Italian Industry

[unmerged(13914)]

I think that the problem is systemic. The game is not designed to have historic numbers of units produced. . . . The AI research effort for both was reasonably historic. The Germans were ahead on tank research and lagging in aviation. However, where the real discrepancies occurred were in number of land and air units both sides had. The total Germany army had 127 inf and 15 Arm divs (all fronts) whilst the SU had 104 inf and 27 arm divs. Now Germany started the real Barbarossa with 177 divs (20 Pz) invading the the SU, whilst the Russians + 300 divs and created at least another 400 before the end of 41.

Yes, you can lower R&D costs, freeing up more IC to build units, giving everyone more units. To what end? will it really improve gameplay? IF everyone has only 75% of its historical units, is this a significant issue? Especially when MP is so abstracted anyway?

B4 you answer: 'but it would make the game more historically accurate', please load up a game with you as SOV with 400 div's facing GER and her allies with about 350 div's and run that for a year or so. The housekeeping is just mind boggling, and the game really grinds to a halt. In SP, you have to run at slow speed and you are pausing almost every day. In MP, you would have to run at very slow, and your opponents would overwelm you just because you can't manage everything.

Hmmm. I could say a lot about this. In fact I will be saying a lot about this, when I eventually release the Historical Statistics Pack. But let me just list a few items here.

1) Brigade costs. If you add an artillery brigade to a normal infantry division, it increases the cost from 570 IC to 1705 IC. (INF costs 6 IC, 95 days, brigade adds 5 IC and 60 days.) Human players don't typically do this. If they add brigades it's usually to armor, where the increase doesn't matter so much. But the AI adds a brigade to one new division in four, at random. This cuts the number of infantry divisions that the AI can deploy by one-third:

1705 + 3 x 570 = 3415 IC
6 x 570 = 3420 IC

So because the costs are not realistic, the AI puts up a much weaker fight against a human opponent (the added brigade isn't even worth ONE division, much less two). Fix the brigade costs and any AI-controlled country that builds significant numbers of divisions will be 25-35 % tougher right there -- by having more divisions.

2) R & D costs. Right now because R & D is so expensive there are a lot of historical technologies that really aren't worth building. It pays off better to "quantity rush," just build whatever kind of unit you can immediately. For example, if you have Level 0 sub tech you can build Medium-Range subs. To build Long-Range subs you need 27,760 IC in various technologies to get you to Level 4. Since a Medium-Range sub costs 800 IC, you're effectively giving up 36 sub flotillas in the hopes of building improved ones about two years down the road. It's precisely because there are so few units in play in 1936 (and even 1939) that it's tempting to quantity-rush and ignore tech.

I agree that if the game really can't run properly with increased numbers of units in play, that's a problem. And of course playing a big country with lots of units gets tiring for many people.

But I think it is impractical to treat every existing unit as representing two in real life -- for one thing, it's only true of land and air units for certain countries at this point. Romania isn't missing a bunch of divisions, neither is the UK, but the late-war USSR and Nationalist China are. Germany goes into Barbarossa with close to the right number, but the USSR goes in with half or less -- that ought to sound alarm bells.

IMHO, there are a bunch of balance problems that can and should be fixed by changing unit costs, R & D costs, and supply costs. Of course I can't guarantee everyone will find the game more fun to play once we do that, but if you're going to sell the game as an historical simulation, it ought to at least be possible for events to unfold as they did historically. Right?

 

[Tamerlan]

All nations had problems of this sort but the Italians seem exceptional in their degree of institutional willfullness, self-interest and corruption. I assume that it has something do with their history - independent city states, Machiavelli, the Mafia, Catholic rather than puritan Protestant, etc. Things don't seem very different even today. Parmalat was just the latest example ...

Andrew

Andrew, you work too hard or you smoke something good ! Just seen the french AI taking Stutgart and the Rhur while the german are busy in Poland. So there is probably some hope for the Italian AI, not embarassed with the kind of problems afore mentioned. Sorry for the historicity

 

[unmerged(26474)]

When I play Italy, my usual desire is to join the Allies but unfortunately the UK usually refuses ...

Me too!! but i tried waiting for the brokeout of the war and UK accepted! Now i'm holding my line in Venezia and Bolzano against mighty germans!
AH! TY for the book i'll try to find it out here !

 

[unmerged(14102)]

...1) Brigade costs. If you add an artillery brigade to a normal infantry division, it increases the cost from 570 IC to 1705 IC...

Agreed. Another way would be to have an AI variable to assign brigade build probabilities on each unit type. That would be so cool ...

2) R & D costs. Right now because R & D is so expensive there are a lot of historical technologies that really aren't worth building. ...It's precisely because there are so few units in play in 1936 (and even 1939) that it's tempting to quantity-rush and ignore tech.

Agreed, and it is a game imbalancer [the rush] ... it needs to be addressed. I suspect it came about trying to tweek down the USA. We also need to address tech sharing amoung allies. In SP, the AI actually handles it fairly close to IRL. Yes they did share, but there was some distrust and so like outside of hte commopnwealth, UK did not share to the same extent. In MP, tech advances can get way out of hand [ahistorical early] by having each ally focus their research and share.

However is the rush strategy so good becuase of R&D, or is it because there are not the political roadblocks that prevent you. Meaning, in 1936, was a GER rush the best military strategy [i believe so] that was not implemented due to political [internal GER population] issues? Again, i beleive so. The OOB's have been scrutinized so manytimes by so many people, that i have to trust they are now pretty correct. So, looking at the board in 1936 why would you not attack in May36? As ITA, why would you not attack in '36? IRL these did not happen, but it wasn't due to waiting for R&D. THere were perceived political issues. We need to get these into the game.

I agree that if the game really can't run properly with increased numbers of units in play, that's a problem. And of course playing a big country with lots of units gets tiring for many people. ... it ought to at least be possible for events to unfold as they did historically. Right?

Yes, but this is a very difficult balance to achieve, one that i think v1.05c has pretty good right now. Using your example: SOV does not have as many units as history, BUT AI vs AI the SOV does win about 80% of the time by my observation, and they do it about 1 year early to boot.

I'm really glad you're beta now. don't know if any of this is of any use to you, but i hope that you do consider the political dimensions [perceived and otherwise] that were of import at this time ....

PS: maybe one way is that if the population isn't ready to go to war, you do not get your full war footing bonus of lower CG? May even create additional dissent besides normal DoW?

 

[unmerged(23663)]

If the problem is there, then the solution is easy: to increase italian ICs at peace time, and to give her a high dissent when at war.
This might rebalance the game, although historically industrial production slightly increased at war time.

I think that is exactly the correct way to model Italy. A large dissent hit 30-40% for going to war with the UK and probably 20% for being allied with Germany at the start of Barbarossa (to account for all of the disaffected Italian communists who must must have numbered in excess of 20% of the population judging form the number of votes the Euro-coms used to get in Italy in the 70's).

Without a huge dissent hit, how else could you model the collapse of the army in Libya in 1941; 250,000 men routed (not rooted for our US readers) by 1 inf div and 1 arm div inflicting about 145,000 casualties of whom around 90% were prisoners.

Put simply the Italians did not want to fight the Empire forces. A large number of these prisoners ended up in Australia working on farms with the same liberties as normal labourers (except they could not quit and go to Queensland) and sexually harassing the female population with their Latin charms.

I know my next door neighbour did not want to fight anyone. He was not a commie or anarchist he just came from a rich family with decent manners and values. He was an Alpini officer who was assigned to training just as his unit got ordered to Russia in 42. Most of his mates got squashed by tanks etc. on the flanks of Stalingrad. He changed his identity when Italy changed sides rather than have holiday in Germany, and ended up fighting Yugoslavian commies trying to invade Trieste until the New Zealanders arrived and put an end to Commie expansionism.

I think that story symbolises Italy and the war, a nation strongly divided within itself that did not want to fight anybody in particular (except the fascist lunatics with their fantasies of new Italian Empire), who would fight for their country if it was threatened.

 

[unmerged(13914)]

Another way would be to have an AI variable to assign brigade build probabilities on each unit type. That would be so cool ...

It would be cool.

We also need to address tech sharing amoung allies. In SP, the AI actually handles it fairly close to IRL. Yes they did share, but there was some distrust and so like outside of hte commopnwealth, UK did not share to the same extent. In MP, tech advances can get way out of hand [ahistorical early] by having each ally focus their research and share.

Ironically, if you reduce R & D costs, sharing actually becomes less of a problem. Since the rate of sharing is controlled by DI and ministers, not the cost of the techs, it doesn't go up. And the gold doctrine you get (for example) that used to cost 12,000 IC isn't saving you as much as before.

I used Steele's "Battleships for Bhutan" AAR to compute how many techs a typical alliance member gets. It's about one per month, worth an average of 3,000 IC. That's 100 IC in free economic benefit, pretty serious stuff for a country with an economy of 1 IC (!). Of course, it isn't really that big a benefit because (a) two-thirds of the techs are nuclear weapons research or aircraft carriers or other items useless to most minors, (b) the remaining techs that are in the right tree call for prerequisites that the minor doesn't have. But even if 1 in 10 pays off, that's 10 IC per day of free research.

With me so far? Now, I plan to cut R & D costs 80 % in HSP. That means instead of 3,000 IC worth of stuff each month, you get 600. And of that, 1 in 10 is useful, so it works out to about 2 IC per day of free (and useful) tech. I think that that is close to the right number, historically. Being in an alliance did pay significant rewards.

As for player tech sharing, well, two words: Lend-Lease. I have trouble imagining a more unlikely scenario, from the perspective of 1936 than Winston Churchill in 1942 shipping off thousands of Britain's best tanks and fighters to . . . Joseph Stalin! The U.S. and Nationalist China, the USSR and the Spanish Republic, it happened over and over. (I know the Soviets made the Republic pay in gold, but the point here is, they got the planes and tanks.) If you get rid of the zero-cost tech sharing, what is left doesn't really bother me that much.

However is the rush strategy so good becuase of R&D, or is it because there are not the political roadblocks that prevent you. Meaning, in 1936, was a GER rush the best military strategy [i believe so] that was not implemented due to political [internal GER population] issues? Again, i beleive so. The OOB's have been scrutinized so manytimes by so many people, that i have to trust they are now pretty correct. So, looking at the board in 1936 why would you not attack in May36? As ITA, why would you not attack in '36? IRL these did not happen, but it wasn't due to waiting for R&D. THere were perceived political issues. We need to get these into the game.

Hmmmm. I recall a very interesting "what if" essay that said if the German attack at Sedan in May 1940 had stalled and failed to break through, the German generals would have promptly overthrown Hitler. They were extremely nervous about his plans but more nervous about publicly opposing him. He had one victory after another, leaving no opening for the opposition, until Barbarossa. Then it was effectively too late.

In this thread we saw a similar comment about Mussolini . . . he wanted war in 1940, his staff told him 1943 at the earliest.

So I'm not sure what form the penalties should take for the dictators who go to war sooner than history. I don't necessarily think it should be like the democracies, a war entry variable, unless it works in reverse. The risks involved were vaguer for the dictators, and taking risks actually strengthened them -- Hitler knew the generals were thinking of a coup, but as he won his first few victories, the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, he could see that the prospects for a coup were shrinking and his popularity with the public rising.

Yes, but this is a very difficult balance to achieve, one that i think v1.05c has pretty good right now. Using your example: SOV does not have as many units as history, BUT AI vs AI the SOV does win about 80% of the time by my observation, and they do it about 1 year early to boot.

The 1 year early part is part of what worries me. AND the fact that Nationalist China falls so easily to the Japanese. If Nationalist China had 300 militia divisions (as they did in real life), you can bet Japan would make much slower progress. Anyway, I'll keep on with HSP and we shall see what difference it makes.

 

[unmerged(16966)]

italians

reason the italians werent good soldiers was poor leadership and really no fighting spirit, they are lovers not haters lol just like the french. Those soldiers could be sitting on their terrace drinking wine and eating sausage and pasta but they are in africa, being attacked by flies, lil food, lil water, horrible leaders. Why should they have a will to fight? lol

 

[unmerged(14102)]

MAthGuy: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It will be interesting to see your bew nod and see how the play balance works out.

Hmmmm. I recall a very interesting "what if" essay that said if the German attack at Sedan in May 1940 had stalled and failed to break through, the German generals would have promptly overthrown Hitler. They were extremely nervous about his plans but more nervous about publicly opposing him. He had one victory after another, leaving no opening for the opposition, until Barbarossa. Then it was effectively too late.

In this thread we saw a similar comment about Mussolini . . . he wanted war in 1940, his staff told him 1943 at the earliest.

So I'm not sure what form the penalties should take for the dictators who go to war sooner than history. I don't necessarily think it should be like the democracies, a war entry variable, unless it works in reverse. The risks involved were vaguer for the dictators, and taking risks actually strengthened them -- Hitler knew the generals were thinking of a coup, but as he won his first few victories, the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, he could see that the prospects for a coup were shrinking and his popularity with the public rising.

This is interesting. I now also recall some reads in this vein. You're right, the dictators risks were different than democracies. As you say, the risk was a coup. So the risk was 2 fold: the general staffs and the populace [remember Hitler's Butter policy?]. So maybe the way would be DoW create risk of coup ,,, military successes relive that, but failures would enhance and drawn out conflicts as well? Sounds like a new variable to be introduced ... Something you can kick around with the betas?

thanks!

 

[Montemurro]

reason the italians werent good soldiers was poor leadership and really no fighting spirit, they are lovers not haters lol just like the french. Those soldiers could be sitting on their terrace drinking wine and eating sausage and pasta but they are in africa, being attacked by flies, lil food, lil water, horrible leaders. Why should they have a will to fight? lol

You want to be a teacher and yet you have seemingly taken in British war time propaganda as indisputable facts?

In the words of Italian General Ettore Bastico in 1941:
"British Command, even in quiet periods, did not keep its units in the front line for more than twelve days and, after that, gave them four days' complete rest in the rear. On the other hand, our soldiers had for months not had any relief from front-line duty; rest was almost unknown to them, as was also the system of relieving for home leave units that were tired and worn out from many months of exhausting life and combat in the desert.
There were divisions among the soldiers that had been fighting for more than twenty-four months in the front line, and that had greatly exceeded the theoratical 200 days which American and British experts have set as the maximum limit of physical and psychological resistance in battle, after which, according to them, the soldier becomes exhausted and militarily inefficient.
If the Italian soldier, deprived of means and exhausted, has retreated before the superior numbers, strength amd buoyant morale organisation of the enemy - if he has retreated it is because the limits of human endurance had been exceeded and he could not do otherwise."

 

[unmerged(16045)]

Now, if you could [in CORE maybe, Hurin, help think this one up] come up with a galvinizing event [like Pearl Harbor, London Blitz] that could have galvinized ITA, or if there was something that Musolini could have done, but failed to do, and make this an event [or series of events], this would make for a very interesting play.

Well, here is what came up to my mind. Certainly more ideas are to come, and I hope somoene else will help.

-LEGGI RAZZIALI (Racial Laws): in 1938, under german pressure, Mussolini promulgated a law that prevented Jews to work in the Italian state institutions (armed forces, universities, and the like).
Such an event might be done in the form “promulgate the Racial Laws? Yes/No”
If yes, possible consequences might be like internal dissent growth but German help. Moreover, Enrico Fermi (the father of the nuclear research) escaped to USA on this occasion; so a connected effect might be +10% nuclear research for Italy if “no” is chosen, and +10% nuclear research to USA if “yes” is chosen.

-LA NOTTE DI TARANTO (The Night of Taranto): on Novembre 11th, 1940, at 10.45 p.m., a squadron of torpedo bombers took off from the air carrier Illustrious and attacked the italian fleet anchored at Taranto. The battleships Littorio and Duilio were damaged so heavily, that had to stay under repairs until Spring, 1941; but a third one, the balleship Cavour, was sunk in shallow waters and its repairs were never completed.
Such an event might randomly occur within one year from the italian declaration of war to the Allies, have some 25% to reach success, and damage/sink italian ships in one of the more crowded ports.

-IL BOMBARDAMENTO DI GENOVA (The Bombing of Genoa): on February 9th, 1941, the Royal Navy opened fire against the city of Genoa, in the hope lowering the italian morale, that was already low due to the recent military disasters (Lybia, Greece, East Africa). The surprise worked and the operation was successful.
This event, occurring randomly, might increse internal dissent by 1-2 points.

-TENTATIVO DI CORRUZIONE VERSO I QUADRI MILITARI GRECI (Bribing Attempt Towards Greek HQs): When Italy declared war to Greece, an awkward attempt was made to bribe the greek HQs, in order opening the way to the invasion. The money –a considerable amount- was spent (even if it is not clear who gained them) but, in any case, operation failed.
As the italian government believed such an operation to be possible, and as this is a game, an event might propose “bribe? Yes/No”. If “yes” is chosen, some 10 ICs will be spent for a month (this is just an idea), and there will be some 10% chance that the greek troops will then fight badly (for example, 75% their normal organization) for a few weeks.

-LA NOTTE DI MATAPAN (The Night of Matapan): The night of March 28th, 1941, the British Navy, having been informed by Ultra about the leg followed by the main italian squadron, made an ambush upon an italian cruiser division, by using radar. The italians were totally surprised, having no night detection technology, and couldn’t even fire a single shot in answer. The cruisers Pola, Zara and Fiume, and the destroyers Carducci and Alfieri, were sunk, along with 3,000 italian sailors.
The Germans, due to this event, gave some of their radars to the Italians.
This event might occur after that Regia Marina has suffered a night defeat at sea. The effect might be that Germans increase technological help to the italian navy.

MORTE IN AZIONE DI BALBO (Balbo Dies in Action): Air marshal Italo Balbo used to conduce personally military operations from sky, and was killed in the early days of war upon Tobruk, due to an error of italian anti-air batteries.
Such an event might remove him from game (but there should esist hundreds of such events for other generals in this case...).

Finally, about frog men. By now I have no evidence of a their utilization by HOI, so they might be managed by random events, waiting for a future better solution.
Frog men were employed by Italy, UK, Japan, and Germany. Their capacity to conduct successful actions might be so synthetized: Italy 10, UK 5, Japan 2, Germany 1. Random events might damage/sink enemy ships in ports. The events might be in the form of “Attack that port? Yes/No”, and cost something (ICs, presumably). Success chances might be 30% for Italy, 15% for UK, 6% for Japan, and 3% for Germany.

 

[unmerged(14922)]

Parmalat was just the latest example ...

Parmalat isn't different from Enron.
Also, Parmalat financial problems were well known by Bank of America which has sold a lot of bonds to american people.
It seems to me that corruption doesn't depend from the religion of the country.

It's true that Italy had a lot of corruption, but in these days things seems to be improving. Please stop to addres Italy as the country of Pizza, Spaghetti and Mafia.
It's simply false

 

[Montemurro]

Without a huge dissent hit, how else could you model the collapse of the army in Libya in 1941; 250,000 men routed (not rooted for our US readers) by 1 inf div and 1 arm div inflicting about 145,000 casualties of whom around 90% were prisoners.

In the whole of Libya there was only 172,000 Italian and 36,000 Libyan soldiers. While 115,000 prisoners was taken in the initial battles, the British was by no means ready to pursue the Italians further without getting reinforcements because the Italians had inflicted heavy losses on them: The British had lost 80% of their vehicles and all their "I' tanks as well as most of their light and cruiser tanks. British loses amounted to 2,000 troops, 1 in 25 troops that had engaged the Italians had been killed.
Lack of fighting was not the major cause, the Italians had to do with obsolete L3 tankettes, few AT-guns, old WW1 artillery and little motorization, the British had much more modern tanks and more or less full motorization of their infantry.
Also the Ariete armoured divison and the Trento motorized division arrived in Tripoli at this stage, putting the Italians for the first time at something like an advantage against the British (Even if the DAK hadn't arrived.), who were at the end of a very long supply line with most of their tanks and other vehicles destroyed.

 

[unmerged(16045)]

(...) I agree that if the game really can't run properly with increased numbers of units in play, that's a problem. And of course playing a big country with lots of units gets tiring for many people. ?

I think it is absurd to pretend a player to play hundreds of divisions. HOI should allow a 'corps' level, to allow a more easy (and funny) game with largest nations.

IMHO, there are a bunch of balance problems that can and should be fixed by changing unit costs, R & D costs, and supply costs. Of course I can't guarantee everyone will find the game more fun to play once we do that, but if you're going to sell the game as an historical simulation, it ought to at least be possible for events to unfold as they did historically. Right?

RIGHT! Bravo!

 

[unmerged(16045)]

I think that is exactly the correct way to model Italy. A large dissent hit 30-40% for going to war with the UK and probably 20% for being allied with Germany at the start of Barbarossa (to account for all of the disaffected Italian communists who must must have numbered in excess of 20% of the population judging form the number of votes the Euro-coms used to get in Italy in the 70's).

Without a huge dissent hit, how else could you model the collapse of the army in Libya in 1941; 250,000 men routed (not rooted for our US readers) by 1 inf div and 1 arm div inflicting about 145,000 casualties of whom around 90% were prisoners.

Put simply the Italians did not want to fight the Empire forces. A large number of these prisoners ended up in Australia working on farms with the same liberties as normal labourers (except they could not quit and go to Queensland) and sexually harassing the female population with their Latin charms.

I know my next door neighbour did not want to fight anyone. He was not a commie or anarchist he just came from a rich family with decent manners and values. He was an Alpini officer who was assigned to training just as his unit got ordered to Russia in 42. Most of his mates got squashed by tanks etc. on the flanks of Stalingrad. He changed his identity when Italy changed sides rather than have holiday in Germany, and ended up fighting Yugoslavian commies trying to invade Trieste until the New Zealanders arrived and put an end to Commie expansionism.

I think that story symbolises Italy and the war, a nation strongly divided within itself that did not want to fight anybody in particular (except the fascist lunatics with their fantasies of new Italian Empire), who would fight for their country if it was threatened.

Here is another one who works too hard or smokes something good...
What you say about Italians are just tales from your granfather, real things are far different.
About your starting dissent of 30-40%... Hey, but are you sure such a numbers do exist for any nations in HOI??
About the defeat of '40-'41, nothing to do with dissent or lating charm, it was just a matter of stupidity of our great leaders.

 

[unmerged(26474)]

Special forces events

Now that i'm again at peace with Redawn i would ask if is possible(or interesting) to have special events talking about special forces like X-mas, SAS, brandeburg division, and the snipers division in red army...
Someone (not me lol) could make an event in which two english battleships are heavilly damaged in the port of Alexandria(or Suda bay,gibraltar) the night of 18 sept. '41...Moreover italian planes and supply convoys may have more "attrition" damages for the presence of the SAS (after may 1941).Obviously the 2 nations must be at war !!!
I think it can be a good idea...what do u think ?

 

[unmerged(14102)]

-LEGGI RAZZIALI (Racial Laws):
-LA NOTTE DI TARANTO (The Night of Taranto):
-IL BOMBARDAMENTO DI GENOVA (The Bombing of Genoa): -TENTATIVO DI CORRUZIONE VERSO I QUADRI MILITARI GRECI (Bribing Attempt Towards Greek HQs):
-LA NOTTE DI MATAPAN (The Night of Matapan):
MORTE IN AZIONE DI BALBO (Balbo Dies in Action):

Hurin; great stuff here. really. I hope you don't mind, but i am going to post this to the CORE team for future events. Yes, several of these are exactly what i think we need.

Focusing on the political decision issues like Leggi Razziali, this is where i think we need more. Especially from the pre-war years '36 - '40, where we can craft events that will help determine Italy's:

a. movement externally [who the will ally with, if anyone]
b. movement internally [W/E, dissent, CG requirements]

Not only for hte AI, but also to allow players to craft there own Italy future ...

THANKS!

 

[unmerged(14102)]

About the defeat of '40-'41, nothing to do with dissent or lating charm, it was just a matter of stupidity of our great leaders.

Stupidity, or lack of conviction in the cause ... I've often wondered about this. Nothing i have read suggests that the Italian generals were stupid, several of them proved to be quite capable in a number of engagements. But that particular loss, which is so often waved in the face of Italians, how exactly [from the Italian historical perspective] did it ocurr?

looking forward to reaading your reply ....

 

[unmerged(23663)]

Here is another one who works too hard or smokes something good...
What you say about Italians are just tales from your granfather, real things are far different.
About your starting dissent of 30-40%... Hey, but are you sure such a numbers do exist for any nations in HOI??
About the defeat of '40-'41, nothing to do with dissent or lating charm, it was just a matter of stupidity of our great leaders.

It is simply historic fact not tales from my grandfathers who were nowhere near the Western desert.

Here are some facts:

38 000 Italians surrendered at Sidi Barrani after the attack 9 Dec 40

6 Infantry battalions ie less than 5000 men assualted Bardia 3 Jan 41
Result:
40 000 captured Italians
Assualting infantry: 130 dead (includes died of wounds)

Tobruk attacked 21 Jan 41
Result:
25 000 captured Italians
Assualting infantry: 49 dead (includes died of wounds)

20 000 Italians surrendered at the road block at Beda Fromm early Feb 41

Now any fair minded interpretation of these numbers would lead to the conclusion that large numbers of the Italians in the Libyan army in 40-41 did not want to fight.

And why the hell should they want to fight the British? I firmly believe that only committed fascists would embark upon such endevours and the behavior of the Italians is perfectly consistent with this thesis.

 

[unmerged(23663)]

And some more real life fantasies for our ill-informed Italian readers re Italian prisoners in Australia during WW2

... employment of the POW volunteers, unguarded, on individual farms and in rural industry. An ABC radio interview with former POWs and former POW employers reveals that friendships often developed between the employing families and the POWs. Some of the workers were included in family holidays and many shared with them their daily evening meal. One of the former employers interviewed recounted putting together packages of dress material to send to the wives and daughters of the POWs on her property. A strong fear of the bush and reasonably comfortable living situations meant that the chances of attempted escape were minimal.

On return to Italy, many POWs who had been stationed on farms and in rural industry applied to return to Australia. One such POW was Michele Laricchia who was captured by the allied forces in Egypt in December 1940. He was held in India until the Italians surrendered in 1943 and Laricchia and his fellow prisoners went to the POW camp in Cowra. He spent three months at this camp before being sent to- North Queensland to work on farms. Here he began to learn English and develop a friendship of sorts with at least one of the men he worked for. At the war's end Laricchia, reluctantly repatriated, found himself in a war ravaged Italy where he knew virtually no one. In time he was able to borrow the money to return to Australia and establish himself in Griffith.

Notes:

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) is the Australian direct equivalent of the BBC.

Griffith NSW became a notorious dope growing area home to the Griffith Mafia scum.

 

[unmerged(23663)]

And yet more fantasies ... ?

"Control Centers were an Army establishment staffed by up to 12 personnel in country regions to administer "The employment of POWs without guards scheme". It was based on the system used in Vic and NSW whereby Italian POWs were hired out to farmers at a rate of one Pound per week to help run the farms due to the chronic labour shortages due to the Aust workforce enlisting into the armed services.

They were about 30 miles apart and were established on the boundaries of the PMG Postal districts in order to assist in administration as everything went by post or telegram in those days.

The Army utilised disused or vacant premises that were hired or rented mostly from the local authority or State Government, in many cases they were given rent free as a contribution to the war effort.

In most cases the scheme worked perfectly and was attributed to saving the rural industry in Western Australia during WW2 and providing an immense boost to the war time primary production.

There were of course problems such as escapes, personality conflicts between farmers and POWs, fraternization with female family members, malingering and abuse by the farmers as well.

In Western Australia up to 3,200 Italian POWs were employed on farms. No Germans were allowed out on to the farms as they were considered too dangerous and untrustworthy. All German POWs were kept at No 16 Camp Marrinup."

Note

... fraternization with female family members ... Italians and their irresistable charms!

Fascist and Royalist POW were held in different camps.

No Germans were allowed out on to the farms as they were considered too dangerous and untrustworthy. The non-fascist Italians were, relative to Germans, nice well behaved people not unlike the 1 million or so Australians of Italian origin and descent, who still exhibit there innate fear of untamed nature by concreting over their backyards.