Italy key to German victory in ww1?

[Deleted member 94680]

I wonder what the British would have done with the material that they exported to Italy IOTL.

There’s the chance they utilise it to tempt some of the other Balkan nations to the Entente? Bulgaria? Greater support to Greece?

Or would it simply be used at home to reduce what they need from America? Less aid to Italy means less aid from America later in the War?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There’s the chance they utilise it to tempt some of the other Balkan nations to the Entente? Bulgaria? Greater support to Greece?

Or would it simply be used at home to reduce what they need from America? Less aid to Italy means less aid from America later in the War?

The second option is much more likely IMHO. It's going to be very hard to deliver the material because Central Powers will control the central Mediterranean and the shipping will have to go around the Cape of Good Hope. Plus most of the aid destined for Bulgaria and Romania will have to go through the Bosphorus which won't be possible if the Ottoman Empire is still in the war on the side of the Central Powers and Gallipoli still fails, that is if it is attempted at all.

Instead of an Austro-German force of submarines operating from the Adriatic there will be a force of Austrian, German and Italian submarines operating from Italian bases. Therefore, more submarines operating from bases that were closer to the trade routes.

If the Austrians and Italians can settle their differences there will be a combined fleet of 10 dreadnoughts (4 Austrian and 6 Italian) at Taranto. Furthermore, as they aren't fighting each other they can put some of the resources used to expand their armies IOTL into continuing their naval programmes ITTL. The Erstaz Mornarch and
Francesco Caracciolo class battleships might be built ITTL.

And I think that having Italy come into the war on the side of the Central Powers makes it more likely that Bulgaria, Greece and Romania will join the Central Powers or at least remain neutral. This because it makes a Central Powers victory look more likely.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If Italy does join the Central Powers in May 1915 instead of the Entente, will the evacuation of the Serbian Army be possible?

 

[anotherlurker]

Do the Italians even have enough capacity at the bases in Southern Italy to accept the A-H navy? I remember reading a paper where this was an issue causing friction during negotiations in the triple alliance a decade before the war.
And does A-H have enough rail capacity to push 60 more divisions to the East? Using those fighting Italy was logistically seperated from the war in the East as it used different railsways for soldiers and supplies, but now the existing army in the East has to share with the newcomers.

Italy being neutral instead of a CP member feels more useful, as a co-belligerent they'd quickly become a drain on coal, steel and munitions. Sure A-H would have to guard the border then, it can be a place where exhausted soldiers are roteted to from the Russian front to get some peace and rest.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

And does A-H have enough rail capacity to push 60 more divisions to the East? Using those fighting Italy was logistically separated from the war in the East as it used different railsways for soldiers and supplies, but now the existing army in the East has to share with the newcomers.

That's partially why I think it would be better to send the men back to the farms and factories than to the East.

However, 60 divisions looks like too many to me. I think that must be the whole A-H army and not just the troops on the Italian front.

According to the World War One Source Book by Philip J. Haythornwaite the Austro-Hungarian Army had 66 infantry divisions and 12 cavalry divisions by the turn of 1917-18.

The 66 infantry divisions consisted of:

• 44 Common Army
• 10 "KK" Landwehr (renamed Schützen)
• 12 Honved

The 12 cavalry divisions consisted of:

• 9 Common Army
• 2 Schützen
• 2 Honved

On the other hand there could be many independent brigades and regiments which he didn't count that were the equivalent of several more divisions.

 

[naraic]

If Italy does join the Central Powers in May 1915 instead of the Entente, will the evacuation of the Serbian Army be possible?

2 part question here
1. Will Greater Austrian forces in the Serbian theater prevent Serbian armies from evacuating.
2. Will a changed balance of naval power prevent Entente ships from evacuating Serbian forces.

The answer for both is it depends.

Do the Italians even have enough capacity at the bases in Southern Italy to accept the A-H navy? I remember reading a paper where this was an issue causing friction during negotiations in the triple alliance a decade before the war.

Of course they do. The British and French based more battleships than the Austrians had in total in Italian ports during the war. Now as I've said before I fully doubt that the Italians and Austrians can organise a combined grand fleet but they can definitely offer a forward base for the Austrians.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

If the Austrians and Italians can settle their differences there will be a combined fleet of 10 dreadnoughts (4 Austrian and 6 Italian) at Taranto. Furthermore, as they aren't fighting each other they can put some of the resources used to expand their armies IOTL into continuing their naval programmes ITTL. The Erstaz Mornarch and Francesco Caracciolo class battleships might be built ITTL.

Six Italian? Which date are we going for here?

As for an Austro-Italian rapprochement resulting in major naval programmes going ahead - that’s a certain amount of handwaving, no? Where do the resources and manpower come from to build battleships that couldn’t be built OTL?

And I think that having Italy come into the war on the side of the Central Powers makes it more likely that Bulgaria, Greece and Romania will join the Central Powers or at least remain neutral. This because it makes a Central Powers victory look more likely.

That’s a fair argument. It makes a CP victory in the East and therefore the Balkans more likely for sure. Would the governments of Athens or Bucharest think it makes a CP victory in the War as a whole more likely? Maybe not so much.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Six Italian? Which date are we going for here?

The end of March 1916 if Caio Duilio is completed at the same time as OTL.

As for an Austro-Italian rapprochement resulting in major naval programmes going ahead - that’s a certain amount of handwaving, no? Where do the resources and manpower come from to build battleships that couldn’t be built OTL?

From having smaller armies ITTL. I wrote as much in the post that you quoted. Building Erstaz Mornarch and Francesco Caracciolo class battleships may be pushing it, but they aught to be able to build more submarines, cruisers and destroyers.

IIRC the front line ran over one of the Austrian shipyards IOTL. That won't happen ITTL.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The end of March 1916 if Caio Duilio is completed at the same time as OTL.

They’ll be in the War sooner than that, surely?

From having smaller armies ITTL. I wrote as much in the post that you quoted. Building Erstaz Mornarch and Francesco Caracciolo class battleships may be pushing it, but they aught to be able to build more submarines, cruisers and destroyers.

Less artillery pieces and rifles doesn’t equal more battleships or even destroyers.

 

[naraic]

I'd say the Italians will want as much of an army facing France as they had facing Austria in OTL.

The Austrian economy might be better allowing more ship building. They might be logistically limited on the eastern front so demobilising people to support the economy would be possible (especially in strategic industries like shipbuilding, steel production etc).

That said if the fleet is active from 1915 shipyard space is probably going to focus on repairs of battle damage rather than new build of ships.

In a situation where Italy and Austria are central powers the central powers can get some success by being active with the fleet.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

This is a fair point. But having an extra 50-60 divisions to use against Russia and Serbia, and simplified logistics from not having to fight the Italians, will make even Conrad look a little better.

Obviously, the later Italy comes into the war on the Central Powers' side improves matters in this respect, since by 1915 Conrad had relatively little control over the Russian front.

Moltke originally planned to have an Italian army covering the front on the southern end of the border with France i.e. the Vosges. The Italian withdrawal from this planned commitment was a factor in the "Schlieffen Plan" failing as more German troops were required.

That's the entire French fleet battleships and the British battleships assigned to Malta Taranto (these ships were assigned to Malta before Italian entry) and the Eastern Mediterranean squadron (principally involved in supporting Gallipoli.

If the Central Powers fail to to do damage the Royal Navy may be able to get away with 8 additional predreadnoughts of the King Edward VII class (the wobbly eight) from home waters as reinforcement. These were some of the best predreadnoughts the Royal Navy had and operated with the Grand Fleet in an auxiliary role. The had decent armour 18 knot speed and 4 12 inch guns each.

They can do this and add another 10 older predreadnoughts of various classes that were in various UK based rolls without materially effecting the situation in the North Sea. Sheer weight of predreadnoughts for the win.

If the Central Powers fleets fail to do significant damage before reinforcement arrives the Royal Navy will probably do just that. If damage is done through quick sorties somewhere I could see the Royal Navy sending the 4 oldest Dreadnoughts (Dreadnought herself and the 3 Bellerophons) to reinforce the Mediterranean fleet as well as the abovementioned predreadnoughts.

The Royal Navy would still feel that they had an advantage in the North Sea while also having an edge in the Mediterranean.

It's important to remember that it's unlikely the Austrians Italians and Ottomans would ever operate as a combined fleet. Coordinated sorties is much more possible. For example the Italians sortie towards Malta occupying the Royal Navy and Marine National Squadron based there while the Austrians sortie towards the Eastern Mediterranean hoping to harass shipping to Gallipoli and find a fight with an Eastern Mediterranean squadron.

Of course if you really want to throw the naval cat among the pigeons you could have Italy enter in 1914. The straits of Dover hadn't been mined yet and the Royal Navy needed a large number of predreadnoughts in the channel to provide security for convoys to France.

The RN had planned to eventually send the seven oldest dreadnoughts to form the core of a Mediterranean Fleet, but IIRC not until 1916.

March 1915 had a QE an Invincible and 11 predreadnoughts.

June 1915 was all predreadnoughts, 2 Lord Nelson, 1 Swiftsure and the rest older predreadnoughts.

So 2 modern predreadnoughts, one coastal defense battleship we are calling a predreadnought and the rest older predreadnoughts.

It's important to remember that Gallipoli was essentially a shore bombardment and convoy escort mission.

The Austro-Hungarian pre-dreadnoughts (counting the Radetzky-class as semi-dreadnoughts on a par with the Dantons and Agamemnon / Lord Nelson / the "wobbly eight") were undersized and undergunned. The Majestics would eat them for breakfast. The Italian Regina Elena class were only armed with 2x12" main battery.

The French had six good semi-dreadnoughts backed up by another 5 good pre-dreds in the surviving Republique & Liberte classes; their older battleships could be discounted much as the Triple Alliance ships. With the exception of Triumph & Swiftsure the remaining RN pre-dreadnoughts are decent 4x12" designs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

They’ll be in the War sooner than that, surely?

I was working on the assumption that they would join the war on the same date as OTL, but on the opposite side.

In 23rd May 1915 would have been 8 dreadnoughts (3 Austrian and 5 Italian). The fourth Austrian dreadnought, Szent István wasn't completed until December 1915 IOTL.

Furthermore, the fourth Italian dreadnought, Conte di Cavour was completed on 1st April 1915 and the fifth ship Caio Duilio was completed on 10th May 1915, so the effective strength at 23rd May was probably 6 dreadnoughts (3 Austrian and 3 Italian) because it's likely that the Cavour and Duilio were still working up.

What you should have done was to point out that the Leonardo da Vinci blew up on 2nd August 1916, so it wouldn't have been 10 dreadnoughts for long.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Less artillery pieces and rifles doesn’t equal more battleships or even destroyers.

Yes it does. Having to give priority to their armies ruined the building plans of the Austro-Hungarian and Italian Navies IOTL.

If Austria-Hungary and Italy had created smaller armies between 1915 and 1918 there would have been an absolute increase in their agricultural and industrial production, because more men would be working in the farms, mines and factories. They could have built more warships and at the same time maintained their OTL output of rifles and artillery pieces had they wanted to.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yes it does. Having to give priority to their armies ruined the building plans of the Austro-Hungarian and Italian Navies IOTL.

If Austria-Hungary and Italy had created smaller armies between 1915 and 1918 there would have been an absolute increase in their agricultural and industrial production, because more men would be working in the farms, mines and factories. They could have built more warships and at the same time maintained their OTL output of rifles and artillery pieces had they wanted to.

No it doesn't as battleships and destroyers are built from different material to rifles and artillery pieces. More soldiers and land-based materiel may reduce the cash reserves and exchequer of A-H, but it doesn't magically produce more Krupp steel or boilers or 15" guns.

 

[anotherlurker]

Yes it does. Having to give priority to their armies ruined the building plans of the Austro-Hungarian and Italian Navies IOTL.

If Austria-Hungary and Italy had created smaller armies between 1915 and 1918 there would have been an absolute increase in their agricultural and industrial production, because more men would be working in the farms, mines and factories. They could have built more warships and at the same time maintained their OTL output of rifles and artillery pieces had they wanted to.

A battleship at the time needs about a thousand men, and as much supporting it at the land. A bigger navy doesn't make a noticeable difference manpower wise if you're talking about two countires with 35 and 50 million people respectively. In the case of A-H the navy was manned by people who lived at the coast already, the fringe of economic activity, far far away from the industrial and agricultural heartlands in Bohemia and Hungary. If anything building more ships gets more Czechs from the fields into Skodas factories to build the guns and armor for the battleships.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

What you should have done was to point out that the Leonardo da Vinci blew up on 2nd August 1916, so it wouldn't have been 10 dreadnoughts for long.

I assume that the prostitutes brought on board would not bring their little explosive devices with them in ATL.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I understand that neither the Italian army nor the navy were privy to the detailed terms of the Triple Alliance.

Supposedly when the Triple Alliance was renewed in 1912, in private talks Italy sought & received an additional secret agreement that her two allies would support her in the event of a war with France, even one started by Italy. However foreign minister Antonio Marquis di San Giuliano never informed the Italian military of this side letter. When the chief of the general staff enquired about his service's responsibilities to the nation's allies, he was told bluntly that such information was on a strict "need to know" basis, and the army had no need to know! Reassuringly, San Giuliano did say they would be told if war seemed likely.

In return both the army & the navy set about negotiating separately with their opposite numbers in Berlin & Vienna, but kept the War Ministry and the Marine Ministry out of the loop. Naval chief of staff Admiral Paolo Thaon di Revel believed that no concrete war planning could be formed without knowledge of the Triple Alliance's terms, but when approaching San Giuliano, received the same brush-off from the Foreign Ministry. In return, the naval planning was carried out with the knowledge of, let alone approval of, the Foreign Ministry.

The detailed plan, as posted earlier, was drafted up by fairly junior naval officers on all sides: Commander Prince Johannes von und zu Liechtenstein for Austria-Hungary; Commander Angelo Ugo Conz for Italy; and Captain Paul Behncke for Germany (IIRC he commanded a battle squadron at Jutland). It was Conz's idea that overall command would be held by an Austro-Hungarian officer, in part to tie the Austrian navy to the plan, while any small detachments to support the army or defend against French raiders would be under Italian command. The prime operational objective was not to land troops at St. Tropez - although this was planned as posted earlier - but to intercept and destroy troop convoys carrying the French XIX Corps from Algeria to Metropolitan French ports. The German's had originally insisted the Goeben would form part of the Austro-Hungarian dreadnought division, but later obtained agreement he would be treated as a cruiser, so free to raid the North African coast and search for those troopships - the rationale behind the deployment of the battlecruiser to the Mediterranean. The naval agreement was reported direct to King Vittorio Emanuele, bypassing San Giuliano and came into effect in November 1913; obviously San Giuliano didn't "need-to-know".

It is commented that the British caught on to the proposed Austro-Hungarian forward deployment when the Habsburgs flagship Viribus Unitus was repainted light gray in place of the previous coastal defence scheme of dark green.

It was an aggressive plan, and I believe it would have worked well if all parties maintained adherence to (at least) the spirit of the agreement.

Edit: It looks like the details of the plan were included in a post to another similar thread. Essentially the Austro-Hungarians would deploy to Augusta in Sicily; the German Mediterranean division would stage out of Messina; the Italian fleet would probably be based at Naples but moving to Messina for actions in the Central Mediterranean. The Germans offered to supply the Italians with 1,000 tons of coal a day, although neither Vienna nor Rome truly believed the promises would be met in full. The planned landing of 10 infantry & 4 cavalry divisions of the Italian army at St. Tropez even involved nomination of the transports that would carry the invasion force

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I assume that the prostitutes brought on board would not bring their little explosive devices with them in ATL.

If that's a reference to her sinking being blamed on Austro-Hungarian sabotage, they might be working for the British or French ITTL.

 

[Michel Van]

My view on Matter

Italy as member of CP would have serious issue with Austria-Hungary, do both claims on Balkan and Italy territory
For War effort the Italian army, sorry to say was a Joke in that time

But they could play important role in War
by forming a second french front in south at french italian border
This would bind french troops there, needed on west front

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Continued Italian neutrality is plausible and achieves most of what one wants (namely strengthening Austria Hungary by removing a million man front in the mountains), but full fledged belligerence is unlikely given the facts on the ground. Thr most likely scenario for a CP Italy OTL is them jumping in opportunistically after Russia collapses in 1916, a plausible- indeed likely- outcome without Italian entry in the previous year.

Outright joining in the beginning would require a very different chain of events or serious changes in the pre war geopolitical contours; the Italian government took a gradually pro entente view thanks partially to sheer weakness in the face of the British, and reconciliation with France. The Italo Turkish war already showed which way the winds were blowing.

So how to get the Italians into thr central powers from the beginning? Well. Flip the brits to at least neutrality perhaps, or have greater tensions between Italy and France over Libya- there were a few incidents where thr Italian blockade interdicted French vessels. Some sort of rapproachment/concession from Vienna, figuring around Trentino, Trieste, and Albania. The best opportunity involves Serbia and Montenegro- if the serbs don't withdraw from Albania during the balkan wars both Italy and Austria will be unified in threatening war, possibly creating the seed of a more functional relationship, though this takes work on both ends and probably some substantial German mediation. Alternately if the Montengrin family is targeted by pan Serbs in place of the Sarajevo incident than Italy might feel honor bound to intercede given the ties between the two royal dynasties- a combination of these two could do it, as Russian support for Pan slavism becomes a clear threat to both Austrian and Italian ambitions in the region (IMO it was a clear threat regardless but they let themselves be distracted by the irredenta).