CP Italy effect on the Mediterranean?

Germaniac

Donor
Presupposing the Italians join Germany and Austria Hungary at the start of the Great War, What effect will they have on naval combat in the Mediterranean?

I'm not concerned with how they join, considering the unlikelyhood. But they join at the start. Prior to their decision to remain neutral the alliance had made provisions in 1900 to divide up the region between Italy and A-H with the Italians in the west A-H in the Adriatic and joint operations in the east.

However, with the arrival of the German Mediterranean division and the expansion of the Austrian and Italian fleets they would have reached at least parity with the British and French in the region. Being that they had already planned for joint operations, especially against French troop movements from Africa how would this situation effect the war in the Mediterranean?

*with the German division operating with the joint forces of Italy and austria i am also assuming the Ottomans remain neutral at least at the beginning of the war.
 
Italy being in the war really depends upon UK staying out. Otherwise its economic suicide for Italy, their industry will collapse from lack of coal imports. Germany doesn't have coal to spare and even if they did there isn't the rail capacity over the alps to move it. Naval conflict would trash the Italian coastal shipping trade on west coast with horrible economic implications. Then the food problems start down the road as imports are cut off. There are multiple reasons why Italy stayed neutral to start.

From a purely military match up RN had moved its front line ships to North Sea, Med Fleet was KEVIII PDNs at its core out of Malta. French Navy had its front line ships there. Now all 5 of the navies here had issues of one type or another.

KuK (A-H navy) was very short ranged, small and design issues on its latest PDNs and DNs
RM (Italian Navy) long coast to defend bases are poorly sited
MN (French Navy) very short range on their DN and PDN main armament, I think max range was 12K meters.
RN (Royal Navy) best units, crews and commanders are in North Sea
HSF (German Med Squadron) two ships and they depend upon Italy and or A-H for supply and repair.

Biggest problem is how would the CP navies coordinate their activities?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Presupposing the Italians join Germany and Austria Hungary at the start of the Great War, What effect will they have on naval combat in the Mediterranean?

I'm not concerned with how they join, considering the unlikelyhood. But they join at the start. Prior to their decision to remain neutral the alliance had made provisions in 1900 to divide up the region between Italy and A-H with the Italians in the west A-H in the Adriatic and joint operations in the east.

However, with the arrival of the German Mediterranean division and the expansion of the Austrian and Italian fleets they would have reached at least parity with the British and French in the region. Being that they had already planned for joint operations, especially against French troop movements from Africa how would this situation effect the war in the Mediterranean?

*with the German division operating with the joint forces of Italy and austria i am also assuming the Ottomans remain neutral at least at the beginning of the war.

The Ottomans are interesting issue. Since the Ottomans performed a defensive mobilization, and this mobilization includes closing and mining the straights, it is likely they will still be brought into the war by either a Russian or UK attack. The politics of the Ottoman/Italian relations is fascination, but you want to skip politics.

So lets jumps to the strategy. The UK has both the ships and bases to dominate any given combat zone, so the question becomes what do the British do. I don't have an easy answer to this question. The UK had plenty of ships for all jobs, yet OTL UK always kept way more ships than needed to defend the home islands. So far, I know that I have basically said nothing besides it is murky. There are a few things I think are pretty clear. The Italian, A-H, and German battleship fleets wills still mostly stay in port. IOTL WW1, the weaker nations navy tended to hide behind minefields be it the Ottomans, the Russians in the Baltic, the Germans in the North Sea, or A-H. So I doubt we see many more naval battles of any size in this war. I am pretty sure that Entente merchant traffic will stop in the Central Med. For a naval historian who believes in sea power (Mahan for example), this war will be a great disappointment.

Now the overall war is clear. The Entente will lose, and the war is lost on land. We have had threads on this topic, but there are quite a few divisions that OTL France used to stop Germany that will instead be used to defend against Italy. The BEF may have fewer divisions as forces are used in the Med. Every division used against Italy is one less division the Germans face. Germany will do much better in the race to the sea and follow up battles. Russia will have to face a lot more A-H divisions.
 

Germaniac

Donor
So lets jumps to the strategy. The UK has both the ships and bases to dominate any given combat zone, so the question becomes what do the British do. I don't have an easy answer to this question. The UK had plenty of ships for all jobs, yet OTL UK always kept way more ships than needed to defend the home islands. So far, I know that I have basically said nothing besides it is murky. There are a few things I think are pretty clear. The Italian, A-H, and German battleship fleets wills still mostly stay in port. IOTL WW1, the weaker nations navy tended to hide behind minefields be it the Ottomans, the Russians in the Baltic, the Germans in the North Sea, or A-H. So I doubt we see many more naval battles of any size in this war. I am pretty sure that Entente merchant traffic will stop in the Central Med. For a naval historian who believes in sea power (Mahan for example), this war will be a great disappointment.

I would have thought the Entente, considering the great importance placed on trans Mediterranean traffic, would at the very least goad the central powers into action.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that Italy would tip the scales towards the CP, at the last more so than their joining the Entente, i dont think that victory is so matter of fact.

Wouldn't Italian ambitions towards Corsica and Tunisia require naval action and the Germans purpose in the Mediterranean was to disrupt French traffic from Africa so i would imagine that fleet action is more likely than in areas where the idea of the "decisive battle" was more applicable.
 
What state are Italian coastal defences in, particularly in the south? A fleet in being's effectiveness is tied to its location. If the combined cp navies are bottled up in the adriatic then there is no problem. But if powerful forces can be based in southern Italy or even Sicily only a few hours steaming from the narrows they are a massive threat. However, like the German position in Flanders, these bases must ve secure from attack by sea and land and not a haven for submarines lurking in ambush at the end of the shipping channel.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I would have thought the Entente, considering the great importance placed on trans Mediterranean traffic, would at the very least goad the central powers into action.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that Italy would tip the scales towards the CP, at the last more so than their joining the Entente, i dont think that victory is so matter of fact.

Wouldn't Italian ambitions towards Corsica and Tunisia require naval action and the Germans purpose in the Mediterranean was to disrupt French traffic from Africa so i would imagine that fleet action is more likely than in areas where the idea of the "decisive battle" was more applicable.

I did a ATL with Italy not joining the war. I reviewed units as the corp level. I can assure you that Italy joining the CP means the CP wins. Italy had around a half million military deaths, and probably around 2 million total KIA/MIA. Now instead of A-H taking losses to stop Italy, it is now France. Can France handle a additional 250,000 to 400,000 dead? Can France handle another 750,000 to 1.2 million wounded? We then need to repeat the exercise for Russia, but make the numbers larger since the French army is better than the Russian Army. The only real question is if it is a quick French losses or a slow one. We have had threads on this topic, and a lot depends how many troops France needs to hold the Italian border. Some argue that it could be as little as a handful of corp of second class troops. If so, then there is a chance the Race to the Sea only goes a little better for the Germans. After all, just because France has 50,000 troops less in Flanders does not mean the Germans automatically find and exploit the weakness. However, if it takes the French as few as 300,000 troops to hold the border with Italy, then the French will be missing a couple of armies. At least one is in Flanders, so there will be a really big hole between the BEF and French forces. The Germans will be able to take at least portions of the Channel Coast by walking there. Roughly speaking, the most likely scenario is the BEF bottled up in Calais and surrounding areas and the Germans holding the Marne/Somme line. The French will fall apart before Russia can force action in the east in May 1915. From the ATL perspective with Italy joining the war, it really hinges on how daring and talented the French commanders are in the south. If the French try to hold with a bare minimum of forces (single regiments holding passes against corp size or larger elements) and it works, the war might drag on into 1917 before France collapses. I consider this an unlikely outcome. If the French fail with the previous strategy (the Italians break through the passes in the Alps), the war will end and French morale collapses, and there is a panicked transfer of multiple armies to Southern France. If you see more than 250,000 additional troops in Southern France, the Germans will gain the Somme/Marne line.

It is not that I doubt the UK/France will try to force a battle at terms favorable to the Entente. But much like Beatty running his ships near to the German coastline, the UK may wall try to draw the Italians out. I just doubt the Italians will come out, since it happened so rarely IOTL. Did the Russians or A-H ever seek open battles with the bulk of their fleet IOTL? Jutland was an attempted to destroy a portion of the British fleet believed to be near Norway. There was another attempt by the Germans to destroy part of the British Navy by a raid in 1914 or 1915. And then the final mutiny of the German Fleet at the end of the war where the fleet refused to leave port. The Italians having a strong bias to stay in port is where I would start writing my ATL from.

As to Corsica or Tunisia, sure, they might try something. I also would not rule out operations near Egypt. There are two conditions that are likely to prevent this, IMO. One is that the bulk of the Italian army will find a way to fight the French in Europe or be busy garrisoning cities versus potential British attacks. Besides the troops fighting France, the Italians will likely have to garrison with at least a corp or maybe an army Rome, Naples, Sicily, etc. Second, I expect the French/British will keep at least naval parity with the Italians/A-H in the Med. The UK just has so many older ships. But given a situation where the Italians believe they can achieve local naval superiority and there are adequate land units available, sure, and aggressive Italian commander might try to take Corsica. Or keep the sea lanes open to North Africa for conquest. Or even something more daring. It is just a not a likely event.

As to decisive battle, everyone wanted a decisive battle, but only where the odds greatly favored their side. And when the odds greatly favor one side, the other does not leave port, normally. Forcing decisive battles at great advantage to your side is difficult to achieve.
 
Last edited:
IOTL the German submarines in the Mediterranean operated from Austrian bases in the Adriatic. Will they be operating from Italian bases ITTL? If so will that allow them to spend more time on patrol and sink more ships?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
IOTL the German submarines in the Mediterranean operated from Austrian bases in the Adriatic. Will they be operating from Italian bases ITTL? If so will that allow them to spend more time on patrol and sink more ships?

Sure they could, but then we have to get back to politics which the thread author wants to avoid. IMO, if Italy joins the CP, there will still be icy relations between A-H and Italy. It is probably best to view them as co-belligerents. I would not totally rule out things like both the Italians and A-H maintaining some troops in the fortress on the joint border. So this to me is much like asking, "Could Italian troops be sent to Poland instead of attacking up the passes of the Alps? This would free up German troops that could be used in France." Technically a good idea, but politically unlikely.

Now to the technical issues, I am not so sure that it would increase sinking. IOTL, the subs in the Med were on station about 1/2 of the time versus 1/3 for the subs in the North Atlantic. IMO, this is an excellent on-station number. I am sure basing in Italy increase this number, but not sure how much. But there is a downside. The Italians will be forced to try to move some goods on coastal shipping. These CP subs will be forced to spend time identifying targets. Also, these subs will likely be used to defend the Italian coast versus raids. And these subs will likely be used to try to setup fleet battles, much like the Germans in the North Sea. So Merchant sinkings might go up. Also might go down. I would not argue too much in an ATL either way.
 
Sure they could, but then we have to get back to politics which the thread author wants to avoid. IMO, if Italy joins the CP, there will still be icy relations between A-H and Italy. It is probably best to view them as co-belligerents. I would not totally rule out things like both the Italians and A-H maintaining some troops in the fortress on the joint border. So this to me is much like asking, "Could Italian troops be sent to Poland instead of attacking up the passes of the Alps? This would free up German troops that could be used in France." Technically a good idea, but politically unlikely.

Now to the technical issues, I am not so sure that it would increase sinking. IOTL, the subs in the Med were on station about 1/2 of the time versus 1/3 for the subs in the North Atlantic. IMO, this is an excellent on-station number. I am sure basing in Italy increase this number, but not sure how much. But there is a downside. The Italians will be forced to try to move some goods on coastal shipping. These CP subs will be forced to spend time identifying targets. Also, these subs will likely be used to defend the Italian coast versus raids. And these subs will likely be used to try to setup fleet battles, much like the Germans in the North Sea. So Merchant sinkings might go up. Also might go down. I would not argue too much in an ATL either way.
I take your point about the Austrian Navy (including its submarines) not being automatically moved forward to Italian ports. However, I was referring to the German submarines operating in the Mediterranean. Does anybody know cordial relations between Germany and Italy were? IMHO that's more relevant to whether the German submarines operating in the Mediterranean would use Austrian or Italian bases.

I don't know the total number of German submarines that was based in the Adriatic IOTL. However, according to a spreadsheet I did from a copy of Conways 63 of them operated under the Austrian flag for security and international law reasons. AFAIK the international law reason was that Germany and Italy weren't officially at war with each other until 1916.

The Austrian Navy had 6 submarines at the start of World War One and they acquired another 21 including one captured from the French.

There are also the Italian Navy's submarines. IOTL they launched 20 between 1905 and August 1914 and another 49 were launched between August 1915 and October 1918 for a grand total of 69. However, 15 of them were built in British and Canadian yards, which reduces the total to 54. Furthermore we don't know if the Italians could have built 34 submarines in their own yards ITTL because they might not have the coal and iron ore to make the steel required.

I take your points on the technical issues, but I think that the upside will more than offset the downside.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I take your point about the Austrian Navy (including its submarines) not being automatically moved forward to Italian ports. However, I was referring to the German submarines operating in the Mediterranean. Does anybody know cordial relations between Germany and Italy were? IMHO that's more relevant to whether the German submarines operating in the Mediterranean would use Austrian or Italian bases.

I don't know the total number of German submarines that was based in the Adriatic IOTL. However, according to a spreadsheet I did from a copy of Conways 63 of them operated under the Austrian flag for security and international law reasons. AFAIK the international law reason was that Germany and Italy weren't officially at war with each other until 1916.

The Austrian Navy had 6 submarines at the start of World War One and they acquired another 21 including one captured from the French.

There are also the Italian Navy's submarines. IOTL they launched 20 between 1905 and August 1914 and another 49 were launched between August 1915 and October 1918 for a grand total of 69. However, 15 of them were built in British and Canadian yards, which reduces the total to 54. Furthermore we don't know if the Italians could have built 34 submarines in their own yards ITTL because they might not have the coal and iron ore to make the steel required.

I take your points on the technical issues, but I think that the upside will more than offset the downside.


If we assume a functional CP alliance with Italy in it, I think we have to assume Germany is the glue holding it together, so IMO, the Italians would allow the basing of German subs. I also work under the assumption that there will be few Entente Merchant ships in the Med. I like to focus on the subs, but it will not be subs alone. Between Sicily and Africa is under a 100 mile gap. Very easily for cruisers and torpedo boats to slip out and do nightly attacks. It is a short run for something like an AMC. The Germans did a lot of work on naval aviation. Zeppelins are largely untouchable early in the war when well at sea, and these fleets will presumably be coordinated in the daytime by what we would now call AWAC.

Presumably, the British are stopping the entry of ships headed to Italy at Gibraltar. If we see operations against the Ottomans, the supply ships will likely come out of ports near Suez. The UK/French will likely flood Italian waters with subs. It looks a lot like a target poor environment. At least that is where I would start with an ATL.

It looks like OTL submarine forces would be more than enough, without possibly even sending down the smaller German subs as done IOTL. A lot of the issues in getting more specific is that this war is so unlike OTL WW1, it looks more like a "what if WW1 broke out in 1921?" type question.
 
A big, and truly overlooked factor, would be the Black Sea. Until their dreadnoughts are finished in the spring, the Russians have little in the way of modern ships there. Italy and Austria would then have an outlet to use their own elderly ships. With control over the Black Sea solidly in CP hands, large Russian formations will be diverted to coastal defense. Another huge headache for the Russians

The Italians and the Austrians wouldn't even be co belligerents. they would be really fighting two separate wars- Austria against Russia and Serbia, Italy against France and Britain. They would cooperate for the good of their mutual German ally but really would be just benevolent neutrals towards each other
 
Top