Italian army half of its 1941 size, affects on the air force?

[Deleted member 1487]

Its widely accepted that the Italian army of WW2 was massively expanded beyond the nation's ability to supply or arm it, so assuming that fact was recognized and it was about half as big as it was IOTL by June 1940, what extra resources are there for the Regia Aeronautica?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Italian_Army_(1940–1946)#Organization

On 10 June 1940, the army had 59 infantry divisions, three National Security Volunteer Militia (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale, or MVSN) divisions, five high mountain (alpini) divisions, three mobile (celere) divisions, two motorized divisions, and three armored divisions. In addition, there were estimated to be the equivalent of about nine divisions of frontier guard troops.[1] There were also numerous colonial formations at or near the division level composed of troops from Italian Libya and Italian East Africa.
Impressive on paper, most Italian divisions did not have the full complement of men or materials when war was declared in 1940. The armored divisions had lightly armed "tankettes" instead of tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Italian_Army_(1940–1946)#History_before_World_War_II

Mussolini's Under-Secretary for War Production, Carlo Favagrossa, had estimated that Italy could not possibly be prepared for a war until at least October 1942. Although the Kingdom of Italy was considered a major power, Italian industry was relatively weak compared to other major powers in Europe. In 1940, Italian industry probably was no more than 15% of that of France or of the United Kingdom. The lack of a stronger automotive industry made it difficult for Italy to mechanize its military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Aeronautica#World_War_II

When World War II began in 1939, Italy had the smallest air force among the three major Axis powers. With a paper strength of 3,296 machines, only 2,000 were fit for operations, of which just 166 were modern fighters. The Macchi MC.200 and Fiat G.50 were the best available but were still slower than potential Allied fighters. While numerically still a force to be reckoned with, it was hampered by the local aircraft industry which was using obsolete production methods. Technical assistance provided by its German ally did little to improve the situation.

Italy for instance produced less aircraft than Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Without the overexpansion of the army would the air force have been bigger or more modern?

 

[AdA]

There was a plan to reduce the size of the Army, (Balbo, 1933, planned a 20 (high quality mobile) divisions Army) while improving its quality and increasing the percentage of mechanised units. This was not adopted because of an option for a more fascist compatible Nation in Arms philosophy made worse by allocation of resources to political "black shirt" units rather than to the army proper.
This smaller better army would have been arguably much more suited to the actual campaigns of WW2, but would have costed about the same as the large, but under equipped and under trained OTL one.

If you can reduce the army budget, prewar investment in aircraft will buy more machines, but most of this will be CR32, the C200, G50 and CR42 only really entering production in 38/39 as well of BR20 bombers.
Early concentration on the Saetta fighter, and on the SM79 Bomber, along with massive industrial reorganisation, will be required.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So we'd need Balbo to be PM to get something like this? Would more of the less modern aircraft that the Italians fielded early war have been a 'quantity has a quality of its own' in the Mediterranean theater (assuming a non-Mussolini Italy opts to join Germany).

 

[Just Leo]

The comparison to Canadian aircraft production isn't really fair. Factory floor space increased 2800% in Canada during the war, all designed for mass production, using readily available raw materials, and imported American aero-engines, made better by the availability of valuable metals from the Sudbury basin. The largest contribution was in training aircraft, and most combat aircraft were only produced after Italian production was no longer a factor.

I have never understood the Italian decision to concentrate on air-cooled engines, nor their failure to actually develop a superb air-cooled engine, which would have allowed them to design effective combat aircraft. They did lack all raw materials, not just those that would have allowed for the production of high-powered engines, and I'm not sure if they had any source of supply for ethylene glycol. I believe Italians largely swallowed their own propaganda regarding such air fleets of Breda 65s. Statistical comparisons of the Toozian variety seldom differentiate between competent combat aircraft and targets.
Vastly increased production of targets wouldn't have increased Italian air force effectiveness. The replacement of the Breda 65 with the folly that was the world-record breaking Breda 88 illustrates that somebody had a finger in the wrong place. Completely revamping the aircraft and aero-engine industry without resources is a tall order, and those army resources aren't the right resources. Armies are made of steel, and air forces of aluminum. It was the addition of steel to the Breda 88 that made it a ground-hugger.

 

[Mario Rossi]

The controversial decision to transform tertiary divisions into binary divisions diluted strength of our land units, so those numbers aren't really faithful in depicting the effective size of RE; anyway, reducing investment in the Army isn't going to help the general state of the armed forces, because we was so seriously affected by deficiencies in logistic and firepower that, if anything, we would have required more spending in it (plus serious refreshments of the 90% of the Officer corps' doctrine and several other things that will extend our discussion beyond the reasonable).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Leo, how about an Italian 'Wooden Wonder'? Both the British and Russians had wooden aircraft and Italy of course had its wooden aircraft in WW1. It wouldn't have been good for big bombers, but must have been better than the steel. Italy though AFAIK had larger Bauxite deposits than Germany, so aluminum shouldn't have been an issue for them, provided they had the coal to process it.

 

[cracou]

You need electricity, not coal.

Italy was lacking the specialized industry just to produce a significant numbler of planes, whatever the design: no significant car industry (that you can use for masive production), lack of specific metals, lack of chemical products...

 

[Mario Rossi]

You need electricity, not coal.

Italy was lacking the specialized industry just to produce a significant numbler of planes, whatever the design: no significant car industry (that you can use for masive production), lack of specific metals, lack of chemical products...

Lancia, Fiat, Bianchi, OM, Alfa, Ferrari...they were all respectable industries in automotive sector, lacking neither the theoretical part neither the ability to produce effective designs; the problem was more about the numbers required and the numbers that they could produce. If your daily output is X and the required is X*10 you're always a step behind, but I'll focus more on the general industrial capacity of the country than on the single industries.

 

[AdA]

Leo, how about an Italian 'Wooden Wonder'? Both the British and Russians had wooden aircraft and Italy of course had its wooden aircraft in WW1. It wouldn't have been good for big bombers, but must have been better than the steel. Italy though AFAIK had larger Bauxite deposits than Germany, so aluminum shouldn't have been an issue for them, provided they had the coal to process it.

The CANT Z1007 was Italy's wooden wonder.

 

[AdA]

1. Smaller Army. Italian based units mostly infantry for border defence. Colonial forces motorised with heavy reliance on truck riding infantry backed by armoured cars. This seriously compromises offensive power, so no invasion of Greece later on.
2. The navy does not order the Litorio class BB.

This frees some money for the Air Force. Ideally until 1936/7 this mostly goes to forming high quality personnel, and creating an advanced infrastructure. Once the lesson of the SCW are properly assimilated, the Air Force launches a building program concentrated only on the following combat types.
1. Macchi C200 fighter
2. Fiat CR25 Multirole aircraft (the Italian Mosquito)
3. Savoia Marchetti SM79 II bomber/torpedo Bomber
4. CANT Z506 MPA/ASW/SAR

In 1938, when Hitler wants to be friends over Austria, part of the deal is a license and assistance in building the DB601 in Italy. By 1939 Macchi is building the C202, Fiat has upped the CR25 to CR252 with two DB601 and introduced the attack and torpedo bomber version and CANT introduces the Z1008 Leone.

 

[Driftless]

Also, a significantly smaller head count for the Army, should reduce some of the ongoing operating and logistical cost.

• ration consumption
• distribution of supplies - fuel cost, vehicle/ship commitments
• ammunition stockpiles

To be sure, some of the fuel, equipment and ammunition savings would be offset in part by additional training for the smaller force.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What effect would there be of the Italians licensing the DB601 in 1938?

 

[Just Leo]

Leo, how about an Italian 'Wooden Wonder'? Both the British and Russians had wooden aircraft and Italy of course had its wooden aircraft in WW1. It wouldn't have been good for big bombers, but must have been better than the steel. Italy though AFAIK had larger Bauxite deposits than Germany, so aluminum shouldn't have been an issue for them, provided they had the coal to process it.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that the majority of Italians weren't really interested in Il Duce's war, and preferred grappa and cheese to war production. Me too, by the way. The Italian Mosquito was the Ambrosini SAI 207/403 with Isotta-Fraschini inverted air-cooled engine. A classical lightweight fighter, concept and development was lethargic, and slowed down from there. The timing couldn't have been better, as the developed, ready for production unit coincided with the armistice. Good or bad, it was still late.

 

[AdA]

What effect would there be of the Italians licensing the DB601 in 1938?

Transition from the MC200 to the MC202 wasn't really complicated. Alfa Romeo could be license building the DB601 in 1939 and the RA could enter the war with the C202 as its frontline fighter in 1940. They wouldn't have many, since the Macchi was not optimised for mass production, but considering they sent a mix of G50 and CR42 to BoB, even a few 202 would have been a great improvement. The 202 is generally compared to the Spitfire V, so against the Spitfire I it would have been a nasty surprise for the RAF.

if a cowboy is a guy that's always an hour late and a dollar short, the RA was an airforce that was always one engine late and an aircraft short.

 

[Just Leo]

The 202 is generally compared to the Spitfire V, so against the Spitfire I it would have been a nasty surprise for the RAF.

The MC202 generally operated against the Spitfire VC tropicalized. This meant that the comparison is more relevant to unfiltered Spit II. It would still be an improvement on OTL equipment.

 

[Damascius]

Muzzy memory here, but didn't the Italian Airforce get a bundle of planes in the late 1920's early 1930's which actually meant the majority of planes were obsolete by the war and never got replaced? I certainly recall production figures for all metal/modern planes being in the sub-hundreds per year with some things only getting 15 models made...