Talk:Italian Army

'Italian Army' instead of 'Italian army'

Shouldn't the article be titled 'Italian Army' instead of 'Italian army'?

Aosta, Pinerolo, Granatieri-Brigades

The infantry brigades AOSTA and PINEROLO have already been deployed abroad, especially in the Balkan area. The issue of "national presence & surveillance" is outdated, because both brigades have "phased out" their last conscripts in 2005. Both brigades are in a process of increasing their capabilities, bringing them to the standarts of the other brigades. PINEROLO will be a fully deployable mechanised brigade, while AOSTA will receive Centauro VBC APCs and convert to a deployable "medium brigade" (wheeled). Regarding the GdS, it has already been decided that this brigade will be reduced in some way and act as a reserve unit.

interwar and world war

Is it possible someone make a subsection/new article on Regio Esercito in interwar period and WW2? I have noticed some direct links to this page in articles on the spanish civil war. Fluffy999 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian contribution to Julia Brigade

There is no 182nd Slovenian Battalion! These are the units, that compromise the Slovenian Army:

• Central Command
• 1st Brigade
• 2nd Brigade
• Logistic Command

As you can see there today is no 182nd Btn- there was once a 182nd Btn., but that unit was renamed "20th Motorized Battalion" on December 20th, 2002. But today the Slovenian 10th Motorized Battalion is the one that is working with Julia. As for Hungary- the unit's name in Hungarian is "1. Lövészzászlóalja" which in English is "1. Light Infantry", so the data on the homepage of the esercito is wrong and outdated. --noclador 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Regio Esercito in WW2?

Is there no page dedicated to the Italian Army in ww2? Especially in terms of organization, etc. 68.211.186.21 06:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Added History page--209.213.220.227 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And lotsa internal links--209.213.220.227 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is the best unit in Italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what? Infantry? Special Forces? To enter and serve? or to go into combat missions? Please specifiy your request a bit and I will try to help you. --noclador (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Thank God History--71.185.193.245 (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

World War II and troop quality

The Italian Army in general had a poor reputation--perhaps undeservedly on many occasions (Folgore & Ariete in North Africa for ex.)--but this article seems to be far too strident and biased in defending it in the other direction. It seems to be reliant on one book "Iron Hearts, Iron Hull" which runs counter to a majority of first person, official and scholarly accounts written and whose author makes a point of arguing for Italian bravery. I'm anything but anti-Italian--my grandfather and uncle were Italian POWs of the Brits--it's that it shouldn't be used as the sole source, especially when on it counters the majority of reports and military histories. I think that's suspect I think and not of encyclopedic quality. Virgil61 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - the paragraph Casualties of World War I and II is totally biased. It's a piece of revisionist history trying to shine a brave light on the entire Italian Army in WWII. (when in fact only some units fought bravely: i.e. Ariete, Folgore, Julia,...) Even for me as a former member of one of the Italian Army's operational commands the paragraph is way to glorifying! I will try to get some of the most glorifying parts of the paragraph out - but a real expert is needed to cleanse it from the glorification heaped upon the Italian Military now. --noclador (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sad to see even Italians with a military background duped by the official war histories of the Australian, British and New Zealander forces. In the official war histories of the Commonwealth Forces, it is not always possible to determine whether 'the enemy' referred to was German or actually Italian. This is in great part because Italian and German soldiers, armoured vehicles and aircrafts employed in the North African campaign, were often difficult to distinguish in the heat of battle.

My family on my father's side fought in the US Army in WWII, they are Italian as well (from Abruzzo). My great uncle's comments from his time in the campaign in Sicily and Anzio are instructive. His view of the Italian and German armies, both of whom were shooting at him, differed dramatically. The Germans were far more belligerent.

Be that as it may, the point is that this isn't a place for cheerleading of either viewpoint. Both should be presented and the differences commented on. It's not a debating article to right perceived wrongs, it's an informative one.Virgil61 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

However, the lack of credit probably derives more from racism, and an unwilligness to acknowledge reverses against Italians. Reticence is apparent in the Australian account of the actions on 1 and 16 May 1941, when the Australians lost several platoon positions (R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7) in a successful operation by part of the Italians. Australian official historian Barton Maughan wrote soon after the war that "Germans" were the enemy involved in the action, in which eight concrete strongpoints were captured. However,Italian records indicate that Italians of the 32nd Combat Sappers and Brescia Division were responsible[1]. An unwillingness to accept the truth is also apparent in the official Australian account of the action of 17 July 1942, when the 2/32nd Battalion lost 200 men as prisoners in a successful Italian counterattack. Although the Australian official history of 2/32nd Battalion describes the counterattack force as "German"[2], a recent historian of that campaign reports that soldiers of the Trento Division were responsible[3]. Similarly, The New Zealand Official History mentions the capture of 1000 wounded combatants on 28 November 1941 and implies that they were captured by "Germans[4]" However, Italian records indicate that troops of the Bersaglieri were responsible[5]. Of the Ruweisat Ridge Battle The New Zealand Official History recorded: In the accounts of the battle for Ruweisat Ridge, it is the two lightly armed reconnaissance units who are credited with holding off a whole British armoured corps during the day and with initiating the successful counter-attack[6]. However, Major Paolo Caccia-Dominioni, an Italian paratrooper writing about the first Italian advance at Alamein said these positions were held in the main part by Colonel Gherardo Vaiarini's 65th "Trieste" Regiment and Colonel Umberto Zanetti's 66th "Trieste" Regiment both of whom were killed valiantly at the head of their men. (Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story, p. 83) Historian Maughan also ridiculed the elite Bersaglieri but it was the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment that stormed and forced the capture of 6,000 [7]British soldiers during the Battle of Mersa Matruh on 26 June 1942, naturally, he makes no mention of this Italian success. And it was the 8th Bersaglieri Regiment [8]that obtained Rommel's first real victory in North Africa when two battalions outfought and captured 2,700 British, Indian and Australian troops [9]fleeing from the fortress of Mechili on 8 April 1941, but unsurprisingly, no mention of this Italian victory is mentioned in the Australian, British and New Zealander war annals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioBerlin (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "duped" by the official war histories of the Australian, British and New Zealander forces - I actually do not know these war histories. My source is the official war history of the Italian Army! The Italian Army has carefully and meticulously analyzed its own performance during WWII and came to the conclusion that although single units when ably led did indeed fight very bravely the majority of the Army was in no shape to fight a war and together with an extreme low morale and disastrous military leadership led to a string of embarrassing Italian defeats.

The Australian war stories you provided the links for are very interesting for me - i.e. I read now both chapters of Fighting the Enemy: Australian Soldiers and Their Adversaries in World War II that concern Italians and I was surprised how much the Australian soldiers accounts of Italians mass surrendering concur with the Italian Armies history.

I will tell you now what the main conclusions of the Italian Army are, as to why brave men did not fight as you would them expect to fight.

• 1) The disaster began with the officer-promotion system under fascism; not the most able officers were promoted, but the most fascist. As the majority of the officer corps was loyal to the King and not so much to Mussolini, lots of excellent officers were relegated to minor commands to prevent a coup.
• 2) A major contribution to disaster was the creation of the binary division system. A normal division had 3 regiments of infantry and one artillery regiment - each regiment with 3 battalions, but the 3rd in each was a reserve unit, which would only become active in case of war. To inflate the numbers of Italian divisions Mussolini had all divisions stripped of their 3rd regiment and with these regiments new divisions were created. When war began the 3 battalions were called up too slowly and then used to create new division! So a Italian division went to war with just 4 battalions of Infantry and 2 battalions of Artillery instead of 9 Infantry and 3 Artillery battalions, but with a strategic doctrine that still had the divisions at their supposed strength.
• 3) Equipment was outdated, of low quality and often faulty.
• 4) Logistics were a disaster - every Italian Army - be it in Greece, Libya, Soviet Union, etc. - suffered from the total unpreparedness of the Armies logistical services. The immense lack of motorized transports must be added to this. In short: Italian troops suffered more wounded to frostbite than enemy action in Greece and suffered more wounded to dehydration than enemy action in Libya, were the lack of water became a massive problem for too many units fighting in the dessert.
• 5) Strategic blunders at all levels - i.e. sending the Italian Army to attack Greece at the beginning of winter through the Pindus Mountain Range without proper logistics, battle plans, enemy capabilities assessment and too few troops plus it was led by Gen. Prasca, who is considered to be the most incompetent general ever in Italian military history and was replaced on Mussolinis order by Gen. Ubaldo Soddu, who needed hours of "relaxation" every day, while the front crumbled and today is seen as the second most incompetent general in Italian military history. Both were ardent fascists and got thus their commands.
• 6) Refusal of officers to show up on the front. Whereas German, Russian and English officers led from the Front and were as close to their troops as possible - sharing their meals and the hardships of the war - Italian officers above major did seldom show up anywhere near the front. Being left alone on the front without food, water, shelter, ammunition,... while the officers dined 20km behind the front with in luxurious casinos led many Italian soldiers to despise and hate their officers. Thus lots of orders were ignored or only halfheartedly carried out - as the ordering officer would anyway never show up at the front to have a look at the situation for himself. (this also being a reason while the Italian troops in North Africa loved Rommel so much - he gave them the feeling to be together in this)
• 7) While the Nazis spend immense amounts of propaganda to declare this war a war of survival between their "race" and its enemies, Mussolini told his troops simply they should fight to reconstruct the Roman empire. A war goal that besides the Blackshirt Divisons the average Italian soldier didn't care about.
• 8) The strategic doctrine of Armoured warfare was and Blitzkrieg had not reached the Italian Army officer corps.
• 9) Troop training was extremly shoddy.

These are the main conclusions the Italian Army took from the studies of the Italian participation in WWII. When you now look at the Italian units that did fight well in WWII one common occurrence will stick out: the officers did stay with their unit at the front and this units were well trained! The Folgore was trained by Germans, the Ariete, Folgore and Tridentina divisions were led by their generals into battle (General Reverberi famously stood on top of an attacking tank when his Tridentina fought at Nikolayevka). What you give are examples of single successful Italian operations in WWII - but they are small in comparison to whole campaigns and the fact remains that Italy lot all it's campaigns in WWII. Also tellingly - the best showing of Italian forces were, when they were on the defensive and the worst showings when they were on the attack. As it is of no encyclopedic value to describe small engagements and on the Grand maneuver scale the Italian Army performance was a disaster, I suggest that you stop inserting further distortions of the historic facts - especially distortions like this: it was the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment that stormed and forced the capture of 6,000 [10]British soldiers during the Battle of Mersa Matruh on 26 June 1942 - read the paragraph above it in the link you provided: ALL other Axis units concentrated on eliminating the Mersa Matruh pocket... the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment was in fact only one unit in a much larger force that stormed the British lines - the German 90th light and the German 580th Recon Btn. in fact breached Mersa Maruths defenses even before the Bersaglieri. --noclador (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you an ex-second lieutenant?, you sound very young and naive although very energetic. Maybe you are the great-grandson of a famous partisan? But then again you may mean no harm. It is quite obvious you haven't read Maggiore Paolo Dominioni-Caccia's Alamein:An Italian Story for anybody in the know, knows quite well that it was the Germans that first had a go at taking Mersa Matruh, and after a brave attempt in which they captured around 1,000-1,500 enemy soldiers, they ran out of steam. This is when Colonel Scirocco's 7th Bersaglieri Regiment stepped in, and to their credit succeeded in taking 6,500 prisoners. (Source: Paolo Caccia-Dominioni, Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story, p. 37) It surprises me though, that as a person from supposedly a proud Italian military background you regard The Battle Of The Salient from 30 April-1 May 1941 at Tobruk as a depressing minor affair. Maybe you are just like the rest of the crowd--including me at one point-- under the illusion it was an exclusive German-affair, with crack 6-foot German Afrika Korps stromp-troopers storming and seizing the R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 concrete strongpoints from the tough Australians. I bet you believe like the majority of us that it was the Germans that took these posts? Well my friend, you are wrong;it was the simple soldiers of the Brescia Division that took these outposts. I nevertheless thank you for your comments regarding the book Australian historian Mark Johnston wrote that I have made you aware of. It's a pity though that as an Italian you haven't acknowledged that Australian Historian Barton Maughan has overlooked and dismissed the achievements of the ordinary soldier of the Brescia Infantry and Trento Infantry Division and the crack Bersaglieri in the Australian Official History. It won't escape many people's attention either, the fact you haven't provided any feedback whatsoever regarding the achievement of the elite 8th Bersaglieri Regiment at Mechili, maybe you think its a figment of my imagination? And how come you haven't commented on the outstanding role of Colonel Gherardo Vaiarini's 65th and Colonel Umberto Zanetti's 66th Regiments of the "Trieste" Division, made up almost entirely of conscripts? Er—Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 11:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"you sound very young and naive although very energetic. Maybe you are the great-grandson of a famous partisan? But then again you may mean no harm." A rule on wikipedia is never to insult another editor - this is you only warning! Let us discuss on a professional level! I know that the North African campaign was a joint Italian and German effort and surely no "crack 6-foot German Afrika Korps stromp-troopers" were responsible for the Axis victories. I'm all in favor of including as much information as possible and as necessary into articles - but we must still always present a neutral point of view and not overload the main articles with too much information - two examples:

• "and even took 13 prisoners" too much information - 300.000 troops in battle and 13 of these were taken prisoner - the average reader, who just wants to inform himself about the First Battle of El Alamein will find this information superfluous - but if you were to create articles about each of the Bersaglieri regiments than this information should be in this articles - I'va begun to create articles for every single Alpini regiment (User:Noclador#Alpini_Project) and over time will create articles about the most important Alpini battalions too. I suggest that you start creating articles about the Bersaglieri regiments and include the maximum amount of details there (by the way - it is a shame that the German wiki has the best articles about the 3rd and 8th Bersaglieri and the English wiki not a single Bersaglieri regiment article!
• neutral point of view (or NPOV): first: Berlin Radio was a German propaganda sender aimed at allied personal - not something we can use as source!stick with books that were published after the war and/or documents from the units involved in the fighting themselves. second: we must never draw conclusion - we present facts and let the reader decide: i.e. "When assessing their resistance in Sicily, and taking into account the massive weight of shot and shell directed against them, together with heavy and interminable air attacks, it is really a wonder that men from the 206th and 207th Coastal Divisions, "Livorno", "Napoli", "Aosta" and "Assietta" Infantry Divisions and several Bersaglieri and tank units were able to resist for so long. Yet they were much maligned by reporters, and the media during the Second World War, and curiously by later generations of writers, and others who, quite simply, have never been in a position to actually verify their stories." "it is really a wonder" here we present a conclusion to the reader - but wiki-rules are that we tell the read how much shot and shell was directed at them and how long they held - than he can draw his own conclusion. third: "the embarrassed British reported" this is your guess just leave such things out. the more neutral your edits are the better, because a reader will see if you try to give him your conclusions and he will then not believe the article. Neutrality in our articles is the very foundation and core of wikipedia! so stick to it (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the policy)

another point: User:Captainantoniocorelli User:RadioBerlin User:Generalmesse User:Solarinoridge - they all seem to be you. If that is so, than you are grossly violating wikipedia rules. using more than one user will lead to you being banned from wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for the policy) Even if you work constructively and add value to wikipedia this is a not tolerable practice.

I hope you will become a valuable and enthusiastic contributor as it is clear that you have the time and dedication to contribute massively to the Italian Army history and units articles. just stick to NPOV and all will be well. --noclador (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orbat

As I explained it to User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso on his talkpage and as I explained it to User:BillCJ on his talkpage - I will explain it to you others too who come here delete without knowing what you do: to delete the entire OrBat of an Army, which is one of the most essential parts in every article about an active army and declaring an Active component registry by corpses as its equivalent is a) wrong b) annoying for those who do all the work on military topics and c) in my eye vandalism, as it destroys a good article. If some of you would have looked at what you delete and what you claim is the same, you would have seen that the two are fundamentally different in their structure and the information they give: an OrBat shows the combat structure and the chain of command of an Army - the Active component registry by corpses shows the historic allegiances of the units of an Army, as well as the Army's organization for administrative purposes! Following your logic it would be ok to delete a list with the members of the Obama cabinet, because there is already a list with the names of the various US government departments. I guess you wouldn't do that - therefore I ask you to cease your deletion crusade immediately. --noclador (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the OrBat in this manner would be disruptive, as it represented the actual subordinations of units, whereas the current list of active units is only a list. If you'd really want to shorten that section, which is indeed quite long, take US Army or Romanian Land Forces as an example. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to follow Eurocopter tigres suggestion and changed the OrBat section now to the US Army#Combat maneuver organizations table. thanks for your help Eurocopter tigre, --noclador (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WEAPONS

I have changed the number of the main battle tank: 120 Leopard A4 ( ex Garibaldi mechanised Brigade, scrapped out in 2008 from active service, and now in reserve); the "Centauro" are now 300, the first batch was phased outo from 2006 to 2008; and the freccia is entering now in service ( 49, to be delivered from now to 2011; the ather 200 are planned to enter in service only if they will be financed ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.210.29.103 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Other nukes

Italian president F. Cossiga declared that in italian basis there are also nukes built in France and UK and not only in Usa.(Rai news) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.119.206 (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Lancieri di Aosta Training.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lancieri di Aosta Training.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Unit disposition maps

COMFOTER

COMFOTER

COMFOD 1

Ariete

4 Armored

32 Arm.

132 Arm.

132 Art.

10 Eng.

Folgore

9 Para.

187 Para.

185° RAO

183 Para.

186 Para.

8 Engineer

Friuli

121 AirDef

Railway Eng.

3 Cavalry

66 Infantry

11 Bers.
5 Av.
5 Cav.
5 Art.

7 Aviation

Pozzuolo

2 Cavalry

4 Cav.

Lagunari

Horse Artillery

3 Eng.
8 Alpini

COMFOD 2

Garibaldi

131 Armored

8 Artillery

1 Bersaglieri

8 Bersaglieri

21 Engineer

3 Bersaglieri

19 Cavalry

Sassari

151 Infantry

152 Infantry

5 Engineer

Aosta

5 Infantry

24 Artillery

6 Cavalry

6 Bersaglieri

62 Infantry

4 Engineer

Granatieri

1 Granatieri

6 Pioneers

8 Cavalry

2 Battalion/
1 Granatieri

33 Artillery

Pinerolo

7 Bersaglieri

9 Infantry

82 Infantry

21 Artillery

11 Engineer

COMALP

Julia

5 Alpini

7 Alpini

3 ArtiMon

2 Engineer
2 ArtiMon

Taurinense

2 Alpini

3 Alpini

9 Alpini

1 ArtiMon

32 Engineer

6 Alpini

4 Alpini

Alpine Training

1 Cavalry

ParaTrain.

1 Aviation

2 Aviation

4 Aviation

52 Artillery

7 NBC Def

28 PsyOps

5 AirDef

4 AirDef

17 AirDef

2 Bridge Eng.

class=notpageimage|

Italian Army Operational units 2011

Units not in the map:

• 2nd Signal Regiment in Bolzano
• 24 Maneuver Regiment "Dolomiti" in Meran

• 3rd Signal Regiment in Rome (Lazio)
• 11st Signal Regiment in Civitavecchia (Lazio)
• 41st Surveillance Regiment "Cordenons" in Sora (Lazio)
• 13rd Intelligence Battalion "Aquileia" in Anzio (Lazio)

• 7th Signal Regiment in Sacile (Friuli)
• 8th Transport Regiment in Orzano (Friuli)

• 32nd Signal Regiment in Padova (Veneto)
• 33rd EW Regiment "Falzarego" in Treviso (Veneto)

• 1st Transport Regiment in Bellinzago Novarese (Piedmont)
• 1 Maneuver Regiment in Rivoli (Piedmont)

• 232nd Signal Regiment in Avellino (Campania)
• 10 Maneuver Regiment in Persano (Campania)

• 6th Transport Regiment in Budrio (Emilia-Romagna)
• 6 Maneuver Regiment in Pisa (Tuscany)
• 10th Transport Regiment in Bari (Apulia)
• 46th Signal Regiment in Palermo (Sicily)

COMALP

COMALP

Julia

5 Alpini

7 Alpini

8 Alpini

3 ArtiMon

2 Engineer

Taurinense

2 Alpini

3 Alpini

9 Alpini

1 ArtiMon

32 Engineer

6 Alpini

4 Alpini

Alpine Training Centre

1 Cavalry

class=notpageimage|

COMALP units locations 2011

COMFOD 1

COMFOD 1

Ariete

4 Armored

32 Arm.

132 Arm.

132 Art.

10 Engineer

Folgore

9 Para.

187 Para.

185° RAO

183 Para.

186 Para.

8 Engineer

Friuli

3 Cavalry

66 Infantry

11 Bers.
5 Av.
5 Cav.

7 Aviation

Pozzuolo

2 Cavalry

4 Cav.

Lagunari

Horse Artillery

3 Eng.

class=notpageimage|

COMFOD 1 unit locations 2011

COMFOD 2

COMFOD 2

Garibaldi

131 Armored

8 Artillery

1 Bersaglieri

8 Bersaglieri

21 Engineer

3 Bersaglieri

19 Cavalry

Sassari

151 Infantry

152 Infantry

5 Engineer

Aosta

5 Infantry

24 Artillery

6 Cavalry

6 Bersaglieri

62 Infantry

4 Engineer

Granatieri

1 Granatieri

8 Cavalry

33 Artillery

Pinerolo

7 Bersaglieri

9 Infantry

82 Infantry

21 Artillery

11 Engineer

class=notpageimage|

COMFOD 2 unit locations 2011

Equipment

Time to move equipment section to a new article? Getting a little long. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved them to Modern equipment of the Italian Army. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019223218/http://www.esercito.difesa.it/Notizie/Pagine/DIVISIONEFRIULI_130716_65.aspx to http://www.esercito.difesa.it/Notizie/Pagine/DIVISIONEFRIULI_130716_65.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My name is ugbo Kevin from Nigeria Africa live in Italia I love to Italian army

My name is ugbo Kevin from Nigeria Africa live in Italia I love to Italian army 37.159.69.182 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)