Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if Italy had been a capable air/naval power?

Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by Skontos1, Jan 28, 2012.

  1. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    but I doubt they would've had the efficiency like the Japanese to hit the target, much less destroy one,considering what I have read here.......again, there are many aspects to carrier operations...first, naval flyers have to be trained for take off and landing, navigation is much different....bombing a ship is much different than bombing a stationary target....etc
    I guess what you are saying is, if they had efficient carriers and carrier operations....that's a big if though...as we see in the title to this thread....
    even if they were efficient, does this mean the RN would've been doomed?
     
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Carriers proved fragine in a couple of ways though. One they could be rapidly put out of action by hits on their decks or hanger areas. Two even successful attacks often resulted in significant aircraft attrition. A carrier in East Africa would likely have been incapacitated fairly quickly as there simply weren't the repair or replenishment sources available. Making it to Japan before 7 Dec would be very problematic as well. There's also the consideration of how the other naval powers would have reacted to the Italians getting 2 carriers operational prewar.
     
  3. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,753
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    let me add, this is just like the Enterprise--Guadalcanal, Market Garden threads, in that, the other side isn't just going to lay down dead...the carriers would just not mosey here and there doing what they wanted...the other side, British this time, would plan their strategy accordingly......
     
  4. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    6
    I quite like ToS's explanation, based on which I see the difference between Italian and German industries were that new design and structural changes to the industries were allowed in Germany. Would the radical idea from von Manstein of designing a Stug mobile assault gun be born and realized if it were Italy ? Italy on its own side, adopted that successful idea in France to produce Semovente 75/18, which itself combined at least a mountain gun on a tank on a tank chassis. If a light tank in 1940 seemed acceptable to Italy, German designers had the VK 20 series to show for replacement of Pz3 and 4 starting in 1938 -- the date came from the corresponding article in Wikipedia. Italy did not; did Italian lack of a parallel to the German design effort shed lights on Italian weakness in its industries ? ToS explained the behind-the-scene reasons which I see as yes.
     
  5. mjölnir

    mjölnir New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    2
    Italy had excellent weapons and resources but extremely poor leadership. Most importantly, Mussolini wasted completely the surprise of entering the war, Making speeches, while he lost over 1/4 of his ships around allied ports on June 10 and attacking France, which was parctically defeated, but on a front in which Italy stood no chance of breaking through.

    Italy could have been instrumental in defeating the UK, had it used its resources better (had it had better leadership).

    Mussolini could have built a better port in Tobruk (much closer to Egypt than Tripoli), signed 3 year non aggression pacts with France, Turkey, Yugoslavia and Greece in April 1940, removed his forces from the French border, sent most of the trucks, tanks, excellent 90 mm guns, etc, to Libya, ordered Italian ships to leave British Commonwealth ports before declaring war (except in the invaded ports, where ships with troops will strike), developed torpedo and dive bomber squadrons long before the war, developed an airborne division, deployed more supplies, fuel, etc, to Libya and IEA, deployed more ships and some torpedo and dive bmber squadrons to IEA and attacked only Britisn by surprise on June 10, 1940.
    The British had ridiculously weak forces in Egypt, Cyprus, Sudan, Somaliland and Malta.

    OTL the Italians had no effective AT guns against the Matilda, no torpedo planes or dive bombers and not enough trucks or modern field artillery when they invaded Egypt and waited months to invade it. Incredibly, Italy chose libya troops for its airborne units.
    Italy bombed Malta extremely ineffectively and could not even wipe out the handful of Gladiator biplanes there on the first raids.

    ATL the Italians have 36 90 mm guns with good AT shells in Bardia, a good port in Tobruk, large stocks of munitions, fuel, food, medications, etc, in Bardia, plenty of trucks between Tobruk and Bardia and 4 squadrons of fighters, 2 squadrons each of torpedo and dive bombers in Bardia, the same number of planes in IEA, Sicily and Sardinia.

    0230 Greenwich time on June 10, 1941 and without declaring war, Italian planes, subs and ships start sinking British ships and destroying planes in Alexandria, Malta, Aden and Cyprus and en route in the Med, Italy invades British Somaliland from Italian Somalia, Cyprus from Rhodes, Malta and Gozo from Sicily, Egypt from Libya and Sudan from IEA. Italian airborne troops capture an airfield each in Egypt, Malta, Sudan and Cyprus, where planes with troops land to reinforce the troops debarking from cargo ships and passenger transports at port. Who capture the docks (for more troops to debark there).

    At the end of June 10 several RN ships have been sunk or damaged, in Egypt the Italian front is in Sidi Barrani, with planes and 90 mm guns deployed against counter attack and there are strong beachheads in Malta, Cyprus, Sudan and B. Somaliland, which cannot be supplied under Italain air superiority.

    Britain is being trounced in France by Germany and is in no position to send planes, troops, armor, etc, to reinforce distant Egypt, Cyprus, Malta, Sudan or Somaliland in time to prevent their fall. Owing to the Italian non aggression pact with France, RN bombers based in France cannot bomb N Italy. Only a few RAF bombers can be sent from Gibraltar to bomb Sardinia and from Aden to bomb IEA, causing minimum damage.

    On the 3rd day of the war Italian forces are in Mersa Matruh, Gozo, half of Malta and half of Cyprus and control B. Somaliland and 2 airfields in Sudan and are attacking Port Sudan. Dozens of RN and British merchant ships have been sunk and the Med is under Italian control.

    A week into the war Malta, Port Sudan and Cyprus are in Italian hands and Italian forces have destroyed almost all the few RAF planes and Matildas in Egypt (the latter with with 90 mm guns, naval guns and dive bombers). Italian forces are attacking Alexandria. The RN is limited to Gibraltar (it cannot access the Med or the Red Sea).

    Alexandria falls 2 weeks into the war and Cairo in 24 days.

    When the RN attacks the French Fleet in Mers el Kebir on July 3, 1940 Italy signs a mutual assistance pact with France on the following day and the two nations prepare attacks on Gibraltar from French Morocco on July 24, 1940 and on British troops in Palestine, Iraq and Iran from French Lebanon and Syria and on British troops in Kenya from IEA, French Somaliland and Madagascar.
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Italy had excellent weapons and resources? Sources PSL. I'll give you the poor leadership.

    I don't see how Italy could have been instrumental in defeating the UK in any case. Your ATL seems extremely far fetched. Indeed if they don't go to war with France what have they to gain by going to war at all? Their best chance of taking Malta by the way is diplomacy. The British may have been willing to simply hand it over if the Italians agreed to stay out of the war.
     
  7. mjölnir

    mjölnir New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    2
    The 90 mm AA gun was excellent and available in June 1940, a few dozen would have decimated the slow Matilda. It fired a heavier shell than the excellent 88, with a flatter trajectory and longer range. The heavier shell also made it a formidable anti shipping and anti personnel weapon.
    The reliable Beretta subMG fired a higher pressure 9mm Parabellum round, more effective than British, Finnish, German or Soviet equivalent rounds. The SS used it.
    The Italian's also had good auto pistols, MG, mortars, grenades, shells, bombs, etc,

    There were also good, fast Italian cruisers and destroyers and a large number of submarines, battlehsips, etc, which used in conjuction with planes would have been highly effective.

    The SM.79 was an excellent long range torpedo plane. However, Mussolini and Balbo did not have the common sense to develop many torpedo squadrons before the war.
    The CR.42 was an excellent fighter in June 1940 (when there was not a single Hurricane or Spitfire in Egypt of Malta and RN planes were inferior (Swordfish & Skua) and could have been used very effectively as a dive bomber against armor, trucks, destroyers, fortifications, airfields, etc,

    Italy had better torpedoes than the US and Germany at the time.

    Italy had the only deep sea mines available in 1940.

    Italy had invaluable locations in the Med, Red Sea and Indian Ocean, between Japan and Germany and facing Arabia, whose Oil was already being extracted at the time and which was pro axis and anti British..

    Italy had flame throwing tanks and good quality trucks (which it distributed insanely, instead of concentrating them in Libya).

    Italy had access to German technology and goods and had it signed a non aggression treated with France in 1938 or 39 (intending to attack only Britain), it would also have had access to French equipment and technology.

    Italy had oil in Albania.

    Italy had a huge army, which Mussolini deployed also insanely and wasted piecemeal and very rapidly. Incredibly, he kept large forces along the French and Tunisian borders while he invaded Egypt. While he was being trounced in N. Africa by a few dozen Matildas and after he had released 800,000 men for the wheat harvest, he started the invasion of neutral, useless Greece in very difficult terrain and weather!
    He wasted a huge force in IEA, where he had a small fleet and limited stocks of everything, so it was rapidly cut off. The idiot even wasted 85,000 men occupying just Corsica (he also occupied Nice, etc,) after Germany occupied Vichy (during Torch, which also trounced him).
    He also wasted 18 divisions, lots of munitions and hundreds of planes invading useless Yugoslavia, all of which which were desperately needed to fight the British.

    He did not use planes and ships together to support and supply his large force at a critical time in Sidi Barrani, so it could break through or at least to stop the British counter offensive, so his troops were shelled by a vulnerable monitor with 15" shells, attacked by 40 slow Matildas and biplanes and captured in ridiculous numbers and pushed back a very long distance in record time.

    Instead of rapidly destroying a few RAF biplanes and ships and port facilities in Malta, he sent his best fighters to the BoB, where they were trounced by modern monoplanes and he used no dive bombers in 1940 (when Britain was Italy's and Germany's sole enemy and it had no allies and when Stalin was supplying Germany)

    Instead of asking for German planes, tanks, trucks, etc, or at least for German advisors before declaring war, he only did so after he had been trounced in N Africa and in Greece and Albania.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    And with all of these so-called "super" weapons...Italy could not fight it's way out of a wet paper sack.
     
  9. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    No. Beretta 1934/1935s were abysmally poor combat sidearms. I won't even get into the obsolete WW1-era sidearms that were in service. The MGs were heavy, clunky, slow firing and for the most part unreliable.

    The MAB38 was perhaps the only "good" firearm fielded by Italy. "High pressure" ammo for SMGs was not exclusive to Italy. For example, Finland loaded hot 9mm Luger (115gr @ 400m/s) for the KP31 and a number of L35 pistols were damaged by heavy use of it. For reference, 9mm M38 was about 115gr @ ~425m/s -- not a big difference. The fact that the SS used it means nothing; in many cases the SS were issued substandard foreign arms.

    BTW -- still waiting for you to explain how your modified MG34 works in the other thread.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    AS with all his other threads...Magic!
     
  11. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    6
    Italians had discovered oil in Libya during the Interwar period; so in resource point of view, a diplomatic neutrality but under-the-table support of Germany and anti-Communist East European powers and Turkey would have been better. A majority of Italian troops would fight alongside Romanian troops. Because of Italian troops contribution to the Eastern Front, a considerable force in divisions could be deployed to where human resources were much needed, namely Finland.

    Back to this what-if topic, I would like to add another what-if point of view that Italian had started to extract oil in Libya with domestic and Romanian technology -- Romanian oil is land-based. Refineries could adopt some Romanian, German technological supports even before DoW. For deployement of forces, would Italian secure Malta as a breakwater and midway between the Peninsula and Libyan coast -- less to interrupt British shipment but improve logistics for Italians own. So German parachute forces went to Malta instead than Crete, which would then be taken by Naval and amphibious forces.

    After securing the Aegean Sea, Italian navy and submarines would become the transport from mainland European to Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia and Syria -- if the last would have been under German governance after the French surrender. Then German forces would voyage on Italian ships to Georgia and attack southeast the Red Army to Baku for oil, bypasssing the Caucasus. Obviously, with Italian and other troops helping out in Finland for example, the German mountain forces only could have been redeployed in the Greater Caucasus mountain ranges to fight against the inevitable Red Army relieve force from the north.

    In essence, a capable air and/or naval Italian power would give more options to the Axis causes but many factors would also be lined up rightly for gains.
     
  12. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,562
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    No, they did not. In 1914 a water well dig near Tripoli produced methane gas.

    In 1926, traces of oil were found in a water well near Tripoli.

    Two years of exploration and a single dry well were the result.

    In 1940, further geological survey and exploration was being carried out, but was halted by the war. They identified the Sirte Basin as a good place for further exploration.

    In 1953, the further exploration began, resulting FIVE year's later in the first commercial exploitation.

    If the Italians had not been at war, then it is possible in 1945-1946 they may have been able to begin exploitation
     
  13. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    6
    Then with reference to this what-if topic -- Italy was assumed to be a capable air and/or naval power, how could Italy make a best case for itself as a nation ? Although I am not directing this reply to RichTO90's last post, Finland's management of its efforts in the interwar and ww2 years were better, Maybe its northernmost location of all European nations gave a geographical advantage of limiting numbers of hostile or friendly nations, still Italy could make better use of its central location of the Mediterranean.

    So would a blend of Spain's and Finland's policies of neutrality and military effort actually be better for Italy ? A case could be made for the one-man in leadership of Franco, Mannerheim and Mussolini but at what level -- national grand strategy, military strategy, theatre or operational level, tactical level of performance could help Italy ?

    I think before proceeding further in a what-if topic about Italy, this level of improvement needs to be first thought about. France supported the Little Entente. How about a good relation between Italy and Spain and maybe Turkey, recalling that Poland and Romania maintaining one in the interwar years. Did the leaderships of all three nations contain anti-Communist inclination?

    In terms of capable naval and air power, how about Italy selling airplanes to Finland -- for example, an Italian DH.98 Mosquito equivalent that Finland could mass produced with locally sourced timber and mineral based materials and glue, and to Romania and Turkey -- in return for their technology in petroleum development, use of Black Sea ports and mountain warfare. Did Turkey forces push allied forces out of Baku in ww1 ?
     
  14. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    6
    I used. "Hitler's Italian Allies" by MacGregor Knox

    p.60-62 (about maiale, the frogman-guided "slow torpedo" and radar) would better submarine forces and radar help ?
     
  15. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,739
    Likes Received:
    563
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    Using Hearts of Iron 3 as a 'simulator', the basic way I play as the Italians is to specialize my armed forces. Basically, a smaller army but much more effective. I focus the Tech on improving certain, specific things. Its usually enough of an improvement to ensure victory in Africa - driving all the way over to Syria, but the SHTF as soon as the US joins the war and Operation Torch launches - despite improved Italian units, its simply (basically) impossible to deal with everything the USA sends at you, especially as by that point you have sent some troops to help out in Russia.

    I think that no matter what alternates the Italians do, none of them really solve the US-problem - which is pretty much an endgame scenario unless you work towards a way of defending the West-African beaches.
     
    knightdepaix likes this.
  16. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    How do you define "a capable airnaval power " ?
     
  17. Terry D

    Terry D Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Huerta, California
    It strikes me that all these technological discussions about this aircraft carrier and that fighter plane are simply diversions from some much more basic things. Simply put, Italy had no business being in the Second World War at all. The country was too underdeveloped economically to sustain a well balanced war industry. Even in peacetime Italy had trouble feeding itself and it did not have adequate supplies of natural resources like coal and oil. It lacked a sufficiently large middle class and a good educational system to provide the cadres of junior officers, NCOs, and technical personnel needed in modern war. The government and bureaucracy were corrupt and inefficient. These things had been true in the First World War, and Italy saw that conflict through only thanks to a lot of Allied help and a titanic and very costly national effort which left the nation exhausted. It was not that Italians could not fight; they certainly could fight, as any study of WWI on the Italian front and of some WWII engagements will show. Mussolini was quite popular at the beginning of WWII, and there was some genuine enthusiasm for war among the Italians in 1940 (on this, see Mario Cervi's The Hollow Legions). But bravery and a few good weapons were not enough and could not be enough, and I don't think aircraft carriers would have made any difference either. Italy's fundamental structural weaknesses as a state and an economy doomed her as a major combatant.
     
    belasar and Otto like this.
  18. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    They built up their navy and air force before the war. in the Mediterranean their upgraded fleet was more powerful than the combined Mediterranean fleets of Britain and France.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    How do you figure that?
     
  20. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think US entering the war on the Allied side is pretty much an endgame scenario for the Axis. Whichever side the US entering it is likely if not going to, win.

    So for any Axis-related scenario, the US factor entering the war shall be accounted for. For Italy, could she force a ceasefire with the GB ? Or achieving its territorial gain without DoW. For example, when France and GB was struggling at Dunkirk with Germany -- that was the media attention, could Italy attack Corsica, Nice, Savoy, east end of French West Africa and South Sudan for oil -- that means war with only France, not GB,
     

Share This Page