The Italian Military: Bigger than the British but at half the cost
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 вер 2024
- A discussion of Italy's overlooked military, which is very capable and oddly low-cost.
Things to read:
warontherocks....
warontherocks....
wavellroom.com...
www.rand.org/p...
Check out my substack:
shurkin.substa...
/ michaelshurkin
/ michael-shurkin-ph-d-1...
Last but not least:
www.michaelshu...
A correction: Italy plans to buy 200+ of the new German Panther tank, not the Leopard 2A8, as I said in the video.
They did planned to buy Leopards 2. Their parliament even voted for it but negociations with KNDS collapsed due to Italians wanting to replace a lot of internal gears with Leonardo's ones. For the germans, it was "buy the whole tank or nothing".
The Panther is an unexpected plan B. I wouldn't bet too much on it. That tank only exists on paper right now.
Not because they wanted one forward gear and six reverse gears? @@Penero7
Rheinmetall has granted the development in collaboration with Italian industries, in addition to the development also production will be carried out in Italy, These are the reasons for the choice.
There will be about 200 Panther F51 and about less than 800 Lynx.
@@UsaqMadiqthe same old bullshit. Even after we saved multiple times your ass in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There's also a factor often disregarded, Italy defense industry is one of the most advanced worldwide, which makes Italian armed forces able to take advantage of many "home made" solutions.
Leonardo is a big ass company
As a French citizen I really like our collaborations with Italy, the FREMM frigates and the SAMP/T are great example of what we can do together.
They are excellent
Yes, French and Italian work great together, unless our asinine politicians that like to emphasize historical differences of generations ago.
Horizon classe destroyer, aster missile family.
The US may need the Italian Navy’s help in rebuilding it’s surface fleet
Italians tried (the constellation class should have been 85% similar to the Italian FREMM frigate).
But then the Congress said....nope. Making rhe Constellation class only 15% similar to a proven and great platform as FREMM. And that mean 5 years of delay for the first Constellation ship.
I was in the British Army between 06 and 2017. The austerity measures set by the Cameron government killed the British Army. Out saucing recruitment, food service’s, accommodation services. Constantly kicking programmes down the road.
There is no Austerity ffs. You have the most bloated military budget in Europe. And the highest capita spending per soldier.
@@RRaymer yeah where does most of that go on the nuclear deterrent not the conventional forces. Britain only meets its 2% by adding other departments money into it like pensions and anti terror stuff. None of the big companies involved now where there pre Cameron government the military’s real terms finance shrunk.
I've heard this many times from British Army personnel and UK defense analysts.
Italy has the advantage not to need nuclear attack submarines. Because any navy that wants to enter the Mediterranean Sea has to pass from either Suez, Gibraltar strait or Dardanelles strait. So they can just place there a slow but extremely silent AIP sub, that costs just a fraction of a nuclear attack submarine, and the enemy’s navy will have to pass from there. And it can wait there, sitting at the bottom without making any noise, for weeks without snorkeling. So no need to have submarines running up and down the oceans.
The fact to have no nuclear deterrence, is an handicap, not an advantage. Nukes and their vectors, are the most expensive voices in military budget.
Not many know that Italy has about 90 nuclear bombs loaned by USA that can equip Panavia Tornado (about 50) and F35 with SCALP missiles or launched by MLRS
@@PietroColombo-em5mz I said nuclear powered attack submarines, I didn’t mentions missiles. Those are expensive, unlike the Italian AIP, that are slow, silent and deadly for any fleet if you pass in their vicinity.
But Italy has anyway nuclear weapons too, as part of the nuclear sharing agreement with US. And the vectors are the f35, that given the quality of the Russian air defence, can reach as far as their internal tanks can provide. But I agree that Italy would need ballistic submarines too, but no need to get them nuclear powered, now with AIP technology yo7 can make submarines that can stay underwater for up to 3 weeks at the time, which is more tha enough to complete their mission. And anyway they would have very hard time to pass undetected the limits of the Mediterranean Sea. But is nit necessary. Noam South Korea is building ballistic AIP submarines, at a fraction the costs of nuclear powered ones.
I did not know this.
Non abbiamo neache le centrali nucleari per produrre energia. È stata una scelta che si è ripercossa, credo, anche per la propulsione di qualsiasi mezzo civile o militare.
As an American I’ve noticed that most Americans still see the European military powers based on their performance in WW2.
So we tend to over estimate Germany and the UK. While we under estimate Italy, Poland, and Spain.
Yes. Never mind Poland's valiant efforts in WW2 and oversized contribution to the Allied victory. Oh, and we always, always forget Canada. Which happens to be the subject of my next video :)
That would be a mistake to under estimate those NATO partners
@@michaelshurkin613Canada currently is a joke so don’t create any false expectations 😂
To be fair Spain is to be underestimated by sheer unwillingness to spend on Military
You're spot on.
Some of the best troops I ever worked with were the Folgore. Great guys!
I believe it.
BUNCH OF FASCISTS
It comes down to the ambition of being a global power vs being a regional power.
This translates to nuclear weapons, carries, subs, transport etc capabilities. A better comparison to Italy would be Turkey.
However if Britain would need to intervene regionally, they might have more limited capabilities. And that's a problem. Thankfully with NATO we all cover different areas.
Greece and Turkey are pretty similar in size and power of It's millitary. Since battling for ages about islands.
Italy has a very strong navy and costguard.
Ambition ? I think the word "illusion" would be more apt.
@@themsmloveswar3985
the British should stop to think they are a global power, they have not more "global" capabilities then Italy or Spain! The Navy, I mean if we watch how modern the Italian fleet is, from destroyers, now they are in the process to build the DDX classe destroyer, the frigates, the new PPA classe, I visited one of this ships, the command bridge looks like an airplane cockpit, then the satellite system Skymed, I think they have even an assembly line for the F35. Italy can intervene globally, of course not like the US, but surely like the UK or French
As an 18 year British Infantryman, I can say that the British Army is in far worse shape than you paint it to be on this channel sadly. The priorities of the powers that be baffles the average soldier. To give one small example; when I joined the Army in 2006, the standard issue infantry head mounted night vision was the PVS14 known as (HMNVS) In the British Army. I left in Oct Last year and this is still the standard issue with no real plans to replace it any time soon. The much newer NV33 dual tube with a thermal clip on is a game changer and has altered how we fight because it’s so good. But why would we rush to get good kit and make the infantry better at its job.
I'm sorry to hear this. I think the world of British soldiers. Reminds me of that line from WW1: Lions led by donkeys.
As I noted in my comment, I think a huge issue is, in 14 years of conservative government, we had 11 Ministers of State for Defence Procurement and Industry, and in 14 years 7 Secretary of States for Defence. It takes about a year to get to grips with a brief... So no one knows whats happening, and when they do, they are replaced, and any changes made, are themselves, changed by the new minister.
@@michaelshurkin613lions led by donkeys is historically lazy …
In The Changing of the Guard: the British army since 9/11 the author talks about how the British soldiers were jealous of how well equipped the US marines were but apparently US marines tend not to have the latest gear compared to the US army.
@@adamjones1982 I'm sure that would mostly just come down to the soldiers dislike for the SA80, and affinity for the hip and trendy M4. Perhaps also the age of the SUSAT started to show by then, especially when compared to the more modern optics that were being rolled out to American troops for the first time.
British soldier kit has otherwise been decently advanced, they were amongst the first to use optics for their rifles (combat troops went into the gulf with SUSAT) and also similarly to the US, were early adopters of body armour. Aside that, the Osprey and ECBA are very comparable to American body armour systems of the time.
Since 2016 with the introduction of the Virtus, I'd say the British trooper has been better equipped. LMM+gripod+LDS+DD Rail is very lethal and longer range than an M4, too. Though the Brits have paid attention to their infantry equipment, the same cant be said for their armoured fleet. Comparatively whilst American armoured vehicles have been getting frequent modernizations, British armoured vehicles have not.
Note: Italy is not going forward with the Leopard 2A8 order / Engineering vehicles based on it.
They are instead looking now for Leonardo and Rheinmetall to produce 200KF51 and 350 KF41.
Because they think of Southern Italy, people kind of forget that Italy is actually an industrial power. It manufactures more value than Britain or France, in Europe second after Germany...
@@here_be_dragons9184 Yes. I often forget this myself. For Americans, Italy's all about beautiful tourist destinations. We don't see industrial Italy.
Noted. my info was out of date.
Italy is a peninsula locked inside the Mediterranean, the UK is an island in the atlantic, the UK also has territories oversea, Italy doesn't. This means that Italy has no use for big nuclear powered carriers and submarines, while the UK still needs them.
Good points.
Overall a good unbiased analysis. As an Italian who has worked for the the Italian ministry of defense, we take pride in doing more with less and more money doesn't necessarily mean better quality. Italy's only glaring weakness over the years has been in its Ariete tank force, of which very few have been in active service. There is a modernization update program for them in process. However, if anyone has been paying attention of late, Italy's defense spending projects for the next few years have exploded with the war in Ukraine. Then, if one wants to compare the availability rate of Italian ships and planes to their NATO partners, there's a huge advantage in favor of Italy. I can confirm that personnel costs and pension expenditures have skyrocketed over the years for the military impacting training more than anything else. Regarding Afghanistan, keep in mind that Italy still had a conscript force until until 2004. That is why they were only sending their top units until about 2009-10.
Thank you. Good information.
The catch: the Army is more of a social program for undeveloped regions. Developing new tech and platforms in homegrown industry is great for export but forget spare parts, refurbishment, ammunition stocks and training exercises + we are politically unreliable
Fascinating presentation on the Italians who are criminally overlooked. Could you do one on the Spanish, Michael? Thank you and keep the videos coming!
I intend to. Spain, like Italy, has a far more potent military than most imagine. I'm always surprised when I read about the fact that they, for example, have a carrier.
Queen Elisabeth's class was designed to be STOBAR (skyjumps) aircraft carriers then they decided to turn them into CATOBAR (catapults) with F35C. For budget reasons, the government changed them again into STOBAR with F35B. And then they reduced the number of F35B they ordered.
They can't constantly change their mind like this and hope to have cost effective equipement.
It must be said that the UK government is absolutely terrible when it comes to commitment.
As an example, back when Concorde was being developed, the UK desperately wanted to pull out of the project and cancel it because "it cost too much **crybaby noises**".
The French had been canny enough to put a no back-out clause into the contract forcing the largely useless British state into not backing out.
To be fair, the reversion to STOBAR wasn't solely budget drive. They were planning to use EMALS to launch and as a new untested technology they decided it wasn't worth the risk. It's a shame b/c it's obviously now working on USS Gerald R Ford but understandable at the time
@debbiegilmsources?our6171
@@PJH13 The French seem content to go with EMALS, even with it being 100% American. Normally that makes them very reluctant.
Weaponizing British pride and insecurities is a perfect way to jumpstart your channel and get views 😅 Great video, Forza Italia!
You have figured me out! 😁
The Cavour costed 1.5 Billion Euro, plus 74 millions to make it compatible with F-35.
So you can have like 5 Cavour for a Queen Elizabeth.
But you don't......
@@neutronalchemist3241 2.25 bn for small carrier. 4 bn for Queen Elizabeth each. NOT 5x the price.
QE has a far larger aircraft complement may be up to 4x. It displaces over twice the amount. The build cost is high but the operating costs in terms of crew are maybe similar or maybe 50% higher for much greater combat capability and labour costs are huge in the Western world. The Italian carriers are basically light carriers.
@@nath9091 On the other hand, you can have two light carriers operate in the same group, but you can't split one in two.
@@nath9091 However, QE is made to normally carry 24 F-35b, exceptionally 36. Cavour can carry 12, exceptionally 24.
Just a note on British Regulars the 73,000 figure does not include ~4,000 Gurkhas, a minor note which doesn’t change the arguments made but just a factor to consider.
I honestly thought it did include them. They are very, very good.
I wouldn't call those 4k a minor note... they're truly a force to be reckoned with!
Italy lost WW2. Its constitution forbids much of the “global ambitions” available to France or UK. Defence (on the Med), or UN missions are ok, for else, it would not be approved by Parliament.
As for nuclear, as signatory of non proliferation treaties, there are some 80 tactical nuclear bombs lent by USA in its arsenal to stop an eventual (Soviet now Russia) land invasion which is the reason Tornado jets are still in use
@@paolopuppoli8360 Prima ci togliamo dai coglioni quelle bombe e meglio sarà. Dammi retta.
@@ezioauditore1522Se tu pensi che la Russia o la Cina non ti attacchino nuclearmente, solo perchè non possiedi bombe nucleari sul tuo suolo, ti sbagli di grosso.
Meglio averle e far venire il dubbio che si possa rispondere, che non averne e dare certezza agli avversari che se lanciano, loro ne usciranno indenni.
@@paolopuppoli8360 Tornado and F35 now
The UK lost out when it decided to stop building diesel subs
1. UK diesel subs were pretty good
2. Lost out potential export contracts
3. Can still kill other subs and surface ships very effectively for a lot less money than nuclear subs
In effetti le speculazioni storiche, le quali dipingono inglesi e tedeschi, piuttosto che americani o francesi come eserciti affidabili, mentre relegano l'Italia alla coda della situazione, in quanto perse la guerra a causa della sua "negligenza" militare. In effetti, nessuno di questi eserciti avrebbe fatto meglio dell'Italia se avessero combattuto come fece l'Italia: praticamente armata con armi della prima guerra mondiale, e senza una motivazione reale come invece ebbero Francia, invasa di tedeschi, Inghilterra, attaccata dai tedeschi, o Germania, le cui motivazioni furono una rivalsa storica contro le nazioni che la umiliarono nel primo conflitto mondiale! Gli States avevano e hanno una forza costruttiva imponente e per questo possono permettersi di fare gli "eroi" nei conflitti che, spesso generano, o a cui partecipano! Dunque, la mia cara Italia entrò in un conflitto che non voleva a causa di un dittatore presuntuoso e, senza armi! Quanti degli eroici alleati avrebbero avuto il coraggio, o l'incoscienza di farlo? Noi italiani lo abbiamo fatto, e spesso con azioni eroiche! Ad armi pari e motivati ben pochi degli eroi citati ci terrebbero testa, è sicuro!
ben detto compatriota!
@giorgio-tc6ui
Not to mention the English operation Daffodil, where the combined British forces were stopped and defeated practically by Italian troops alone with some scattered Germans here and there.
In the night battles Tobruk was defended and held by Italians but the Germans took it over and the English were happy about it, they could not lose against genetically "inferior" soldiers.
"We Italians have done it, and often with heroic actions!"
Italian performance in WW1 was as bad as in WW2. Just saying.
@@kodor1146 Against Austria Italy did fight quite well, at Caporetto there were also the Germans that’s why we lost there.
@@andreaventri07 "at Caporetto there were also the Germans that’s why we lost there."
This is indeed true. The outstanding victory at Caporetto was basically a German one.
"Against Austria Italy did fight quite well,"
Since the winter battle of the Carpathian Mountains 1914/15 the Danube monarchy basically just had a militia army at command with a very low combat value. Even against this very weak force Italy did not perform well. The Italian army was not prepared for war, its units were poorly equipped and the soldiers poorly trained. During the course of the war Italy was only able to achieve very limited territorial gains in 11 Battles of the Isonzo from 1915-1917 and finally suffered a devastating defeat in 1917.
Thank you for a balanced analysis. Dont forget the Carabiniere. This paramilitary police force enforcing the law at home have also been involved in numerous peace building and keeping operations.
The Italians are now also thinking about bringing back national service.
Really? Because of Ukraine?
Arma dei Carabinieri born as the Military Police of the ground Army. In the WW1 they also partially fight as common soldiers. So in WW2 . Some part works as Police, some of them are a selected army corp. But all of them are considered real military defense corp as Army or Navy ( sound strange I know, the same for me as an Italian )
Italy just ordered 25 new F-35, (15 F-35 A and 5 B for the air force; 5 B for the Navy]. Total fleet will be 115 F-35, of which 75 A and 20 B for the air force, 20 B for the navy.
I really feel for the British patriots in this comment section still believing they're still a global power.
They will have an harsh awakening very soon.
Britain IS a global power by the mere definition of it. Bases overseas, carriers and force projection. It may well not be a global super power any more, so I assume that is what you actually mean.
As an Italian, I say you are pretty harsh with the Brits. The tools you need depend on the work you do: having a Queen Elizabeth comes handy when you need to defend an overseas territory, and not all the adversaries are as limited as Argentine. On the contrary, having a Cavour, or better a Trieste, gives you flexibility and allows you to project power well enough when the sea around you is the Mediterranean, while still be able to operate otside of it if needed. France and Italy bought a limited number of Horizon DD, as the Fremm works as well in the Mediterranean sea, but if you need to station for a long time on the other side of the world, a type 45, which is by all aspect equivalent to a Horizon, DD, is more convenient and the UK bought 8, but it's also more expensive. On the armoured side, both the UK and Italy are in bad shape, with mostly outdated vehicles. The C1 Ariete will be refurbished but has always been a prototype, as the intended C2 never came due to the Cold War end. Like for the Challanger 2 is running short of spares, often kept working through the cannibalization of phased out hulls. The British tank will get a new gun and turret but not a new engine, while the C2 will get a new engine but not the new gun. Both are old tanks, but apparently, the UK has more Challangers to update, so they will stay in service for longer
Italy dropped the L2A8 for a joint development of the more promising KF51, not been allowed in the franco german shared development of the future tank.
The Brits are buying the Ajax, while Italy is going for an ad hoc KF41. Both will buy the RCH-155 self propelled Horowitzer.
The Centauro B2 is not an armoured troop carrier being sizeably more armoured. It serves as a rapid intervention force across the monutainous terrain splitting the peninsula and for the Isles, being able to move across mountain passes and using the civil infrastructures to autonomously reach the deployment zone.
Missiles and Helicopters are about the same, with the UK renewing the troop transport fleet in the short term; the combat air fleet is similar, except for the lack of F35A to replace Tornados for the UK where the typhoon dobeverything. Training wise, the RAF and the RN send their pilots in Italy for the advanced training.
New Frigates are being purchased by the UK about the same as a Fremm, but their new second class frigades are lacklustre, for what is know. Special Aircrafts are hit and miss, weith Italy being better in the AEW while The brits are doing much better with ASW and the UK having better coverage for Air Transport.
The Brits obviously have nuclear weapons and submarines, which are not cheap, but Italy's U212 are better suited for the Mediterranean.
Both nations have capable defence, and the new six generation fighter will be developed by both with Japan. Leonardo is present both in the UK and in Italy, producing helicopters and electronics.
I feel like the gist is this: they are roughly the same. For many, though, the fact that Italy's even really in the same league as the British is big news.
Why isn't Italy allowed to get in the MGCS program? I thought that it was the Italian who didn't want to participate.
@@Arleq1Cause France and Germany did an European axis between them, don't wanting others to come in to maintain some sort of technological gap with others (that they doesn't have honestly). Italy instead militarly joined making an axis with UK upon air force and going with Rheinmetal, so Germany, regarding the MBT.
The lack of confidence of the Italian military may date back to WW2. It's an unfortunate dated outlook.
I think most people massively underestimate the huge amount and depth of corruption in the UK.. everything is designed to milk as much money as possible without delivering anything of value.
Wow we asked and you delivered! Very much appreciated 🙏
My pleasure. Thank you for watching
A very interesting videos. Thanks a lot for this segment about the Italians military, way too often overlooked.
Thank you for watching.
It shows you how much history plays into the public image of the military and national identity, and how out of date we all are. The British military has a pretty illustrious history and the Italian's have been underated. Speaking as a Briton, Britain as a whole rests on its historical laurels, and is constantly looking backwards. I think past success can lead to a quite stunted culture with a fear of progress. We have an idea of British exceptionalism that hinders a lot of what we do. People have not got their heads around Britain's reduced place in the world.
Britain’s place in the world may be reduced from the global empire it once was but the doesn’t mean the uk is a pushover it’s the 6th largest economy, has one of the worlds most powerful financial centres, has the second largest aerospace industry, has the second largest private military industry, has nuclear weapons, has a seat on the in security council, is a leading member of nato, has one of the best intelligence agencies and special forces in the world, has one of the best air forces and navies in the world despite being small and underfunded, is the second most powerful country in terms of soft power, is a leader in AI development in Europe, is a leading member of the commonwealth, leading member of aukus, is a leading member of the five eyes alliance and has an close relationship with the United States so the uk may not be the superpower it once was but it still punches far above its weight and at the very least is a major regional power in Europe at best the uk is a great power but not a superpower
@@thomasbootham2707 Given. But we can't go alone anymore. We require the US or Europe. We were (until recently) one of the leaders of Europe and appreciated by the US. We are now irrelevant to the EU, and not as important to the US. Austrialia and Poland would be more relevant to the US's strategic needs.
@@1mlister Exactly, even at the peak of British power our success was driven by constantly forming alliances. Most of the British empire wasn't conquered by British soldiers, Waterloo was won by an Anglo-Dutch-Prussian coalition and with WW2 we rallied the entire free world to our cause (some faster than others).... people ignore that today because they think it's a weakness, but to me being able to work with others was our greatest strength
Italy does have a massive military history, just not in WW2... if you don't consider the Afrika Korps and the Italian Navy's impact in the Mediterranean. In WW1 Austria-Hungary surrendered to Italy days before Germany surrendered to France and the UK, and the war ended in enemy territory, contrary to what the French and British were capable of achieving. It means that perhaps Italy doesn't have a great military history in the UK, but again that's a different nation. Maybe you should check Italy if you are wondering whether Italy has a military history and narrative.
@@1mlister We're toast, as the yanks say. As by far the largest native-English speaking nation in an EU (that advantage is now with Ireland) that had half a billion people, we were in pole position to scoop up enormous amounts of tech and consultancy work modernising central/eastern EU telecoms, IT, transport networks. Try finding an Irish dude nowadays, 4 years after Brexit, with an IQ over 60 who isn't on 360€/day.
& My humble guess, MUCH better catering than the British military. Perhaps on par with the French, but i have only came across Italian Navy Catering (on land 15:34 , in Rome), but that was excellent...
Also my guess, the Italian have developed strict defence purchasing procedures (to combat the age when they were in the hands of their suppliers,) which now give them a lot of bang for the buck. I.e. nurtured, but on a tight leach?
"The Italian Military: Bigger than the British but at half the cost" and cooler :P
Don't forget the Italians' top notch headgear.
@@michaelshurkin613 forget about the gear, let's talk about the rations packages content!
@@michaelshurkin613the real difference is the food provided to the troops!
Italy’s military isn’t exactly on the radar here in Australia so thank you for producing this interesting primer.
Yet it was from you a month ago with aircraft carriers, F35s and Eurofighters.
And yet you have all those pizza parlors in Australia
@@Mr.BensonGrazie a Dio almeno la smettete di mangiare i canguri e potete mangiare qualcosa di buono…..
Australia ‘s military non pervenuta here
France has some noteable weaknesses. Its army is built for fighting African countries. In which case artillery is less important. For example they dont really have any rocket artillery capability, and have around the same amount of howitzers as Britain despite being twice as large. In a conventional war artillery deficits will be unacceptable.
Their army isn’t built to fight African countries. It fought African djihadists helping African governments, that’s all.
As for rocket artillery they do have MLRUs, as well as tracks mounted artillery, normal tracked artillery and truck mounted artillery.
@brunol-p_g8800 How many do they have. If France has 2 tracker artillery that is not enough.
Italy spends less also because the cost of things in Italy is lower. Considering the fact that Italy, with very rare exceptions, independently produces everything it needs: ammunition, weapons, uniforms, ships, tanks, etc.
Italy, for example, will spend €200 to dress a soldier, while the UK will spend €400, because the production costs in Italy are lower.
In essence, even if Italy has spent less, it has the same things as the UK army and perhaps something more. The UK Army is still more powerful because it has nuclear power at its disposal. Due to a referendum held in 1987 (1 year after the Chernobyl disaster), Italy cannot use nuclear power.
Half the UK's budget is spent on the nuclear deterrant, which isn't even a home built deterrant but an American one which we rent.
So if we stop paying Uncle Sam's bailiffs will be sailing into HMNB CLYDE ?
@@paulbestwick2426 I wouldn't call the US Navy a mere bailiff and they'd likely be training their weapons on HMNB Clyde and the one down in Portsmouth with all the attack subs with the intent to destroy it if it's not surrendered.
No. We lease the Trident missile bodies from a joint pool. The submarines that carry them and the warheads that sit on the top of the Trident are British built.
It's not even close to half the budget, it's about 6% Source: BBC
In reality the UK spends around £3 billion a year on the Trident programme, spending on the UK's nuclear program is not even equivalent to 10% of total annual military spending. North Korea has spent much less on its nuclear program. Why do you spread misinformation?
anyway as an Italian I hope that you English increase your army, since we are in the same boat
The Spanish Army also has the Centauro II. They are used for cavalry work.
And Spain has the same GDP as Russia… so maybe worth a comparison by @michealshurkin613 would be worth while
Spanish Army has the Centauro I 105mm as most of the Italian Army.
The first Centauro II 120mm are just being issued here in Italy, it will take years to fully replace the old ones.
Brasil just bought some Centauro II 120mm, too: the plan is producing under license there, but the first italian-made were just arrived.
At the time the Queen Elizabeth was ordered, it was anticipated the British Army would have101,000 full time trained soldiers, around 10,000 in training a volunteer reserve of 30,000 and around 10, 000 ex-full time force reservists available. There were to be 10 nuclear attack subs 8 large amphibious warfare ships and around 25 frigates and destroyers. The RAF and Fleet Air Arm was to have around 350 fighter/attack aircraft and the army 66 attack helicopters. In round terms a third of that planned force has been cut.
This is such amazing content to get for free. If you keep doing these this channel will get big.
Saying that a Nuclear sub is better than a diesel-electric is like saying, that tractors are better than sportscars, or vice versa. Nuclear ain't as stealthy as D/E boats, but good on the big seas, such as the Atlantic and the Pacific. But in shallow water and close to the coast, it is diesel-electric boat area. In the first Iraq war, Denmark was asked to join with their D/E boats, because they could get in under land, and gather intelligence. A nuclear sub would never go that close to land, too noisy and too big.
I don't think Italy wants to rule the seas, they just want to paddle around unseen, in the Mediterranean Sea.
Remember the Swedish sub that "sank" the US carrier. A nuclear sub would never get close to a carrier group, way too many sensors will hear it.
The QE-class carriers were, unfortunately, a huge waste of money. It was poorly planned and poorly executed, with the expectation that everything would work itself out.
We have neither enough people nor enough aircraft to operate one at full capability, let alone both.
If we flesh out the air wing with aircraft from other nations, that’s great, but our two closest allies (USA and France) use nuclear carriers with cats and traps, and thus a different type of aircraft unsuited to ours. All this on the backdrop of an ailing submarine fleet, failing to successfully transition to a new class of submarine, and hanging onto CASD by the skin of its teeth. All of these problems have only got worse, especially with the approach of the successor class SSBN, who we equally do not have enough people for and are having to cannibalise our current crews for.
The UK has tried to buy status, like a boy who buys an expensive car with borrowed money, but still lives at home with his Mum. Fortunately, there is a bit of substance behind the bullshit, but in such small quantities as to make little difference.
I still think it likely that the UK military is more competent than the Italian military in most areas, but is almost certainly not worth twice the amount of budget. The Italians are formidable for that sort of budget, and we really must work closer with them, particularly on the front of CSG and patching together a full CAG!!
Thank you for taking the the time to look into the italian defence force. About the italian policy, Italy because of it's constitution can't be active as the US, the british and french are. We have a purely defence force.. Officially when we go on peacekeeping missions or support NATO operation, we engage when the life of the military is at risk. For example when we were in Afghanistan, we were responsible of the Herat province, but just after the US toups conquered it and cleared it. Unofficially the Italian army has been very active conducting operation of all sorts.
As you exactly point out, no one thinks of calling Italy in when it us about to create a multi force to defend the Baltic states , everyone presumes it's not worth. But something the British are very clueless about is why the hell, each time the US starts a war americans calls for Italy's military sustain in the first round of phone calls,.:)
Italy developed the Centauro 1. Because during tge cold war, Italy had a boarder with Yugoslavia. And all was geared up to defend this boarder. But italy is also just over the Adriatic sea from the ex Jugoslavia. Easy to cross ad attack on the flank. So the Centauro Tank killer was developed. This way if the Eastern block tried to attack on the flank. A fast moving "battle tank like perfomance" road driving viechle could show up fast on the battle field slow down or stop the enemu and give the heavy tanks the time necessari to show up.
Just another paper tiger on the continent, the Europeans simply aren’t interested in robust military capabilities.
wikipedia price of cavour is €1.39B.
A bargain.
As you stated the Cavour is currently in the Pacific. In addition to the eight x F35's on board they also have six x Harrier's on board.
The Queen Elizabeth class carriers in their current configuration is a compromise. They were planned to carry the F35C which is more capable in terms of payload and range. At one stage they switched to the F35B which meant the QE was changed to a catobar configuration which cost more money. The UK government wanted to cancel the contract for one of them, but termination clauses in the contract meant that it would have cost as much to cancel as it would to have complete the ship. There was even talk for a while of selling the Prince of Wales to India.
In hindsight three x Cavour class carriers would have been a better fit for the Royal Navy. They would have cost less and had more money to equip them with more F35B's. Right now, the UK even if all the F35B's they ordered were delivered, allowing for training, maintenance and embarking a full airwing onboard they would be hard pressed to fully equip one carrier in a surge capacity, nevermind two carriers.
Bigger but not necessarily better... That's been proven before.
Italy ordered 24 new Eurofighters to replace tranche 1 units that eill be phased out about 2029.
And remember, on top of all this we also have the best military rations in the west :D
Excellent video. Indeed now Italy plans to buy Rheinmetall Panthers tanks and adapt them to Italian requirements and electronics (by Leonardo), not KNDS Leopards. Italy broke negotiations with KDNS because it refused the "italianization" of the Leopard. Regarding the USA, in addition to the Fremm/Constellation frigates, Italy also designs and co-produces (Iveco and BAE Systems) the new Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) for the US Marines, replacing the legacy AAvs. The new ACVs will also enter into service with the Italian Marines (San Marco and Lagunari). Italy (Leonardo) also sold 30 M-346 Master advanced jet trainers to the Israeli Airforce, which uses them also as light ground attack fighters under the name "Lavi". The main weakness of the Italian armed forces is not the lack of traning or maintenance, but of amunitions, particularly heavy artillery shells and surface to surface, air to surface and anti aircraft missiles. The other weakness is the very weak capacity in attack drones. Regarding the Cavour aircraft carrier, it weighs around 30,000 Mts full load, and can carry up to 20 aircrafts, including F35B, AV-8B+ Harrier and helicopters. In Italy we like to complain about ourselves, but on a whole it seems that the Italian armed forces produce good value for money
An excellent analysis altogether. I have two small remarks. First, I think you seem to underestimate the capabilities of modern AIP submarines operating within Italy’s AOI, where they are arguably better than nuclear attack subs due to the smaller acoustic signature and ability to operate in shallow waters. If Italy wanted to be a player in the indo-pacific they would clearly need SSN, but do they really want to? Secondly, Centauro came out of a very specific and unique set of requirements, that is to repel an amphibious landing on the peninsula. They have the same firepower of tanks and they can be deployed quickly in overwhelming numbers, negating the armour disadvantage. These vehicles also happen to be excellent in peacekeeping/low-intensity scenarios.
I read that the cost of the Cavour was around 1.3/1.5 billions
Video suggestions: analyze the specialization of most European NATO militaries; another good country to dive into may be Turkey.
Very good ideas. Working on it!
Firstly, thank you Sir for your video! I am a (very) new subscriber to your channel and I must say that I am happily surprised by the content which you create. It's definitely at the level of Perun. Yet, I would argue that one needs to already have a fairly good understanding of military matters in order to properly follow you. And that's a plus in my book!
Secondly, I would say that carrier-wise (outside of the US Navy), it is more about the fleet accompanying the carrier (both above and underwater) than the actual carrier size itself.
Thirdly, I will have to look into your past videos if you have already done content about Poland's Army and it's current (prime) position within Europe's strengths & requirements in terms of sheer Continental mass vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine (as opposed to FR for example).
BTW, the SAMP/T Air Defense system is a Franco-Italian joint initiative with (some) differences between both options. But you already know that. Some would argue that both are better than the Patriot because of their 360 coverage. But I am no expert.
Finally, one thing which "you forgot" about the Italian Infantry:...
With their Beretta AX160, they surely have the nicest "Designer" assault rifle of them all! :-)
Thanks again, your channel is serious and on-point.
Its because the Italians feed their troops on cheap pasta & the British feed their troops on expensive bangers and mash!
You have to remember that it is the crew that fights the tank that wins not the most up to date tank that no-one knows how to use.
This is true. I have high confidence in British tank crews. Italian? I don't know.
Unfortunately untrue: modern technologies dictate if you can survive a few minutes on the battlefield or a cheap drone blows you in pieces before you reach the combat position.
@@michaelshurkin613All we know about the italian tank crews was written in Rommel diaries. He used the Italian Ariete tank division as his tip of the diamond, plus the whole Ariete tank division fallen until his last tank, encircled and heavily outnumbered than the British/Australian/Nz tank squadrons.
The last Ariete Div. Message we have:
"At 3.30 pm on 4 November 1942 the last radio message from the Ariete division was sent to Rommel's command: "Enemy tanks raided south of the Ariete div, thus Ariete surrounded. Located about 5 km north-east of Bir el-Abd. Ariete tanks will fight".
You really can't compare the UK & Italian carriers and subs, they are for different roles. Also there is a chunk of RN expenditure on the nuclear deterrent and protecting it, that the Italians do not have at all. That fundamentally changes their ability to independently face down a nuclear threat from Russia. That is crucial for the defense of Europe in the event of a Manchurian candidate in the White House. The UK is concerned with long range expeditionary power, and therefore the logistic tail for supporting it, but not in having to defend against a ground invasion, hence reduced heavy armored units. Italy's focus on the Med and neighboring zones is absolutely correct for their needs. That said, (1) all NATO forces are severely understaffed, & under funded given the current threat, (2) everyone is severely behind with drones, affordable long range large volume cruise missiles, long range SAMS and counter-drone ShorRAD.
I know that it's hard to do but, in order to find out the actual power of a military organization, factors like the quality and the quantity of trading, the level of collaboration between services should be considered.
By this point of view Italy is historically lacking.
Spending money for salaries makes people happy.
Spending money in new equipment makes industries happy.
Spending money for exercises makes everyone unhappy because people get injured, equipment get damaged, civilian don't like to see military personnel do their job, etc.
Btw I have been in the italian Army for 22 years.
Sure, so let me understand Italy is lacking with Leonardo that is the 7th bigger worlds consortium (where the other 6 are all American).
Uk instead with BAE being the 8th one it's great i bet...
Excellent analysis.
Very understated point! I hope Americans listen to what you have to say with intent.
The RN has a displacement of over 800K ton while the Italian over 275K that's a big difference. Trident eats up 6% of UK budget too
You've taken your numbers from where exactely?
@@solinvictus1234 where do you think
@@andce2826 You tell me that, cause from this answer i'm starting to say that is a BS
and us Italians, how stupid 10 years in Afghanistan if we don't do well why did they call us? anyway the Germans are not those of uncle Hadolfo, if the Russians attack they collapse immediately like the French in WW2
Left wing propaganda has emasculated the German Army. They are just civil servants in uniform now.
They also have those supet cool Beretta rifles.
Is one of the reasons the Italian military is overlooked because of their general unwillingness to commit their military in most cases? That would explain France and UK who generally are not afraid to commit forces. Though it doesn't explain why Germany is usually considered instead of Italy.
Probably the explanation is that this Shurkin-j€rk has hardly a clou of anything and is just an old windbag.
Sending troops abroad in wars is forbidden by the Italian constitution, however Italy has been proactive in almost all western peace keeping missions in the past 20 years (the catch is that a peace keeping operation is not a war).
Well this is something you just made up on the spot since Italy is heavily invested in NATO and UN missions. It was present in Afghanistan and still has forces in Iraq. So I don't know what you are talking about
With Meloni prime minister the cost for the defence will grow up
The test for carrier efficiency is sustained sortie generation. The QE can generate vastly more sorties
This is true.
The purpose of a Carrier is to Project Strategic power World wide. The fact that the UK carriers can project almost 100 6th Gen stealth aircraft anywhere in the world propel the UK above the Italian navy.
The threat is china, and with so many nations fielding f35b the QE carriers can act as force protection for the west complimenting the US carriers. A massive land army is less of a requirement for the UK when continental armies can fill that void
The British Military has been systematically neutered from following America into pointless conflicts. Like a whipped dog.
Conflicts make you stronger and sharper. They neutered themselves by letting industry that was capable of supplying the military leave or shut down.
Believe what you want ….we still train an excellent soldier ……and most people want the Brits on their side……….ps this guy just talks to fast
@@noahway13 Debatable. Fighting counter-insurgency wars might make you less efficient in near peer conflict and vice versa. Experience gathered might be irrelevant or misleading.
@@noahway13 the 2 million dead, 4 million wounded, two successive national bankruptcies that led to the dissolution of the empire, two sterling crises from war loans prove how wrong you are conflict "sharpens and strengthens" a nation. You hawks are insane.
@@here_be_dragons9184 The Brits learned that in WWI. A few decades machine-gunning spear-wielding natives in Africa did not prepare the Brits to face disciplined and technologically sophisticated Germans in 1914.
I wanted to respond, but then I realized the British, French and Italians are allies. We are on the same boat.
@@xmaniac99 In the same boat. On the same page and work well together.
The fact they dont have nuclear option reduce a lot their expense ...
And not a lot of projection force ...
They appear to have better amphib capabilities than the British. On par with the French.
@@michaelshurkin613 sorry my respond was on phone and maybe to short, by projection force i was thinking more globally .
French and British think more globally ( because of their history ) they can/want project force all around the world and fast .
Itally think "only" to the défense of their teritoryy / Mediterranean sea .
They were build agaisnt Russia / Yougoslavia ... that why they have good amphib capabilities, for Yougoslavy .
Base all around the world cost a lot of money + nuclear option like a say before + the fact UK ... copy / follow way too mutch the USA, and all their fail big project cost them a lot of money, USA can do it not UK and they pay an heavy price for it .
It's not a critic of Italy by the way, they understand their role/mission and they do it the best way possible at a very good cost effective ... it's better to do somethink well than try to do everythink and fail to do anythink .
Well, they share a nuclear option with the US , so a nuclear option they don't own really but still have to take in mind for procurement
@@TelManothHexperax You said it. And Recently an Italian Carrier was deployed to Japan.
France's nuclear defense accounts for approximately 13% of the annual military budget.
You have hit the point exactly, Italy has regional ambitions and is building a very good army with excellent equipment. Our budget would not allow us to have a good army with global ambitions. The choice of our aircraft carriers to be low-cost but highly effective multi-role aircraft is dictated by budgetary needs combined with the possibility of building a powerful and modern navy even if smaller than global powers such as the US or England. In addition to this, we have a cutting-edge military industry and the new class of tanks that will be developed together with the Germans will, I believe, mark a turning point in the heavy military industry. Italy is doing well, we must concretely do what is possible with our budget and support our allies with our military and industrial capabilities. However, yours is a very good video.
Best thing about the Italian Military is their ration packs. They are amazing
People underestimate Britain and its global reach. Britain have bases on every corner of the globe. You must also factor in the commonwealth. Although not obliged, they normally support the British in their operations and we are much closer with those nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc). The Italians have no such unofficial alliance like the anglo-sphere. Can't underestimate the British soldier on an individual level as well. The training they receive is backed by a myriad of different operation types.
We are also criminally underfunded and likely more corrupt. We have a decent navy and airforcest least.
Unless the quality of their forces has increased very greatly in the last twenty years, this seems to greatly overstate their ability. Nonetheless, we in the UK have had successive governments seemingly set on reducing our military capability and national confidence.
I think they are nato standard troops.
Doesnt have century of success. however recent decades are the ine that counts.
Battle of Izbushenski. Only 250 cavalry men of the Savoia rgt. armed with just Sabers and hand grenades, charged and slaughtered 2.500 men of the 812th Soviet Syberian infantry of the Red Army, equipped with cannons, mortars and machineguns.
Maybe it's you that don't know who the Italians are, looking at them understate their ability.
At the moment, aviation wise, yes, Italy is in a much better spot then the UK. The only point where the UK have an edge, is about ASW surveillance, Italy lacking a proper long range ASW aircraft, and in the Air Transport department (C17/A400).
The UK currently sends its pilots in Italy for advanced training, for example.
Unless the UK will invest in the F35A, it will be at a disadvantage, as the Typhoon is not a perfect substitute for the Tornado and the Tempest is still far away.
Re Alpine regiments. British military indeed comprises elite alpine troops. Whilst the British Army does not have mountain troops, Royal Marine Commandos, all receive mountain warfare training in Scotland and in Norway, and the corps comprises a mountain leadership fighting unit based in Norway.
In reality, Alpini brigade aren't no more focused only in the traditional Alpine high-peak or Norway-kind of artic/extreme warfare they had untill the 90s
Those moved to a more generic "light brigade" role, with an emphasis on rough terrains where more 'on foot' than 'on wheel' - they worked well both in roadless Bosnia/Kosovo hills, and in relatively more mobile Afghanistan operations.
Mountain warfare is still there, there still is the Alpine School, but Alpini are a now Swiss-knife kind of brigades.
@@ulissedazante5748 Yes, apart from the Alpini paratroopers "Monte Cervino", which are special forces, the Alpini are a specialised unit. Specialised ≠ special forces. Alpini fight conventional operations.
@@gs7828 yep, the Monte Cervino upgraded into a "ranger" special operation force.
The two Alpini Brigades are conventional light infantry with a twist.
Great Britain is in reality no longer a great power, the priorities for a number of years have been that of a woke regime on steroids, inclusion and targets (no pun intended) are the priority. We built two carriers we can't afford to run to keep Scottish shipyards going, we can't man our vessels and can't afford aircraft. Our air force have actually stated in writing (emails) not to recruit white people and were taken to court for discrimination. Our army live in barracks and housing that has been passed unfit for refugees, if not for Ukraine awakening politicians we would have allowed more reductions. Our nuclear subs misfire missiles, we have only one factory producing bullets (one missile takes out 100%), in fact until recently we only had 3 days supply. More people are leaving than joining, and you have only to speak to recent leavers to see the sorry state we are in. However the most critical thing that no one seems to recognise, as an island nation, is that we have no merchant fleet and even those we have are crewed by foreigners. We almost starved in WW2 with the largest merchant fleet in the world, now we would surely starve and are incapable of logistical support to our armed forces. We still look good on paper, but it is a paper tiger with glued on fangs and a camouflage by Picasso. Hats off to those brave and resolute service people with backbone, still in service and doing their best, a sadly diminishing crowd.
Re the carriers and other naval vessels. A submariners point of view is that everything other than a submarine should be classified as Targets.
You can only judge an army’s value after an armed conflict.
Can you do something on the Belgian military structure/posture please at some point? Thanks in advance😊loving the video uploads, very informative.
If you need any insight about the pronunciation of the Italian terms I'll be happy to help. I would like to agree about pretty much all you said, but at one point. There is no substitute for good well trained soldiers. I think that the recent events show that. Having a large number of soldiers is essential. If anything the Italian military should try to work on improving the budget to fix logistics and training issues.
Be interesting to know what your summative evaluation of the Australian military would be.
We can’t crew most of our subs. Navy population is way down. Recruiting rates for the army are down.
In-house talk for those at the coal face isn’t very positive.
The British and French both have nuclear submarines,most of the the uk and French armed forces have the most modern equipment.
Nuclear submarine makes more noise than a diesel electric one. Sure, it makes more nautical mileage than a D-electric one, but this last one is more deadly
Half the price but would you rather have a british soldier on your left or right flank? You know the facts and figures but not life experience
Italy has not the fleet, the aviation or the nuclear weapons that UK has got
Sure, and Sheeps fly.
Really interesting video, it would be cool if you could also talk about the Spanish military and how it compares to its neighbours and NATO
The centauro 2 is the result of our landmass. It would likely be very usefull in ukraine, as advanced sensors and mobility are much more usefull than straight up armor. Which is why the leopard 2 is the best tank for the job.
Most armies in the world are at least twice the size of the British military and half the budget.
@@cesargonzalez4146 Most armies in the world aren’t very good at fighting other armies. They are used for intimidation their own civilian population.
this was actually a good video, with an actually very good topic to focus on
Fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable insight into an almost unknown military. Thank you. Perhaps a naive thought, when you produce your papers for world powers I assume you do more than firtle about on the internet and come up with numbers from odd random sources which then end up leading to recommendations? Looking forward to the next video.
We need a top navy vary soon because the world is changing fast. Yamen nearly shut down suez because of isitreals war on civilians? The Panama canal is drying up through drought. Shipping routes have changed so trade is impacted as well as UK cutting both legs of because of Brexit. So uk navy needs upgrading aswell as new warships. Once uk has bigger navy? Or we join up with a friendly country to expand the navy. We will need to protect trade routes going forward 10yrs. Just my thoughts. ✌️
Navies since WW2 have been dormant because of the primacy of the US Navy. The world is changing, and everyone's going to need big navies again, regardless of what's going on with the USN and the USA.
As well as the additional cost of the nuclear deterrent - I think you also need to consider the UK's global presence - e.g. military bases in the Falklands, Estonia and Cyprus, as well as training facilities in Canada and Belize. I also think you need to take into consideration the vast operational experience gathered by the UK armed forces. Finally - there's the potential stereotyped view of fighting effectiveness - i.e. person for person, who is more effective soldier / sailor / aviator? I think that at the more elite range of the spectrum, e.g. pilots, submarine force, Tier 1 special forces- Italians hold their ground with UK counterparts. But at a lower level, I think the Italians do not have the UK's deep operational experience or logistical support networks.
It's true that the UK has overseas bases, although I'd add that the Italians are involved in an astounding array of overseas engagements. UN PKOs etc. Not quite the same thing, of course. I've avoided touching the reputational thing: yes, Italy has a terrible.repitation. But I don't know why the Italian army performed.so badly in some conflicts and thus.dont know if any of the reasons apply today.
Excellent Video! Italy is so overlooked. Its unclear how the italian forces would handle themselves under pressure tho (withdraw from Iraq back in the day was very early and hasty).
We need a video about:
- the Bundeswehr
- The Polish Army
Thank you. Yes, no idea how the Italians would do in a real fight. And yes, Bundeswehr and the Poles are on the list.
@@michaelshurkin613Sir, with all due respect, if you have doubts I suggest you to ask british , canadian and american soldiers who fought side by side with our troops in Afghanistan for 20 years . You could ask specifically General Stanley Mc Chrystal former commander of ISAF and USFOR -A about Task force 45 and operation Sarissa.
sicuramente meglio degli americani
They withdrawes from Iraq cause they had done what US wanted them to do, then they withdrawed, cause there was no poibt to wasting resources only to stay there unoperative.
You can ask the Americans in Afghanistan how the Italians behaved, and whether the Centaur I and the Mongoose served.
The UK military is a mess because the top brasses, spend money to impress their American overlords.
Aircraft carrier: which are too big and costly, one would have done the job.
Type 45: far too costly and not enough of them made.
Type 26: costly and overpowered for the role, much cheaper options out there.
British military likes to buy ferrari sports cars, when a Volkswagen Gold could do the job.
Type 26 won't be out until 2030, whilst the FREMM are already working
The Ariete tank even when working 100% is nowhere near as good as any of the other major NATO tanks: Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, Leclerc. Buying the Panther should be a big help.
I'm not sure. The challenge is comparing apples to apples. I'm sure the Ariete is not the equal to newer iterations of the others. But if we compare all the original variants?
Oh really??? The British forced the Ukrainians to retire the Challenger from active combat service since it was garbage and embarrassing their military establishment.
Britain spends a lot on Trident.
I would really love to hear your opinion on other less discussed NATO militaries, like Spain, Sweden, or the Netherlands. And also your assessment on Germany or Poland.
Working on it :)
nice video but you should consider opting for a more relaxing chapter graphic, white background is harsh on the eye :D