alternatehistory.com

Italy has had a poor military reputation since unification. Often warranted, often not, Italy has often faced many challenges in her wars.

There's no doubt that the average Italian soldier was brave, bravery is practically a requirement if you're going to attack the same place ten times. But obviously being brave isn't the same thing as being militarily efficient, and it's rather easy to argue that Italian armies have very rarely been very efficient. Nor is bravery really all that unique. To fight in the conditions of WW1 required an insane amount of bravery.

By the mid-30s, the Italians had one of the most modern militaries in Europe. Italian military theorists long recognized the value of aircraft and armored vehicles. But by the time war came around, it was largely outdated, tactically and operationally when not necessarily technologically. This showed itself especially well in Greece. The Italian army was humiliated when it attacked Greece, and was almost forced back into Albania.

So the question is this? What is necessary for Italy to have an army at least as skilled and eficient as the British or the French during WW1? An Italy that doesn't have British and French forces sent late in the war to bolster their defenses. I'd prefer that Italy remain in the Entente for the purposes of this scenario, but if you feel that they must stick with the Central Powers, explain exactly why that is necessary for this challenge.
Top