why is italy so weak

[shri]

The point of @Kovax was about "Really poor equipment for ground troops."
We didnt comparison about navy, we was talking of tanks and infantry equipments.
Tanks dont navigate on sea, and ships cant invade territory. Than is not possible compensate one each other.
Japan didnt fight only on the coast and islands, they invaded millions of square Kms of enermy continental lands, and they didnt it with navy or air force.

The Crappy Japanese tanks were compensated by a First-Class Naval Fleet, which was till 1942 the No:1 or No:2 in the World and backed by a relatively strong air-force.
Also, the average Japanese infantry-man was ready to die for the Emperor with a zeal unmatched by any other nation. This did result in a lot of wastage but also gave the Japanese divisions immense morale, the "Italian type mass surrenders" did not happen to the Japanese.
Again, the "Terrain and Geography" of the Japanese war was mainly- Jungles, Hills, Islands etc which required good Air-Sea power backed by strong infantry, tanks were not very good in that terrain unlike in North Africa where the Tanks reigned supreme. After the steppes of Southern Russia, the North African theatre was perhaps the BEST tank country and missing this concept hurt Italy badly.

That is what i wrote.

The Japanese invaded because they thought their Navy would keep the Sea-Lanes open and their Air-Force will neutralise the Allied Naval and Air-Power. A very important assumption which failed in the end, but for the first one year or so it did succeed.
Why the Navy? Both Japan and Italy were dependent on Imports, Japan even more so on trade routes but Italy also was vulnerable.
There is a difference between "all round weak" and "weak in some areas and strong in others".
The Japanese Infantry did quite well with their limited equipment in the "Terrain they were supposed to fight in", if you actually observe their OOBs, the Japanese conquests were pulled off with less than 10 divisions (including the SNLF, Paras and other specialists) and most of the Japanese army was facing China from 1937-1945.
Against China, the Japanese equipment was sufficient to win.

Tanks will not make a decisive improvement in combat in areas like - Solomon Islands, Guadacanal, Malaya, Singapore, Burma etc but a huge difference in Libya and Egypt.
To support my claims, i present-
1. Terrain Map of South-East Asia - - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_east_asia_topographic_map.svg

and

2. Terrain Map of North Africa - http://www.geo.utep.edu/faculty_staff/harder_files/nafr/nafrtop.html

 

[Pippo Franchino]

The Crappy Japanese tanks were compensated by a First-Class Naval Fleet, which was till 1942 the No:1 or No:2 in the World and backed by a relatively strong air-force.
Also, the average Japanese infantry-man was ready to die for the Emperor with a zeal unmatched by any other nation. This did result in a lot of wastage but also gave the Japanese divisions immense morale, the "Italian type mass surrenders" did not happen to the Japanese.
Again, the "Terrain and Geography" of the Japanese war was mainly- Jungles, Hills, Islands etc which required good Air-Sea power backed by strong infantry, tanks were not very good in that terrain unlike in North Africa where the Tanks reigned supreme. After the steppes of Southern Russia, the North African theatre was perhaps the BEST tank country and missing this concept hurt Italy badly.

Well... I would add that it was a luck that Italians were not ready to die for a Fascist Dictatorship as Japanese have done, still Italians made something that Japanese have not done: They fought civil war they killed eachothers because they didn't lack the will to fight, they lack the will to fight for the fascist side.

The "Mass surrenders" happened because they retreated without supplies along the deserts without supplies and lacking also of ammunitions. They get encircled and still they shall die for Mussolini?

There is some good italian tank that have rarely seen the battlefield
The M15/42(used just during 1943) and the semovente class have had good success.

 

[Centerbe]

The Japanese invaded because they thought their Navy would keep the Sea-Lanes open and their Air-Force will neutralise the Allied Naval and Air-Power. A very important assumption which failed in the end, but for the first one year or so it did succeed.

And than? What relevance this have with the equipment of ground forces?

Why the Navy? Both Japan and Italy were dependent on Imports, Japan even more so on trade routes but Italy also was vulnerable.

And than? My sentence was not about imports and export and dependances of any country.
I meant the Japan eqipments was not superior to Italian one, becasue in some case was the same equipment.

There is a difference between "all round weak" and "weak in some areas and strong in others".

Who supposed there is an all'round weak?
Who was all around weak? I repeat, Kovax was talking of ground forces only.

The Japanese Infantry did quite well with their limited equipment in the "Terrain they were supposed to fight in", if you actually observe their OOBs, the Japanese conquests were pulled off with less than 10 divisions (including the SNLF, Paras and other specialists) and most of the Japanese army was facing China from 1937-1945.

Well this is the demostration a lack of equipments (or some equipments) not necessary cause a terrible performance of this specific armed force.
Then you confirm exactly what I meant...

 

[Loke]

The M15/42(used just during 1943) and the semovente class have had good success.

Agreed.

I would say that the best Italian tank during the war was the P 26/40
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carro_Armato_P_40