AHC: A Competent Italian Military During WW2

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by BBadolato

So lets say the fascists still take power, could things go better if Mussolini kicks the bucket early or he actually listens to Balbo. Wouldn't this conflict with the challenge as if Mussolini dies or is talked out of an alliance with the Germans, then Italy may decide to not be in the WW2? Still assuming they invade Albania,Greece and what not.

There are various PoD for a neutral Italy in WWII.
- To a negotiated end of the Ethiopian war, with no sanction and no reapprochment with Germany Mussolini can be a lot less enthusiast to throw is lot with the Austrian painter.
Naturally this bring problem with the Anschluss and the Sudetenland Crisis, as a Stresa Front still credible can block Germany expansion.
- Mussolini can be killed in a accident or by purpose (both possible as the Duce survived a series of assasination attempt and some fatal accident) and replaced by someone more competent, but still in this case an alliance with Germany is doubtfoul except for some extremist like Farinacci, very few liked the Nazi and desired partecipate at the war.
- Mussolini simple decide to wait more and accepted the Anglo-French bribe to mantain neutrality. In OTL both the King and the Commanders of the Armed forces tell the duce that Italy was not ready to wage War.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by TyranicusMaximus

The Soviets had their fair share of idiots and dolts, especially in 1941. I think all systems are capable of putting out stinkers.

I would actually argue that the Allies' advantage was less an absence of fuckwits in the high command rankings and more being able to ruthlessly purge the fuckwits in the high command to make way for the people who knew what they were doing. US generals actually complained *a lot* in WWII at the ruthless purges within the US high command. But in terms of Allied incompetence, I think anyone would agree the system responsible for something like Kiev had more than a little wrong with it.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by kalamona

Hm, really? Sometimes i wonder, where you get your confidence to state some nonsense as facts.

Anyway: just returned from my trip to Italy, and even the lowlands are not the best terrain to fight, but the mountains... hell.

From reading actual books on the Austro-Hungarian armies. Something many of the plastic nationalists on the Internet might benefit from, I might add. The Austro-Hungarian army was lousy in WWI, and to put it crudely was incapable of sustaining a serious war against a determined enemy of any size or scale. They are the perfect prototype of the Axis satellites of WWII: good if Germans led their armies, incapable of knowing the business end of a gun if their own generals led their own armies. In particular Holger Herwig's book, as well as Norman Stone's and other books that cover what a mess of incompetence and naive fuckwits gave the Habsburg Empire the misfortune of going out led by drooling idiots.

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Some of the larger scale defections of czechs and slavs were exaggerated; but they did happen

However; considering Austria was deploying 1/5 of her field army versus 9/10 of Italy's field army it's not particularly fair to criticize them for not punching Italy to the mat

A 1 on 1 war starting in 1914 or 1915 of Italy versus AH with no other powers involved would heavily favor the austrians

Sure, but Austro-Hungarian defeats weren't the direct result of the defections, the defections were the results of lousy, blundering, incompetent leadership that did genius actions like the Black and Yellow Offensive and cried to Germany and then wailed if Germany did something in response. Austria-Hungary did very well when Germans led Austro-Hungarian armies. When Austro-Hungarian officers led Austro-Hungarian armies......

[Esopo]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

From reading actual books on the Austro-Hungarian armies. Something many of the plastic nationalists on the Internet might benefit from, I might add. The Austro-Hungarian army was lousy in WWI, and to put it crudely was incapable of sustaining a serious war against a determined enemy of any size or scale. They are the perfect prototype of the Axis satellites of WWII: good if Germans led their armies, incapable of knowing the business end of a gun if their own generals led their own armies. In particular Holger Herwig's book, as well as Norman Stone's and other books that cover what a mess of incompetence and naive fuckwits gave the Habsburg Empire the misfortune of going out led by drooling idiots.



Sure, but Austro-Hungarian defeats weren't the direct result of the defections, the defections were the results of lousy, blundering, incompetent leadership that did genius actions like the Black and Yellow Offensive and cried to Germany and then wailed if Germany did something in response. Austria-Hungary did very well when Germans led Austro-Hungarian armies. When Austro-Hungarian officers led Austro-Hungarian armies......

AH.com: where the ottoman empire is considered the great fighter of WW1 and Austria an army of drooling idiots

And actually Austrian armies led by austrians did Very well in defense on the alps

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Esopo

AH.com: where the ottoman empire is considered the great fighter of WW1 and Austria an army of drooling idiots

And actually Austrian armies led by austrians did Very well in defense on the alps

Oh, any dumbass can successfully defend the Alps.

It also helps if you have Luigi "Zapp Brannigan" Cadorna leading the opposing army.

[Gannt the chartist]

I think a lot of the Austrian command problems come from desire to launch wide sweeping decisive battles that will go down in history as a masterpiece of the art, and complete inability to do same.

Stick them on a limited front with no options but to lug stuff forward and shoot thataway a lot of the problems go away.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Esopo

AH.com: where the ottoman empire is considered the great fighter of WW1 and Austria an army of drooling idiots

And actually Austrian armies led by austrians did Very well in defense on the alps

Well, if we look at Gallipoli, the first two battles of Gaza, the whole first Mesopotamian campaign.....the Ottomans and Bulgarians had very good performances in WWI. Austria-Hungary gave Russia saving graces for its clusterfuck in Germany and after ten battles on the Isonzo needed Germany to come bail its sorry ass out there just as it did everywhere else. Cadorna was an idiot, but he actually managed to exhaust the Austro-Hungarian armies with idiocy *that much*.

To put it bluntly, the Habsburgs needed a Wallenstein and they had a bunch of Varii. The only good Austro-Hungarian general of WWI was von Boroevic, who by virtue of being a Croat was subsequently persona non grata.

[kalamona]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Ehy there is a reason why the Invasion of France in 1940 was a blunder and the WWI front consisted in massacres over centimeters of land.
BTW the A-H tried an ancillary offensive throug Trentino during the Caporetto debacle to outflank the italian army...basically image the italian offensive on the French Alps of WWII, but with the austrian in place of the italians and you get the results.

Yep, there is a reason, several reasons to be honest, but... 1940 invasion of france blunder? you mean the italians?

In that case, nothing to see there.. there is a reason, that the allies did not even seriously considered a reverse campaign in 44.

[kalamona]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

From reading actual books on the Austro-Hungarian armies. Something many of the plastic nationalists on the Internet might benefit from, I might add.

Read some more. Should benefit you. Or not.

The Austro-Hungarian army was lousy in WWI, and to put it crudely was incapable of sustaining a serious war against a determined enemy of any size or scale.

Hm, really? Like Italy, Serbia, Romania and Russia? Come on.

They are the perfect prototype of the Axis satellites of WWII: good if Germans led their armies, incapable of knowing the business end of a gun if their own generals led their own armies.

Myth. You should know better. Especially, since the bigger problem in minor axis leadership were in mid and low level. And while (for example) Conrad (and his staff) made big (huge) mistakes, a statement (generalization) like yours is simply dumb.

In particular Holger Herwig's book, as well as Norman Stone's and other books that cover what a mess of incompetence and naive fuckwits gave the Habsburg Empire the misfortune of going out led by drooling idiots.

Drooling idiots? Pretty high standards of yours, so lets reverse this: who were NOT drooling idiot?

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by kalamona

Read some more. Should benefit you. Or not.

Read what? Oh, that would require citing actual sources. Never mind.

Originally Posted by kalamona

Hm, really? Like Italy, Serbia, Romania and Russia? Come on.

Italy they did well against.....with the high ground and the Italians being commanded by dumbasses. They invaded Serbia three times in a single year and got walloped EVERY SINGLE TIME. Obviously they were in fact incapable of defeating SERBIA by themselves. Romania was able to make rather greater advances against Austria-Hungary than it ever did against the Germans. Russia overran and kept Galicia for months, slapped Austro-Hungarian armies silly, and ultimately shattered Habsburg military power to a point where the Habsburgs were simply German auxiliaries. So no, Austria-Hungary could not fight a war. Make music and novels and science, yes. War? No.

Originally Posted by kalamona

Myth. You should know better. Especially, since the bigger problem in minor axis leadership were in mid and low level. And while (for example) Conrad (and his staff) made big (huge) mistakes, a statement (generalization) like yours is simply dumb.

I hardly see the difference between three failed invasions of Serbia in a six month timeframe and one clusterfuck in Greece. Did the Habsburgs ever defeat any enemy without the Germans having to hold their hands and do basic work for them?

Originally Posted by kalamona

Drooling idiots? Pretty high standards of yours, so lets reverse this: who were NOT drooling idiot?

In a WWI standard? To a great extent this was the war of whose idiots were less idiotic, there weren't that many competent officials in any of the armies. I would rate von Boroevic as Austria-Hungary's Brusilov, and I also think that Russia's military in WWI is unlikely in the extreme to win the war before Russia's political ticking time bomb blows Russia up. Germany of course had generals who engaged in blatant lies, and the Italians, French, and English relied far too often on mountains of corpses and repeating and expanding the scale of the same mistakes. And for that matter the Allies' issues are one thing. Why did Germany slap Romania around, destroy Serbia and Montenegro, repeatedly defeat Russia's armies, and deal Italy its worst defeat of the war when Serbia trounced Austria-Hungary, Italy was handicapped by its generals, not the Austro-Hungarians, and the Russians were able to repeatedly smash the Austro-Hungarians and rout multiple armies in single offensives?

[Catspoke]

Open democracies in general, will produce better militaries. They can root out incompetent people, figure out their problems and change things, people know they will have a chance at a fair hearing if they make decisions but things dont turn out right. Plus open democracies have a more competent civilian economy to back up their military.

Of course democracies can often start behind totalitarian regimes because they are hobbled by small budgets, spending priorities set by politics, even social and discipline policy dictated by politics (dont ask, dont tell or whatever). But given enough time will pass up the totalitarian regimes, because they can adapt so much better and more people have a stake in the system.

Italy being a totalitarian regime (but a sort of limted one), probably had the worst problems of both totalitarian and democratic systems. Plus dying for a Hitler dominated Europe wouldn't be a cause anyone would be too fired up about.

The question should be with all the disadvantages, lack of a good cause, etc. why did the Italians bother fighting, sometimes pretty well, and dying for Musollini's regime.

[kalamona]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Read what? Oh, that would require citing actual sources. Never mind.

Galántai József: Az első világháború, Julier Ferenc: 1914-1918
Learn languages.

Italy they did well against.....with the high ground and the Italians being commanded by dumbasses.

High ground? You do not really know what are you speaking about? Most of the time, that so called "high ground" worked against the AH.. jesus, visit the place and check the frontlines.

They invaded Serbia three times in a single year and got walloped EVERY SINGLE TIME. Obviously they were in fact incapable of defeating SERBIA by themselves. Romania was able to make rather greater advances against Austria-Hungary than it ever did against the Germans. Russia overran and kept Galicia for months, slapped Austro-Hungarian armies silly, and ultimately shattered Habsburg military power to a point where the Habsburgs were simply German auxiliaries. So no, Austria-Hungary could not fight a war. Make music and novels and science, yes. War? No.

I have to admit, Serbia was not the best example... My bad. And Conrad's. But Romania? Advance against a practically undefended territorry, than lets take a walk back. As for Russia, after the loss of Galizia and the Brusilov offenive the AH was able to overran huge territories of russia (ukraine) and hold it until the very end - you see, this kind of arguments are rather silly ones.

I hardly see the difference between three failed invasions of Serbia in a six month timeframe and one clusterfuck in Greece. Did the Habsburgs ever defeat any enemy without the Germans having to hold their hands and do basic work for them?

Did anyone defeated an enemy in the ww1 without x nation holding their hands? No, this statement is silly as hell. Do the english held the hands of the french? or the americans? or vica versa? And doing their basics, like build their latrines?

In a WWI standard? To a great extent this was the war of whose idiots were less idiotic, there weren't that many competent officials in any of the armies. I would rate von Boroevic as Austria-Hungary's Brusilov, and I also think that Russia's military in WWI is unlikely in the extreme to win the war before Russia's political ticking time bomb blows Russia up. Germany of course had generals who engaged in blatant lies, and the Italians, French, and English relied far too often on mountains of corpses and repeating and expanding the scale of the same mistakes. And for that matter the Allies' issues are one thing. Why did Germany slap Romania around, destroy Serbia and Montenegro, repeatedly defeat Russia's armies, and deal Italy its worst defeat of the war when Serbia trounced Austria-Hungary, Italy was handicapped by its generals, not the Austro-Hungarians, and the Russians were able to repeatedly smash the Austro-Hungarians and rout multiple armies in single offensives?

Everyone is an idiot, only you are a helicopter.
You, sir, have an attitude.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by kalamona

Galántai József: Az első világháború, Julier Ferenc: 1914-1918
Learn languages.

I don't speak Romanian and have no intention to do so.

Originally Posted by kalamona

High ground? You do not really know what are you speaking about? Most of the time, that so called "high ground" worked against the AH.. jesus, visit the place and check the frontlines.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about. The Austro-Hungarians had only two places they could defend or attack, as did the Italians. The Austro-Hungarians had simple means of fighting the war: if they lose a hill, retaking it was all they had to do. They weren't required to do anything fancy.

Originally Posted by kalamona

I have to admit, Serbia was not the best example... My bad. And Conrad's. But Romania? Advance against a practically undefended territorry, than lets take a walk back. As for Russia, after the loss of Galizia and the Brusilov offenive the AH was able to overran huge territories of russia (ukraine) and hold it until the very end - you see, this kind of arguments are rather silly ones.

Yes, when Germany was running their armies for them. Not when they were running their armies for them. When A-H generals led the k.u.k. Armee the Russians were able to slap them around all the way into 1917. That argues that A-H had steep, severe problems at a military level when Russia, busy in the middle of degenerating into civil war, was still able to produce jackrabbit retreats in his army. Karfreit only happened because of the Germans. Serbia and Romania, defeated because of Germany. The Austro-Hungarians were brilliant culturally, but utterly and totally feckless at waging war.

Originally Posted by kalamona

Did anyone defeated an enemy in the ww1 without x nation holding their hands? No, this statement is silly as hell. Do the english held the hands of the french? or the americans? or vica versa? And doing their basics, like build their latrines?

Given the USA spent much of WWI using French weapons, flying French airplanes.......actually, you could make that argument for the Allies. However at the same time the argument is made the A-H K.u.K. Armee was effective......which it was. If it was led by Germans. Not if it was led by its own leadership or what was mislabeled by that term.

Originally Posted by kalamona

Everyone is an idiot, only you are a helicopter.
You, sir, have an attitude.

What does that have to do with my argument? If anything at all? I'm simply noting a crude truth that the Austro-Hungarian army was commanded by idiots who preferred to blame their own men rather than admit they were acting like dumbasses. At least the Russians blamed absence of shells, not their own men, when *they* were acting like complete idiots.

[Snake Featherston]

However if we return to my original point, the Italian Army in WWI did have greater effectiveness than that of WWII, whose army had zero interest in fighting Mr. Mussolini's War, and for this reason did very poorly. The battles in Italy also saw it put through one of the longest civil wars and campaigns of WWII, which tends to be forgotten, as Italians were serving on both the Allied and Axis sides during that span of time. To me a real injustice of treatment of the Italians in WWII is to neglect that their WWII literally lasted into the period of V-E Day, given that the Italians were required to both fight for the Axis and the Allies and to accept that their country was subjected to a repeated set of inglorious, grinding battles of attrition. This on top of their division into the Salo Republic and the AMGOT.

[Rubicon]

One way to improve the Italian military would be for it not to be deployed in Abyssinia or for that matter Spain. Both those adventurous (particulary Abyssinia) cost a ton of money, that were meant for modernization of the armed forces.

Add to that doctrinal and training improvements and you have a possibility for a competent Italian military in WW2.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Rubicon

One way to improve the Italian military would be for it not to be deployed in Abyssinia or for that matter Spain. Both those adventurous (particulary Abyssinia) cost a ton of money, that were meant for modernization of the armed forces.

Add to that doctrinal and training improvements and you have a possibility for a competent Italian military in WW2.

Spain would have been worth while if they kept the corps together and actually took all their guns home with them so that they had one single large battlegroup of experienced men ready to fight the next war

[Rubicon]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Spain would have been worth while if they kept the corps together and actually took all their guns home with them so that they had one single large battlegroup of experienced men ready to fight the next war

Arguably, but from an economical point of view it would have been much better if Italy sent only a single division (a good one, no blackshirts) and rotated officers and soldiers in and out, to get them some experience and get them 'bloodied'.

No Abyssinia might also ensure that the whole 'binary' divisional nonsense get butterflied away....

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Arguably, but from an economical point of view it would have been much better if Italy sent only a single division (a good one, no blackshirts) and rotated officers and soldiers in and out, to get them some experience and get them 'bloodied'.

No Abyssinia might also ensure that the whole 'binary' divisional nonsense get butterflied away....

Spain paid heavily for italian services with major mining concessions though and it's not like the CVT was all that large (55-60k) where the italian economy couldn't support them without suffering financial calamity

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Arguably, but from an economical point of view it would have been much better if Italy sent only a single division (a good one, no blackshirts) and rotated officers and soldiers in and out, to get them some experience and get them 'bloodied'.

No Blackshirt Militia involvement defeats the purpose of foreign adventurism in the first place.

Mussolini sated the Party radicals (like the Blackshirt rasi) by allowing them to fight wars abroad rather than cause trouble at home. It was all about "honing" that neo-Roman militia/squadristi nonsense that the Fascists exalted so much. And given that Mussolini (unlike Hitler) sided with the Establishment more than the Radicals as time went on, he had to give them something. Luckily, he could incorporate those demands for action and violence into his imperialist FP.

[Rubicon]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

No Blackshirt Militia involvement defeats the purpose of foreign adventurism in the first place.

Mussolini sated the Party radicals (like the Blackshirt rasi) by allowing them to fight wars abroad rather than cause trouble at home. It was all about "honing" that neo-Roman militia/squadristi nonsense that the Fascists exalted so much. And given that Mussolini (unlike Hitler) sided with the Establishment more than the Radicals as time went on, he had to give them something. Luckily, he could incorporate those demands for action and violence into his imperialist FP.

Many of the decisions made by Mussolini pre-war to satisfy different factions came back to haunt Italy later on in the war. This is just one more of those.

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

Spain paid heavily for italian services with major mining concessions though and it's not like the CVT was all that large (55-60k) where the italian economy couldn't support them without suffering financial calamity

AFAIK it was only the Germans that got mining concessions, but I don't find it unlikely the Italians would have gotten some either.
But in my opinion, anything that would save money and/or resources for Italy pre-war would have been a really good thing. And one good division with plenty of artillery would have been more valuable then three bad divisions.