The performance of the Italian armed forces during the Second World War has been the butt of jokes for over sixty years. However the notion that the Italian military fought poorly and surrendered readily is not exactly true as there are examples of Italian forces fighting quite successfully and bravely. But the widespread belief seemed to be that the Italians were cowards, with disasters such as the failed takeover of a much weaker Greece and ineffective fighting in North Africa used as evidence. While these and other military mistakes by Italy do stand out, these debacles were not due to cowardice by the soldiers. What the Italian military lacked during their offensive campaigns was not bravery, but modern weaponry, good leadership and above all a clear lack of desire to achieve Mussolini's goals.
When the poorly led Italian troops were used in conjunction with, or under German forces, they fought considerably better. The Italian forces that participated in Hitler's invasion of Russia were known to have fought particularly well, despite facing vastly superior numbers of Soviet troops and harsh weather. In fact, the bravery of the Italian Alpini (mountain troops) and Voloire (horse artillery) regiments during Operation Barbarossa was legendary. Italy's attempt to take over Greece was a complete disaster; Italy was beaten back by the much weaker Greeks into Albania. Once Germany took over the Greece campaign, the Italian forces under their command fought much more effectively than under their own generals.
Most countries had embarassing incidents. The British lost Singapore to an exhausted outnumbered Japanese army. The Russians lost massive armies in the early days of Barbarossa. The Yugoslav Army was overwhelmed in a few days in 1941, and the French debacle is well known. Actually on a tactical level the Italians were even outnumbered in the stupid invasion of Greece. Only the Italians seem to remain mocked for their participation in World War II. Maybe because they were on the losing side and then switched sides. Both the British and the Germans had an interest in portraying the Italians in a foolish light. The British to augment morale when they were outclassed by the Germans, and the Germans would blame their defeats on the Italians. That being said Mussolini grew more and more inept , the country had no infrastructure to support a modern army, and the people's heart wasn't in the fight.
I am not as convinced as my fellow countryman I am afraid.
For a start I disagree that the Italians were poorly equipped, I concede that there gear was not "great" but it was adequate, they had a Navy second to none in the region, the army was equipped with weaponry from the 1930's era albeit modified WW1 designs and the air force had aircraft capable of matching the early RAF.
In all of the debacles you have mentioned none were on the magnitude of what the Italians managed, 300,000 of them invaded Egypt and not only were stopped but all lost Italian colonies in Africa and almost all of Libya to 30,000 poorly equipped British troops.
The invasion of Greece, it is not enough to just say it was a royal screw up of epic proportions because they not only were again stopped but ended up losing a third of Albania to a Greek Army that was formed only months if that before the Italian invasion.
Hell Benito thought he could get in on the German invasion of France and merrily got his arse handed to him by a couple of French Battalions.
There is literally no where that an Italian army got involved in that did not end up a disaster, 75,000 Germans surrendered in North Africa, 100,000 survivors at Stalingrad since a Russian army just happened to pick the Italians to drive through and 100,000+ in Italy because they did not have the desire to even defend their own country.
Further to this I like Headwards grew up on the stories of New Zealand's involvement in North Africa and Italy as I also had a number of family members there and the stories are exactly the same.
Now as I have said previously I have no doubt that the Italians had several fine divisions that fought well but on the whole their reputation for putting in a "crap war effort" is in my opinion justified, I can not recall one single positive thing they (1 father + 6 uncles) had to say about the Italian forces they encountered either as fighters or as POWs and while I accept it is only anecdotal evidence it is a consistent story presented by both sides which must carry some weight.
It you seriously want to discuss a poorly equipped army operating in adverse conditions then perhaps a look at the Romanian forces is in order as they were extremely badly equipped for the job at hand and yet performed well enough to receive commendations from von Manstein where by comparison the Italians gave Rommel a headache.
