Italy joins Central Powers, 1915

[Fenwick]

A few divisions? at the top of mobilization, Italy fielded in excess of 5 million men (a number which matches the dead in action: 600,000, or more than 10% of the troops. A proportion which is matched also on the western front).
Just the 12 battles of Isonzo resulted in 300,000 dead on the Italian side; and in excess of 200,000 on the A-H side (which was mainly on the defensive). If you think that france can afford another half a million dead...

The Atlantic route is certainly available. Pity it is much longer than Orano-Marseille. The danger of submersible attack is also much higher. During WW1 the Mediterranean was pretty an Entente lake, and also german submersibles had not an easy life in entering though Gibraltar.

1. Italy has soldiers yes, but seen fighting Austria they are not that skilled at offensives. The French could entrench themselves and hold off the Italians. (Though I am not sure of their artillery, but I doubt italy has a lot). France has its colonies to man th Italian front.

2. With Italy in the war would the Mediterranean remain a Entente lake? Or would it be more like the Entente rapids?

 

[Wendell]

1. Italy has soldiers yes, but seen fighting Austria they are not that skilled at offensives. The French could entrench themselves and hold off the Italians. (Though I am not sure of their artillery, but I doubt italy has a lot). France has its colonies to man th Italian front.

2. With Italy in the war would the Mediterranean remain a Entente lake? Or would it be more like the Entente rapids?

Probably Entente rapids. Italy, Austria, Germany, and Turkey are all on the same side. Get someone to "persuade" Spain to enter, and the British may have a nightmare on their hands.

 

[LordKalvan]

1. Italy has soldiers yes, but seen fighting Austria they are not that skilled at offensives. The French could entrench themselves and hold off the Italians. (Though I am not sure of their artillery, but I doubt italy has a lot). France has its colonies to man th Italian front.

I'd like to know from where you deduced that. Might I assume that you are not particularly conversant with the orography of the Italo-austrian fronts in WW1?

Then, if considered from the POV of gains and advances, there were no particularly skilled attackers in WW1, at least if we do not consider the Russian front. It was butchers work on every front, mainly. And the casualties incurred by all combatants are the best proof of it.

Then again you have not explained from where these mytical french troops might come. Unless it is from the main front. Come on: it will take something like 15 divisons (plus reserves, obviously) to man the alpine front and provence (there is a slight risk of a landing between Nice and Marseille). Which is still substantially less than the Austrians had on the Italian front, btw. But then it was quite longer. OTOH, attacking through the western alpine valleys is certainly easier than attacking in the Dolomites.

 

[Tom_B]

As well as a rather interesting scenario that blows apart the entire war Now, how does it end?

Hard to say. It will take a while to develop. The northern prong would likely be delayed a while. First the combo of Italians/Abyssinians and Mad Mullah would nail down Djibouti and Berbera to keep them from being used as Entente jumping off points. An additional asset they could call on are the 3-4 partially mobilized Ottoman divisions in Yemen (which did nothing more than babysit the Sultan of Yemen OTL). The Ottomans should be able to sneak dribs and drabs across the Mandab on dark nights with acceptable losses to Entente gunboats.

Meanwhile I could see Iyasu putting Dejazmach Tafari in charge of the southern expedition into Kenya so as to get a political arrival far away. There is some logistical problems there with some deserts to cross in northern Kenya but I think they could do it. If they could make radio contact with Lettow-Vorbeck I could see him feinting towards Mombasa and then concentrating at the base of Kiliminjaro and lunging across the Nyiri to assault Nairobi. If he can take Nairobi he would find that the tribes in the highlands esp. the Nandi are more hostile towards British rule than those near the coast.

It could get complicated though if the Force Publique moves in Rwanda.

In the north the initial Abyssinian move would be a small incursion to make sure they control the area around Metemba. Once they wrap up the southern and eastern epeditions they would drive for Khartoum which is where they would link up with the Sultan of Darfor and provide him with some modern weapons.

I could see the ANZAC being sent to the Sudan instead of the Western Front when Gallipoli is evacuated.

Tom

 

[Wendell]

And what is going on in Uganda at this point? Will the Kabaka stir up trouble for Britain? Might South Africa declare itself neutral?

 

[Tom_B]

And what is going on in Uganda at this point? Will the Kabaka stir up trouble for Britain? Might South Africa declare itself neutral?

I would see Uganda being reinforced by Belgian askaris. The South African revolt has pretty much been exterminated, I don't see any reason for their leadership to behave any differently. Some people who might be persuaded are the Zanzibari. Their current Sultan was a first rate Anglophile but he could meet with an unfortunate accident.

 

[Andrei]

I can understand the Italian discrepancy (if your source makes reference to early 1914), but the french strength is a bit too hard to believe. It would also negate the traditional British doctrine: France and Germany would have 27 dreadnought against the 24 British ones (and 39 pre-dreadnoughts against 38)

To be honest , the negation of the British doctrine is not what seems strange to me , because , by 1914 , the possibility of a Franco-German alliance against Britain was nil. What seems strange to me is that the French , according to this source , had more dreadnaughts than the Germans in 1914.

 

[Wozza]

To be honest , the negation of the British doctrine is not what seems strange to me , because , by 1914 , the possibility of a Franco-German alliance against Britain was nil. What seems strange to me is that the French , according to this source , had more dreadnaughts than the Germans in 1914.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyFrench.htm#numbers

See the above link, it seems to be detailed and accurate.
Depending when the Italians join the war the Entente will be outnumbered in the Med.
It will not matter, the Italians are too weak to operate seriously without considerable support.

 

[Max Sinister]

I also thought that the CPs wouldn't be that weak in the Med, if you include Italy. Of course, the Brits should be able to spare some ships after they've mopped up the Germans everywhere but in the German, Baltic, Med and Black Sea.

 

[Wozza]

I also thought that the CPs wouldn't be that weak in the Med, if you include Italy. Of course, the Brits should be able to spare some ships after they've mopped up the Germans everywhere but in the German, Baltic, Med and Black Sea.

German Sea

Methinks not!!

 

[Andrei]

Maybe the British and French wouldn't have attacked in Artois and Champagne in 1915 , and would have send some troops to the Italian border if Italy had entered the war on the CP side.

I think Abisinia could have been persuaded by the Entente to attack the Italians and take Eritreea , thus gaining acces to the sea. after all , Italy and Abissinia fought a war in the 1890's. It would also have been easier for the Abissinians to fight against the isolated Italian troops in East Africa rather than against the British Empire.

 

[Tom_B]

Maybe the British and French wouldn't have attacked in Artois and Champagne in 1915 , and would have send some troops to the Italian border if Italy had entered the war on the CP side.

I think Abisinia could have been persuaded by the Entente to attack the Italians and take Eritreea , thus gaining acces to the sea. after all , Italy and Abissinia fought a war in the 1890's. It would also have been easier for the Abissinians to fight against the isolated Italian troops in East Africa rather than against the British Empire.

Lij Iyasu would have to be overthrown first. He as definitely pro-Ottoman.
He was secrety supporting the Mad Mullah against the British in Somaliland.

Tom

 

[Wendell]

Lij Iyasu would have to be overthrown first. He as definitely pro-Ottoman.
He was secrety supporting the Mad Mullah against the British in Somaliland.

Tom

Besides, Ethiopia could get a sea outlet via British East Africa...

 

[Wendell]

I would see Uganda being reinforced by Belgian askaris. The South African revolt has pretty much been exterminated, I don't see any reason for their leadership to behave any differently. Some people who might be persuaded are the Zanzibari. Their current Sultan was a first rate Anglophile but he could meet with an unfortunate accident.

Belgium has troops to spare?

 

[LordKalvan]

Maybe the British and French wouldn't have attacked in Artois and Champagne in 1915 , and would have send some troops to the Italian border if Italy had entered the war on the CP side. .

that's quite good. So the germans can go on mopping up Russians on the eastern front: in 1915, the russians have been slaughtered at the battles of Masurian lakes; the austrian offensive in Galicia is stronger, since they have another 12-15 divisions available. If there is no offensive forcing the germans to let up a bit the pressure, the Russians will be out of the war by the end of 1915.

I think Abisinia could have been persuaded by the Entente to attack the Italians and take Eritreea , thus gaining acces to the sea. after all , Italy and Abissinia fought a war in the 1890's. It would also have been easier for the Abissinians to fight against the isolated Italian troops in East Africa rather than against the British Empire.

The logistics are against any Abyssinian attack in Erythrea (look at what happened when Erythrea and ethiopia fought in the nineties). The negus has to convince the various provincial lords to provide troops. And someone has to find food for them. Coming from where? Djibouti, that's easy; then the railway to Addis ababa - not very strong link. And then from Addis ababa again to the Erythrean border? good luck.
But to what purpose? East africa is less than a marginal front. The war is won or lost in Europe.

 

[Andrei]

that's quite good. So the germans can go on mopping up Russians on the eastern front: in 1915, the russians have been slaughtered at the battles of Masurian lakes; the austrian offensive in Galicia is stronger, since they have another 12-15 divisions available. If there is no offensive forcing the germans to let up a bit the pressure, the Russians will be out of the war by the end of 1915.

I don't think the Russians would had been out of the war in this case , they but they wouldn't have attacked in Galitia in 1916 and in the Caucasus.

The Entente had considerable manpower resources in 1915.
If the Italians had entered the war against them , the Entente would have had to use it's soldiers more effective. Depending on when Italy had entered the war , Galipolli would have been either cancelled or aborted , and if Serbia had fallen earlier , there probably wouldn't have been the Allied landings at Salonic. The troops that were used in OTL at Salonic and Gallipoli with little or no succes could have been used in TTL against the Italians in Southern France and/or Africa.

 

[benedict XVII]

Belgium has troops to spare?

In Congo, definitely! They played a critical role in the conquest of German East Africa OTL.

 

[LordKalvan]

I don't think the Russians would had been out of the war in this case , they but they wouldn't have attacked in Galitia in 1916 and in the Caucasus.

The Entente had considerable manpower resources in 1915.
If the Italians had entered the war against them , the Entente would have had to use it's soldiers more effective. Depending on when Italy had entered the war , Galipolli would have been either cancelled or aborted , and if Serbia had fallen earlier , there probably wouldn't have been the Allied landings at Salonic. The troops that were used in OTL at Salonic and Gallipoli with little or no succes could have been used in TTL against the Italians in Southern France and/or Africa.

Come on, guys: the generals of the entente were as stupid and bloody minded as the CP's ones (at worst; possibly some German commander was smarter, even if there is no genius among them. And no outstanding performer either).

Gallipoli has already happened, when italy is supposed to enter the war (the landing is on the 25th of April, isn't it?). And Churchill's obduracy would not allow anyone to scrap the operation before the ANZACs have been hammered.
The Champagne offensive is necessary to try and keep Russia in the war.
Scrapping the Salonika front might be possible (after all it was manned mostly by Serbian troops, saved from the disaster in Serbia), but would not change the situation. And greece would enter the war on the CP powers side. No shlling of the Pyraeus in TTL.

The victory of the entente is not fore-ordained by God. And he knows they did all the humanly possible to loose

 

[Wendell]

In Congo, definitely! They played a critical role in the conquest of German East Africa OTL.

Vorbeck wasn't defeated....

 

[benedict XVII]

Vorbeck wasn't defeated....

...by the British forces, indeed. But twice by the Belgian forces, who captured Tabora, the capital of German East Africa. Of course, it's hard to find in Anglo-Saxon history books.