Jump to content


Reconstruction And Expansion Of The British Army After Dunkirk.

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 RETAC21


    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,763 posts

Posted 12 December 2019 - 1415 PM


...If only Mussolini had waited until after the Battle of Britain had been decided to make Italy's decision for entry.


He would have still got involved in Balkans (Greece) and hence end on the losing side.



His error was less getting in the Balkans (as Greece would have handled him well enough) than going to war with France and Britain beforehand.


If he avoided the temptation (irresistible as it was) of jumping on France's corpse and doesn't go to war with Britain, all that is left is an air and naval war between Britain and Germany - come September, given the inability of Germany to prevail over Britain (which, contrary to Stuart's perception, was quite clear for all to see and many acted in consequence), a patient Italy would be inclined to stab Germany in the back at some point since it's usually forgotten that Mussolini was less the overlord that Hitler was.

  • 0

#42 Ariete!



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,041 posts

Posted 13 December 2019 - 1406 PM

Well, the take-over of Albania, as absurd as it was (given they were already an inoffensive protectorate, de facto) might be justified from the innately expansionistic/militaristic Mussolinian viewpoint, but Greece was a stupid, costly gamble, given that the ports of entry in Albania could barely sustain an army smaller than the one they were attacking, in mountanous terrain.  On top of that, the degree of cant required to call Greece, of all countries, an enemy of Italy was stupendous.  Never mind the (militarily disappointing) stab in the back to France.

By the time things kicked off against the Brits in Africa, Italy had sustained five variously disappointing campaigns (Ethipia, Spain, Albania, Greece, France) with weak to iirminal casi belli. Soldiers follow orders but if you read correspondence from the period, there was real internal unease at Musso's nasty little war escapades.

  • 0

#43 bd1



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 14 December 2019 - 0533 AM


Everybody was building cheap, crappy SMGs though. I mean it's not that different to a Grease Gun or a PPSh when you get right down to it.


I would not call either Grease gun or PPSh crappy. Not in the way of Sten anyway.

Grease gun was pretty good but let down by cartridge and single feed mag. I would put it over any kind of Thompson, Sten or even MP-40 (if it was 9mm it would be over MP-40 easily).

PPSh is iconic, but also suffered from single feed mags (and not that reliable drum). And it was hybrid weapon, just like MP-40, not fully stamped one.

PPS-43 OTOH managed to have extreme cheapness of the Sten and was being quite decent weapon. IIRC Finns evaluation was "best SMGs" - PPS, Suomi, PPSh, Beretta. Other are not even close. Which I tend to agree.

OTOH, both Beretta and Suomi were quite expensive, as were some other really good ones (UD-42).


they even made a copy of pps-43, though too  late to participate in war  https://www.jaegerpl...LMOST2.htm#KP44   


edit - that website btw is a goldmine for comparison of different weapons in WW2   :wub:​ 

Edited by bd1, 14 December 2019 - 0535 AM.

  • 0

#44 Adam_S



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 17 December 2019 - 0201 AM

On the subject of submachine guns...


  • 0