As many know, Luigi Cadorna was chief of staff for the Italian Military for much of WW1 and would be the fool that'll lead to countless lives being lost during the Battles (12 of them!!!) for the Isonzo River and then Caperatto, leading to the Italian military to basically turn against him and him being sacked. However, I learned from Indy Idell of The Great War youtube channel that he (Cadorna), and several other figures in the Italian Military were completely in the dark about Italian negotiations with the Entente and were preparing to commit to their alliance with the Germans and Central Powers. In an East First Germany (meaning Italy won't have to worry about Britain for at least the first two years) outlined in the discussion I have here (WI : East First Germany sends 1st and 2nd Armies to East Prussia), how would Cadorna and Italy perform against the French forces in the region? Would they do better, about the same, or somehow even worse than OTL (say, for example, being pushed towards Genoa or Milan with ease)?
Cadorna and Italy's performance against France?
- Thread starter TheDoofusUser
- Start date
The italian-France border is even worse for offensive action than the Isonzo, only this time on both side...all that jokes about how little the French army need to fight against Italy, there were really not joke but more an assestment of how difficult is to mount an advance there and such little need of troops goes also for the Italian army. The principal strategy for the Italian army was to keep a defensive stance in the alps, trying to keep occupied more french troops possible and send the bullk of the army in Germany to help in North France
It would be pretty much the same terrain in the "Savoy Front" as in the Isonzo Front.
But one dire thing for the Italians--they will be terribly low on supplies since Britain was supplying them with coal. Italy is not self-sufficient and will need more coal. They can't buy from the neutral United States since they'll be blockaded by France and Britain thanks to Gibraltar. Germany and A-H will need to supply them which means more coal miners and less soldiers/farmers for them. I'd assume the RM will sit in port most of the war as a fleet in being (although the A-H fleet not being confined will help alleviate this).
I'd assume they might try an offensive or two against France (which will fail), Italy will likely be on the defensive because their supply situation will be terrible. I could see a Franco-British operation aimed at knocking them out of the war once the situation in France stabilises, which will probably also fail thanks to the terrain. Since Italy will be on the defensive, I wonder if the RM will get the bulk of the fuel supplies so they can sortie out against France and Britain to help smash the blockade. I doubt they'll be able to take Malta and Libya, Somaliland, and Eritrea will be lost after brief campaigns (and need to be returned in the peace treaty, if Italy and the CP wins). The RM is also going to be what helps Italy enforce their will in Albania and the Balkans. Maybe at least one Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship is completed although given Italy's manufacturing issues TTL, probably unlikely.
Overall, the effect of Italy being CP will mostly free up Austria-Hungary to destroy Serbia earlier and help make the Russians collapse earlier. No Gallipoli either. The effect on Romania will be interesting if they stay neutral and thus can sell oil to the CP. A-H not wasting so many men on the Isonzo Front will be beneficial too. Overall, the CP benefit from Italy supporting them, and it adds the Italian-American lobby to help keep the US neutral.
But one dire thing for the Italians--they will be terribly low on supplies since Britain was supplying them with coal. Italy is not self-sufficient and will need more coal. They can't buy from the neutral United States since they'll be blockaded by France and Britain thanks to Gibraltar. Germany and A-H will need to supply them which means more coal miners and less soldiers/farmers for them. I'd assume the RM will sit in port most of the war as a fleet in being (although the A-H fleet not being confined will help alleviate this).
I'd assume they might try an offensive or two against France (which will fail), Italy will likely be on the defensive because their supply situation will be terrible. I could see a Franco-British operation aimed at knocking them out of the war once the situation in France stabilises, which will probably also fail thanks to the terrain. Since Italy will be on the defensive, I wonder if the RM will get the bulk of the fuel supplies so they can sortie out against France and Britain to help smash the blockade. I doubt they'll be able to take Malta and Libya, Somaliland, and Eritrea will be lost after brief campaigns (and need to be returned in the peace treaty, if Italy and the CP wins). The RM is also going to be what helps Italy enforce their will in Albania and the Balkans. Maybe at least one Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship is completed although given Italy's manufacturing issues TTL, probably unlikely.
Overall, the effect of Italy being CP will mostly free up Austria-Hungary to destroy Serbia earlier and help make the Russians collapse earlier. No Gallipoli either. The effect on Romania will be interesting if they stay neutral and thus can sell oil to the CP. A-H not wasting so many men on the Isonzo Front will be beneficial too. Overall, the CP benefit from Italy supporting them, and it adds the Italian-American lobby to help keep the US neutral.
I'm in concurrence with the two previous posts on this one. I think it would be a real geostrategic boon for the CP to have the Italians in, but a real military boondoggle. From the CP point of view, the untimely death of Cadorna's predecessor Alberto Pollio (perhaps not ironically just before hostilities broke out) was a real loss. Cadorna was incompetent against A-H, he would probably be even less competent against the French. For one, he (and most of the rest of the Italian leadership) would be fighting an enemy he had little enthusiasm in fighting against, and for another, I think the French would send more competent leadership to defend the Alpes Maritimes than the A-H Empire was able to muster.
Even so, having Italy on board would be a great way to divert French strength away from Lorraine (where presumably the "western front" would bog down in your "east-first" scenario) where it would be more usefully applied. Also having Italian and A-H control over a large sector of the central Mediterranean would wreak havoc on any Mediterranean plans of the French and Russians. The Italian Navy was a force to be reckoned with, as long as its ships could be adequately fueled... somehow...
I could see this leading to a UK entry sooner rather than later though, as no doubt Churchill would be champing at the bit to join in the fray, and would consider the Mediterranean as as much of a "trip wire" as the English Channel, if the almighty British "trade interests" were interfered with in any way...
Even so, having Italy on board would be a great way to divert French strength away from Lorraine (where presumably the "western front" would bog down in your "east-first" scenario) where it would be more usefully applied. Also having Italian and A-H control over a large sector of the central Mediterranean would wreak havoc on any Mediterranean plans of the French and Russians. The Italian Navy was a force to be reckoned with, as long as its ships could be adequately fueled... somehow...
I could see this leading to a UK entry sooner rather than later though, as no doubt Churchill would be champing at the bit to join in the fray, and would consider the Mediterranean as as much of a "trip wire" as the English Channel, if the almighty British "trade interests" were interfered with in any way...
Would it be enough for extended operations though? I'm sort-of assuming that even if the UK is neutral at this point, that they would be heavily favouring the Entente, due to Eddie Grey, Eyre Crowe and others misgiven notions of what their obligations to France and Russia under the Entente agreements really were...
1. Did the Italian navy/army have the capability to invade Corsica?
2. How does fighting in Libya/Tunisia turn out if Great Britain is neutral (as op said).
2. How does fighting in Libya/Tunisia turn out if Great Britain is neutral (as op said).
SwampTiger
Banned
1: Yes and no. If they act quickly from both the mainland and Sardinia, they can bite into Corsica. I doubt they could supply their forces in an unconquered Corsica. At the start of war, the MN was large, if obsolescent. The army's problem was Libya. It had to withdraw veteran units IOTL to build up against A-H.
2: Which brings us to Tunisia. The Italians were still pinned to the coast in Libya by Turkish and local forces. If veteran troops are withdrawn, this front favors the French. If the Italians leave these troops, it must reinforce them and escort the supply convoys. See 1 above.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
If Italy entered the war in August 1914, wouldn't the presence of troops in Libya keep more of the French North African troops at home to protect Tunisia or conquer Libya? Some of France's best troops may be delayed arriving on the Western Front.
SwampTiger
Banned
Maybe, the Italian's had reached a moderately stable position in Libya. However, they would need reinforcement to threaten France. So, a majority of FNA troops may still be free for the Western Front.
1. Where would the Serbs go if they can't retreat to Corfu?
2. Does Greece go full central powers or permanently neutral?
3. Does Djibouti get taken by Italian Somalia without British intervention and can they hold it?
4. Does Ethiopia join the Entente and invade Eretria?
2. Does Greece go full central powers or permanently neutral?
3. Does Djibouti get taken by Italian Somalia without British intervention and can they hold it?
4. Does Ethiopia join the Entente and invade Eretria?
IIRC, the French started drawing troops from Algeria immediately, once mobilization had begun. Incidentally, Churchill had the RN doing protective duty for the French transports, before the UK declaration of war - these were the same RN ships that would be tasked with chasing the Goeben and Breslau I believe...
1) I think the Serbs would probably have to fight their way further south through Albania ("living off the land" as they went, if the First Balkan War was any indication) to try to intern themselves with the Greeks, who were attempting to take a slice of southern Albania (or Northern Thessaly, to them) at the time.
2) The Greek situation was highly unpredictable, and would depend on the ongoing power play between Constantine and Venizelos more so than on external factors. I wouldn't expect a resolution to that in this ATL much earlier than the 1917 resolution in OTL.
3) IIRC Djibouti was more of a coaling station at the time than a military base, and was lightly held. Taking it would depend on Italian initiative and competence; ie a crap shoot
4) I doubt it. As much as the Ethiopians may have resented and mistrusted the Italians for their last adventure, as long as their territory wasn't violated and as long as the Italians kept open their "window to the world" through Djibouti, they wouldn't have seen it as worthwhile, especially with a neutral UK and no ally in the immediate vicinity to back them up.
The fuel issue for Italy could be so bad that I'd almost expect them to lose most/all colonial engagements thanks to the supply issue. It's hard to send and escort convoys if you need the coal elsewhere. On the other hand, they do have Austria-Hungary's navy to help them escort and protect their colonies.
They also need oil too, but between A-H's supply and Romania staying neutral (if not actively joining) due to a better situation for the CP, they should have that covered.
They can, but as I said, each ton of coal shipped to Italy is one less ton A-H and Germany get unless they put more men in the coal mines (meaning less men elsewhere in the military or elsewhere on the homefront). There also could be supply bottlenecks with the railroads over the Alps but Italy might not ever get enough coal to run up against those bottlenecks.
They also need oil too, but between A-H's supply and Romania staying neutral (if not actively joining) due to a better situation for the CP, they should have that covered.
1) difficult, very difficult, the Serbs were already on their last leg when reached Vlore and Dures and it was necessary a lot of effort for the italian merchant marine to bring a lot of them in Italy camp to recover...with Italy hostile, their final deathtool will be much much higher than OTL they are basically as a fighting force
4) During the period Ethiopia was occupied with one of their own civil war, so i doubt that they will attempt anything if not attacked first
Regarding the colonies, well lose them is part of the plan, they are not that important and the idea is to have them back at the negotiation table; with France involved sending troops in Libya will be an option in this scenario
It could be a proxy war. Obviously the British will back the Senussi in Libya and any anti-Italian force that can be found in Somaliland and Eritrea. As for Ethiopia (where the Great War played a role in domestic politics), OTL Iyasu V seems to have been pro-Central Powers (relatively, he seems to have been rather erratic) and I'd assume Italy could promise him Djibouti or even British Somaliland. However, from what I can tell it's going to end up a proxy war within Ethiopia made much worse than OTL since Italy is actually in position to support one faction, more than just a few pro-CP nobles dreaming of Britain, France, and Italy being weakened in the war and Ethiopia gaining at their expense. Hell, they could outright bribe the Ethiopians and promise them Assab and Djibouti with the idea Italy will get part of coastal Sudan and British Somaliland after the war (doesn't matter how likely this is, this is the narrative politicians and military leaders will sell to the Italian people), in addition to a desired colony like Tunisia.
The effect of this will be making it more difficult for Ethiopia to go against the Italians. After all, Italy ceded Assab in good faith, what are the British or French doing for Ethiopia?
Of course, if Italy can barely support her own soldiers and Navy thanks to the supply situation, how can she be expected to support her preferred Ethiopian faction?
These aught to be self-explanatory.
Iron Ore Production by the Central Powers 1913-18
The blanks aren't because no iron ore was produced, they're because the source document didn't have any figures for those years. Austria and Hungary probably produced at least 3.5 million tonnes of iron ore between them in 1916, which would have increased the total to around 32,250,000 tons in 1916.
The blanks aren't because no coal was produced in those years, they are because the source document didn't have any figures for those years. Therefore, Hungary would have produced about 9 million tons of coal in 1916 which would have increased the total produced by Central Powers in 1916 to about 316 million tons.
Iron Ore Production by the Central Powers 1913-18
The blanks aren't because no coal was produced in those years, they are because the source document didn't have any figures for those years. Therefore, Hungary would have produced about 9 million tons of coal in 1916 which would have increased the total produced by Central Powers in 1916 to about 316 million tons.
AFAIK hundreds of thousands of Italians worked in French factories and farms IOTL. They won't be working there ITTL so there's going to be a reduction in French agricultural and industrial production. They might go to work on farms and in factories in Austria-Hungary and Germany ITTL.
Hmmm... so it appears the Italian coal supply remained relatively stable until 1917, the massive drop in imports then I'm assuming possibly due to the resumption of USW?
I'm looking too at the production figures for Spain... Do you know what their export policies were on coal? As a neutral throughout the war, I'm wondering if Spain could be for coal for Italy what Sweden was for iron & steel for Germany...