ever in the war, but it's impossible to deny that they made the wrong choice for almost everything they did during the build up to war and the war itself. Japan also knew to make allies for their own use, such as Siam and Manchuria, Italy just didn't seem to care except for establishing puppet governments in their occupied territory, such as Albania, Montenegro and Croatia. Who knows how things could've gone if Italy had attempted to persuade Turkey to their side, maybe they push the Arabic countries more like Germany, we'll never know.