What if the Italians were better prepared?

As Mussolini told Hitler, the Italian army would not be ready for major conflict until the early 1940's. What if he had said late 30's, and the Italians were ready to roar in 1939? Also say they came up with a better heavy tank and a better SAW. How would WWII have been different if the Italians were a stronger ally to Hitler?

 

It probably would not have made a difference. The Italian army was fundamentally flawed in a number of ways that better equipment was not going to fix.
First, there was a massive gap both socially and economically between officers and enlisted. Officers typically came from the more urban and educated northern proviences while the bulk of the foot soldiers were from more rural southern areas. Privilage and status left the enlisted often in a definitely fourth class status where they had little connection, and less confidence in, their officers.
Orgainzationally, the binary division was an orgainzational travesty. It lacked the numbers, flexibility, or depth to operate in a modern battlefield environment. On top of this the lack of motorization, communications equipment, engineering capacity, and a whole host of other related non-combat systems that were essential to modern combat were lacking as well.
To top these problems off, Mussolini was very wary of committing to a full and open alliance with Germany. Instead, the Italians ran a "parallel" war to Germany operating with them but virtually in autonomous fashion. Their units did not tie in to German ones for the most part. So, any weaknesses they had was going to still be present and not mitigated by a German presence.
On the whole, the Italians were simply completely unprepared for modern war economically, socially, and politically. A few changes in technology are not going to have any significant impact on this.

 

As T.A. brings good points to this " what if " I am also going to add that what the Italians desperately lacked was LEADERSHIP, which would also help with motivation......


Oh and welcome aboard 3ball44

 

Gee thanks Otto; make me look like the bad guy.....

 

Rather than think of "Better Prepared" in terms of expensive hardware consider it in terms of training and leadership. And, 'leadership' includes a more effcient logistics service, interservice cooperation, and a better understanding of the stratigic situation.

So...What if the Italian military in general (including the navy & air force) had the same tactical and operational skill level as the Germans?

 

Plus as mentioned above which i totally agree with one other factor to the demise of the Italians and that was Psychology, Italians by nature are fun loving and on the whole a peaceful people, Musolini tried to convert a nation from a peaceful nation to an aggressor nation within a short period of time, this he could not succeed, it is one thing to train someone, and to arm them but when it comes to killing that is another, and the Italian psychology did not have that.

 

A good what if...

I think it mildy odd that a people who had conquered the whole of the known world turned into a non-violent peace loving people... they must know something.

 

Didn´t they use gas in Ethiopia 1935-36? Not very peace loving action in my opinion....

 

I guess "completely worthless" may have been a little harsh...
If the Italian army would have been anywhere close to Germany's, then the Allies would have had quite a force to reckon with, not that they didn't have one already. I just saw the lack of a good SAW and apparently no heavy tank as two of their most glaring faults, but I guess leadership and divisions among the men should have been noted as well. Italy had many problems, but at one time, they had some 250,000 men staring down 40,000 British in Africa. The confused Italian retreat that followed caused a lot of men to be killed and captured. At times the Italians fought with a lot of heart and put of fierce resistance, so I guess I see a hint of a war machine. If they just could have got their act together, and better equiped themselves, I believe they had some potential.

 

When did the put up fierce resistance? I personally would put them lower or the fierce rating than the French and that is saying something.

How many men did they field in WW2?

 

Technology was the least of their problems. Technology alone is never much of an advantage unless there is some huge disparity in it (eg., 'natives' fighting artillery and machineguns with spears or something along those lines). Far ahead of this in the list of problems was leadership, training, intrinisic social and moral values of the manpower and the society from which they were drawn, doctrine, and a whole litinany of similar and usually largely ignored and largely invisible factors that have far more impact on "fighting capacity."
Too often in history it is just simpler to blame technology or the lack thereof as the problem. After all, technology is tangible and generally measurable. It is one more case of taking the easy "management" route rather than the far more immersive and difficult to attain "leadership" one.

 

Yes they did, but not in WWII, and i bet the population back home did not know that their troops is some African backwater used gas on the Ethiopians.

But i'll go along with this thread, had the Italians gotten their act together and ramped up production of better arms on par with what the Germans were producing and Mussolini had managed to achieve the impossible and engendered a fierce military streak like the Germans and had the calibre of Military Leadership again like the Germans then i could that the Italians would have been very hard to beat i mean throw in an addtional four of five Italian Armies with the same drive and determination as their German colleagues the Soviets would have copped a hiding.

Regaurds.

 

If the propaganda to the Italian people told the Ethiopians were cruel and savage people I don´t think they would care if gas was used. Besides it happened quite far away from Italy so...

-----------


The League half-heartedly pursues sanctions against Italy, but the action is "monstrous," according to Mussolini: "There is only one means in the world of imposing culture on backward people: force." If the League "revengefully" continues to pursue sanctions, "I warn you, I am ready to go to war in Europe. The Italian people have created an empire with their blood, and they will defend it with their blood."

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA04/wood/mot/html/ethiopia.htm

In the opening scene Selassie talks to reporters in Jerusalam, Israel, where they comment on how his hands look "burned raw."

"Yes, the poison gas, but it is nothing. I was fortunate to escape with my life." He explains that he left the country to "save my people from extermination by Italian poison gas."

--------

Mussolini and his generals sought to cloak the operations of chemical warfare in the utmost secrecy, but the use of gas was revealed to the world through the denunciations of the International Red Cross and of many foreign observers. The Italian reaction to these revelations consisted in the "erroneous" bombardment (at least 19 times) of Red Cross tents posted in the areas of military encampment of the Ethiopian resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War

---------

But other journalists there - for example George Steer of The Times - argued that the use of gas was of major significance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2967811.stm

In 1935 Steer covered the Italian invasion of Ethiopia for The Times and reported that Italian forces used mustard gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Steer

 

They would have had real problems in achieving that, because Italian industry was mostly still on a "craft" basis rather than in major mass-production plants.

An Italian contributor to my forum is working on an Italian version of The Foresight War, in which an Italian historian from the present day wakes up in 1934. Trouble is, he is writing it in Italian...but there is a discussion thread on it (in English!) HERE.

 

I'm surprised you are providing as a role model to the Italians those other losers. I'd rather go along with the Americans or Russians, those sure knew a thing or two about how to win a war.

 

I think that Mussolini's most sensible approach would have been "to do a Franco" - stay just friendly enough with Hitler to avoid annoying him, but carefully avoid getting drawn into the war.

 

Agree entirely, Remain nuetral playing off the Brits against the Germans. Eventually the Germans are likely to lose, but meanwhile a lot of money can be made trading them bits for weapons in exchange for their coal & gold, and to make some moral capitol saving Jews.

Of course there is some danger of Germany attacking Italy, or Britian damaging Italys economy with its blockade policys.