How would an Entente invasion of Sicily and Southern Italy go if Italy joined the central powers.
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Germaniac
Donor
Well for one, Naval Supremacy will need to be established by the Entente. If Italy is securely on the CP side then Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the small German Mediterranean division are going to be the dominant naval force in the region, far outweighing the majority French Entente navies in the region.
The German High Seas fleet is going to have to be removed as a threat to the British in order to send the needed forces to the south to face this threat.
The German High Seas fleet is going to have to be removed as a threat to the British in order to send the needed forces to the south to face this threat.
Germaniac
Donor
Why is the Spanish Fleet involved?
The British fleet is going to take ALOT of losses by going that direction. Is that going to be palatable enough to the British public to keep the government from falling? Hell three old cruisers were sunk in the Action of 22 September 1914 and the public outcry was fierce.
In the most recent Moroccan crisis, Spain agreed to join the entente if Italy joined Germany in a war.
Losses? If they destroy the vastly inferior CP fleet, losses won’t matter. In terms of losses, think Gallipoli, not the Somme or Verdun
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
The naval staffs' plans included having the A-H fleet based out of Augusta with the Italians at Messina or (more likely) Naples. Both navies planned to be a lot more aggressive as allies than they turned out to be as enemies.
The RN had a long-term plan that would see the 7 oldest dreadnoughts based in the Med, but this was not meant to be until 1917.
So not sure the Entente could muster enough ships to ensure naval superiority over any landing zones that would last to maintain supply across the beaches. It could be a reverse amphibious operation that happened, as the Italians had plans to storm ashore at places like St. Tropez and turn the French mountain defences, but they would face the same problem if they went for this or a descent upon Corsica.
Whatever happened, it would be far more interesting & far more costly than OTL.
The RN had a long-term plan that would see the 7 oldest dreadnoughts based in the Med, but this was not meant to be until 1917.
I agree. The French start with 2 dreadnoughts and 6 semi-dreadnoughts and a lot of armoured cruisers, but would be outmatched by combined Austro-Hungarian-Italian fleet. If we assume the same dispositions as OTL - and as no-one knew what Italy was going to do I don't see why not - the RN would have 3 battlecruisers and not a great deal more, although 4 modern armoured cruisers would probably join from the Red Sea. We know the early battlecruisers appeared to be the supreme force in the Med but in hindsight they were unlikely to come out well of any encounter with even the earliest Italian & A-H dreadnoughts. They will probably start by moving a large number of pre-dreadnoughts to the Med - certainly Agamemnon & Lord Nelson, unlikely the King Edward VII's "wobbly eight" as they were on the Grand Fleet roster.
So not sure the Entente could muster enough ships to ensure naval superiority over any landing zones that would last to maintain supply across the beaches. It could be a reverse amphibious operation that happened, as the Italians had plans to storm ashore at places like St. Tropez and turn the French mountain defences, but they would face the same problem if they went for this or a descent upon Corsica.
Whatever happened, it would be far more interesting & far more costly than OTL.
I had not heard this before re: Spain... was this formalized in any way, or was it more in the nature of a "gentlemen's agreement"?
In May 1907, the governments of France, the UK, and Spain informally agreed to a naval plan for the UK to handle Germany, while the other two would contain AH and Italy, this was one of the reasons the Brits helped the Spanish fleet so much, was to make it capable of actually helping.
True, but the Army and bases would be helpful, and 1-2 Españas would be complete, depending on what the exact date is.
Deleted member 94680
What date is proposed for this naval combat? A relatively small difference in commencement of operations (November ‘14 compared to May ‘15, for instance) could make a massive change to the balance of power.
Until April ‘15 the Italians only have three dreadnoughts available. To this date the Austrians have three dreadnoughts and three semi-dreadnoughts.
Meanwhile, the French have four dreadnoughts in commission by August ‘14. The British ‘just’ need to provide three or five (depending on your view of the semi-dreadnoughts) for parity and more for an advantage. Could (would?) the RN provide, say, the 1st or 2nd Battle Squadron if the tactical situation was so different to OTL? That’s 8 dreadnoughts on their own.
Until April ‘15 the Italians only have three dreadnoughts available. To this date the Austrians have three dreadnoughts and three semi-dreadnoughts.
Meanwhile, the French have four dreadnoughts in commission by August ‘14. The British ‘just’ need to provide three or five (depending on your view of the semi-dreadnoughts) for parity and more for an advantage. Could (would?) the RN provide, say, the 1st or 2nd Battle Squadron if the tactical situation was so different to OTL? That’s 8 dreadnoughts on their own.
Would/Could the Straits in between Mainland/Corsica/Sardinia/Sicily/Tunisia be heavily mined, thus preventing the French fleet from moving eastward and allowing the Italian/Austrian to focus on Greece and British held Egypt? How would this affect the Ottoman attack on the Suez?
In terms of the Op's question, could Corsica be held by the French and if so, is Sardinia a more likely target than Sicily since it's closer to France? Also, how fast does Libya fall?
In terms of the Op's question, could Corsica be held by the French and if so, is Sardinia a more likely target than Sicily since it's closer to France? Also, how fast does Libya fall?
I'm thinking such an invasion would go badly. Amphibious assault is hard, and the Entente did it pretty poorly at Gallipoli, where they had massive naval superiority. Unless the Italian fleet is somehow wiped out prior to the invasion, it seems likely the Entente would have done even worse going after Italy.
I don't think the Entente could even get the manpower for something like that- with France being forced to fight on two fronts, it's going to be stretched very thin just defending itself. Britain can't mount an invasion of Sicily alone- trying (and failing) to break through on the Gallipoli Peninsula, which is but a fraction of Sicily's size, kept valuable resources tied down throughout 1915- resources which will probably be needed on the Western Front, given that France will have two fronts to fight on and be more stretched.
An amphibious invasion of Corsica sounds like a stretch... the French Med fleet would obviously be ideally situated to defend the island, and I imagine the waters around it will have been mined pretty heavily.
Just my $0.02, of course.
An amphibious invasion of Corsica sounds like a stretch... the French Med fleet would obviously be ideally situated to defend the island, and I imagine the waters around it will have been mined pretty heavily.
Just my $0.02, of course.
Frankly this would be an insane idea... much has been discussed about the relative naval strengths and strategies, but getting there is only half the fun. Securing a beachhead would be problematic - as mentioned above, amphibious warfare was not well developed at the time, Gallipoli showed that... so even if you could get a large force ashore in Sicily or the far south of the boot (and enough of them survive), then what? Fight your way up the Italian peninsula like the WAllies would do 30 yrs later?
(WAllies had the advantage of massive air support, something that was non-existent in 1915...)
Italy is fairly terrible for the maneuver of large forces, and would have been rough going in 1915 or so... and the Italians would've been putting up a hell of a defensive fight.
"Long bloody slog" is probably an overused term around here, but this would definitely be one...
(WAllies had the advantage of massive air support, something that was non-existent in 1915...)
Italy is fairly terrible for the maneuver of large forces, and would have been rough going in 1915 or so... and the Italians would've been putting up a hell of a defensive fight.
"Long bloody slog" is probably an overused term around here, but this would definitely be one...
This idea makes no sense.
If the Allies want to attack Italy, they can cross the Alps and attack northern Italy directly. Northern Italy is more valuable and industrialized. Crossing the Alps is difficult, but not as much as trying an amphibious invasion when amphibious doctrine has not been invented yet (the big problem at Gallipoli) and they don't even have command of the sea.
They might want Sicily to secure the central Mediterranean sea lanes, but don't really need to because there is no modern aircraft to base in Sicily to attack the sea lanes, World War I biplanes aren't going to do that. And Egypt is probably not active as a front, as without the Goeben, Turkey is unlikely to join the Central Powers.
If the Allies want to attack Italy, they can cross the Alps and attack northern Italy directly. Northern Italy is more valuable and industrialized. Crossing the Alps is difficult, but not as much as trying an amphibious invasion when amphibious doctrine has not been invented yet (the big problem at Gallipoli) and they don't even have command of the sea.
They might want Sicily to secure the central Mediterranean sea lanes, but don't really need to because there is no modern aircraft to base in Sicily to attack the sea lanes, World War I biplanes aren't going to do that. And Egypt is probably not active as a front, as without the Goeben, Turkey is unlikely to join the Central Powers.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Bases at wrong end of the Med, further away from Italy than Toulon, Bizerte or Malta.
Espana possibly the worst dreadnought battleship? Spain wanted a cheaper alternative and got what they paid for. Alfonso XIII not commissioned until August 1915 - even if you rush that through by six months still far too late for all the interesting stuff in 1914. IIRC the Spanish also lacked the light units to screen their BBs.
But still better than pre-dreads, just throw them in the battle line. Spain isn’t a great power, I’m just saying they would be somewhat helpful
Could Germany have done anything to still convince Spain to join the Central Powers even if Italy also ended up Joining? Or, maybe, would this have required the Moroccan crisis to not happen?
Don't really see how the Spanish would convince themselves that it was in their best interest to join either alignment in a full-scale war...