This is more a shot in the dark more than anything else but what POD would make the Italian military a competent, credible fighting force in time for WWII? I doubt that alone could tip the scales to an Axis win, I'm more curious if it was possible for the Italians to perform better than their abysmal OTL record.
WI/AHC: Mussolini's Army is actually competent
- Thread starter LHB
- Start date
You'd need an early PoD for that, probably pre-1900. Italy didn't have the industrial base to fight a war on the scale it found itself in, as well as having a woeful doctrine in the field. I'm sure I've read (can't remember where) some units would have up to 4 difference caliber's for their rifles, which would cause all kinds of unnecessary logistical problems.
Not to mention that you'd almost have to have someone else in charge other than Mussolini. He didn't have anywhere near the respect and control of the soldiers that Hitler had, nor his army the martial spirit of the Germans.
Hmm.... perhaps an Italy that stayed in the Central Powers during WWI and got it's ass kicked (which is kind of what happened in OTL, IIRC
) as well as very harsh terms under the Treaty of Versailles. Then you have a situation where someone akin to Hitler could take over in the hopes of returning Italy to its former glory like some modern day Caesar. Make it someone who's more militarily focused than Mussolini, and I could see the Italian military being right there alongside Germany's in terms of effectiveness.Those sound like human/bureaucratic issues. Quality of doctrine does not correlate with quality of arms, Mao's doctrine was great. Making one caliber should be easier industrially then making 4 different ones.
That and like I said, the army's heart really wasn't in the conflict. Or any of the conflict for that matter. Put someone more militarily minded in charge rather than Mussolini, and such things as morale, logistics, and tactics would all be straightened out in my opinion.
I agree, it seems bizarre that you'd want several calibers purely for the headache it would cause in the supply chain, but hey, this was Mussolini's Italy we are talking about, not exactly the bastion of common sense!
Have their asses get kicked even harder in '34, and their use of poison gas cause an international uproar to the point where foreign volunteers begin fighting for the Ethiopians. It might cause Mussolini to wake up and realize he needs help reforming the army. Help which would almost certainly come from Germany.
Shurely Shome Mishtake
Do you mean Competent or in possession of really cool looking kick ass panzy tanks?
The only ass kicking in 34 was by Italians, at Walwal, 150 Ethiopia dead 2 Italian.
Roughly half the death toll at an Inter away game at the time and many times less than mille miglia.
The rest of the fighting is 35/6 and the only significant Italian setback involves L3 tankettes and Eritrean infantry.
The main foreign volunteer ‘fighting’ for Ethiopia was Bill Deedes a most formidable man but in fact incapable or terrorizing whole nations for many years yet. Apart from that it’s the red cross and pre war contract pilots.
The Ethiopian campaign is the worlds first motor/mechanized/air campaign featuring long distance deployment of motor/mech forces, in theatre repair facilities, strategic transfer of HQ and axis of advance by use of air transport and air ground cooperation and coordination of conventional forces with local guerrilla warbands. Post war there is even is fairly successful counterinsurgency campaign. Half of these were never mastered by the Germans by the way.
The Italian Army is perfectly competent. What it is not is well equipped in possession of a suitable doctrine for WW2 as fought or motivated.
The equipment is a combination of bad choices and the cycle of rearmament. The Italians started early in a time of considerable change and could not afford to replace everything. Given that the OTL procurement cycle is also in the middle of the great depression delaying procurement means laying off your armaments industry and nothing good would come of that.
The Doctrine issue is even harder, the Italian army doctrine was based around fighting in the alpine regions followed buy a pursuit down the Danubian plains with the likely enemies being Yugoslavia, Germany/Austria and presumably France.
Err, the Doctrine is to defend Italy beat the enemy and pursue him to destruction. That’s what the Italian army is supposed to do.
That leads to an army singularly ill suited to serving as a flank guard to 6th Army on the steppe or maneuver warfare in the western desert. Although the Italian mobile forces were quite competent.
Do you mean Competent or in possession of really cool looking kick ass panzy tanks?
The only ass kicking in 34 was by Italians, at Walwal, 150 Ethiopia dead 2 Italian.
Roughly half the death toll at an Inter away game at the time and many times less than mille miglia.
The rest of the fighting is 35/6 and the only significant Italian setback involves L3 tankettes and Eritrean infantry.
The main foreign volunteer ‘fighting’ for Ethiopia was Bill Deedes a most formidable man but in fact incapable or terrorizing whole nations for many years yet. Apart from that it’s the red cross and pre war contract pilots.
The Ethiopian campaign is the worlds first motor/mechanized/air campaign featuring long distance deployment of motor/mech forces, in theatre repair facilities, strategic transfer of HQ and axis of advance by use of air transport and air ground cooperation and coordination of conventional forces with local guerrilla warbands. Post war there is even is fairly successful counterinsurgency campaign. Half of these were never mastered by the Germans by the way.
The Italian Army is perfectly competent. What it is not is well equipped in possession of a suitable doctrine for WW2 as fought or motivated.
The equipment is a combination of bad choices and the cycle of rearmament. The Italians started early in a time of considerable change and could not afford to replace everything. Given that the OTL procurement cycle is also in the middle of the great depression delaying procurement means laying off your armaments industry and nothing good would come of that.
The Doctrine issue is even harder, the Italian army doctrine was based around fighting in the alpine regions followed buy a pursuit down the Danubian plains with the likely enemies being Yugoslavia, Germany/Austria and presumably France.
Err, the Doctrine is to defend Italy beat the enemy and pursue him to destruction. That’s what the Italian army is supposed to do.
That leads to an army singularly ill suited to serving as a flank guard to 6th Army on the steppe or maneuver warfare in the western desert. Although the Italian mobile forces were quite competent.
Esopo
Banned
There were also big problems of training, incompetence of officers and coordination among the various military branches.
But much of that was due to the divide and rule policy of Mussolini, great in mantain internal power but not very good if you want an efficient armed forces.
This is the core of the problem, Benny was more interested in something of seem strong for back up his claim of great power for Italy but not one who is really strong as can be a rival.
You can have a more efficient italian armed forces by simply allow the brass to go at their pace and not rush things and expect miracles or squander resources in various front because you don't want to admit that Italy has not the resources for fight in two front at the same time.
More technically, bring a draconian quality control for the various equipment and get rid of the damned divisional reform, better if you way scale down the aid to the Nationalist in Spain.
Last edited:
So how does that make the Italians different from anywhere else? See the formation of Luftwaffe field divisions for example or basically the entire history of the US armed forces from 1900 to the present day for interservice/branch rivalry, in terms of the officer/enlisted division see the criticism by PHANTOM officers of US performance in Europe in 44 (or US internal criticism in 42/43 for that matter)
However that does mean the performance of the armies in the field was incompetent.
At Alamein, Folgore, Brescia and Pavia divisions were basically annihilated but suffered 50% + casualties before surrendering.
The mobile formations in North Africa were generally regarded as something between competent and formidable, even with the equipment problems.
8th army after being surrounded in little Saturn fights on for several weeks, elements breaking out of the encirclement following repeated bayonet charges against entrenched Russians. Overall a somewhat better performance than 6th army.
And then there is Savoia.
The Italian problem is less competence per se, than size. In 43 for example the Italian army total strength is 6 million the US army 7.5m from a much greater population base. There comes a point at which talent runs out, the Italians designed that in to their system.
But the Italian armies in the field, ARMIR, North Africa, Ethiopia all performed creditably up to the point they were destroyed by obviously superior forces (bigger, better equipped, supplied etc) its difficult to see how a smaller Italian army would be ‘better’ as it will face the same enemy and a smaller Italian army would not be able to provide the occupation forces for some significant guerrilla wars in the Balkans where they were reasonably successful.
What you are not going to be able to do is turn the Italian army into a Blitzkreigy panzer force - thats prevented by the geography of Northern Italy and fundamental levels of industrialisation.
However that does mean the performance of the armies in the field was incompetent.
At Alamein, Folgore, Brescia and Pavia divisions were basically annihilated but suffered 50% + casualties before surrendering.
The mobile formations in North Africa were generally regarded as something between competent and formidable, even with the equipment problems.
8th army after being surrounded in little Saturn fights on for several weeks, elements breaking out of the encirclement following repeated bayonet charges against entrenched Russians. Overall a somewhat better performance than 6th army.
And then there is Savoia.
The Italian problem is less competence per se, than size. In 43 for example the Italian army total strength is 6 million the US army 7.5m from a much greater population base. There comes a point at which talent runs out, the Italians designed that in to their system.
But the Italian armies in the field, ARMIR, North Africa, Ethiopia all performed creditably up to the point they were destroyed by obviously superior forces (bigger, better equipped, supplied etc) its difficult to see how a smaller Italian army would be ‘better’ as it will face the same enemy and a smaller Italian army would not be able to provide the occupation forces for some significant guerrilla wars in the Balkans where they were reasonably successful.
What you are not going to be able to do is turn the Italian army into a Blitzkreigy panzer force - thats prevented by the geography of Northern Italy and fundamental levels of industrialisation.
A big flaw that needs to be fixed is their High Command & Officer Corps at a senior command level.
Perhaps an in depth study of the campaign to incorporate lessons learned into Italian doctrine. An axe of the older Generals and their overbloated personal staffs and spend the money on proper training for soldiers and officers.
That maybe and maybe other minor things like a single standardised rifle calibre. Perhaps a lucky siezure of Spain's gold reserves during the civil war to help finance further development and reequipment.
Of course this is all from 1936 onwards so these changes will take a while to make their effects known. By 1940 the quality of the Italian Army may have improved from dreadful to mere questionable but if lays the foundations for further improvement as the war progresses.
That maybe and maybe other minor things like a single standardised rifle calibre. Perhaps a lucky siezure of Spain's gold reserves during the civil war to help finance further development and reequipment.
Of course this is all from 1936 onwards so these changes will take a while to make their effects known. By 1940 the quality of the Italian Army may have improved from dreadful to mere questionable but if lays the foundations for further improvement as the war progresses.
Easy, keep them fighting through 1920s
Allow Italy to go ahead with the plans to fully implement the Agreement of St.-Jean-de-Maurienne, and in addition to a war in Anatolia let their plans to annex Albania to lead into another full-scale guerrilla uprising as well. Combined with their experiences in Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War, things like calibre standardization and adoption of a triangular divisional structure are obtained much earlier. Italians had really good units during WW2, they just entered to a conflict with much more competent opponents without the industrial muscle to back their ambitions and strategic goals.
Allow Italy to go ahead with the plans to fully implement the Agreement of St.-Jean-de-Maurienne, and in addition to a war in Anatolia let their plans to annex Albania to lead into another full-scale guerrilla uprising as well. Combined with their experiences in Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War, things like calibre standardization and adoption of a triangular divisional structure are obtained much earlier. Italians had really good units during WW2, they just entered to a conflict with much more competent opponents without the industrial muscle to back their ambitions and strategic goals.
Interesting article on commando supremo
http://www.comandosupremo.com/italian-army-of-1940.html
http://www.comandosupremo.com/italian-army-of-1940-pt2.html
on how they got there. The highlight for me is the effect of the Ethiopian war in running through reserve stocks.
http://www.comandosupremo.com/italian-army-of-1940.html
http://www.comandosupremo.com/italian-army-of-1940-pt2.html
on how they got there. The highlight for me is the effect of the Ethiopian war in running through reserve stocks.
You need to butterfly Mussolini away.
Instead have Italy lead by another strong, but not necessarily dictatorial figure.
The ideal candidate would have combat experience in the Great War, to see the flaws in Italy's senior commanders, staff experience to see the flaws in organization and logistics, combine that with ambition and political skills to become a strong dominant leader.
Though if that is the case, then Italy is with the Allies, not Germany. You might even see a war over Austria instead...
Instead have Italy lead by another strong, but not necessarily dictatorial figure.
The ideal candidate would have combat experience in the Great War, to see the flaws in Italy's senior commanders, staff experience to see the flaws in organization and logistics, combine that with ambition and political skills to become a strong dominant leader.
Though if that is the case, then Italy is with the Allies, not Germany. You might even see a war over Austria instead...
Was just going to link those. Basically Italy needs to start consolidating its high command into a more cohesive form like every other country was doing at the time. The Italians needed to get everything standardized.