Lord Skimper wrote:I think the 6000 romans who defeated 240,000 Britons might have been considered better sword and shield troops. Although the Spartans might have been in contention vs the Persians. But then they didn't do very well against the Romans.
Funny how all these great armies and warriors no longer are great warriors and armies. The Solarian League was once the mighty Romans but is now just the Italian Army. Who is next the royal Manties becoming the Imperial Manties?
Battle of the Teutoburg Forest? Not the Roman Army's finest hour. Just goes to show that you can have well trained troops, but if the CO is incompetent they're gassed.
Howard T. Map-addict wrote:While we discuss men taking limpets into harbors,
let us remember that the Italians had great success
with them against the Brits in the Mediterranian.
Two or three BBs in Alexandria Harbor, IfIRC.
HTM
Two in Alexandria Harbour - HMS's Queen Elizabeth and Valiant. They also caused a fair bit of damage in Gibralter as well. There they used an Italian tanker interned in Algeciras Harbour as a base.
IMHO, the Italians redeem their WW2 reputation by being damn good at small unit warfare. They were so succesful that the Royal Navy copied the Maiale concept with the Chariot. Properly led and equipped they were just as good as anyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_commando_frogmen
Oh, if you want a really good against the odds battle, what about the Finns at Tali-Ihantala?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala
Mike.