Mexico or France Military Embarassment

Austria Hungary certainly sucked and so did Italy

They made one or two mistakes, your point?

Also, they couldn't occupy Serbia because they wanted to take it so badly. They were more intrested in revenge then occupation. It would be like saying that America's Army sucks because it can't "properly occupy" Afghanistan.

By Italy's army you mean during WWII? Because in theory it was supposed to be good, how ever poor leadership lead to it's downfall (I know there are other factors but the Italian generals really sucked), hell even the Germans had to send Rommel and the Africa Corps to help them.

You dug up this thread to tell me this.....Goddamit!!!!

You dug up this thread to tell me this.....Goddamit!!!![/quote:1e8nenes]
Indeed

Indeed[/quote:1new08cy]
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Bury it again!!!!

I generally think the Italian army didn't have enough morale to carry on fighting against the British in Northern Africa. Wasn't it at some point the Italians surrendered to the British soldiers but the Italian division contained 250,000 soldiers opposed to a few thousand British soldiers. If that was the case then that goes to show the Italians weren't up for combat.

Most probably because they were running out of supplies, the Royal Navy just dominated the seas.

I'd have to say Mexico's army. When I went on a fishing trip in Baja California the army is everywhere, they ride around in trucks and do nothing, the drug cartels probably have the army in their pocket.

As for France, they just had some bad breaks.

Mexico already beat France though. So that should give the title to France. But really guys its Italy.

Mexico beat France in a half ass war....
ROMAN EMPIRE!!! This negates all the rest of Italy's bad military history .

france if you don,t count napoleon the 1

Although I have a natural hate for all french people because of my german blood, I can't say their military sucked more than mexico. France's military was able to steamroll europe a few times (with proper leadership) until attrition killed them off. But Mexico wasn't able to do anything to america besides capture a few small towns before they got pushed back by the US. Hell, they lost to 50 texas rangers with dual revolvers. Mexico was just steamrolled to oblivion until california was taken.

France usually sends the Foreign Legion, so no actual "french troops" die in line of duty.

This is what Americans actually believe.

true true

To clear up some confusion about Italy sucking hard in WWII, that's actually Hitler's fault. Mussolini wanted to take over the Mediterranean Sea, yes, but Italy's military wasn't going to be ready for this war until 1943, when they planned on going on a Hitleresque blitz to reforge the Roman Empire. Hitler started the war in '39 without consulting his allies, so Italy got fucked. It could have worked.

And to be honest, the only reason Mexico has an army is to suppress unrest and internal conflicts such as the drug war and various uprisings. Their constitution states that the military is not allowed to be deployed outside of Mexico. France, on the other hand, has a blue water navy, they can't compare. A better contest would be France vs. Italy or Mexico vs. Colombia.

It was a joke damnit.

Why did they invade Abyssinia if they weren't ready for the war? Not to mention that they still got a beating despite annexing them. You expect Hitler to wait until 1943 when the Italians have shown time and time again that they are incompetent fighters? They got beaten in WW1, they got beaten by Abyssinia in 1895. They could only compete with African nations.

I would have to go with Mexico. To me the problem with the French military is their leadership. When they had good leadership such as Napoleon they steamrolled over Europe even in World War I they stoped the Germans from reaching Paris (with the British) in 1914 at the Marne and for the rest of the war stoped the Germans from getting much further into France and payed one hell of a price to do it. (yes with British and American suport)