Austria-Hungary vs. Italy, who would win?

The result?

  • Austrian total victory

    Votes: 34 24.6%
  • Austrian limited/pyrrhic victory

    Votes: 75 54.3%
  • Stalemate

    Votes: 14 10.1%
  • Italian limited/pyrrhic victory

    Votes: 12 8.7%
  • Italian total victory

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    138
At some points in time some nations are weaker than others or their institutions were not as effective as others. Its not racist to point this out.

The US in GWI crushed the Iraqi army. It wasn't because the Iraqi army was made up of cowards or Iraqi's / arabs / Muslims were inherently worse than Americans / Christians. Its the fact that the US / Coalition forces were hugely better trained, equipped etc. They were like alien invaders with death-rays compared the Iraqi army.

That is at work here.

The Italian army suffered from some very real structural and quality problems. So did the Hapsburg Army. The record I think shows the Italian armies problems were much, much worse.

Michael

I don't think that it was racist, I was just saying what I thought Esopo meant. As for the inefficiency of the Italian military? Were they inefficient? Yes. Were they less efficient then the A-H? Yes. Would they lose? Most likely. Woud they inflict heavy casualties on the A-H? Most likely. That's all I'm saying.
 

Esopo

Banned
OK so, Italian front is horrible for offense, defense is very strong. Yet despite these strengths you claim weakness of position for why Italy lost at Caporetto and German infiltration tactics.

Is it possible that the German infiltration tactics worked because the Italian defenses were poorly placed? Is it possible that the Italian army was in a horrible state of moral and the troops simply didn't want to fight? That at that point in time the Italian army was just ineffective?



What are you talking about? Look up thread. Where have I said coward?



Battle of Asiago, May-June 1916? If so this is an Italian victory in your mind?

Battle of Gorizia, Italy moved forward, yes. How many times did they not during the war? What where the consequences for the Italian army after Cadorna kept attacking?

1st Battle of Piaves the Germans & A-H outran their logistics. It was a roll of the dice to see if Italy would totally collapse. It didn't work out. It wasn't a bad risk to try.

2nd Battle of Piave River, Conrad was a fool. I have said this several times in this thread. The Hapsburg state is falling apart and he chucks away the remaining strength with a very disjointed attack. Yes it was an Italian victory. You would hope they would win under such conditions.

Vittorio Veneto, After Conrad broke the Hapsburg army, after 4 years of war, suffering from starvation while Italy had massive material advantage they attacked and won. It was a big battle, on level of Caporetto. I repeat, you would hope that they would win under such conditions.




What bigotry?

Michael

1 no italian army collapsed because of the idiocy of cadorna and other high officers Who were caught by sorprise by the offensive even if they knew that it Was imminent, and left the troops in an offensive position. Austrians didnt Fought in a defensive War using defensive tactics, Italians had to counter an innovative tactic which broke every front it attacked from riga to france with an offensive position. If you read any History of Caporetto which Isnt martin Gilberto propaganda shit you Will see that most italian forces kept fighting.
If the Italian army Was in effettive. The austrians wouldnt have ask ed germans to Save their asses. :rolleyes:

2 Battles of asiago stopped austrian offensive, battle of Gorizia Made the austrians retreat and conquered an important position. Yes Its not much, but in that War it Was normal, exactly how things worked for the french or the

3 every battle depends on several factors. Austrians were on the verge of collapse after Gorizia fell but cadorna Wasnt able to exploit their weakness. So What? What counts is What happened not What could have happened. Logistic is part of the War as every other thing.

4 during that battle the austrian army well behaved. Like in the grappa battle, a d on the first Piave battle. Is a fact. Its not because the empire Was weakened that they failled, it Was because of italian resistance, even if people like you cant admit it because it doesnt agree with your gross prejudices.

5 Vittorio veneto Saw an italian army with Material advantages win. Exactly how the western allies Made the germans retreat in the west the same period. You would hope they would win in Those conditions:rolleyes:

The truth is that people like you Will never accept that Italians Fought as every one else on a worse front than every one else. And Fought Good enough to win whitout any rilevant foreign militare help.
Im disgusted by This shit. You can keep sayng This bigoted shit alone.
 

Esopo

Banned
At some points in time some nations are weaker than others or their institutions were not as effective as others. Its not racist to point this out.

The US in GWI crushed the Iraqi army. It wasn't because the Iraqi army was made up of cowards or Iraqi's / arabs / Muslims were inherently worse than Americans / Christians. Its the fact that the US / Coalition forces were hugely better trained, equipped etc. They were like alien invaders with death-rays compared the Iraqi army.

That is at work here.

The Italian army suffered from some very real structural and quality problems. So did the Hapsburg Army. The record I think shows the Italian armies problems were much, much worse.

Michael

Just read your posts. They are just a bunch of ridicolous prejudices about the Italians being "once again" the worst ones, being the Only one to mass surrender, and every single battle they won in a War Where they encountered the same problems of every other allied nation a fake victory un like the ones of everyone else.i know Very well people like you and i wont as if i dont know Where you come from, even if it costs me a ban.
Farewell, im done wit you.
 
Vittorio Veneto was a straw that broke the CP back

The Italians were badly led during the war. Cadorna was a disaster. The battles of Isonzo were useless waste of italian man power. The bleeding of the italians, fresh troops from the east front and german aid were instrumental for the Caporetto Breakthrough. The italians however managed to retreat much of the troops while losing much of the equipment.

The Italians held at Piave without the newly arrived allied help because the Allies though holding at Piave was impossible. Diaz prepared the troops for almost a year before the counter-attack (being heavily critisized for the delay). When he attacked he overrun Austrian and German troops in a way that Caporetto seemed an ordery retreat.

A-H broke apart, literaly, with the Hungarians breaking the double crown. On 28th of October the A-H surendered at the Armistice of Villa Giusti. Provvisions in the treaty was freedom of movement in A-H territory for all allies.

To be said, Bulgaria and the Ottomans already surrendered, and Autumn was a disaster on the west front. Germany, already in dire conditions, could possibly not fight a three front war.

On 9th of November the German Revolution of 1918–1919 broke out and Germany surrendered on 11 of November .

For Italy WWI was the blodiest war ever with 1.2M people dead. It was the paramount of the Pyric victory. Italy was drowned in dept. And the outrageous promises made by the UK and France during the London Pact (itself illegal under Italian, French and UK laws) were (rightfully) disattended at the peace treaties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vittorio_Veneto:

Date 24 October – 3 November 1918

Location Vittorio, Kingdom of Italy
Result Decisive Italian victory
End of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

The Battle of Vittorio Veneto was fought between 24 October and 3 November 1918, near Vittorio Veneto, during the Italian Campaign of World War I. The Italian victory[6][7][8] marked the end of the war on the Italian Front, secured the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and was chiefly instrumental in ending the First World War less than two weeks later.

...

Under the terms of the Austrian-Italian Armistice of Villa Giusti, Austria-Hungary’s forces were required to evacuate not only all territory occupied since August 1914 but also South Tirol, Tarvisio, the Isonzo Valley, Gorizia, Trieste, Istria, western Carniola, and Dalmatia. All German forces should be expelled from Austria-Hungary within 15 days or interned, and the Allies were to have free use of Austria-Hungary’s internal communications. They were also obliged to allow the transit of the Entente armies, to reach Germany from the South

...

The battle marked the end of the First World War on the Italian front and secured the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire.[1][2] Already on 24 October the Hungarian government had called its troops to return without delay, as the war was lost.[14] As mentioned above, on 31 October Hungary officially left the personal union with Austria. Other parts of the empire had declared independence some days earlier, notably what later became Yugoslavia. The surrender of their primary ally was a another major factor in the German Empire deciding they could no longer continue the war.

Returning to the pool, I don't know if a 1-1 war would be won by A-H or Italy. Paradoxically Caporetto was instrumental into bringing all Austrian Army south of the Alps were it would be later be trapped. How it would play out in 1-1 is difficoult to say. Even if Austria wins (blodily) it can not rewind history and actually its victory would eventually accelarate the breakup. Even if Italy won (again blodily) only Trento and Trieste were core Italian and non very populated. Dalmatia and South Tyrol were mixed population for centuries and will be an headache.

Finally, for all detractors of the Italians in WWI, please do learn your history before posting. I'm not particularly patriotic or nationalistic, and think that Italy should never entered that war. Trento and Trieste could be acquired easily at the A-H breakup ... however I don't know it the allies would have won the war without Italy. I'm however proud of Italy in WWII, we managed to make the Nazi lose with acceptable losses. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Top