How did training in the Italian Army differ from other powers?

[ErenJaeger]

Sorry if this is an overly broad question, but whenever I read about Italy in World War 2, historians usually mention lack of training or poor training and move on without details. I did come across two articles written by a British observers in the late 19th century and shortly before World War 2. They described the preparation and training of the Italian army as fairly standard. The big difference being in how they recruited their soldiers (national rather than regional). I also came across a trans,action of an chapter from an Italian Field Manual in 1940. Many of the things they talk about sounds pretty similar to what I’ve read in American and British field manuals field manuals. Fire and maneuver, the importance of coordination between different combat arms, the importance of intelligence gathering, training should be done in as wide of a variety of terrains as possible, fighting in fogs and during the night to maximize surprise and repeatedly stressing the importance of small unit leaders taking initiative. All of these things sound similar to what I’ve read in Anglo-American field manuals and what I’ve read about the Japanese and German armies in books (Although many of them state that the Japanese also lacked initiative and tended to fall apart when their plans went awry. But it seems like the Italian Army‘s development wasn’t extremely different from that of other modern states. Again. Sorry if this is too broad of a question, but I’m sure there are a lot of people here that are better educated on these topics than me.

 

[DrG]

Given my relative ignorance of other countries training, I cannot reply in a proper way. But the training of Italian soldiers has usually been criticized due to its strong focus only on phisical exercise, with little or no actual fire and a rather irrealistic training environment, unable to provide a decent preview of an actual battlefield.
Anyway, the worst problems were with NCOs, too few compared to the number of soldiers assigned to them and without a proper training nor any acceptable career prospects, and reserve officers, who did not get any serious update after their conscription as young men or their experience in WW1 and instead got higher ranks just based upon their age.

 

[ErenJaeger]

Given my relative ignorance of other countries training, I cannot reply in a proper way. But the training of Italian soldiers has usually been criticized due to its strong focus only on phisical exercise, with little or no actual fire and a rather irrealistic training environment, unable to provide a decent preview of an actual battlefield.
Anyway, the worst problems were with NCOs, too few compared to the number of soldiers assigned to them and without a proper training nor any acceptable career prospects, and reserve officers, who did not get any serious update after their conscription as young men or their experience in WW1 and instead got higher ranks just based upon their age.

How were they unrealistic? I know that the Italians had almost as many officers as NCO’s. Do you know why they struggled so much at recruiting and training non commissioned officers compared to their German counterparts?