Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could proper planning have won WW2 for Italy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Colonel Sennef
    replied
    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    Oil. Lads can't fight ww2 without it. Guess who has none and has to beg to get it?

    All these plans to make Italy a fighting power without oil...
    Another nearly unsurmountable reason why, if propely planned, Italy should have stayed out of WW2.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Oil. Lads can't fight ww2 without it. Guess who has none and has to beg to get it?

    All these plans to make Italy a fighting power without oil...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    ... In many instances, a small vehicle that allows the FO crew to shelter in cover and provides some defense with a machinegun would be a valuable addition to a mortar platoon.
    I should put you in charge of all the tactical sides of this!

    But I was thinking more of the strategic applications of this. Also- Italy was introducing a lot of new and improved weaponry in 1940, I don't think that any more can be asked without sacrificing other things and getting into a tangle that would take 50 pages to unravel.

    You fight with the army you have.
    I'm trying to see if it would have been worthwhile to make the most of it.

    I got it down to ten Corps plus some unattached units, that is pretty slim, isn't it? VERY slim, if your strategic aim is to go for the Persian Gulf oil.
    A pipe-dream?
    Maybe not.

    There is something we haven't touched yet, a whole Theater of Operations; East Africa.

    According to Wiki-

    Historically on hand, June 1940;

    Aosta had two metropolitan divisions, the 40th Infantry Division Cacciatori d'Africa and the 65th Infantry Division Granatieri di Savoia, a battalion of Alpini (elite mountain troops), a Bersaglieri battalion of motorised infantry, several Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale (MSVN Camicie Nere [Blackshirt]) battalions and smaller units. About 70 percent of Italian troops were locally recruited Askari. The regular Eritrean battalions and the Regio Corpo Truppe Coloniali (RCTC Royal Corps of Somali Colonial Troops) were among the best Italian units in the AOI and included Eritrean cavalry Penne di Falco (Falcon Feathers)


    Italian forces in East Africa were equipped with about 3,313 heavy machine-guns, 5,313 machine-guns, 24 M11/39 medium tanks, 39 L3/35 tankettes, 126 armoured cars and 824 guns, 24 × 20 mm anti-aircraft guns, 71 × 81 mm mortars and 672,800 rifles


    In June 1940, there were 323 aircraft in the AOI, in 23 bomber squadrons with 138 aircraft, comprising 14 squadrons with six aircraft each, six Caproni Ca.133 light bomber squadrons, seven Savoia-Marchetti SM.81 squadrons and two squadrons of Savoia-Marchetti SM.79s. Four fighter squadrons had 36 aircraft, comprising two nine-aircraft Fiat CR.32 squadrons and two nine-aircraft Fiat CR.42 squadrons; CAAOI had one reconnaissance squadron with nine IMAM Ro.37 aircraft. There were 183 first line aircraft and another 140 in reserve, of which 59 were operational and 81 were unserviceable.[8][a]
    On the outbreak of war, the CAAOI had 10,700*t (10,500 long tons) of aviation fuel, 5,300*t (5,200 long tons) of bombs and 8,620,000 rounds of ammunition. Aircraft and engine maintenance was conducted at the main air bases and at the Caproni and Piaggio workshops, which could repair about fifteen seriously-damaged aircraft and engines each month, along with some moderately and lightly damaged aircraft, and could also recycle scarce materials.[8] The Italians had reserves for 75% of their front-line strength, but lacked spare parts and many aircraft were cannibalised to keep others operational.[10] The quality of the units varied. The SM.79 was the only modern bomber and the CR.32 fighter was obsolete, but the Regia Aeronautica in East Africa had a cadre of highly experienced Spanish Civil War veterans.[11] There was the nucleus of a transport fleet, with nine Savoia-Marchetti S.73, nine Ca.133, six Ca.148 (a lengthened version of the Ca.133) and a Fokker F.VII, which maintained internal communications and carried urgent items and personnel between sectors.[8]
    (25 total)



    On 10 June 1940, the day Italy declared war, the Italian Red Sea Flotilla had seven destroyers organized into two squadrons, a squadron of five Motor Torpedo Boats (Motoscafo Armato Silurante, or MAS) and eight submarines organized into two squadrons. The main base was at Massawa, with other bases at Assab (also in Eritrea) and Kismayu, in southern Italian Somaliland.[1]



    • 3rd Destroyer Division (All Sauro*class[8] (1,600 tons full load displacement))
    • Francesco Nullo - Crippled by HMS Kimberley and eventually destroyed by RAF 22 November 1940
    • Nazario Sauro - Bombed and sunk by 813 & 824 Naval Air Squadrons at 0615 3 April 1941 in position 20.00°N 30.00°E[9]
    • Cesare Battisti - scuttled after engine breakdown 3 April 1941.[9]
    • Daniele Manin (1,058/1,600 tons displacement) - Sunk by RAF 3 April 1941 in position 20.33°N 30.17°E[9]

    • 5th Destroyer Division (All Leone*class[8] (2,690 tons full load displacement))
    • Pantera - Scuttled 3 April 1941 after being damaged by RAF[9]
    • Tigre - Scuttled 3 April 1941 after being damaged by RAF[9]
    • Leone - Ran aground and scuttled 1 April 1941 in position 16.15°N 39.92°E[9]


    The five MAS were organized as follows:
    • 21st MAS Squadron
    • MAS 204 - Lost due to mechanical difficulty
    • MAS 206 - Lost due to mechanical difficulty
    • MAS 210 - Lost due to mechanical difficulty
    • MAS 213 - Scuttled 8 April 1941
    • MAS 216 - Lost due to mechanical difficulty

    The eight submarines were organized in the 8th Submarine Group as follows:
    • 81st Submarine Squadron
    • Guglielmotti (896/1,265 tons displacement) - Sailed to Bordeaux, France and arrived 6 May 1941[10]
    • Galileo Ferraris (880/1,230 tons displacement) - Sailed to Bordeaux, France and arrived 9 May 1941[10]
    • Galileo Galilei (880/1,230 tons displacement) - Captured 19 June 1940
    • Luigi Galvani (896/1,265 tons displacement) - Sunk 24 June 1940
    • 82nd Submarine Squadron
    • Perla (620/855 tons displacement) - Sailed to Bordeaux, France and arrived 20 May 1941[10]
    • Macallè (620/855 tons displacement) - Ran aground and scuttled 15 June 1940
    • Archimede (880/1,230 tons displacement) - Sailed to Bordeaux, France and arrived 7 May 1941[10]
    • Evangelista Torricelli (880/1,230 tons displacement) - Sunk 23 June 1940

    Other vessels[edit]
    • Colonial ship Eritrea (2,170 tons displacement) - Sailed to Kobe, Japan, and surrendered to the Allies in Columbo, Ceylon, when Italy surrendered
    • Torpedo boat Vincenzo Giordano Orsini (670 tons displacement) - Scuttled 8 April 1941
    • Torpedo boat Giovanni Acerbi (670 tons displacement) - Scuttled in the mouth of the harbor at Massawa as a blockship after suffering heavy bomb damage[9]
    • Gunboat G. Biglieri (620 tons displacement) - Captured
    • Gunboat Porto Corsini (290 tons displacement) - Scuttled
    • Minelayer Ostia (620 tons displacement) - Sunk by British Royal Air Force attack within the harbor at Massawa; all mines still racked
    • Auxiliary cruiser Ramb I (3,667 tons displacement) - Sailed to Kobe, Japan. Lost 27 February 1941 in battle against the light cruiser HMNZS Leander.
    • Auxiliary cruiser Ramb II (3,667 tons displacement) - Sailed to Kobe, Japan, and placed into the service of the Imperial Japanese Navy when Italy surrendered
    • Hospital ship Aquileia - former Ramb IV - Captured and placed into the service of the British Royal Navy
    Yeah, that is a hell of a lot of stuff to go over... so I will save my comments on it for a little later on.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The concept is that the 81mm mortar like the British 3" isn't fired from the vehicle, but rather simply carried by it to the location where it will be emplaced. Even the smaller universal carrier could haul a 3" mortar and a significant number of rounds forward. There's no reason to make the mortar be capable of being fired from the vehicle.

    Instead, the vehicle delivers it forward and is then used to haul more ammunition forward. The other use would be as a forward observation post to direct the fire of the mortar. In many instances, a small vehicle that allows the FO crew to shelter in cover and provides some defense with a machinegun would be a valuable addition to a mortar platoon.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    I don't think the Tankettes could transport a weapon like the 81mm mortar, let alone the ammo for it.
    Even with the 45mm (great idea!) the space for ammo and the work-space inside that little bugger makes me wonder.

    Craziest thing of all, the flamethrower variant;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3/33


    Changes to hardware involve more than planning, and could distract from bringing newer and better tanks into action.
    One thing I would wholeheartedly support; curtail production of Cr.42 fighters in favor of newer types. THe Italians got the wrong idea in Spain, and thought that light and maneuverable was the way to go. The Germans were there too, and came away favoring the Me-109. Why was there such a disconnect there?

    Meanwhile, for those that don't think the Italians could do some amazing things... how about their bombing raid on Bahrain -
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II



    I am having trouble hunting down the exact strength of the Airpower, the numbers of each type in June of 1940.
    All I have so far is-

    —Fighters- -
    177 x Cr.32*
    300 x Cr.42*
    236 x Fiat G.50
    144 x M.C. 200 Saetta

    (*minus 18 ea. in Ethiopia)


    — Ground Attack- -
    154 x Breda Ba.65
    Last edited by The Exorcist; 04 Mar 17, 21:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Would the Italians had the funds to use two trucks or even two cars for Mortars? My bet is if there were cars assigned to the Battalions they would have ended up as transport for officers.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The 45mm Brixia is the equivalent of a 40mm grenade launcher. It fires a breech loaded "bomb" about the size of a 40mm round. It uses a 10 round clip of propellant charges (like blank rifle cartridges) to fire these.
    The range is several hundred yards at best.

    580yds per Wiki. Though I would say that a vehicle mounted version would probably only be able to do 300 due to angle restrictions.....unless they ran supercharges (might or might not be doable depending on metallurgy). Still....it's a good sized grenade being thrown every 6 seconds or so (realistic RoF) from a platform that's mostly immune to rifle and rifle-caliber MG fire at 250m. Would be quite a problem for British troops trying to hold off an assault by infantry if their MG nests and foxholes were getting hit by something they couldn't easily suppress.

    This means that at company and platoon level having one or more of these little mortars around would make them very useful. They could toss "grenades" all over an attacking infantry unit or fire covering grenade fire for their own infantry.

    Hence my argument that as a breechloading weapon with a relatively high RoF, they're perfectly suited to be fired by an L3/33 from under armor. Tankettes were meant to support infantry in the assault. They're literally, and only useful as, an infantry support tank. Since you can't easily mount any AT weapon worth having on them, and in most circumstances HE fire is more desirable, mounting a 45mm mortar as the gunner's main weapon would give them a role in the attack for suppressing enemy MG positions at medium and short ranges for the infantry to assault.

    Reorganizing the companies as I proposed, means there are 3 or 4 medium machineguns in the heavy weapons company that can now be concentrated for the attack or used on the flanks of the company position to provide a thick cross fire for defense.

    The L3/33 tankette is best used in the battalion heavy weapons company where you supply 6 vehicles. Three would carry 81mm mortars and the other three mount a 20mm antitank rifle. All of them would have one or two 8mm machineguns mounted as they originally did. They are given trailers to tow as well.

    I just don't see the reason for them to carry the 81mm mortars. These can be carried by a small truck. Heck a big car could do it. It's a slow tracked platform and a fuel hog for this function. And its armor is totally wasted on firing mortars from a rear area. The 20mm AT rifle is functional in the front lines. Unless you're going to build up a box structure and fire the 81mm from behind armor against positions spotted by the crew, then it's a waste to carry the 81mm mortars in an armored platform......especially when you have so few armored platforms to work with.

    This means the heavy weapons company of the battalion has the means to move their antitank and heavy mortars into position and supply them with ammunition and covering fire.
    While a 20mm ATR isn't going to stop a Matilda, it will perforate a British cruiser tank and can be used effectively against French tanks that have just two man crews by shooting out vision ports or damaging tracks.
    With 3 81mm in each battalion, and the means to haul forward a good ammo supply, those become the battalion's main "artillery."
    There's some functionality, but for the same cost in vehicle, training, and fuel/parts, you could run two trucks to carry the mortar crew and mortar, along with extra ammo. 81mm mortars are going to be fired from beyond normal rifle range of the front line, and they'll be either dug in or exposed while firing. No reason to have an armored vehicle cart them to an exposed firing position. Now if you happened to scale up the 45mm mortar to 81mm and mounted it to be fired from behind armor......that would have been a potent weapon in 1940. Would have even been able to knock out cruiser tanks....maybe even Matildas if they made a shaped charge shell.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    Maybe use the L3/33s as MG/Mortar carriers? Have an 8mm LMG mounted above the crew compartment (hatch pintle) paired with a 45mm Brixia Mortar for the gunner to operate? It's a breechloading mortar, so you can fire it from under armor. That would give the tankette both a limited direct-fire asset as an MG, and a direct/indirect asset with the Brixia mortar. 45mm mortar HE would have been better than what was available on a lot of Tanks at the time for infantry support. Even if you deployed dedicated MG carriers and Mortar carriers you're still getting an improvement.
    The 45mm Brixia is the equivalent of a 40mm grenade launcher. It fires a breech loaded "bomb" about the size of a 40mm round. It uses a 10 round clip of propellant charges (like blank rifle cartridges) to fire these.
    The range is several hundred yards at best.

    This means that at company and platoon level having one or more of these little mortars around would make them very useful. They could toss "grenades" all over an attacking infantry unit or fire covering grenade fire for their own infantry.
    Reorganizing the companies as I proposed, means there are 3 or 4 medium machineguns in the heavy weapons company that can now be concentrated for the attack or used on the flanks of the company position to provide a thick cross fire for defense.

    The L3/33 tankette is best used in the battalion heavy weapons company where you supply 6 vehicles. Three would carry 81mm mortars and the other three mount a 20mm antitank rifle. All of them would have one or two 8mm machineguns mounted as they originally did. They are given trailers to tow as well.
    This means the heavy weapons company of the battalion has the means to move their antitank and heavy mortars into position and supply them with ammunition and covering fire.
    While a 20mm ATR isn't going to stop a Matilda, it will perforate a British cruiser tank and can be used effectively against French tanks that have just two man crews by shooting out vision ports or damaging tracks.
    With 3 81mm in each battalion, and the means to haul forward a good ammo supply, those become the battalion's main "artillery."

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    There were well over 1000 L3/33 available when Italy went to war. You need about 1200 to give every infantry battalion in the reorganized triangular divisions (say 30 divisions total) a platoon of 4 vehicles. If these were intended mainly for use as the British carrier was, they could move heavy weapons or ammunition forward. Maybe construct cheap trailers to increase their hauling ability. Add a cargo box of light steel over the engine deck for hauling stuff and you're set.
    Now they're primarily support vehicles rather than scouts or light tanks. Whether they are hauling 81mm mortars forward, heavy machineguns, or ammunition, they would be very useful in that role.

    If 2 per battalion had the S 18-1000 ATR mounted where it could also be dismounted for action, then you have a minimal antitank capacity with the infantry.

    Make sure that an antitank mine is available in some numbers and the infantry are at least capable of tank defense to a reasonable degree.
    Maybe use the L3/33s as MG/Mortar carriers? Have an 8mm LMG mounted above the crew compartment (hatch pintle) paired with a 45mm Brixia Mortar for the gunner to operate? It's a breechloading mortar, so you can fire it from under armor. That would give the tankette both a limited direct-fire asset as an MG, and a direct/indirect asset with the Brixia mortar. 45mm mortar HE would have been better than what was available on a lot of Tanks at the time for infantry support. Even if you deployed dedicated MG carriers and Mortar carriers you're still getting an improvement.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    I'm not sure sure of that.
    Sure, the main body of the continent is safe in 1941, but the Yugoslav about-face is not tied to Greece. And with everything that would have been in Libya and Greece combined, including the RAF, that country might have had a chance to hold out.

    And then there is the big one; Norway. There were 300,000 Germans there instead of going with Barbarossa for a reason. The cool part is that most of them don't really matter, Narvik is what matters.
    I am. Through 1942 Britain and the Commonwealth had less than a dozen (the 6 Glen class were the main ones) amphibious assault ships available along with a couple hundred smaller landing craft, mainly the LCA type.
    To provide lift for say a 4 division assault they'd have to pull merchants out of service and keep a certain number out to support them. Those 4 divisions would require rapid reinforcement if they were going to do more than sit on a beach somewhere Anzio-style. A four division amphibious assault in 1942 was probably beyond Britain's capacity to launch and support.

    Norway would still require occupation but maybe a third of what they eventually put there would be required, possibly less. Most of that 300,000 occurred later in the war when the threat of a combined US-British invasion was real.

    Britain was going to survive in any case. Germany lacks a navy so an invasion on their part is totally out of the question. Once Japan gets involved in the war, Britain's capacity on their own is going to get stretched even further.

    I would think that Britain would still supply Russia as much arms and equipment as possible to fight Germany. It's possible that even some RAF units might be sent to fight there too.


    Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
    In a one-on-one situation, yes, but the Germans can't do what they did historically and leave France as a place where divisions were rebuilt, trained or just rested whilst they throw everything else at the USSR. The British and Commonwealth maintained large forces in the Middle-East from 1941 onwards so they would be free to deploy in the UK as a very credible 'threat in being'. It's very hard to imagine Winston Churchill not pushing for some kind of strike with the forces at his disposal even before 'Barbarossa' and once that's gone ahead it's impossible to imagine. Whether it would work is another matter entirely, and it's not for this thread to consider, but the Germans cannot assume that it will not work and certainly cannot disregard the potential for a large Allied force landing on French soil.
    I can't see the Germans doing anything different than they did historically in France. Against the Anglo-Commonwealth forces in North Africa, Germany put in no more than 5 divisions up until very late in the campaign in Tunisia where better ports allowed more logistical support for a larger force.

    As I pointed out, the Germans would know that Britain would have a very hard time supporting more than a handful of divisions on the continent through the end of 1942. Britain will still have to maintain forces in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East to keep an eye on Italy... Just in case.

    Then there's Japan...

    Through the end of 1942 there is no realistic means for Britain alone to invade Europe and keep a useful sized army there fighting what would be a much larger German army defending the continent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Full Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Britain on their own is not going to seriously threaten Germany with an invasion of the continent anywhere. Britain lacks the amphibious forces as well as the land forces to engage Germany in a major land campaign or even a major amphibious assault.
    In a one-on-one situation, yes, but the Germans can't do what they did historically and leave France as a place where divisions were rebuilt, trained or just rested whilst they throw everything else at the USSR. The British and Commonwealth maintained large forces in the Middle-East from 1941 onwards so they would be free to deploy in the UK as a very credible 'threat in being'. It's very hard to imagine Winston Churchill not pushing for some kind of strike with the forces at his disposal even before 'Barbarossa' and once that's gone ahead it's impossible to imagine. Whether it would work is another matter entirely, and it's not for this thread to consider, but the Germans cannot assume that it will not work and certainly cannot disregard the potential for a large Allied force landing on French soil.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
    A neutral Italy means the British and Commonwealth armed forces can threaten North-West Europe or the Balkans forcing Germany to seriously weaken or even postpone 'Barbarossa'. Italian armies were also important in 'padding out' the Axis forces advancing into the Soviet Union. Given Mussolini's trenchant anti-Communism it's hard to envisage him being able to sustain his own position, or Fascism remaining dominant in Italy, if he refuses to get involved in the campaign on the Eastern Front. So I don't believe that Germany benefits from a neutral Italy and, if we're being realistic, it isn't possible for Italy to remain neutral if it remains Fascist. ...
    Interesting....
    I used to be of the opinion that Italy staying out would have been the clever thing too, but that makes sense. The whole system of Fascism really boxed them all into a corner, didn't it?

    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Britain on their own is not going to seriously threaten Germany with an invasion of the continent anywhere. Britain lacks the amphibious forces as well as the land forces to engage Germany in a major land campaign or even a major amphibious assault....
    I'm not sure sure of that.
    Sure, the main body of the continent is safe in 1941, but the Yugoslav about-face is not tied to Greece. And with everything that would have been in Libya and Greece combined, including the RAF, that country might have had a chance to hold out.

    And then there is the big one; Norway. There were 300,000 Germans there instead of going with Barbarossa for a reason. The cool part is that most of them don't really matter, Narvik is what matters.



    Back to the thread--

    Something quick about the Navy;

    Concentration of force seems to work well for the Panzers, let’s see if that is also good for the warships.

    Leading off are 3 x Heavy groups with; 2 x BBs or BCs , 3 x Light Cruisers, 8 x DDs.

    2 x Heavy Cruiser Divs with 3 x CAs, 1 x CL and 6 x DDs.

    10 x DD Divisions of 8 x DDs each. (Most are convoy escorts or paired with Heavy units)

    This leaves 1 x CA and 19 x DDs as standby reserve or down for maintenance…. or on solitary patrol.


    The western Med will be walled off by mines, MTBs, Subs and aircraft, as well as a few of the smaller DDs.


    Malta- 1 x Heavy group, 1 x DD Division

    Cyprus- 1 x Heavy group, 1 Cruiser Div,

    Monaco- 1 x Heavy group, 1 x Cruiser Div, 1 x DD Division

    So… which group gets the big Littorios with the 15” Guns?
    You tell me, where do you think they need to be; facing the French, or the Royal Navy… hours from Genoa, or way out at Cyprus.
    I favor the later, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
    A neutral Italy means the British and Commonwealth armed forces can threaten North-West Europe or the Balkans forcing Germany to seriously weaken or even postpone 'Barbarossa'. Italian armies were also important in 'padding out' the Axis forces advancing into the Soviet Union. Given Mussolini's trenchant anti-Communism it's hard to envisage him being able to sustain his own position, or Fascism remaining dominant in Italy, if he refuses to get involved in the campaign on the Eastern Front. So I don't believe that Germany benefits from a neutral Italy and, if we're being realistic, it isn't possible for Italy to remain neutral if it remains Fascist. I know people might throw Spain into the argument but it's important to remember that Franco was not the established leader that Mussolini and Hitler were and had a shattered country to rebuild before a large-scale foreign excursion could be considered.
    Britain on their own is not going to seriously threaten Germany with an invasion of the continent anywhere. Britain lacks the amphibious forces as well as the land forces to engage Germany in a major land campaign or even a major amphibious assault.

    A neutral Italy means the Mediterranean is out of play. Greece won't enter the war on their own even if Britain made entreaties for them to do so. It'd be utterly stupid for them to get involved. As it was, the only reason they did get involved was Italy invaded and was already at war with Britain.

    Italy could have easily remained neutral and out of the war. Mussolini had nothing to lose by doing so. He jumped in because he thought Germany was on the verge of a quick win and the war would be over shortly. He was wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Full Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    I wonder if Italy remaining neutral would have benefitted Germany more than having them join the Axis did historically?
    A neutral Italy means the British and Commonwealth armed forces can threaten North-West Europe or the Balkans forcing Germany to seriously weaken or even postpone 'Barbarossa'. Italian armies were also important in 'padding out' the Axis forces advancing into the Soviet Union. Given Mussolini's trenchant anti-Communism it's hard to envisage him being able to sustain his own position, or Fascism remaining dominant in Italy, if he refuses to get involved in the campaign on the Eastern Front. So I don't believe that Germany benefits from a neutral Italy and, if we're being realistic, it isn't possible for Italy to remain neutral if it remains Fascist. I know people might throw Spain into the argument but it's important to remember that Franco was not the established leader that Mussolini and Hitler were and had a shattered country to rebuild before a large-scale foreign excursion could be considered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Colonel Sennef View Post
    Planning to stay out of the war would have been the proper course, even preferable to joining the Allies in 1943.

    No need for ideological solidarity with Hitler to form an Axis
    Mussolini could have followed Franco's example.
    I wonder if Italy remaining neutral would have benefitted Germany more than having them join the Axis did historically?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X