AHC: A Competent Italian Military During WW2

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

Try and make Italy's military competent in ww2. Doesn't have to be on par with Germany or even Japan, just make it so it isn't embarrassing.

[Clandango]

There is a thread about this. Think I saw it listed on TVTropes as A Better Italian Military.

[gigalocus]

This has been argued quite a bit round here, what often is concluded is that it requires a too early PoD to have World War II as we know it after the butterflys.

But what always comes up, is was the Japanese Military really competent during WWII? ...

[The Red]

Originally Posted by gigalocus

But what always comes up, is was the Japanese Military really competent during WWII? ...

Not really, the Italians were better equipped than the Japanese, if not better led.

It might also be worth pointing out that the incompetence of the Italian military has been exaggerated.

[Andre27]

Originally Posted by The Red

It might also be worth pointing out that the incompetence of the Italian military has been exaggerated.

True. The Italians have been given status of a throwaway army over time, but although they did not have tanks on par with the British designs from what i understand the Italians fought hard, brave and competent.

[Clandango]

Who exactly would the Italians be fighting in this? Greeks, Yugoslav, Russians....

[Living in Exile]

Easy: extend the period the Italians fight. The Italians bowed out in 1943. Before that, nobody but Germany had a "competent" army. The Poles, the French, the British, the Russians, the Americans, the Japanese, they all had experiences with armies that were not prepared for war. The Italians are similar, but they never got the chance to modernize mid-war. Have Hitler invest more heavily in North Africa, or have the Alies let post-Mussolini Italy take a more active role in fighting the Nazis.

[BlondieBC]

Many of the better Italian divisions were in Ethiopia. A simple POD would be for Mussolini to rotate in lower quality divisions to garrison the country, so at the start of the war, Italy has its full TOE, combat experience men, and more proven leaders in Italy and maybe North Africa. Hitler giving a little more of material assistance to Italy would help too.

And we can also have the Allies do things that help the Italians. Cancel Torch. The BEF does not escape France. While these units are not directly used in Africa in the early days, losing more men likely means the Egyptian command gets less men and material. As one of the other poster stated, giving the Italians more time to learn the lessons of war will make the units better.

[Wolfpaw]

Hard to do. Fascists, as a rule, tend to have really shitty militaries which (despite whatever materiel advantages) are run by a bunch of cronies in charge rather than people who actually know what they are doing. The Germans are the only quasi-exception to this due to the Heer's exceptional place within the German State and Society.

[jmc247]

Having a weak officer corps really hurts, I am not sure the best way they could have strengthened it.

Rommel on Italians 1944: Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by jmc247

Having a weak officer corps really hurts, I am not sure the best way they could have strengthened it.

Rommel on Italians 1944: Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization.

That's Romans. Modern day Italians have shit-all in common with them apart from, "Hey, you used to live here? Whoa, I live here, too!"

[MattII]

Originally Posted by The Red

Not really, the Italians were better equipped than the Japanese, if not better led.

Just barely better equipped, and it didn't matter anyway, since the terrain the Japanese were fighting in would have effectively blunted any such advantage.

It might also be worth pointing out that the incompetence of the Italian military has been exaggerated.

Losing to a smaller, worse equipped force (Greeks) does nothing for your image.

[Noravea]

I had a TL about this actually. Never got around to finishing it.

[TranscendentalMedication]

Sort've OT, but is that supposed exchange between Churchill and von Ribbentrop regarding the Italian military ("That's only fair, we had them last time") an actual quote?

[Rubicon]

We've had quite a few discussions regarding this subject.
Here's two threads
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=153483
particulary check out post 69 (mine) in regards to deficiencies in equipment of the Italian army and air force.

and one of my own threads
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=208358
in regards to a simple restructuring of the Italian army

there has been some more threads on this subject, but I can't be arsed to search for them

[Andre27]

Originally Posted by MattII

Losing to a smaller, worse equipped force (Greeks) does nothing for your image.

Quite a bold assumption. The Greek army had a strong defensive line and mountainous terrain as an advantage. The things which Italian forces should have given an advantage (tanks and numbers) worked against them.

Mountains are unsuited for large unit engagements and tanks have difficulties with sloped terrain.

[Awilla the Hun]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Hard to do. Fascists, as a rule, tend to have really shitty militaries which (despite whatever materiel advantages) are run by a bunch of cronies in charge rather than people who actually know what they are doing. The Germans are the only quasi-exception to this due to the Heer's exceptional place within the German State and Society.

Another exception could be the Spanish Nationalists, if you want to define them as fascists. No matter what you say about them, they managed to defeat the even more mismanaged Republicans.

And, if you really want to stretch definitions, Napoleon Bonaparte.

But these are both off topic.

[Esopo]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

That's Romans. Modern day Italians have shit-all in common with them apart from, "Hey, you used to live here? Whoa, I live here, too!"

Bullshit. There aee many sociologic and even genetic similarities among roman italy and modern one. Also italy remained the lead of european civilization for the most part of e Middle ages and during renaissance.

[Esopo]

Originally Posted by MattII

Just barely better equipped, and it didn't matter anyway, since the terrain the Japanese were fighting in would have effectively blunted any such advantage.

Losing to a smaller, worse equipped force (Greeks) does nothing for your image.

The greek forces during the albanian war werernt inferior in numbers nor equipement to the italian ones, and had a strong tactical advantage.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by Andre27

Quite a bold assumption. The Greek army had a strong defensive line and mountainous terrain as an advantage. The things which Italian forces should have given an advantage (tanks and numbers) worked against them.

Mountains are unsuited for large unit engagements and tanks have difficulties with sloped terrain.

463 aircraft compared to 77 though, and the Greeks ended up occupying 1/4 of Albania. Additionally, a lot of their equipment was WW1 issue, or lacking in spare parts

Originally Posted by Esopo

The greek forces during the albanian war werernt inferior in numbers nor equipement to the italian ones, and had a strong tactical advantage.

Yeah, now try the Invasion of Greece, in which the smaller Greek force absolutely trounced the Italians.