The question to ask about The Italians

[RangerJoe]

Since these board game developers are so good at their research, when are the ships coming out with warp and impulse drive like in the board game Star Fleet Battles? I mean, we should already have all of that technology, right?

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

A bigger deal than Barbarossa? (Which he was persuaded to join).

Mussolini was NOT persuaded to join Barbarossa: he decided to take part in the Crusade against Bolshevism as soon as he became aware of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR (in May 1941: this is an indication of how much Hitler trusted his allies). In 1941, Hitler tried to dissuade him from joining, pointing out that Italian troops would have been far more useful in North Africa.

The first Expeditionary corps included 1 motorised division and 2 infantry divisions (one of them semi-motorised by attaching truck units), plus several minor units, and a large amount of trucks.

In 1942, after suffering some losses in the winter campaign and needing extra units to secure the flanks of the advancing German armies, the German explicitly requested other troops, and the 8th Army (3 infantry divisions, 3 mountain divisions, 1 security division) was sent to Russia, together with many of the most modern artillery pieces and, again, a large amount of trucks (which would have been better used in North Africa).

As for Spain, for Mussolini it would have been politically difficult, to say the least, to sell an attack to Spain to his own Fascist party, many members and leaders of which fought in Spain to establish a fellow authoritarian regime (more Clerical-Nationalist than properly Fascist).

Even in case he succeeded, the enthusiasm for such an enterprise would have been pretty low, with the possible exception of the Italian Navy (even though it must be pointed out that Italian ships were designed for operations in the Mediterranean, not in the Atlantic: Italian submarines operating from Bordeaux required extensive refits when their weaknesses become clear).

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.

[Zovs]

Bulgaria and Russia historically have been “friends”, hence why Bulgaria did not fight against Russia. Russia has always looked at Turkey as their sphere of influence and would not permit Germany attacking it.

[Zovs]

Oh and according to my Dad Bulgarians hate both the Turks and the Greeks. My Dad is Bulgarian/Russian.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Oh and according to my Dad Bulgarians hate both the Turks and the Greeks. My Dad is Bulgarian/Russian.

Put a Turk, a Greek, and a Bulgarian in a room and you have a three way fight. Then add a Romanian, a Serb, and a Croat. That would be interesting.

[RangerJoe]

Going back to the initial question:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Having the similar quality equipment as the Germans and tanks equal to Panzer IVs would the War outcome been significantly different?

My, answer is Yes! the war may have actually been won by the axis side. In the least, it would have carried on for some years more.

The Italians had the Semovente 75mm. While it was not an assault gun, it did have decent armour. It was supposed to be mobile artillery but it did have deficits there but when used in a direct fire mode against armour firing HEAT, it was quite deadly. Make more of those and use them as assault guns since the early Mark IVs were just infantry support with short 75mm guns and functionally there is little difference. The Allies were chastised by this vehicle.

The Italian P-26 could probably have used an aircraft engine modified for it but the Italians did not do so. Otherwise, German tank engines could have been provided. This could have produced a tank much sooner, then another model could have been designed after the T-34 was captured and studied. The military wanted a diesel engine but the builders wanted a gasoline engine* but eventually both were used. The Germans could have given some engineering assistance so there could have been a larger turret with a three man crew, welded or cast armour instead of riveted plate armour and, at least initially, provisions for a larger than the 47mm high velocity gun when that would be developed.

*Do NOT use diesel fuel in a gasoline engine, it smells funny!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes the Soviets could be considered a threat - albeit for the reasons stated - less of one than might otherwise have been the case. But where does it state that the Japanese couldn't have taken the route they took? Where does it state that Barbarossa was a pre-requisite?

Japan had major issues to confront. If she didn't why was there even a debate about whether to go for a northern or southern strategy? Why was that even a thing? If the Soviets POINT BLANK, NO ARGUMENT, NO DEBATE, were so scared of the Soviet Union, why was there even a debate going on? That makes no sense.

I think I've repeated this enough: Regardless of what the debate was about, it wasn't resolved till Barbarossa resolved it.

I repeat, again, we know that having decided in 1940 that they were staying in China, the Japanese had to do something because their position was bad and only heading one way. Doing nothing was not an option for a country in their position. When someone has to do something then poor decisions are more likely to be made.

No. They didn't have to do anything that urgently. Because what they did didn't solve China at all.

Nomonhan showed and WWII showed that either power alone confronting Japan was something they couldn't deal with.

WWII hadn't happened yet. Only Nomonhan had happened, and that showed only that the USSR was something they couldn't deal with. British strength was exposed in France. The US was known only from WWI. Clearly, the Japs grossly underestimated them. So the Soviets are the real boogey man to the Japs. That's why Barbarossa is a prerequisite.

But you are treating Japan 1940 like having some rational, sensible, cool-headed Government. If that was so then they would have quit China (apart from the north) in 1940. If so they would not have antagonised the US to the extent they did. But we are taking Japan 1940. What Japan could deal with and what the Japanese leaders and hot heads thought they could deal with were billions of miles apart.

They were rational based upon the information they had. And, had the Germans gone on to knock the Soviets out of the war, as it appeared they were about to, the Pacific would have looked vastly different. The US would have had to have raised Soviet-sized land forces. That would sink a lot of fleets before they were ever constructed.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They were at peace with the US and the UK too.

warspite1

Except that is not the point.

That was exactly the point. Peace with Russia didn't guarantee peace with them in the future.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Soviets did not occupy any of the Japanese Home Islands, MacArthur saw to that.

They occupied Sakhalin and the Kurile islands. And McArthur wouldn't be there to stop them from going further in 1941.

So without Barbarossa or any invasion of the Soviet Union, the Japanese have to wait. In the meantime, the Phillipines, Malaya, and the DEI get more men, weapons, equipment, and the men get more training.

So do the Japanese.

Which then means with the Bulgarian-Turkish non-aggression pact, there is no invasion of Turkey. Bulgaria wanted to gain territory while its army did no fighting. It would have been difficult for the Germans to attack Turkey then from Bulgaria alone.

Bulgaria is already an Axis nation. And the Germans are already inside it - for Yugoslavia. Prior to Yugoslavia, German troops were passed through Hungary and Romania to get to Bulgaria. The Bulgarians don't need to participate in the Turkish offensive. They just need to let the Germans pass through. They will have a very hard time saying no.

And, if the Turks want to fight on the European side of the straits, that's a big win for the Axis.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: UP844

Mussolini was NOT persuaded to join Barbarossa: he decided to take part in the Crusade against Bolshevism as soon as he became aware of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR (in May 1941: this is an indication of how much Hitler trusted his allies). In 1941, Hitler tried to dissuade him from joining, pointing out that Italian troops would have been far more useful in North Africa.

It definitely wasn't his idea. So...he didn't just do his own thing. For whatever reason, he could see the merit in plans formulated by Germany.

In 1942, after suffering some losses in the winter campaign and needing extra units to secure the flanks of the advancing German armies, the German explicitly requested other troops, and the 8th Army (3 infantry divisions, 3 mountain divisions, 1 security division) was sent to Russia, together with many of the most modern artillery pieces and, again, a large amount of trucks (which would have been better used in North Africa).

Sure sounds like somebody got persuaded!!!

As for Spain, for Mussolini it would have been politically difficult, to say the least, to sell an attack to Spain to his own Fascist party, many members and leaders of which fought in Spain to establish a fellow authoritarian regime (more Clerical-Nationalist than properly Fascist).

Italy isn't attacking Spain. Just occupying it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I think I've repeated this enough: Regardless of what the debate was about, it wasn't resolved till Barbarossa resolved it.

warspite1

Yes, you have. You are insistent that a Wiki article that actually talks about a different scenario is 'proof'. It's not of course, because it can't be. The whole point is its NOT Barbarossa that has to resolve it.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. They didn't have to do anything that urgently. Because what they did didn't solve China at all.

warspite1

Yes, yes they did. Once again you seem unable to understand that what ultimately happened is irrelevant (other than it can be mentioned for context). We are talking about people making decisions at the time, based on what they know. Yes. Japan's position was dire. They would never have decided to quit China in 1940 if that was not the case. The fact that the 'missed the bus' mob got all excited by Germany and reversed the decision doesn't mean anything. Well by that I mean doesn’t mean anything other than Japan’s situation just went very quickly south - and would continue to do so unless she could take steps to improve her lot.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's why Barbarossa is a prerequisite.

warspite1

No - not at all. There is no point going further with this because it is just the same back and forth. So we should progress Europe instead.

So when are you going to confirm what the Luftwaffe are going to do in Northern France and provide more detail on the barges situation?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: UP844

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.

Poland and France were also Catholic. Add Austria-Hungary from WWI - which Italy went to war with.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: UP844

Mussolini was NOT persuaded to join Barbarossa: he decided to take part in the Crusade against Bolshevism as soon as he became aware of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR

It definitely wasn't his idea. So...he didn't just do his own thing. For whatever reason, he could see the merit in plans formulated by Germany.

warspite1

Can I ask where you get your facts from? You have got so many wrong during this debate its staggering.

As has been pointed out to you already, the idea of putting Italian troops on the Eastern Front came from Mussolini. Indeed Hitler did not want the Italians help and actually scaled back the troop numbers Mussolini suggested (the initial Italian force was approx a corps).

It was only when things started going horribly wrong and Hitler was desperate that he asked for more troops (what became 8th Army).

So yes, it was Mussolini's idea.

[Aurelian]

From the Wikipedia article on ole Benito M.

Mussolini first learned of Operation Barbarossa after the invasion of the Soviet Union had begun on 22 June 1941, and was not asked by Hitler to involve himself.[165] Mussolini took the initiative in ordering an Italian Army Corps to head to the Eastern Front, where he hoped that Italy might score an easy victory to restore the Fascist regime's luster, which had been damaged by defeats in Greece and North Africa.[citation needed] On 25 June 1941, he inspected the first units at Verona, which served as his launching pad to Russia.[166] Mussolini told the Council of Ministers of 5 July that his only worry was that Germany might defeat the Soviet Union before the Italians arrived.[167] At a meeting with Hitler in August, Mussolini offered and Hitler accepted the commitment of further Italian troops to fight the Soviet Union.[168] The heavy losses suffered by the Italians on the Eastern Front, where service was extremely unpopular owing to the widespread view that this was not Italy's fight, did much to damage Mussolini's prestige with the Italian people.[168] So yes, like Warspite1 says, it was all his idea.

Weinberg, Gerhard (2005). A World in arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ref 165, 67, 68

166 Marino, James I. (5 December 2016). "Italians on the Eastern Front: From Barbarossa to Stalingrad". Warfare History Network. Retrieved 17 November 2018.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: UP844

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.

Poland and France were also Catholic. Add Austria-Hungary from WWI - which Italy went to war with.

Poland, France, Austro-Hungary, and Italy did not persecute the Catholic Church. The Spanish Republicans did and Franco came to the Church's rescue. Then Hitler orders an attack attack on Franco's Spain?

But how does all of this actually help the Italian military improve their equipment?

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: UP844

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.

Poland and France were also Catholic. Add Austria-Hungary from WWI - which Italy went to war with.

Yes also Austria-Hungary was always the competitor against Ottomans besides Russia. Even today Austrian airlines map has no Turkey in it by mistake.[:)] Anyway Austria-Hungary -Catholic- fought in the same side with Ottomans. last century military history was not about religion or culture only about demagogue leaders goal.

[UP844]

@ Curtis Lemay:

I think you are missing a point: over 75,000 Italian "volunteers"(*), including a great number of Fascist Party leading figures, fought with Franco in a war depicted as a "Crusade to free the Very Catholic Spain from the Godless and Atheist Bolsheviks". The 180° turn from "Francisco Franco, brother in arms and saviour of the Faith" to "Francisco Franco, enemy of the Empire" would have, as a minimum, affected the morale and effectiveness of any troops sent to Spain, even though they were limited to a garrison role.

(*) as in "Congratulations! You have just voluntereed to join the fight in Spain!"

This did not occur for France (and the fight was very brief, anyway); as for Poland, Italy never declared war on it, as has it already disappeared in 1940.

As regards to Austria-Hungary, it was a sort of "natural enemy": Italy fought three wars of Independence (in 1848-49, 1859 and 1866) against Austria-Hungary, and at the start of WW1 some north-eastern regions still belonged to the Austrian Empire (this was the main reason Italy entered WW1).

@RangerJoe:

But how does all of this actually help the Italian military improve their equipment?

It doesn't at all [:)].

The best AFV the Italian industry managed to design was the Semovente (Self-Propelled Gun) you mentioned above. It was at least partially inspired by the German Sturmgeschutz, even though it was initially conceived as an artillery SPG. In fact, it was initially deployed in units (Gruppi = Groups, Italian artillery term for a battalion-sized unit) consisting of two batteries with 8 Semovente and 4 command/fire observation tanks.

Since it was the only Italian AFV that could destroy a Grant or a Sherman, it was subsequently uses as a tank destroyer with some success.
It inherited the mechanical problems affecting its parent hull, being underpowered (even though a bit less than the parent tank) and, as a consequence, not very reliable; as regards to armor, it was only slightly better protected than the M-series tanks, with 50mm (~ 2") vertical armor in the superstructure. On the other hand, it had a very low silhouette (1.85 m). It can be considered as roughly equivalent to early StuGs armed with the 75/24 gun, with less mobility (power-to-weight ratio was 8.5 or 9.86 HP/t for Semovente based on M13/40 and M13/41, vs. 14.5 HP/t for early StuGs).

Later versions were based on the M15/42 tank, with gasoline engine providing better mobility, and were also armed with a 75/34 gun (roughly equivalent to the M3 Grant gun). Those later versions saw little use by the Italian Army in 1943, when Germans and Italians briefly fought in Rome. They were also assigned to Tank Battalions, which had 1 company of M15/42 and 2 companies of Semovente (Another TO&E I found lists 1 tank and 2 semovente platoons per company).

The Germans used all those they captured, as well as several hundred built in 1943-1945, in the self-propelled company (theoretically equipped with Marders or, later, Hetzers) of the AT battalions of the Infantry Divisions that fought in Italy until the end of the war (there are several pictures of Semovente destroyed during the final Allied offensive in 1945). A few were armed with a 75/46 AA gun (roughly equivalent to a PaK 40) or with a 105/25 howitzer.

Here is a list of the German units that used the Semovente:

https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=244

A battery deployed in Sardinia would have been theoretically available for use by the Italian troops fighting with the Allies, but its use was never authorised (and, anyway, it would have been very difficult to keep them operational since the factory producing them was in my home town of Genoa, occupied by the Germans). They were (little) used in the immediate post-war period and were phased out with the arrival of the M7 Priest when Italy joined NATO.

[RangerJoe]

So all of this discussion does not answer the question of how to actually help improve the Italian military achieve Little Bennies objectives. I don't think that the Germans could have provided enough of their own equipment for the Italians as they were also providing some to other countries plus had their own equipment deficits. Some German engineering assistance and possibly retooling some Italian factories to produce some German equipment that the Italians needed could have helped, such as more powerful tank engines.

[IslandInland]

Jesus Christ.

And still it goes on...

[:D]

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

This thread gets better.

Absolute bullshit for the most part but it's fantastic!

I love it.


Keep it going....


Where's the monarch-worshipping warspite1 when you need him?

[:D]

warspite1

Well I am glad you've had some enjoyment from this thread. Perhaps they will give us our own series and put it out on Dave.

I hope that becomes a thing.

Notwithstanding your monarch worshipping I am on your "side". Lemay is wrong on so many levels.

Go warspite1![8D]

[:)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

This thread gets better.

Absolute bullshit for the most part but it's fantastic!

I love it.


Keep it going....


Where's the monarch-worshipping warspite1 when you need him?

[:D]

warspite1

Well I am glad you've had some enjoyment from this thread. Perhaps they will give us our own series and put it out on Dave.

I hope that becomes a thing.

Notwithstanding your monarch worshipping I am on your "side". Lemay is wrong on so many levels.

Go warspite1![8D]

[:)]

+1