The question to ask about The Italians

[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.

[warspite1]

Well there are a number of things to consider. Firstly the Panzer IV’s would not have been much use in the mountains of Greece or the Alps – so little to no effect there.

So the deployment in the Western Desert is where the equipment would be felt. But what are you proposing? Simply swapping the Italian tankettes for PzKw IV? If so then the numbers would still be small, at least initially, and there would still be the issue of how they were used. Remember the French had, in many respects, better tanks than the Germans but their use was sub-optimal. How would the Italian army use this new found upgrade in quality is a key question?

Did Graziani stop just inside Egypt just because of the lack of quality of his tanks or were there far more fundamental issues that he was concerned about? That was a rhetorical question btw [;)].

The upgrade in tanks would not mean an improvement in the supply – especially of oil – I suspect the German tanks, being larger, probably were thirstier too (although I don’t know). There would also remain the issue with Italian army doctrine and the poor quality of her officer corps generally.

But there was nothing wrong with the Italian soldier if properly equipped and trained and if you are talking about later in the war and the Ariete, Centauro and Littorio Divisions being properly equipped and trained with the German tanks and then being deployed in line with the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions, then yes, they can only have had a positive effect on operations.

But this is something of a pipe dream scenario. Remember even in 1941 for the attack on the Soviet Union, the German army had 3,332 tanks. Of these, just 439 were PzKw IV’s and 965 PzKw III’s – there were therefore none to spare for the Italians when the Germans couldn’t even equip their own forces (incredibly the PzKw I and II were still in service for Barbarossa). I believe the Afrika Korps had mostly PzKw IIIs.

So yes, I think better equipment would have helped, but like most things in life the answer isn’t particularly straightforward.

[Zap]

I suppose having the same mindset as Germany (being ready for War) was not in the books for the Italians. So, I wanted to propose that the Italians should have payed Germany to produce their tanks for them. It would have meant less tanks. Because Italy didn't have the financial means to have great number of tanks.. But, Mussolini must have seen that quality Germany was producing was far superior to the Italian production.

Also the Infantry, "if" they were equipped with as well as the German units (better weapons) their overall performance would have been better. Which could have meant the Germans not having to buoy-up the Italian forces in Africa. Freeing, up German troops for other fronts.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I suppose having the same mindset as Germany (being ready for War) was not in the books for the Italians. So, I wanted to propose that the Italians should have payed Germany to produce their tanks for them. It would have meant less tanks. Because Italy didn't have the financial means to have great number of tanks.. But, Mussolini must have seen that quality Germany was producing was far superior to the Italian production.

Also the Infantry, "if" they were equipped with as well as the German units (better weapons) their overall performance would have been better. Which could have meant the Germans not having to buoy-up the Italian forces in Africa. Freeing, up German troops for other fronts.

warspite1

Yes I understand your point and I've agreed that better equipment would have had an effect (although it wasn't just about equipment). But they couldn't receive what the Germans didn't have. It wasn't just tanks but whole manner of arms, artillery and vehicles.

Remember the Germany army had expanded at a massive rate. The only way they could achieve what they did was to use captured equipment from the Czechs, the French etc. No matter how much Italy offered to pay (and they were hardly flush with cash having spent so much on the Spanish Civil War) they couldn't buy what was not for sale - and most front line military equipment was not for sale because Germany simply could not produce enough to equip its own army.

[RangerJoe]

The best thing for Italy to have done for Germany would have not attacked any country but to have stayed out of it. "Volunteers" could have joined a force like the Spanish Blue divisions to help against the Soviets.

[demyansk]

Agree, stay neutral.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: demyansk

Agree, stay neutral.

warspite1

Well that is a completely different question [;)]

[RangerJoe]

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status [;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status [;)]

Really? How about the United States? The USS Yorktown escorting convoys? The Reuban James?

Ships could with questionable cargoes could have loaded/unloaded in Spain, then transferring it to the other side bypassing the Rock.

Some of that cargo could have been used by Italy so how can the British tell?

Would Britain want to antagonize Italy into going to war and being perceived as an aggressor nation by the US? If Britain did antagonize Italy into going to war, then what would have stopped Italy from having an immediate air/sea invasion of the Rock as well as Malta?

BTW, Spain was doing some but not all of that.

[rico21]

I agree! the axis could have won the war if he had won it, but as he lost it, he could not win it.[8D]

[UP844]

Undoubtedly, as Warspite pointed out above, being equipped with Pz III/IV would have provided a welcome increase in the fighting capabilities of Italian armor, but the Germans were not interested in selling the tanks they needed for themselves.

Only in 1943 a dozen Pz IIIN was provided and assigned to the "M" (for "Mussolini", renamed "Centauro II" after his demise) armored division. Some sources also mention a dozen StuG III, but unlike the Pz IIIN I have never been able to find any photographic evidence.

They were more liberal with aircraft: as soon as late 1940, they sold some Ju-87 to Italy and, from 1943 onwards, several hundred Me-109 F/G.

According to an Italian website, Italy obtained the license to manufacture Pz IIIs in 1941 and Pz IVs in 1942, but the industries that should have built them (essentially, Ansaldo and FIAT) were simply not interested, preferring to continue the production of the M13/40 and of its derivates and promising miracles with their P26/40 (which despite its designation (P=Pesante - Heavy [:D] tank, 26 ton, year 1940) was built in 1943-44 for the Germans)

Anyway, even though the Italian industry had been cooperative, and assuming it could have been able to switch to completely new tank models in a short time, I doubt it could have built a sufficient number of Pz III/IVs to re-equip even one of the Ariete, Littorio and Centauro armored divisions. From 1940 to 1943 it only managed to built approximately 1,500 M13/40, plus 300 SP variants.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not neutral, just not an actively participating in the war. Think if Italy could have been the connection between Germany and Japan once Japan attacked the Allies. Rubber from Malaya going to Germany, weapons and technology returning. Torpedo armed Kates flying from France to attack convoys in the Atlantic - equipped with German homing torpedoes! Emilys flying patrol over the North Atlantic! Actual German engines being supplied to Japan instead of the Japanese trying to copy them plus trying to improve on them. Italian ports supplying German raiders, receiving captured Allies ships with their cargo . . .

The Allies never knowing if Italy would declare war . . .

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status [;)]

Really? How about the United States? The USS Yorktown escorting convoys? The Reuban James?

Ships could with questionable cargoes could have loaded/unloaded in Spain, then transferring it to the other side bypassing the Rock.

Some of that cargo could have been used by Italy so how can the British tell?

Would Britain want to antagonize Italy into going to war and being perceived as an aggressor nation by the US? If Britain did antagonize Italy into going to war, then what would have stopped Italy from having an immediate air/sea invasion of the Rock as well as Malta?

BTW, Spain was doing some but not all of that.

warspite1

Really? Yes really - unless we are talking about different things I don't understand where you are coming from.

Are you comparing the USA with Italy? The USA were assisting the British as much as Roosevelt could - whereas Italy was a member of the Pact of Steel that bordered Germany. I don't know what Yorktown or Reuben James has to do with the point of whether the British would allow unrestricted imports to Italy by sea.

Re Spain, yes there was some export of goods to Germany (through France) but do you know of the diplomatic pressure that was put on Spain not to ally with Germany by both the British and US?

How would the British know? You were talking of flocks of Kates and Emilys.... Yes, I think they'd know, not to mention intelligence and Ultra. And YES Italy (and Spain) acting like would not be the actions of a neutral country. Ships coming from Japan would not be allowed to simply enter Spain or go through Suez or Gib unchecked.

You think Italy had the capability to seize Malta - and Gibraltar?

[Shellshock]

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.

I'm not sure. During some of the Arab-Israeli wars, the Soviet bloc supplied the Arab nations with frontline equipment comparable to what the Israelis had. Given the glaring deficiencies in the make-up of some of the Arab armies, even good equipment and greater numbers wasn't enough to prevent some one-sided defeats. Although it probably prevented things from being even worse.

The Italian Army in WW2 suffered from a lot of issues not related to equipment. The absence of a dedicated officer corps, and the distaste with which many Italians regarded the Nazi cause. The total administrative ignorance and lack of technical knowledge and just plain curiosity among senior officers. Lack of command authority. Timidity.

On the other hand, the Imperial Japanese Army demonstrated what a poorly equipped army by modern standards could do with individual soldiers dedicated to the point of fanaticism. Even with unimaginative leadership at the top.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

As said this is a different question to the OP but I'm always happy to debate WWII.

Problem with what you are suggesting. Do you believe that because they were neutral the British would not continue to blockade Italy to ensure such equipment and strategic raw materials aren't delivered? And as soon as the slightest whiff that Italy was being used as some kind of staging post is gained (and any ship would have to move through Suez or Gib) then all bets are off anyway. Neutral countries couldn't do what they liked without compromising their neutral status [;)]

Really? How about the United States? The USS Yorktown escorting convoys? The Reuban James?

Ships could with questionable cargoes could have loaded/unloaded in Spain, then transferring it to the other side bypassing the Rock.

Some of that cargo could have been used by Italy so how can the British tell?

Would Britain want to antagonize Italy into going to war and being perceived as an aggressor nation by the US? If Britain did antagonize Italy into going to war, then what would have stopped Italy from having an immediate air/sea invasion of the Rock as well as Malta?

BTW, Spain was doing some but not all of that.

warspite1

Really? Yes really - unless we are talking about different things I don't understand where you are coming from.

Are you comparing the USA with Italy? The USA were assisting the British as much as Roosevelt could - whereas Italy was a member of the Pact of Steel that bordered Germany. I don't know what Yorktown or Reuben James has to do with the point of whether the British would allow unrestricted imports to Italy by sea.
The USS Yorktown and its escorts violated the US Neutrality act by escorting British convoys. That was against US Law.
The Reuban James was harassing a U-Boat - which then launched torpedoes and the Reuban James sank. Said harassment was an act of war. It was US policy under Roosevelt to do so.
There were many other instances of the US violation of the Neutrality Act which could have constituted acts of war. That would not have sat well with the US public.

Re Spain, yes there was some export of goods to Germany (through France) but do you know of the diplomatic pressure that was put on Spain not to ally with Germany by both the British and US?
True, Spain did not ally with Germany. But the Spanish Blue divisions did serve on the Eastern front, U-Boats were rearmed and refueled in Spain.

How would the British know? You were talking of flocks of Kates and Emilys.... Yes, I think they'd know, not to mention intelligence and Ultra. And YES Italy (and Spain) acting like would not be the actions of a neutral country. Ships coming from Japan would not be allowed to simply enter Spain or go through Suez or Gib unchecked.
Those were aircraft of types that the Germans either did not have or have enough of. Plans, tools, dies, and a few examples were all that would have been needed. Before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Japan might but probably would not have sent them that way. Of course, the items for the Kates could have been sent before the war.

You think Italy had the capability to seize Malta - and Gibraltar?
Yes, by surprise. It has been discussed elsewhere but think of it happening within minutes of the declaration of war. A ship or three disembarking highly trained soldiers right onto the docks . . .

Yes, Italy could have pulled what the Germans did for Norway, ships loaded with troops. A passenger steamer with apparent civilians to be seen while soldiers in uniform get ready to disembark. Seize the dock area while a passenger plane or three is landing with soldiers on board to grab an airport while more aircraft are getting ready to land. If done at night, there already could be "tourists" landed going to prepositioned weapons, ammunition, uniforms, and other supplies needed to then take predetermined objectives.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The USS Yorktown and its escorts violated the US Neutrality act by escorting British convoys. That was against US Law.

The Reuban James was harassing a U-Boat - which then launched torpedoes and the Reuban James sank. Said harassment was an act of war. It was US policy under Roosevelt to do so.

There were many other instances of the US violation of the Neutrality ACt which could have constituted acts of war. That would not have sat well with the US public.

warspite1

Yes, but what has all this got to do with Italy?

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

But the Spanish Blue divisions did serve on the Eastern front

warspite1

The Spanish Blue Division served on the Eastern Front and as per the point made earlier, some Italians could have fought for Germany. Okay no argument there. This would be on a volunteer basis and be relatively small in number i.e. no state intervention from a neutral power.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
U-Boats were rearmed and refueled in Spain

warspite1

Yes, for a time the Spanish did grant some assistance to German subs. But that is not what you were suggesting with Italy - which is a completely different thing.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Those were aircraft of types that the Germans either did not have or have enough of. Plans, tools, dies, and a few examples were all that would have been needed. Before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Japan might but probably would not have sent them that way. Of course, the items for the Kates could have been sent before the war.

warspite1

All that would have been needed? Well you are forgetting a really rather important element here.... raw materials and industrial capacity. Look at production numbers for aircraft before the Germans got their act together. You think that would be different just because they had blueprints from Japan? Even if everything was miraculously available - plant, machinery and raw materials, there is the little problem that Goring would likely not have agreed to building more aircraft that would make the navy look good. If Germany could have built more aircraft in 1940-42 there is nothing to suggest they would have spent that resource on Japanese naval aircraft.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Yes, Italy could have pulled what the Germans did for Norway, ships loaded with troops. A passenger steamer with apparent civilians to be seen while soldiers in uniform get ready to disembark. Seize the dock area while a passenger plane or three is landing with soldiers on board to grab an airport while more aircraft are getting ready to land. If done at done at night, there already could be "tourists" landed going to prepositioned weapons, ammunition, uniforms, and other supplies needed to then take predetermined objectives.

warspite1

I have nothing to add to this comment than was previously mentioned about Malta. But how you can even suggest Gibraltar could be taken by sea is totally beyond me.

[Zap]

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

[Platoonist]

What the Italians needed to be effective would have required a complete makeover of their army. Not just window-dressing with German tanks. If they wanted a modern army, they would have to sacrifice their large infantry-based army for a leaner, motorized, mechanized, armor, marine, paratrooper, based elite army. They couldn't do this because to Mussolini "eight million bayonets" sounded more impressive on paper and the plan put forth by General Balbo would have limited the size of the army to appr. 12 divisions. Well, who would take them seriously with that?

I'm sure 12 divisions doing well, striking from the beaches and air, supported by the navy and airforce, and incredibly mobile and able to transfer from front to front in no time would have gotten more respect in that war than the 'million' bayonets which lost most major engagements they fought in (with the exception of those in Russia who did very well at the beginning of the campaign).

The fact that the Italians were able to put out a handful of decent formations, that they were able to build a well trained and disciplined air force, and that the navy had the potential to be a real player in that war if it wasn't for the oil restrictions and a cowardly set of admirals, should show that a strong Italy wasn't unimaginable. That the troops if properly motivated, if given the tools and trained right, if given a competent set of generals who could co-ordinate with each other, could have made a decent go of it.

BUT, to say that in 1940 Italy could have done well with its current doctrines in place is simply not being in touch with reality. The kind of changes that were needed would have taken a decade, the kind of changes needed to WIN that war in the med. Fine, change a general here, give your troops some better equipment there, tweak a few logistical problems they might not have done as poorly, but in my opinion they would have still lost in the long run.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zap

From all the comments, it seems the best thing for Germany/Italy to do would have been wait one year before making the move. Thereby, they would have built a more/better attack force?

warspite1

What do you mean? Are you asking if Germany should have waited a year to declare war or are you referring to Italy joining Germany in June 1941?

If the former then no, because Germany's lead (through rearmament and conscription) would only start to reduce as the greater purchasing power of Britain and France took effect. Germany had a window of opportunity that would start to close. If the latter then I don't really see what difference it would have made. The Italian economy and her military were in no state to fight any war, let alone a protracted one. She was in no state to build her military to the required level as she could not afford it - and for the reasons stated above - Germany couldn't help her.

warspite1

Hi zap which of the two was it you meant?