He essentially engaged in attrition warfare like any other ww1 general and correctly understood its principles and how to apply them. He was no humanitarian but certainly not a drooling retard as often made out to be. The
>Muh 50 Isonzo battles
meme mostly comes from dumb mutts who are too stupid too look at a map and realize the Isonzo valley was the only stretch of land that was relatively flat or hilly at worst, as opposed to the Alpine chain or the rugged dalmatian coastline with its thousands isles, inlets and mountains, and where the Italians could thus concentrate most of their troops.
Sure Cadorna was no genius either and was fairly pigheaded in certain regards and underestimated both the strafexpedition and the German attack at Kobarid, but why is he so often singled out as "the worst" when he was an average general for his time and age, is it because he was Italian and Italians are le funi bing bing wahooo it'sa me Mario or what?

>>17870925 (OP)
Look, the Western front was like
>AAAA MOTHERLAND doesn't work
>so we tried diggin
>didn't work
>so we tried creeping barrage
>seems okay, but still doesn't work
>SO WE START MAPPIN
>ALSO TANKS
>AND LIVENS PROJECTORS
>AND GAS
>and commando night raids

Meanwhile, the Bad Luigi was like
>clearly, this is a failure of morale character on the part of the Italians that we can fix by charging them into machine gun fire.

>>17870934
The italian army under Lueedgee introduced all of that, planes, mining & tunnel warfare +their own version of storm troopers though
And bayonet charges into fixed positions would still occur on the Western front even in the last year of war
What's the profound difference between italian man with mustache is le funi?

>>17870948
Beyond*, not between, fuck me for phonephagging

>>17870925 (OP)
I agree. The more Cadorna is respected, the more us feldmarshall Borevich chads can boast of his greatness.

>>17870925 (OP)
He sticks out for having tried to breach the same front thirteen times, but in reality most of the military aristocracy was just like him, not so much as incompetent (ww1 was a war with technology changing very rapidly and many doctrines taught for centuries became obsolete overnight) as they were callously indifferent towards the losses of men.
Ironically, cadorna was a staunch supporter of the idea that morale is of the utmost importance for a fighting force, too bad he enforced his idea with the highest number of summary executions in the entire war (like 18% for some regiments).
Overall he's the stereotypical top brass martinet, easy to hate.

>>17870925 (OP)
the same retards who demonise cadorna are the ones who fail to recognise conrad von hötzendorf's excellence

>>17870925 (OP)
All his gains were wiped out at caporetto. Diaz came in and rebuilt the italian army, restoring self-confidence and morale. Cadorna should have been swapped out years before.
>>17871703
I agree, conrad was simply too smart to win.

>>17871703
>singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the austro hungarian empire
the greatest asset italy had

>Italian navy famous in WW1
>no amphibious landings against the Austro-Hungarians
>AHians have fuckall for a navy
>AHians have a loooong unprotected coastline screaming and begging for penetration
>but no, time to fight over the river AGAIN

He was an idiot.

>>17871938
Hoetzendorf scored better K/Ds on Italy like every God damn time. WTF are you talking about?

>>17871946
Good point, so does anyone know why Italy chose not to invade by sea?

>>17871950
hoetzendorf managed to kill almost 1,5 million austrian soldiers in its offensives, to the point where by 1917 most of the soldiers fighting in austrian fronts were german. comparatively, italy lost half a million soldiers in all of ww1.

>>17871963
The battle he was canned in had him losing 2/3rds of Italian losses. As the Austrians expected, their most enduring doe had been Serbians. Lookup their losses while you're at it and add those to the Russian and Italian losses and compute the new ratio.

>>17871959
because despite the inferiority in units, the eastern border of the adriatic is a much more difficult environment to navigate into, with many tiny rocky islands dotting the coast and shallow waters. this was a significant tactical advantage for austria hungary, the coast was naturally adverse to navigation of big ships, and the islands could create multiple bottlenecks for the mines.
conversely, the italian border of the adriatic is relatively lean, wide and vulnerable to sorties. defending such a long stretch of coast required the use of armoured trains, and still the austrians managed to poke in from time to time. the dalmatian coast was, and still is, the sea equivalent of those caves talibans used to conduct guerrilla against america in afghanistan.

>>17871992
It's really not that far. They could have used small boats instead of big ships to deploy. Nobody is expecting Ro-Ro equivalents here.

>>17871959
The Balkan coast is very scenic and wild. Not ideal for landing operations.

>>17871996
They're trying to get an army across and have it operate there. That takes more tonnage than you and your pals dropping off some coke.

>>17871996
And that's what they did in the end. The MAS were developed to counter it, and were extremely successful. See szent istvaan and viribus unitis

>>17871946
>>17871959
How did Gallipoli go for the anglos, who had a much stronger navy than Italy and in that case had to operate on a much easier coastline than the Dalmatian one which is dotted with islands and bays and further protected by an inland mountain chain?
The fact that even Cadorna wasn't as dumb as the Anglos and immediately understood that such an endeavour would have resulted in a catastrophe doesn't make him look bad, far from it.

>>17870948
>>17870949

The problem is he planned 57 battles of the Isonzo with no change in tactics. When the US got pushed back at Kasserine pass the US army told patton to change his tactics. you have to innovate. Warfare is like fighting a virus you cant use the same trick twice and Cadorna did it 57 fucking times.

A lot of his offensives were absolute failures

>>17872042
>They're trying to get an army across and have it operate there. That takes more tonnage than you and your pals dropping off some coke
You may be an idiot.
>>17872101
>See szent istvaan and viribus unitis
So you're arguing that the AHian navy was stronger than the Italian.

>>17872185
>How did Gallipoli go for the anglos
Bad- they ran into German machine gunners.
>fact that even Cadorna wasn't as dumb as the Anglos
The Anglos achieved all of their strategic objectives and expanded while Italy lost over hal a million men and ended up with part of Tyrol. Fairly shit example.

>>17872219
>No change in tactics
That's just plain false, squad, artillery etc tactics were adjusted overtime by both sides during the attrition war at the Isonzo

>>17870925 (OP)
>Why is Cadorna so unfairly maligned among plebbit-tier intranets historians?
Anglo historians needed to justify going back on the treaty of london.

>>17872414
>and expanded while Italy lost over hal a million men and ended up with part of Tyrol.
The anglos ended up with a few economical burdens in Africa that they'd have lost in a few decades anyway while Italy ended up with Trentino, South Tyrol, Trieste and Istria, which it owns to this day with the exception of the latter + the dissolution of its main rival, at a much more modest human cost than England.
Fairly dumb post.

>>17872739
How exactly? Tell us you actually have an answer and not a vacuous claim. Please tell us you're not blowing hot air.

>>17872744
Britain snapped all of its major rivals and its allies. Decolonization aside, WW1 left them with only one competitor in the world: the US. The colonies in Africa are too black to ever be productive even with machinery involved and too corrupt,but they hold potential energy and access to trade routes, ports, and natural resources.

>>17872753
Introducing storm troopers, shifting from a strategy of more or less front-wide massed attacks to rapid concerted attacks on specific sectors covered by concentrated artillery fire that would focus on said sector, moving towards integrating air forces into offensive operations, supporting attacks with chemical warfare and so on

>>17872762
Which is why Britain didn't have to fight another world war against one of its rivals, forever losing its colonial empire and global relevance in the process, because they totally got rid of their rivals after ww1