Did you look at the source I linked? Yes, I it is Wiki, but I have seen at least two other sources with the same number for the battle. About 300K POW, 300K deserters. Within a period of a few weeks, Italy's military became 600,000 men smaller, and this is why I call them casualties. And the 600,000 number is the relevant number in determining if Italy leaves the war. BTW, do you have any sources to back you 300K number as total losses in the battle?
I did check your Wiki source. The compiler tagged as "deserters" soldiers who became temporarily separated from their units, and reformed once behind the Piave. The best source I found on internet (in English) is
http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/caporetto.htm
According to this source, Italian losses were:
280,000 prisoners
350,000 soldiers temporarily separated from their units
40,000 dead and wounded
3,150 artillery pieces (2/3 of the Army's total)
1,700 mortars
3,000 machine guns
400,000 civilian refugees
It was a major defeat, but it was only the 2nd army who was trounced. The 3rd and the 4th armies were able to retret in good order (even if they lost almost 20% of their strength and all artillery).
These numbers stand to reason, which Wiki's claim of 350,000 "deserters" does not.Where would all these "deserters" have gone?
BTW, the Italian version of the same article on Wiki is quite different, and reports "300,000 soldiers temporarily separated from their units", which makesme think that both wiki articles cut and pasted from the source I linked.
Virtually all histories of WW1 have the U-boat as the main reason the USA enters the war. So what is your theory on why the USA enters the war?
An Entente defeat would have resulted in a defaults on the loans advanced from USA financiers and manufacturers, which would have precipitated a deep economic crisis. The u-boats (and the Zimmermann telegram) were decent fig leaves, same as the propaganda about "the Huns". Real politik is a bit different.
And we are supposed to take your expert military opinion. When you have made obvious logistical mistakes in this thread? See Below
Obvious logical mistakes? Do you have an idea of the distance between Fiume and northern Dalmatia? Or maybe it is because I'm so honest to own up when I make a mistake?
And talking about logistics: the Germans sent 6 divisions to support the Austrians at Caporetto, and they took more than 2 months to move them (the first units arrived in August). These 6 divisions introduced on the Italian front tactics never used before (including grenades attacks and the use of poison gas) which had an initial surprise effect. After which Cadorna and Capello (with some help from Badoglio too) did their best to transform a setback into a disastrous ratfuck. The main problem however was that at the start of Caporetto the Italians were on the offensive: they were close to taking mount Ermada, which commanded Trieste. It is quite obvious that they should have noticed the build up in the enemy's forces, but what can you do?
6 months later (which is the first accessible time window for a new and revised offensive of the CPs) the situation is quite different: the Italians are in prepared defensive positions, the change in the command of the army has produced a substantial morale build among the troops and the flood of supplies from the Entente has more than made good the material losses of Caporetto. Even if Ludendorff has a brainstorming and decides to go for another offensive in Italy (which would not be the right thing to do in any case) sending back the 6 first-class divisions would not be likely to achieve a breakthrough. Obviously these divisions would be taken away from the western front for at least 5-6 months during the typical window for offensives and while American supplies and troops are starting to arrive in France. That's quite smart: why didn't you do it, Herr Ludendorff?