Mexico or France Military Embarassment

but the ANZACs do, and we fight along delta force and other elite units.


YOUR point is invalid

They lost one and because foreign powers "allegedly" gave the Ethiopians supplies/funds under the table.

And yes, but the Ottomon occupied territory of Libya is unnessisarilly long.

They couldn't take Greece because of the massive mountains, the Greek bravery, and because Mousalini was a complete failure at supplies and tactics. One loss doesn't make them a terrible militeristic country though. It would be like jumping up and down about how terrible the British army was for Afghanistan and their failed attempts on the Ottomon Empire.

Actually look at the map. They got their Syria/Lebanon from profiting off of Britian's invasion of the Middle East. They got the rest of their everything by beating small, disorganized tribes using spears. They didn't even have to fight a real "state" until they got to Indo-China, and of course they openly lost that (to rebellion) as soon as their technological gap was removed.

Except for Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisa of course. But that's not exactly amazing.

Wow just wow. Im Italian and even i admit Italy was pathetic. Hitler steamrolled Greece. Italy made it 6 miles into France during the invasion. 6 miles. While all of Frances forces were up north. They got owned by the Ethiopians twice. One of Hitlers top generals told him, "if we fight italy, we willned 7 divisions to conquer them. If we ally with them, we will need 27 divisions to help them" nuff said

You're all overextending yourself. Operation Compass, 'nough said.


Regarding the Russians during the Crimean War:
prior to it Nicholas I had made several reforms to strengthen or have at least a status quo for the Russian Army.
And for the equipment: it was actually Alfred Nobel's dad (Immanuel Nobel) who had build a new workshop in Russia and supplied the Russian Army with new weapons and technology.

One Operation doesn't change the country's history in military failure. Also I didn't know that about the Russians, so they did have an up-to-date army?

Except that it's the perfect example of how the Italian army was during the entirety of WWII (except when defending their homeland, only then did they perform slightly better).

Sort of, the reforms obviously strengthened the Russian Army (or at best, kept it on par with it's neighbours) but yea Immanuel's naval mines for example meant that British and French ships couldn't attack St. Peterburg for the entire Crimean War.
He also helped them with the production of nitroglycerine and gunpowder.

"The mines stopped the British Royal Navy from moving into firing range of St. Petersburg during the Crimean War in 1853-1856."

Awesome, but it didn't really change their crappy training did it? I mean did they still use their mass infantry charges?

Well, it's the 1850's what did you expect?
And really, the Russians were fighting France, the British Empire, the Ottomans, Sardinia and Germans (although Prussia and Austria remained de facto neutral) and yet they suffered less casualties then their foe's.

I never doubted the Russian military, I just didn't know they were well equiped =D

France was a very credible major power and produced very capable leaders such as Louis XIV. Plus the Americans wouldn't have won the war of independence without them.

So I would say Mexico, by a mile.

They are hard to compare as mexico is still a relatively young country compared to France and has not had as much time to have as many cock ups but has probly fucked up more in a smaller period of time but over all france just dosn't have luck when it comes to war

Hitler steamrolled Greece because Italy and Greece bled themselves out after Italy got caught in the mountains. Hitler just provided the nessisary push to destroy the Greek defences.

It was more than 6 miles. Just 6 miles in a certain place. They made it as far as Hitler was going to allow them to get. Not to mention your not counting Corsica which, if I remember, they invaded. Not to mention sweeping up parts of French Africa at the same time.

Lost to Ethiopia once if you only count serious attempts, and then only because of foreign aid being (secretly) sent. When the world stood out of it again in 1937 (was it?), Italy kicked their asses.

Is this the same general who advized Hitler to attack Stalingrad? It's not like his generals were all tactical geniouses.

Clearly the Italian military must be a failure if they couldn't beat the largest and most powerful empire in Mankind, especially with regards to only one operation.

France because I am a mexican nationalist :lol:

Mexico Beat France.
end of story

Operation Compass:
Italy: 150.000 soldiers
1.600 pieces of artillery
600 tanks
331 aircraft

The Commonwealth: 36.000 soldiers
120 pieces of artillery
275 tanks
142 aircraft

I'd call that a failure, yea. And that's not the only time Italy dropped the ball during WWII or prior to it:
Invasion of France, invasion of Greece, Operation Compass, 1th war with Ethiopia (and the 2nd to a minor extend), the 12 battles for Isonzo, ...
For gods sake, dude, just face it. In a top 5 list of "military's performing poorly" Italy is up there!

It was mostly atributed to the fact that their supply lines sucked because of the British navy, as goods had to be shipped across the Mediteranian. Not to mention luck on the Commonwealth's part. Only a few Italian failures that could've been prevented, the Commonwealth just did a better operation.

Yet no one remembers the Austro-Prussian War, the Battle of Lepanto, the Romans, etc.
The French invasion wasn't a failure so much as a minor victory. Some generals talked big talk like they would sweep over Southern France, but it was really a sideshow for both sides. Stalemate was fine, especially with the lucrative peace they got.

Greece only failed because of a few mistakes and the huge mountains. Even then, as soon as they were able to get Germany to send aid they blew through the country. No, they didn't need the massive army Germany sent, but better safe than sorry.

Again, the 1st War of Ethiopia was only a failure due to the foreign aid sent. If it was left alone, Italy would've blown through it as they did later in 1937.

Austria-Hungary long expected Italy to enter the war and build huge fortifications in that place which was the only real spot the Italians could march through. It was a meat grinder, and even then the Italians made some progress. When German support came it became a disaster however because Italy just wasn't strong enough. It wasn't an Italian failure so much as a German/Austiran success.

Austria-Hungary was a dying joke and Italy had to compete for poultry amounts in the Mediterranean against the Ottomans. Against Ethiopia in WW I they lost because they decided to entrench themselves in the worse place possible while getting shelled to death.

The only reason why Italy fought Ethiopia again in WWII was due to the fact they wanted to ensure their people that this will not be a repeat of WWI, it only wasted time. I also remember an attempted Italian landing on the coast of Alexandria after bombarding it, only to be promptly arrested by Egyptian, not even British, POLICE who then handed them over to the British.

As for the Russians in the Crimean War many European powers felt threatened by the fact that Russia would make a serious play not only to take the warm weather ports of the Crimea but also make a march on Istanbul itself. The Ottomans clearly could not defend themselves, although made heroic stands in many battles, and needed help. Namely from the British navy more than anything. The Austrians who felt very threatened at the fact Russia may partition the Ottoman Empire for itself upsetting the balance of power decided to sit it out although the Russians, Austrians and Prussians (the three Eastern powers) had a previous agreement.

Austria-Hungary may have been failing civily, but their military was far from "a dying joke".
Again, they lost to Ethiopia because of foreign aid being sent there. And in 1937 they blew through it because the League of Nations wasn't able to send aid fast enough. It also wasn't to make sure the previous war wasn't repeated, it was about revenge and glory.

I don't remember that, but I also doubt it was exactly an Italian invasion force, or exactly the Egyptian "police" or exactly a bombardment.

Difficult, on the one hand you have France (self explanatory) and on the other, you have Mexico (entire east coast of Texas held by two rebel ships.)

Austria Hungary was a joke. You do realize the Prussian army, before it was completely revolutionized by Otto von Bismark, had lost Silesia like it was nothing and nearly had Vienna conquered was it not for the negotiating and prudence of Bismark.

Hell, in WWI they couldn't even occupy Serbia properly, which was the country that they wanted taken out so badly.