Cadorna and Italy's performance against France?

[NOMISYRRUC]

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?

The fall's from 7.9 million tons in 1916 to 4.9 million tons in 1917 that is 3 million tons.

UK coal production fell by about 8 million tons between 1916 and 1917, that is from 256.4 million tons to 248.5 million tons in 1916. That could be the reason for the reduction in Italy's coal imports.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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...

No I don't know what Spain's policy was. However, I very much doubt that it would be practical because the colliers would be intercepted by the Marine Nationale.

However, we've already discussed whether Italy joining the Central Powers will influence what the Greeks and Romanians do ITTL. Will it make Spain join the Central Powers? I've no idea how realistic that is, but it would mean that the French would be fighting a three-front war instead of the one-front war of OTL.

 

[Arkenfolm]

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...

Still have the navies of Britain and France to get past for anyone shipping coal between the countries. But Spain was pretty divided between pro-Entente and pro-CP factions where the conservative parties were pro-CP and the liberals (who won the elections in 1916 and 1918) were pro-Entente, but Italy wanting to buy Spanish coal adds another dimension to that issue in Spanish politics. I don't think it's likely to make Spain join the war though.

But by the looks of that chart, Germany and A-H will need to supply a lot of coal to Italy, but the presence of Italy on their side will make it so they actually can devote the manpower toward mining additional coal to keep Italy in the war.

No I don't know what Spain's policy was. However, I very much doubt that it would be practical because the colliers would be intercepted by the Marine Nationale.

However, we've already discussed whether Italy joining the Central Powers will influence what the Greeks and Romanians do ITTL. Will it make Spain join the Central Powers? I've no idea how realistic that is, but it would mean that the French would be fighting a three-front war instead of the one-front war of OTL.

I think the RM might be able to counter this somewhat despite their fuel issue. They had some oil-fired ships and would presumably build more in the war using Romanian and A-H oil and they don't need to worry about A-H's navy unlike OTL meaning they can focus on Britain and France in their regional theater.

Escorting a ship from the coast of eastern Spain to an Italian port is quite different than slipping past Gibraltar (which unfortunately for Italy more or less bars American/New World imports).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

European Steel Production 1913-18 IOTL
(Thousands of Metric Tons)

Austria is the whole of Austria-Hungary and the source document didn't have its steel production for 1914-18.

European Steel Production 1913-18 ITTL
(Thousands of Metric Tons)

​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Escorting a ship from the coast of eastern Spain to an Italian port is quite different than slipping past Gibraltar (which unfortunately for Italy more or less bars American/New World imports).

As you've mentioned America and the New World there were a lot of Italians in the USA. Will that make the USA be less pro-Entente and more pro-Central Powers ITTL?

 

[HJ Tulp]

n. 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).

I'm not so sure about that. British forces in Egypt are really in a bind, especially once the Ottoman Empire joins the fray. Like with Italian East Africa in WWII it will still take some forces and there might not be that much to spare. The same with the French, are they sending their Algerian forces to the Somme or to Tripoli?

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The RM almost never sent its battle squadrons into areas where their battleships were at risk, even when backed by RN & MN forces.

How likely is it that they would pursue an active naval policy faced with the RN & MN?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The RM almost never sent its battle squadrons into areas where their battleships were at risk, even when backed by RN & MN forces.

How likely is it that they would pursue an active naval policy faced with the RN & MN?

I agree.

The Central Powers combined fleet will spend most of the war at Taranto as a fleet in being. Most of the fighting will be done by cruisers, destroyers and submarines.

Though its mere presence would force the RN to MN to give the merchant shipping crossing the central basin a very strong escort or sent it around the Cape of Good hope.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

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 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.

The Op said GB is neutral for the first year or more of the war so coal trade can reach Italy through the Eastern Mediterranean.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Op said Great Britain is neutral for 1-2 years before joining

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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).

agree and they're going to loose the Dodecanese Islands too.

The war aims of Italy in the Central Powers are Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunisia and Malta in more or less that order.

I think that they'd want as many of them as they could get in the peace treaty rather than recover their pre-war overseas territories.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Op said Great Britain is neutral for 1-2 years before joining.

That's not my interpretation of the OP. I thought it was that Germany pursues an "East First" strategy.

If Great Britain had remained neutral for the first 1-2 years of World War One it would have been over in 6-12 months because the French Army wouldn't have been able to fight the German Army for more than a year without the British Army to support it. And that assumes that the French Army won the Battle of the Marne which is unlikely without the support of the BEF.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

That's not my interpretation of the OP. I thought it was that Germany pursues an "East First" strategy.

If Great Britain had remained neutral for the first 1-2 years of World War One it would have been over in 6 months to a year because the French Army wouldn't have been able to fight the German Army for more than a year without the British Army to support it. And that assumes that the French Army won the Battle of the Marne which is unlikely without the support of the BEF.

Alright, so the post is Germany goes East First with the intentions of invading Belgium once the Russian behemoth has been dealt with, but until then, the Germans are more than happy to bunker down in Elsass-Lothreingen as the French bloody themselves in their offensives against well fortified positions. How'd Italy do with this situation in mind?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Alright, so the post is Germany goes East First with the intentions of invading Belgium once the Russian behemoth has been dealt with, but until then, the Germans are more than happy to bunker down in Elsass-Lothreingen as the French bloody themselves in their offensives against well fortified positions. How'd Italy do with this situation in mind?

So Germany isn't being blockaded by the UK until 1915-16. Meanwhile, French and German cruisers are attacking each others merchant marines in the Atlantic.

An Austro-German-Italian combined fleet is blockading the Mediterranean coast of France. They have 6 dreadnoughts and a battle cruiser between them in August 1914 and the French only have 4 dreadnoughts. The French won't be able to hold Corsica. The Italians might try some large scale raids on the French coast with the objective of diverting French soldiers from the Alpine front. They might even try a full-scale amphibious landing on the Cote d' Azur instead of battering their way across the Alps.

 

[Aghasverov]

I'm not so sure about that. British forces in Egypt are really in a bind, especially once the Ottoman Empire joins the fray. Like with Italian East Africa in WWII it will still take some forces and there might not be that much to spare. The same with the French, are they sending their Algerian forces to the Somme or to Tripoli?

To the Somme, or at least to wherever the front would be ITTL.... if the events of the 1st few days of August are paralleled anyway. Even with a hostile Italy I think defense of North Africa would definitely play second fiddle in French strategic allocations...

 

[lukedalton]

To the Somme, or at least to wherever the front would be ITTL.... if the events of the 1st few days of August are paralleled anyway. Even with a hostile Italy I think defense of North Africa would definitely play second fiddle in French strategic allocations...

It's basically the sum of things, like no italian workers (or italian voluteers in the french army during the first year of war), more commitment in North Africa and Mediterrean, more expediture of material and so the shell crisis can be earlier or/and worse

 

[Alanith]

If England hasn’t joined in a year or two the war is already over.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

If England hasn’t joined in a year or two the war is already over.

Not exactly. No England means no Ottomans, which means Russia has trade access to the east Mediterranean and can properly supply it's troops. No Ottomans also means no Caucuses front so the Germans will be fighting 2-3 more armies on the Eastern front.

Also Op said Germans go east first so France doesn't fall at the Marne.

 

[Aghasverov]

Here's a thought too.... No UK in the war (at least in 1914-15) also means no Japan - after all, the only reasons Japan got involved were - 1) they had an agreement/entente with the UK 2) they asked 3) the Brits said yes and 4) the German Pacific colonies were easy pickings. On the other hand, Japan also felt cheated by the Treaty of Portsmouth, and had interests in Manchuria that would doubtless conflict with Russia; also Japanese geostrategy had already begun to shift to Southeast Asia - where the European colonies possessed essentially ALL the raw materials that Japan needed for an expansionist policy, but sorely lacked.
A free hand in Manchuria and in French Indochina would have been mighty tempting prizes to dangle in front of the Japanese, far better than Tsingtao and a handful of atolls... and neither the French nor the Russians would have been in any position to do a thing about it.