Italian Weakness

[Lord Gort]

In the the documentary the 'Road to War'. The programme put Italy's weakness overall down to the mount of money and weaponry spent in the Ethiopian war and the Spanish civil war, not to mention the crippling sanctions.


Is this true in your opinion?



regards,

[JLEES]

I too have read this argument several times in different sources. Basically Mussolini’s commitment of troops to Ethiopia 1935-36; the Abyssinian partisan problem that followed for five more years; then Spain 1936-39; the draining costs of trying to make both Abyssinia and Libya economically solvent, which never worked out, all damn near broke the frail Italian economy before the first Italian shots were fired in 1940. Then when Italy jumped into the war there were the costs of modernizing and bringing the Italian Army up to strength that Italy was economically unable to accomplish while fighting a modern war against countries with stronger economies. There is also the morale of the military and civilian population situation to consider too. The Italians were at war for five years prior to Mussolini’s Declaration of War against the Allies in 1940. This coupled with an alliance with Nazi-Germany against both France and Great Britain didn’t set too well with too many Italians. A lot of Italians thought Mussolini was siding with the wrong side. These economic and morale problems then coupled with Mussolini’s gross strategic mistakes in 1940/41 and Hitler’s dominance in the Mediterranean area of operations further drained Italy’s will to fight.
James

[Kenshiro]

ok i do belive one of the main reason for the italian defeat around the globe during WWII are lack of planning and organisation.
When the war declaration was signed, Mussolini forgot to call back all our cargo ships, who was captured and used by the allied.

Second, when the hostility on the Italian and Frnch border started, those great and magnificent general (from wwi) just trowed companies after companies of alpini (alps hunters) in bloody frontal assault with bayonettes against the French marginot line. They didnt have artillery or air support. Im sure a sucesfull invasion was possible if they just organized a little better, maybe a navy assault with a DDay around Nice and attacking the fortifications from behind?

When the war started on North Africa, Italian soldier marched over the Libian border on foot. They used 15 division mainly equippet with obsolete fantery guns and ww1 heavy siege montain gun who was capable to fire one or to shot per hour. Virtually no AT gun.
And not a clue about how to use tanks.

Invasion on Greece, again the same mistake like the one in France, fantey left alone, while the artyllei was unable to give any ´kind of support because lack of supplies!
Instead invading Greece from the north marching trough the snovy mountains they could have organized a heavy naval assalut with battleships and a DDay around Athen.

Italian East Africa, the entire area was cuttet out for supplies but here the Brits higly overestimatet the Italian strenght. In this place italy got some small victories like the conquest of the British somaliland, the only italian victoris of ww2.

To much energy was used to produce obsolete aircraft (Cr42) or weak tanks (M14) , virtually nothing was done to improve the equipment of the soldiers and the supplies system who was still in the ww1 war conception (a slow moving front line, instead of a fast dinamic moving line).
Obsolete industry, incapable officers and a incompetent governement did the rest.

[JLEES]

It is amazing with all the opportunities Mussolini had available in 1940, he made the mistakes he did.
James

[Alternative Scenario]

In the the documentary the 'Road to War'. The programme put Italy's weakness overall down to the mount of money and weaponry spent in the Ethiopian war and the Spanish civil war, not to mention the crippling sanctions.


Is this true in your opinion?



regards,

There might some truth in the fact that the Italians drew the wrong lessons from Ethiopia and the much time was devoted to equipping the army to fight a colonial war not a modern European war!

But logically they should have drawn some experience from Spain and realised their weaknesses.

The catalogue of mistakes is so long it is almost laughable if it was not for the thousands of Italians who died as a result!

[Kenshiro]

As I know in Spain Italians captured a soviet T26 and a BT5.
If they was smart, they could have reproduced them to replace the old L3 and the M11.

The result would have been different if italians joined the war with tank equipped with cannons instead of machineguns.

[Orok]

As I know in Spain Italians captured a soviet T26 and a BT5.
If they was smart, they could have reproduced them to replace the old L3 and the M11.

The result would have been different if italians joined the war with tank equipped with cannons instead of machineguns.

It is not easy as we lay person would have imagined to duplicate a sophisticated machine as a modern tank, simply from some captured models. Also, converting any existing production and assembly line into manufacturing another totally different model is a very time and money consuming task, that is why every army would seek a high degree of standardization of their equipment.

Considering the actual situation of Italian industry and their resources, I don't think the Italians were able to copy any foreign war machines in quatities sufficent to affect their forces fighting ability, even if they very much liked to do so.

Just my 2 cents.

[Orok]

ok i do belive one of the main reason for the italian defeat around the globe during WWII are lack of planning and organisation.
When the war declaration was signed, Mussolini forgot to call back all our cargo ships, who was captured and used by the allied.

Second, when the hostility on the Italian and Frnch border started, those great and magnificent general (from wwi) just trowed companies after companies of alpini (alps hunters) in bloody frontal assault with bayonettes against the French marginot line. They didnt have artillery or air support. Im sure a sucesfull invasion was possible if they just organized a little better, maybe a navy assault with a DDay around Nice and attacking the fortifications from behind?

When the war started on North Africa, Italian soldier marched over the Libian border on foot. They used 15 division mainly equippet with obsolete fantery guns and ww1 heavy siege montain gun who was capable to fire one or to shot per hour. Virtually no AT gun.
And not a clue about how to use tanks.

Invasion on Greece, again the same mistake like the one in France, fantey left alone, while the artyllei was unable to give any ´kind of support because lack of supplies!
Instead invading Greece from the north marching trough the snovy mountains they could have organized a heavy naval assalut with battleships and a DDay around Athen.

Italian East Africa, the entire area was cuttet out for supplies but here the Brits higly overestimatet the Italian strenght. In this place italy got some small victories like the conquest of the British somaliland, the only italian victoris of ww2.

To much energy was used to produce obsolete aircraft (Cr42) or weak tanks (M14) , virtually nothing was done to improve the equipment of the soldiers and the supplies system who was still in the ww1 war conception (a slow moving front line, instead of a fast dinamic moving line).
Obsolete industry, incapable officers and a incompetent governement did the rest.

Hi Kenshiro,

Italy's obviously rational design before the war was 1) to contain Germany in its present boundary, especially to prevent the union of Austria with Germany; 2) to put the entire Balkan under effective Italian influence and control; and 3) to expand Italian colonies in north and northeastern Africa in order to secure more raw materials. The whole Italian armed forces were organized, trained, equiped, and doctrinated for these purposes, and the industry was also geared according to these strategies.

However, a little twist of history, namely Mussolini's adventure in Ethiopia and Britain's ill advised sanction on Italy forced Mussolini to forge an alliance with Germany. Such alliance obliged Mussolini to shut his eyes on Hitler's annexion of Austria, which the Italians had always considered as their protectorate and crucial in containing Germany's military expansionism.

Once Austria was part of Germany, Italy's fate was sealed. She could either end her alliance with Hitler, thus face the immediate wrath of a much strengthened and reenvigorated Germany, or to down grade herself into a willing ally of Germany and put all her hope on its ally's might to win the now inevitable war. Italy obviously thought it was wise to choose the second choice.

Thus the Italian army was put to do things it had not planned, nor trained, and nor equipped to do: fighting multiple fronts and, more fatally, committing large troops on the Ostfront.

That was the beginning of the undoing of the Italian armed forces and the Italian state. All because history sometimes refuses to play out as one smartly planned in advance. Do I need to raise a more recent ongoing example? Nah, I think not!

[Alternative Scenario]

Considering the actual situation of Italian industry and their resources, I don't think the Italians were able to copy any foreign war machines in quatities sufficent to affect their forces fighting ability, even if they very much liked to do so.

Just my 2 cents.

Orak

I agree that copying a tank would not be easy - if was the Germans would have copied the T34

However, the issue about Italian industry is not that clear cut. The Italians did make enough tanks to equip 2-3 armoured divisions! Main problems most of these tanks were out-dated and poorly designed. Also production only kicked into action in 1941-42 by which stage the opportunity for a quick victory had all but disappeared.

If the Italians had acquired by design or licensing agreement a tank of the calibre of the Pz III or the Skoda built 35t or 38t in 1937 and established the production lines in 1938, by the beginning of war they would have had 2 modern well equipped armoured formations in the Western Desert in 1940. With good leadership this force would have beaten Wavell's army and laid siege to Alexandria by Christmas 1940!

You are right that Italian could not have maintained a war of attrition which occurred after mid 1941. But the cost of fighting the British in terms of machines destroyed or damaged would have been small in mid 1940 so capacity would not have been an immediate problem!

[Orok]

Yes I agree with you. Italy should actively seek a new tank for their armored forces in 1936, instead of sticking to their obsolete design.

[Kenshiro]

yes but I agree but when italy examined the captured sovietic armour, they could use them as inspiration to some better armour.
They could have produced a T26 based light tank with the 45mm gun, if the main gun could not be massproduced then a 47mm or a 37mm.
Then a medium tank based on the BT5 (who was not medium but light) and use them to equip theyr armoured units.
A armour division with a light tank similar to the T26 and a medium like the BT5 could have been a serious menace instead those small silly tankettes.

[gabriel pagliarani]

ok i do belive one of the main reason for the italian defeat around the globe during WWII are lack of planning and organisation.
When the war declaration was signed, Mussolini forgot to call back all our cargo ships, who was captured and used by the allied.

Second, when the hostility on the Italian and Frnch border started, those great and magnificent general (from wwi) just trowed companies after companies of alpini (alps hunters) in bloody frontal assault with bayonettes against the French marginot line. They didnt have artillery or air support. Im sure a sucesfull invasion was possible if they just organized a little better, maybe a navy assault with a DDay around Nice and attacking the fortifications from behind?

When the war started on North Africa, Italian soldier marched over the Libian border on foot. They used 15 division mainly equippet with obsolete fantery guns and ww1 heavy siege montain gun who was capable to fire one or to shot per hour. Virtually no AT gun.
And not a clue about how to use tanks.

Invasion on Greece, again the same mistake like the one in France, fantey left alone, while the artyllei was unable to give any ´kind of support because lack of supplies!
Instead invading Greece from the north marching trough the snovy mountains they could have organized a heavy naval assalut with battleships and a DDay around Athen.

Italian East Africa, the entire area was cuttet out for supplies but here the Brits higly overestimatet the Italian strenght. In this place italy got some small victories like the conquest of the British somaliland, the only italian victoris of ww2.

To much energy was used to produce obsolete aircraft (Cr42) or weak tanks (M14) , virtually nothing was done to improve the equipment of the soldiers and the supplies system who was still in the ww1 war conception (a slow moving front line, instead of a fast dinamic moving line).
Obsolete industry, incapable officers and a incompetent governement did the rest.

Malta never invaded is not in your list. :roll:

[Pumpkin]

Orok,
I think that Italy's strategic turn-around just before the war is insufficient to explain the Italian failures on the battle fields.

Many of the Italian failures occured in operations which would've been in line with the Italian pre-war strategy anyway. After all, how would Italy have expanded in north and NE Africa if not through (desert) war against France and/or UK? Yet, they had obviously not thought such operations through very carefully. And the Greek campaign suggests that they were incapable to expand in the Balkans too. Also, their Mediteranean navy and air force must've been a center piece in any strategic plan, but still achieved little against the British.

The Italian-German alliance might not have been such a bad concept for the Italians (theoretically). The only area where Germany and Italy might have had conflicting interests/rivalry would've been Austria/Balkan. For colonial and Mediteranean expansion, UK and France were the given rivals. Events in the 30's also show that they wanted to contain Italy. The only alternative to an alliance with Germany, would've been to side with either France against the UK or vice versa, something which didn't seem doable in the 30's. Siding with both France and the UK against Germany would not have favoured Mediteranean or colonial Italian expansion. I'm saying that the alliance with Germany was a good idea, given that Italy was dedicated to expansionism. However, Italy maybe wasn't ready for an expansionist policy at all.

Sidenote: I think that the ideology played a smaller role for the Italian-German alliance than what seems to be popularly believed, although Hitler seemed to have much admiration for Mussolini. Austria was fascist when "Anschluss:ed" by Germany. And the western democracies first "sacrificed" democratic Tschechoslovakia and then joined the war in support of the military dictatorship of Poland, and still sided with Polands enemy Stalin. Politics makes strange bedfellows...

[Pumpkin]

Considering sanctions as a reason for Italian weakness, one should remember that industry in the 30's were far less dependant on international trade, than they are today. Trade collapsed during the depression, and didn't really recover during the 30's. Not only Germany, but many politicians favoured autarki, to be self-sufficient.

Also, Germany didn't participate in the sanctions, did they? So there were an important leap hole for necessary Italian imports (as Israel was an important glitch in the UN sanction against South Africa in the 80's).

The sanctions might've been costly, but it is not to be compared with for instance Iraq recently. National economic independancy is unfeasable in the modern economy, in contrast to the post-depression economy.

[Orok]

Orok,
I think that Italy's strategic turn-around just before the war is insufficient to explain the Italian failures on the battle fields.

Yes, it's but only one factor.

Many of the Italian failures occured in operations which would've been in line with the Italian pre-war strategy anyway. After all, how would Italy have expanded in north and NE Africa if not through (desert) war against France and/or UK? Yet, they had obviously not thought such operations through very carefully. And the Greek campaign suggests that they were incapable to expand in the Balkans too. Also, their Mediteranean navy and air force must've been a center piece in any strategic plan, but still achieved little against the British.

Italy's timid and utterly ineffective use of their naval and air forces came as a surprise to everybody. This contributed a lot to their failure in the Mediteranean theater. In a word, they should've done better and they had the ability to achieve it, at least equipment wise.

The Italian-German alliance might not have been such a bad concept for the Italians (theoretically). The only area where Germany and Italy might have had conflicting interests/rivalry would've been Austria/Balkan. For colonial and Mediteranean expansion, UK and France were the given rivals. Events in the 30's also show that they wanted to contain Italy. The only alternative to an alliance with Germany, would've been to side with either France against the UK or vice versa, something which didn't seem doable in the 30's. Siding with both France and the UK against Germany would not have favoured Mediteranean or colonial Italian expansion. I'm saying that the alliance with Germany was a good idea, given that Italy was dedicated to expansionism. However, Italy maybe wasn't ready for an expansionist policy at all.

The best strategy Italy could adopt, in my opinion, is to act as a balancing power between the British/French and German/Russian (at that timeframe) opposing powers. Siding explicitly with any party would lead to the eventual destruction.

Sidenote: I think that the ideology played a smaller role for the Italian-German alliance than what seems to be popularly believed, although Hitler seemed to have much admiration for Mussolini. Austria was fascist when "Anschluss:ed" by Germany. And the western democracies first "sacrificed" democratic Tschechoslovakia and then joined the war in support of the military dictatorship of Poland, and still sided with Polands enemy Stalin. Politics makes strange bedfellows...

Absolutely true! Although I personally won't give too high a grade to the Czekoslovakian "democracy"!

Best Regards!