What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

nbcman

Donor
Is that just a function of the game model or do you think the would work similarly in a real campaign?
Rise and Decline of the Third Reich game can't model weeks of anything. It is a hex turn based game that has 4 three month long turns per year. The map of the area around Italy looks like this (the brown filled hexes are mountain and the blue lines between hexes are rivers):
upload_2019-7-26_17-47-11.png

A left hook into Yugoslavia isn't necessary since a strong enough German attack prior to the Fall of France can pass through the clear terrain hexes to the east of the mountains like this:
upload_2019-7-26_17-50-59.png

Swinging into Yugoslavia in 3R gains nothing on attacking Italy since the border from Trieste to the remainder of Italy is sea and can't be crossed:
upload_2019-7-26_17-53-23.png

If a German player makes a concerted effort and the Italian player is not an idiot and uses a layered defense, it will take 2-3 turns for Germany to take out Italy in 3R. If Italy is an idiot, one turn is all that is necessary if German armor can blitz into Rome and cause the Italians to surrender in their turn if they fail to recapture their capital.
 

Deleted member 1487

Rise and Decline of the Third Reich game can't model weeks of anything. It is a hex turn based game that has 4 three month long turns per year. The map of the area around Italy looks like this (the brown filled hexes are mountain and the blue lines between hexes are rivers):
View attachment 475818
A left hook into Yugoslavia isn't necessary since a strong enough German attack prior to the Fall of France can pass through the clear terrain hexes to the east of the mountains like this:
View attachment 475819
Swinging into Yugoslavia in 3R gains nothing on attacking Italy since the border from Trieste to the remainder of Italy is sea and can't be crossed:
View attachment 475820
If a German player makes a concerted effort and the Italian player is not an idiot and uses a layered defense, it will take 2-3 turns for Germany to take out Italy in 3R. If Italy is an idiot, one turn is all that is necessary if German armor can blitz into Rome and cause the Italians to surrender in their turn if they fail to recapture their capital.
Thanks for the write up, that answers my question.
 
Rise and Decline of the Third Reich game can't model weeks of anything. It is a hex turn based game that has 4 three month long turns per year. The map of the area around Italy looks like this (the brown filled hexes are mountain and the blue lines between hexes are rivers):
View attachment 475818
A left hook into Yugoslavia isn't necessary since a strong enough German attack prior to the Fall of France can pass through the clear terrain hexes to the east of the mountains like this:
View attachment 475819
Swinging into Yugoslavia in 3R gains nothing on attacking Italy since the border from Trieste to the remainder of Italy is sea and can't be crossed:
View attachment 475820
If a German player makes a concerted effort and the Italian player is not an idiot and uses a layered defense, it will take 2-3 turns for Germany to take out Italy in 3R. If Italy is an idiot, one turn is all that is necessary if German armor can blitz into Rome and cause the Italians to surrender in their turn if they fail to recapture their capital.

IOW, it is worthless in judging if it would work or not. Airborne doesn't work too well IRL unless you are talking a small area. After all, you are dropping light infantry .
 
Ok this is a question too all what is the rationale of germany being able to break italy? Because to my understanding germany would one have to abandon any hope of war with the soviets in the for seeable future if they want to conquer italy. Which is fair enough but we are also forgetting this is not italy alone if it was i could understand the logic that germany could do it and conquer italy it would reek of dead soldiers but well within the capacity of germany. But no this would likely be the majority portion of the french remants. And the British so you are telling me could take on these three because even if britain didn’t help send aircraft to italy to help out they can still pull large amounts of luftwaffe away from italy to defend from Britain and keep them pinned otherwise field day for the brits so the italian airforce would likely not be dealing with the full might of the luftwaffe so any german air superiority will be limited. So they cant do their normal stick they just don’t have enough planes.

And for any land attacks well the whole Italian military was geared towards fighting in those alps all the defensive capabilities are on their side. And to top it off they have even more troops than our timeline because they will have french remants and likely British support. Too make matters worse unlike OTL where italy was completely reasource starved this is italy is the opposite with the vast economic power of the allies behind them. Germany however is still screwed resources wise. The best i can say the germans can get without sacrificing their army is stalemate. The only hope is if Russia supports them but that will only do so much and stalin will not give enough to win he wants a stalemate where they bleed each other dry.
 
True, for the initial invasion. But they have the roads and truck supply, which they didn't have in WW1. It served them just fine in the really bad logistics situation around Eastern Greece, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. Plus they can base their aircraft out of Austria and depending on the scenario southern France and still cover the whole of Northern Italy. Actually come to think of it how did the Axis sustain Yugoslavian campaign all the way down into Greece if the rail situation was that bad?

Yugoslavia had far better rail connections to the other neighboring countries (that the Germans had full access to) than the links to Italy

Trucks?

A factoid on the Red Ball in Normandy

5958 trucks. Mostly 2 1/2 ton GMCs(104 of 198 Truck companies), but a number of larger 4,5 and 6 tonners as well, pulling trailers brought in after a couple weeks of operation. Several IDs had all their organic Truck companies requisitioned , so they were immobilized.

It was a 700 mile round trip, that took a truck 5 days to load, travel, unload and return. Max cargo moved was 13,576 tons on one day, but averaged 7,000 daily: about the amount of a single doubletracked RR line. This effort used 300,000 gallons of fuel a day, and over 1300 tires.

From August 23 to the end of September, over 1500 trucks were out of service, as many were vastly overloaded, the average load was 5.9 tons

Overall, one French train carried the same as 120 US overloaded trucks.

Now the German Trucks are not as capable as the US ones, or as much fuel, so a German 'Rote Kugel Schnellstrasse' would have real trouble in the Julian Alps, not real Truck Country, unlike Northern France

@Carl Schwamberger might be able to pull from his notes how many Troops in combat could be supported by 7000 tons a day, not that the Germans could reach even half that amount for 5 weeks continuous with their Trucks.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yugoslavia had far better rail connections to the other neighboring countries (that the Germans had full access to) than the links to Italy
Source about the rail connections being better than with Italy? Italy sustained their invasion of over 230k men from their border via rail.

Trucks?

A factoid on the Red Ball in Normandy

5958 trucks. Mostly 2 1/2 ton GMCs(104 of 198 Truck companies), but a number of larger 4,5 and 6 tonners as well, pulling trailers brought in after a couple weeks of operation. Several IDs had all their organic Truck companies requisitioned , so they were immobilized.

It was a 700 mile round trip, that took a truck 5 days to load, travel, unload and return. Max cargo moved was 13,576 tons on one day, but averaged 7,000 daily: about the amount of a single doubletracked RR line. This effort used 300,000 gallons of fuel a day, and over 1300 tires.

From August 23 to the end of September, over 1500 trucks were out of service, as many were vastly overloaded, the average load was 5.9 tons

Overall, one French train carried the same as 120 US overloaded trucks.

Now the German Trucks are not as capable as the US ones, or as much fuel, so a German 'Rote Kugel Schnellstrasse' would have real trouble in the Julian Alps, not real Truck Country, unlike Northern France

@Carl Schwamberger might be able to pull from his notes how many Troops in combat could be supported by 7000 tons a day, not that the Germans could reach even half that amount for 5 weeks continuous with their Trucks.
The Red Ball was used to sustain 28 divisions...Wallied divisions, which had greater supply requirements in 1944 than a 1940 or 1941 German Panzer division did.

I'd look into the Grosstransportraum using in Barbarossa:
https://ww2clash.com/logistics

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=108967
Prior to the outbreak of war the Germans had organized their higher echelon motor transport assets into three regiments, collectively referred to as the Grosstransportraum:

Regiment 602, which was the only active regiment in peacetime, was organized with staff company, field police section, and three battalions each with five companies, a repair platoon and an information (?) platoon. Regiment 602 had mainly four-ton trucks with four-ton trailers for transport vehicles. At full strength the regiment had 2200 vehicles and a load capacity of 4500 tons.

The two other Grosstransportraum regiments - 605 and 616 - were organized along similar lines as Regiment 602, but only their officers were active army ranks - all rank and file, drivers, mechanics etc. were civilians, and the vehicles on strength were 'conscripted' civilian trucks - i.e. not built to military specifications and with a great variety of truck types present in each regiment. Regiment 605 had a tonnage of 6000 tons while Regiment 616 had a tonnage of 9000 tons which implies that truck size, rather than geographical location, decided which regiment a civilian vehicle was conscripted to.

The Grosstransportraum was expanded from 20,000 tons to 60,000 tons in preparation for the 1941 Barbarossa campaign. A great many trucks were confiscated from the occupied countries, mostly from the civilian economy - but at least some vehicles were taken from the defeated French army (eg. some US-built White 3-tonners), and there were also several thousand captured trucks from the Dunkirk war booty.

http://www.mnstarfire.com/ww2/history/land/division.html
German logistical transport was organized in several organizations. Kleinkolonnenraum (attached to the troops) used for transport within the zone of operations and Grosstransportraum to deliver supplies from the railheads to the divisions.

In 1939 the Grosstransportraum consisted of three motor transport regiments with a total of 9,000 men and 6,600 vehicles (twenty percent were expected to be undergoing repair at any one time) giving a capacity of 19,500 tons.2 For Barbarossa, reorganizing transport allowed the Germans to put an average of 20,000 tons of Grosstransportraum behind each of the three army groups (to accomplish this, vehicles were taken from seventy five infantry divisions and replaced by "panje" wagons, these were a form of peasant cart).
 
Not that I’d expect a significant change in the war, but I can imagine Franco’s Spain being somewhat more sympathetic to the Allies plus Italy. Benny’s boys were supporting Franco’s mob before the Germans hit the ground. In our time line, Franco’s cabinet was initially quite split in its sympathies at the beginning of the war - his Foreign Affairs minister, Atienza, was pro-British and was only replaced by Súñer when the Germans overran the French. With a less successful campaign in France and an Allied Italy, I can see a more ardently neutral Spain.

Given Spain was still in a mess in ‘39-‘40, I can’t see Franco actively siding with France and Italy.
 
Source about the rail connections being better than with Italy? Italy sustained their invasion of over 230k men from their border via rail.

And Ports
Postwar map
large-detailed-political-map-of-yugoslavia-with-roads-railroads-and-major-cities.jpg


And invasion went this way
attack_on_yugoslavia.jpg

Having Trieste, Fiume and Pola had better connections for supply in, than thru the Alps
 

Deleted member 1487

And Ports
Postwar map
large-detailed-political-map-of-yugoslavia-with-roads-railroads-and-major-cities.jpg


And invasion went this way
attack_on_yugoslavia.jpg

Having Trieste, Fiume and Pola had better connections for supply in, than thru the Alps
That doesn't tell us the rail capacity, the port capacity, how long it took to get those ports operational, and how much supply relied on trucks during the rapid advance.
Pushing through Ljubljana to Trieste is hardly far and difficult to supply; once the ports are taken and the invasion is pushed into the plains beyond, especially if Yugoslavia allows it's ports to be used in order to be rewarded with territory from Italy, then there are quite a bit more avenues of supply than you're allowing for, not to mention the potential for Yugoslavia to actively participate against Italy in the Adriatic. But as it is there are quite a few roads in the area as well, which with mountain and light divisions would work, especially if they are supported by air. Assuming France has already been defeated and Italy left until after, then there are quite a few transport aircraft also available to help airlift supplies if necessary. Italy didn't have a radar early warning system and given the proximity of German airfields they could generate a huge number of CAS and interdiction, not to mention air superiority missions; massed air attacks aren't going to be something Italy can withstand given their preparedness in 1940 even with Allied help unless they have a lot of French equipment and help.
 
That doesn't tell us the rail capacity, the port capacity, how long it took to get those ports operational, and how much supply relied on trucks during the rapid advance.
Pushing through Ljubljana to Trieste is hardly far and difficult to supply; once the ports are taken and the invasion is pushed into the plains beyond, especially if Yugoslavia allows it's ports to be used in order to be rewarded with territory from Italy, then there are quite a bit more avenues of supply than you're allowing for, not to mention the potential for Yugoslavia to actively participate against Italy in the Adriatic. But as it is there are quite a few roads in the area as well, which with mountain and light divisions would work, especially if they are supported by air.

Moose spent most of the '30s upgrading those Ports, Canals and roads for those areas. one of his showpieces, esp around Pola.


Having those areas upgraded, only helps if the Germans can invade Yugoslavia, then attack Italy and take all that infrastructure intact, and with luck, keep Italy from bombing the chokepoint of Ljubljana. Ports will only help then, once Italian SeaPorts are taken, intact, and get Freighters that somehow get past the Italian Navy

After France, the Luftwaffe doesn't exactly have a surplus of Transport, given how many were lost with the Low countries campaign.
 

Deleted member 1487

Moose spent most of the '30s upgrading those Ports, Canals and roads for those areas. one of his showpieces, esp around Pola.

Having those areas upgraded, only helps if the Germans can invade Yugoslavia, then attack Italy and take all that infrastructure intact, and with luck, keep Italy from bombing the chokepoint of Ljubljana. Ports will only help then, once Italian SeaPorts are taken, intact, and get Freighters that somehow get past the Italian Navy

After France, the Luftwaffe doesn't exactly have a surplus of Transport, given how many were lost with the Low countries campaign.
The Hasburgs invested a huge amount building up rail lines from Austria into Istra and links with the area that became Italian after WW1 because they built a naval base at Pola. Then during WW1 they built it up to sustain the armies holding the area against the Italian invasion.

And yes the assumption is that for the invasion the Germans either invade Yugoslavia or more likely get permission to use the territory to invade Italy, which then removes Italy as a threat to Yugoslavia, puts them on side with all their other potential enemies neighboring them, and probably even gets Stalin's support due to his goal of keeping Germany distracted and damaging the Allies.

There were still hundreds of Ju52s left after the losses in the Netherlands.

In terms of the threat of Italian bombing, the Germans had mobile radar in 1938, so they would have plenty of early warning time, especially if they knocked out Italian air bases near the border early on before moving through Yugoslavia. The Italian navy and frogmen would definitely be a threat, but probably more the small craft due to the threat of air attack. Coastal shipping though would likely be mostly safe as the Brits were able to function with that despite the threat at the Dover Straits.

Repairing rail infrastructure wouldn't be that big of a deal, especially if they aren't having to completely rebuild it from scratch like in Russia. They did pull it off extremely quickly in France in preparation for the Battle of Britain after the extensive damage the Luftwaffe did during the Battle of France.

This map from the 1920s shows a high capacity double track line from Austria to Italy, one of the only in the country:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Map_railroads_Kingdom_SHS.jpg

This one too:
urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20160826105043936-0036:03892map24_1.png
 
What if Fascist Italy fought with the Allies against Germany in World War II instead of fighting with the axis? How would this change Italy and Europe?

When?

If they declare war in Sept 1939 then it does change things - In 1940 Italy had 1.6 Million men in 59 Infantry, 6 Alpini, 3 Celere (Cavalry or Fast) divisions and 3 Armoured Divisions (granted with really really shit tanks).

That's a hell of a pendulum swing!

If not in 1939 when? I don't see them waiting for France to be invaded and then declare like OTL (but on the allied side) if France is getting trounced.

So if they delay then maybe they declare after the USA entered the war and take advantage of all those lovely lend lease goodies.

Also does this mean that they are not invading Greece?

What does Spain and Portugal do with Italy declaring for the Allies? That could have a pretty big impact on the Battle of the Atlantic.

So the scenario where Italy declares in Sept 1939 and lets say advances into Austria and makes some inroads but halts after Poland is defeated so quickly - then what?

I can see the Norway Op not going ahead as extra troops will be needed in Austria to prevent further Italian incursions.

Maybe with Italy on side then Belgium is more likely to allow British and French troops to enter before it is too late and therefore no rush for the Dyle with their best troops and the Lowlands / France campaigns of 1940 are different and more drawn out than OTL.

Maybe.

The RN is far less stretched and with the Regia Marina an allied force there is no 'Verdun of the Mediterranean' or the losses of the Norway campaign - therefore no need for an attack on the French @ Mers-el-Kébir and with more forces at hand the RN is better able to blockade the Atlantic against German surface raiders (possibly with some nice new Italian Battleships and Cruisers*) and free up assets for escort work.

With the RN less Stretched they would be able to send far far greater forces to the Far East in the face of Japanese adventurism

And would that even happen ITTL - with the British able to stand up more Naval assets and a couple of additional infantry divisions as they are not fighting all over North and East Africa - then Japan might balk at actually starting the war!

As for the Allied cause even if Italy is knocked out by Germany say by 1941 - then they are still in a far better place strategically and logistically than they were OTL

I have driven through Italy via Switzerland (actually via Letterkenny in Co. Donegal in Rep of Ireland as you do) as far south as Naples (which for the first 24 hours I thought was in 'Beirut in the 80s' before falling in love with the place) - staggeringly beautiful country, but very hard to attack what with multiple natural defence features.

And if British Commonwealth and Free French forces arrive to help????


*Littorio and KGV verses Bismarck and Prinz Eugen (Hood is having a great deal of TLC at the time) ;)
 

Deleted member 1487

The front in 1917 was far west of the post war Italian border. So 1917 doesn't suggest much of anything.
The point was not about specifically where the breakthrough happened, but the terrain it happened in with worse technology and infrastructure and large armies that had years of combat experience, making them quite different from the Italian army as of 1940.

If they declare war in Sept 1939 then it does change things - In 1940 Italy had 1.6 Million men in 59 Infantry, 6 Alpini, 3 Celere (Cavalry or Fast) divisions and 3 Armoured Divisions (granted with really really shit tanks).
And that was more than their industry could support, so most divisions were woefully underequippied, badly led, and badly trained. See Operation Compass.
Not only that though, but OP said the POD is Italy doesn't sign the Pact of Steel in May 1939, I'm assuming because Mussolini is out of power for some reason and someone like Italo Balbo is in charge and siding with the Allies after Hitler violates the Munich Agreement. Likely they mobilize quite a few less men and divisions, because no Mussolini, but that doesn't mean they are any more ready to fight in 1939-40 than IOTL. Especially because Hitler would cut Italy off from supplies of coal and steel if they don't sign the Pact of Steel, which in turn means that unless the Allies deprive themselves of those materials means Italy can't continue to prepare their military or build up border defenses. IOTL they were busy building up their defensive line against Germany in 1938-39 (and beyond actually) using German steel. So Italy is probably even less prepared than IOTL to fight, so even if declaring war in 1939 can only mobilize a fraction of the divisions they did IOTL, which though it means they are better off in terms of troops, they still have a large number of divisions in the colonies and can only deploy a fraction of what they have against Germany. I doubt they attack at all in 1939 and offer an expeditionary force to France, which may or may not be accepted. That is likely their biggest contribution and probably find their expeditionary forces overrun when France implodes.

So the scenario where Italy declares in Sept 1939 and lets say advances into Austria and makes some inroads but halts after Poland is defeated so quickly - then what?
How? The Brenner Pass was selected by Italy in 1915 as the border because it is basically impossible to attack through. Likely it could be held by 3rd line militia troops and gains would be measured in hundreds of meters. Given the previous paragraph likely they don't attack and just skirmish in 1939-40 and deploy an expeditionary force to France if it is accepted. They don't want a repeat of WW1 in the mountains.

I can see the Norway Op not going ahead as extra troops will be needed in Austria to prevent further Italian incursions.
Probably not enough to actually impact Norway though given the terrain on the border. Unless Italy plans on invading Yugoslavia they can't really afford to attack through the Brenner, their only option, and have to send troops to France to help while screening the border as they desperately try and cobble together an army that can fight a modern war. Norway was too important for the Germans not to get involved in.
The issue is what happens in France in May given the extra Allied forces and potential situation in Austria.

Maybe with Italy on side then Belgium is more likely to allow British and French troops to enter before it is too late and therefore no rush for the Dyle with their best troops and the Lowlands / France campaigns of 1940 are different and more drawn out than OTL.
No way, the Belgian issue is completely independent of anything Italy has to do with the war. If anything the extra Italian divisions and lack of need to keep French forces on the Italian border makes them more reckless in their advance into Belgium. The question is where does an Italian expeditionary force actually go in France?

As for the Allied cause even if Italy is knocked out by Germany say by 1941 - then they are still in a far better place strategically and logistically than they were OTL
Yes, especially because France is unlikely to surrender like IOTL in 1940. However if Italy is knocked out of the war in 1940-41 it is likely that the Allies suffer worse because no Barbarossa and Hitler has no choice but to go for a Mediterranean campaign of some sort; there is no way Italy could be knocked out if Barbarossa happens in 1941 and no way Barbarossa could happen if Italy is still undefeated and housing Allied (French and British) troops and aircraft.

I have driven through Italy via Switzerland (actually via Letterkenny in Co. Donegal in Rep of Ireland as you do) as far south as Naples (which for the first 24 hours I thought was in 'Beirut in the 80s' before falling in love with the place) - staggeringly beautiful country, but very hard to attack what with multiple natural defence features.
So how do you expect them to make any progress through the Brenner Pass?

And if British Commonwealth and Free French forces arrive to help????
Then Italy falling to invasion is a LOT tougher and probably because a meat grinder like IOTL for both sides, while preventing the Germans from being able to launch Barbarossa. That in turn makes the Allies lives vastly more difficult, because without 80% of the German army being occupied in Russia (and ground down there) from 1941-42 and a somewhat lesser number from then on, the Allies have to pay the blood price to face the full weight of Germany. If France is occupied then Italy is the main front and facing the near full weight of the Luftwaffe, which even with Allied help is still going to be enormously damaging to Italy.

Also with Italy in the war on the Allied side and France not surrendering, but fighting on from Italy/her colonies then Cash and Carry is in place because the French have gold to pay for things still, billions of dollars in 1940 value ($3 billion of just French gold not counting Polish, Belgian, South African, etc. gold), which puts a pretty heavy strain on them, as they are depleting their national treasuries and not getting everything for free and carried by US shipping. Plus without Barbarossa the Soviets are having their communist proxies in the US pushing against intervention still (IOTL they were until 1941 when the invasion happened and then they added their political weight to intervention at a crucial time that allow FDR to intervene more heavily in the Atlantic and expand LL) as well as supplying the Germans instead of draining enormous resources from them in combat.

Yes the Allies are saving a ton, as you rightly point out, in the Mediterranean and North Africa, but so in Germany, potentially a LOT more without having to supply Italy, fight the USSR, help Italy in North Africa and the Balkans, etc. On the balance in the near term, excluding Barbarossa, the Allies have more resources to keep going even if France is conquered, because with Italy in the fighting in France would drag out and they'd be able to keep going and evacuate more of their equipment, people, and industry to Italy and Algeria, plus Corsica, while Britain doesn't have to face the BoB or Blitz, while Germany still has to invade Italy and potentially also Yugoslavia and doesn't have Vichy to help them administer/loot occupied France.

Basically things get extremely interesting in the long run since this makes Barbarossa impossible and the Mediterranean campaign a must, so we get into what Stalin does long term, what happens with Italy and the German potential to actually successfully invade with Italy, though weak, propped up, reinforced, and financed by the Brits and French, but probably being strategically and operationally bombed by the Luftwaffe without a radar early warning system for a while.

I wish there was a good war game model to handle this scenario, because it would be extremely interesting to play out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The front in 1917 was far west of the post war Italian border. So 1917 doesn't suggest much of anything.
Ok then they have more ground to fight fore if the front is pushed further away then the logical conclusion would be more ground to fight for just because the border is further out does not stop the germans getting stalemated there. Now the germans were very effective and the italians not so. This does not change the fact the germans are at a disadvantage here in general lets look at otl campaign in italy a rather heavily outgunned and manned and small german force held against the whole of the economic and military might of the allies for two years in terrain far easier than the alps on the whole. At the campaigns height the allies had 1,300,000 on the peninsula why the germans only 430,00 that is a massive difference and they held out against them for 2 years. Now you have the full italian military and likely french and British assistantince with their full economic might behind them italy will not be short supplies. How the hell are the germans going to beat that they can easily stalemate it but they sure as hell cant beat it. This is in terrain far worse or just as bad.
Sorry that reply was meant for wiking yes i agree with you.
 
Depends on when and how.

If Italy keeps its 1934 spine, Germany is not getting Austria and will probably not get Czechloslovakia as it did in OTL. Hitler is likely stopped and we get a much reduced version of WW2.

If it happens just before 1940 then Italy puts up a lot of fight and becomes a safe haven for the Jewish families of Europe en route to the US or elsewhere. It also becomes a Nazi puppet when Germany overruns it in 1941 and a hell of a partisan state thereafter.

Either way, Italy probably gets some additional Adriatic lands while the Vichy government *may* lose a small colony or two. Maybe.
 
The point was not about specifically where the breakthrough happened, but the terrain it happened in with worse technology and infrastructure and large armies that had years of combat experience, making them quite different from the Italian army as of 1940.
The break for you are referring got nearly completely overturned. And you are right this isn’t the same army it is one geared in general to fight this style of battle. Germany for the past year would of been burning up reasources like carzy to crush the french because as we saw otl the french continued to fight like utter dogs until they recieved orders to surrender if those orders never come the french will need to be overrun just like in calias which will burn alot. Also where the broder happens is important because the quickest way i can put it is it gives them far more time to blunt the offensive and it is in terrain far different then ww1 and possibly worse for the germans. i would like to point out that the break through in both capotetto and on the the slav border was completely reversed once italy had gotten its shit together and got diaz in charge. Now while their organisation was laughable it still would of been enough if not then it will just settle on the alpiennes where the line is alot shorter and the germans would of burnt alot of manpower getting there. If they want to take russia on they cant throw those reasources in if they abandon russia then they are eventually going to come a knocking anyways as stalins intention
 
Last edited:
The point was not about specifically where the breakthrough happened, but the terrain it happened in
But it's not the same terrain...
1200px-Battle_of_Caporetto.jpg

For the most part the hights of the Julian and Dinaric Alps were in the Austrians' rear, with the Italians occupying mere foothills, affording minimal depth before the Padan Plain begins.

The post WWI border gave the heights to Italy, and additionally gave them many more kilometres of mountainous depth.
northern-italy-austria-yugoslavia-eastern-alps-hungary-vienna-times-1922-map-T2KK64.jpg

The two frontiers are dramatically different with regard to terrain (foothills vs mountain ranges) and depth.
 
Top