At the close of WW1, how could Italy have become a relevant military power?

Even though they were one of the victors of WW1 and considered one of the "Big 4" at the Paris Peace Conference, Italy seemed to slip into obscurity, particularly in a military sense.

Though they left WW1 with modern domestic tanks like the Fiat 3000, by the early 30s they were relying on subpar L3 tankettes for armored units. Even through WW2 their tanks were poor and outdated compared to the competition.

Italy's planes during and after WW1 seem to be of good quality from the start of the 30s leading up to the start off WW2. They've got the CR.30, CR.32, and CR.42 biplanes, but they become obsolete with the introduction of monoplanes in the late 30s. Furthermore, they don't seem to have much in the way of air power before the 30s.

They also seem to be inadequately equipped throughout much of the interwar period, and they doesn't change come 1939.

So, what's a scenario where the Kingdom of Italy maintains military relevancy through the interwar and into ww2? How do they do it? What are they lacking in particular?
 
Even though they were one of the victors of WW1 and considered one of the "Big 4" at the Paris Peace Conference, Italy seemed to slip into obscurity, particularly in a military sense.

Though they left WW1 with modern domestic tanks like the Fiat 3000, by the early 30s they were relying on subpar L3 tankettes for armored units. Even through WW2 their tanks were poor and outdated compared to the competition.

Italy's planes during and after WW1 seem to be of good quality from the start of the 30s leading up to the start off WW2. They've got the CR.30, CR.32, and CR.42 biplanes, but they become obsolete with the introduction of monoplanes in the late 30s. Furthermore, they don't seem to have much in the way of air power before the 30s.

They also seem to be inadequately equipped throughout much of the interwar period, and they doesn't change come 1939.

So, what's a scenario where the Kingdom of Italy maintains military relevancy through the interwar and into ww2? How do they do it? What are they lacking in particular?

Their Navy actually wasn't that bad, but their commanders were sheepish given the fact that they were up against the British... historically the dominant naval power since Napoleon.

The Italians were actually the first to use planes in warfare for reconnaissance and bombing. Not all of their planes were bad. The Machi c.205 was one of the best fighters in the war, although it was introduced to late to make a difference and not produced in greater numbers.

A complete overhaul of the Army command structure. Often the regular soldiers were from the agrarian south and their commanders were from wealthier northern families and they didn't get along. They had some decent commanders, but most of them were poor strategists.

Above all things, preparation is key. Both in the planning of the war and getting the people invested in the war.
 
If you can go back a bit further, killing off Cadorna would be a good start. Less casualties, more success will result in more prestige at Versailles, less economic woes and may keep that fascists at bay.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
One possible scenario:

The Italians learn from World War I that second rate navies are irrelevant. That all the Kaiser achieved was to have his toys locked in a barrel. Other than submarines and maybe destroyers, a second rate power is wasting it's time and money on naval forces. Besides which, torpedo bombers would be able to defend against any fleet that came close to the Italian shores.

So take all the money that Italy spends on it's Naval forces(except submarines)and put it into the Air force- this would allow the Italians to deny the British use of the Mediterranean and the planes could form a nice strike force to support the army
 
Honestly, get rid of the fascist and keep a democratic goverment, sure it will not resolve any previous problem but at least it will not expand to enourmous level like OTL.

- Benny needed armed forces that look impressive...not really efficent even because he not totally trusted them (expecially the army), this was the principal reason for the transformation of the army division from tertiary to binary so creating more problem to an already weak officer corp and produce division weaker than their counterpart.
- Interservice rivalrly and promotion of yes man was the Mussolini way to keep things quiet, sure beat the stalinian purge in every way but still produce very inefficient armed forces.
- A way to keep the industrialist happy was giving armed forces contracts at everyone producing not only a logistic nightmare but happily looking in the other way when the various supplier used subpar material or producing method expecially devised to increase time and cost.
- Plus entering the war knowing to be unprepared because one think that's almost over and after having spent a lot of blood and treasure in two useless conflict (Abyssinia and Spanish civil war) so that there were no money left to modernize the armed forces was not really a good move
 
One possible scenario:

The Italians learn from World War I that second rate navies are irrelevant. That all the Kaiser achieved was to have his toys locked in a barrel. Other than submarines and maybe destroyers, a second rate power is wasting it's time and money on naval forces. Besides which, torpedo bombers would be able to defend against any fleet that came close to the Italian shores.

So take all the money that Italy spends on it's Naval forces(except submarines)and put it into the Air force- this would allow the Italians to deny the British use of the Mediterranean and the planes could form a nice strike force to support the army

and then the british would do a blockade and starve italy into submission like it happened to germany.

when talking about navies there's only one rule: go big or go home. the germans had the money but not the real will to go big.
 
One possible scenario:

The Italians learn from World War I that second rate navies are irrelevant. That all the Kaiser achieved was to have his toys locked in a barrel. Other than submarines and maybe destroyers, a second rate power is wasting it's time and money on naval forces. Besides which, torpedo bombers would be able to defend against any fleet that came close to the Italian shores.

So take all the money that Italy spends on it's Naval forces(except submarines)and put it into the Air force- this would allow the Italians to deny the British use of the Mediterranean and the planes could form a nice strike force to support the army

In an Italian war, a lot of the fighting is inevitably going to be in North Africa, so keeping a decent Navy is of paramount importance. Although they're not going to be able to match the British. They lack the resources and industrial strength for it, keeping a Navy strong enough to have a decent chance of establishing local superiority would be important. The Army and Air Force would be more important though.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
and then the british would do a blockade and starve italy into submission like it happened to germany.

when talking about navies there's only one rule: go big or go home. the germans had the money but not the real will to go big.

The British aren't doing a close blockade of Italy in any event. They would cut Italy off at Suez and Gibraltar. This would work if Italy's land borders are also sealed- otherwise a blockade would be hopeless.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
In an Italian war, a lot of the fighting is inevitably going to be in North Africa, so keeping a decent Navy is of paramount importance. Although they're not going to be able to match the British. They lack the resources and industrial strength for it, keeping a Navy strong enough to have a decent chance of establishing local superiority would be important. The Army and Air Force would be more important though.

Italy just can't afford both. They might need some escort ships for supplies. But a powerful Air Force might be just the ticket to taking Egypt
 
Italy just can't afford both. They might need some escort ships for supplies. But a powerful Air Force might be just the ticket to taking Egypt

Really? What did the British have in the central Mediterranean? Japan seemed to do fine in their sphere and were closer to being in Italy's league on paper than Britain.
 
Really? What did the British have in the central Mediterranean? Japan seemed to do fine in their sphere and were closer to being in Italy's league on paper than Britain.

Japan faced in OTL green colonial troops with obsolete equipment and commander of not so great capacity...all the good things were destined to the Mediterrean theatre and North Africa due the being considered much more important.
Basically Italy was the best ally Japan had ever had.
 
Japan faced in OTL green colonial troops with obsolete equipment and commander of not so great capacity...all the good things were destined to the Mediterrean theatre and North Africa due the being considered much more important.
Basically Italy was the best ally Japan had ever had.

1) Japan was winning battles against them up until 1942 on a large scale. Dismissing it as them being green is unfair.

2) Japanese equipment was usually inferior.

3) I'm not denying that the Mediterranean Theatre helped out Japan though.
 
Italy cant hope to fight GB alone and win,
GB cant fight Germany/Italy/Japan and win,
Unfortunately for Italy its closer to GB than Japan so will get first priority (after Germany is contained in BoA)

Basically they need to avoid fighting the RN as they just cant build sufficient ships to win that fight with the size of the economy they have.

So neutral or with the allies (early or much later ?)

JSB

Edit as GB would you rather lose Singapore, Gibraltar or Dover ? (all bad but I would defiantly know what I would pick)
 
Italy cant hope to fight GB alone and win,
GB cant fight Germany/Italy/Japan and win,
Unfortunately for Italy its closer to GB than Japan so will get first priority (after Germany is contained in BoA)

Basically they need to avoid fighting the RN as they just cant build sufficient ships to win that fight with the size of the economy they have.

So neutral or with the allies (early or much later ?)

JSB

Edit as GB would you rather lose Singapore, Gibraltar or Dover ? (all bad but I would defiantly know what I would pick)

Egypt and Gibraltar were pretty high on their list of priorities, so a conflict with Britain is inevitable.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Italy is never going to have to face the entirety of the BRITISH navy, they need a navy that can battle for parity IN THE MED.

IMHO they had one, but they did not use it the way that needed to be used.

Carriers gave the British an edge in protecting their convoys and units, whilst the Italians relied on Italy as an aircraft carrier, which does not allow for tactical cohesion. IMHO they should have a couple of carriers of their own developed ALONGSIDE the fleet, rather than added on later a la Aquila.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Really? What did the British have in the central Mediterranean? Japan seemed to do fine in their sphere and were closer to being in Italy's league on paper than Britain.

The Italians, unlike the Japanese, faced other great powers (France and Britain) at sea and on land. Japan is out in the Pacific where her only land problem is conquering China. Her army has a lot of junk equipment that wouldn't stand up to a European war (and doesn't when WWII breaks out)

Its not where the ships are. Navies are mobile and can concentrate where trouble emerges. In a European war, Italy will either be allies with France and/or Britain or opposed.

Allied to them, she has no naval needs at all. Opposed to them, she will lose the Naval War
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Italy is never going to have to face the entirety of the BRITISH navy, they need a navy that can battle for parity IN THE MED.

IMHO they had one, but they did not use it the way that needed to be used.

Carriers gave the British an edge in protecting their convoys and units, whilst the Italians relied on Italy as an aircraft carrier, which does not allow for tactical cohesion. IMHO they should have a couple of carriers of their own developed ALONGSIDE the fleet, rather than added on later a la Aquila.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

They might not face the entirety of the British Navy but:

1) they might face the entirety of the French Navy and a good chunk of the British

2) the British can cut them off at Gibraltar and Suez with minimal (Gibraltar) or no forces (Suez)

3) coastal defense is best handled by large numbers of torpedo bombers. With great range and speed, they can be concentrated and attack an enemy fleet with deadly result. All the Pacific Naval Battles are essentially air battles- control the air and the enemy's fleet will be defeated. This is the lesson of Midway, Pearl and all the rest

4) Italy cannot realistically go for a sea control Navy in the Mediterranean and be able to defend its land border with France

5) The best way for Italy to hurt Britain would be to take Egypt. This could be accomplished by stockpiling supplies in Tripoli and then when war breaks out, go for it
 
Even if the Italians do stockpile supplies in Tripoli, that's a hell of a long supply chain and the capacity of the Libyan ports is abysmal. Taking Suez (one of Britain`s primary assets) is probably not possible for the Italians to achieve given their logistic and institutional difficulties.
 
I've read somewhere or other, quite recently, that the Italian fleet was basically planned for fighting the French navy, without facing the British too, and was actually quite well designed for that specific purpose.
 

marathag

Banned
The Moose should have never declared war, but follow what Franco did:

Be a Neutral, willing to take bribes from both Allies and Germany.

Jump on the Allied Bandwagon as soon as as Nazi Germany is in its death throes in 1944, offer the Italian Navy against Japan

Take Seat UN Security Council in 1945

Bennie is seen as the greatest Italian Leader since Garibaldi
 
Top