Fixing the Italian Military, 1933~1945

[Shortround6]

What we have failed to establish is what the state of the Italian army actually was, aside from poor in general.

Italian infantry divisions seem to have been smaller than many other countries divisions with just two infantry regiments instead of the more normal three regiments ( few country tried 4 regiments but this often proved unwieldly/difficult to maneuver).
The Italian division had an artillery regiment which had, to start with, horse drawn guns with one 12 gun battery of 100mm howitzers. One 12 gun battery of 75mm guns and one 12 gun battery of 75mm pack howitzers. There was also an 8 gun battery of 20mm AA guns. At Division level there was also an 18 tube 81mm mortar company and an 8 gun battery of pack 47mm AT guns.
This was the standard Italian division and there were specialized divisions like Alpine. There were two Libyan divisions with Libyan troops and Italian officers. the main difference in equipment seems to be artillery regiment had 24 77mm (?) guns and no 100mm howitzers.
Just for reference a British infantry division was supposed to have 72 25pdr guns but it was supporting 3 regiments so the number of guns per 100 men was not quite as far off as a quick look seems. And in 1940 the British were short of 25pdrs and filling in with 18pdrs and 4.5in Howitzers.

Leaving aside pistols, rifles and sub-machine guns the Italian regiment had the following compared to 3 different British regiments.
Nation...................................Italian.......................Brit 1940................Brit June 1941................April 1942
LMG.........................................108...............................150........................150+12twins..............177+12twins
HMG........................................24..................................???...............................???.................................???
light mortar...........................54.................................36.................................48....................................24
3in/81mm mortar................6...................................6....................................18....................................18
Infantry gun............................4..................................0.....................................0.......................................0
AT rifles...................................???...............................66...................................75....................................69
AT guns...................................none?..........................0.....................................0...................................24 2pdrs

Different armies had different support structures.
British grouped all their Vickers guns in a Machine Gun Battalion of 4 companies assigned to Division headquarters. In practice they often assigned a company (of 12 guns) to each regiment. Vickers guns were carried in trucks to start and soon were transported in universal carriers. 3in mortars were carried in universal carriers.
The 12 twin LMGs were the 4 twins on truck mounts assigned to each Battalion as Battalion AA.
There were British divisional AA assets which varied a lot. Starting with 3in AA guns and getting some 40mm Bofors as the war went on (1944 a division could have 72 Bofors guns)
What individual units managed to "obtain" on their own was certainly variable.

In March of 1940 many Italian divisions got an MVSN Legion of two battalions but I don't know what they got in support artillery, additional Mortar units or???.

Basically for weapons the Italians were lacking in numbers of LMG, compounded by the Breda 30 not being all that good for some roles.
The Breda 37 was good but it could not put out the volume of fire as a Vickers, But the Italians had more of them(?) but Vickers guns may have had more ammo (?) depends on transport.
Once the summer of 1941 shows up the British have a lot more 3in mortars (at least on paper) but since they are short ranged they need more to cover the same area. Ammo supply may be variable depending on vehicle/supply. A universal carrier could hold around 57(?)-66(?) rounds of 3in ammo. Around 600lbs worth, give or take.
The British division had an attached 2pdr AT gun regiment (48 guns) for BEF (some had French 25mm guns) and things were changing a lot in 1940-41-42. It was only in 1942 with the Royal Artillery getting 6pd AT guns that the 2pdrs were handed down to the infantry as "organic". But 48 guns per division sure beats 8 guns in the Italian division.

There were a lot of training issues for the Italians.

Just putting men with rifles into the field was no longer good enough. Without support weapons, ammunition and communications large numbers of rifle equipped troops only make for large numbers of prisoners. And this assumes they are decently deployed and maneuvered into and out of positions.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As for Italian tanks, the P26/40 looks at least potentially promising. Alas, too little too late.

How was the Italian army for trucks and light vehicles? Did they suffer a lack of standardization and a duplication of types within each function? As a motorcyclist, I like the Moto Guzzi Trialce. And that external flywheel looks ready to slice the prosciutto.

 

[SaparotRob]

How was the Italian army for trucks and light vehicles? Did they suffer a lack of standardization and a duplication of types within each function? As a motorcyclist, I like the Moto Guzzi Trialce. And that external flywheel looks ready to slice the prosciutto.

View attachment 837704

But does it have a built in bottle opener?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I like the Breda 501 Spaghettiwagen. Putting a 90mm gun onto a truck is cool.

 

[Shortround6]

The Italians loved truck mounted cannon, possibly because their tanks/tracked vehicles were so bad (small).

I would love to hear about this thing firing out to the side, very exiting for the crew. Will it tip over or not?

The admittedly lighter 4 wheel truck (no armor) used up to 6 jacks and base plates to stabilize the gun.

US M56 90mm tank destroyer shows the recoil problem.

Granted a little bit heavier chassis, a little more recoil travel in the gun, letting the whole Italian vehicle roll backwards on it's wheels?
Please note the gunner ducking his head to the side to avoid getting punched in the face by the gunsight. Fast follow up shots were not in play book.

BTW I used (only in training) a Fire truck that used screw jacks to stabilize the 65ft aerial ladder and there was only one on each side. Hopefully there was another way out or off the building.

 

[z42]

Italy spent too much money on the Navy

Maybe. OTOH the Italian navy was arguably the one branch of their military that did somewhat decently in the war. They forced the British to keep quite substantial naval assets in the Med, and came out decently in many hard fought battles. A significantly weaker Italian navy would have led to the axis position in NA becoming untenable quicker than historically.

Now I agree that they could have spent less on capital ships. At some point AFAIU they started running out of modern destroyers, so maybe they could have built more of those instead.

Oh, and anticipating and training for night fighting, preferably with radar but even IJN style night optics would have been better than nothing, and maybe they could have avoided the Matapan disaster?

And towards the end of the involvement of Italy in the war a lot of their navy sat in port due to lack of fuel. Maybe use some of the steel not spent on capital ships to build a few synthetic fuel plants? Hard to see how they could have afforded to do this on a scale to make a substantial difference, though.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did the Italian military resist the German invasion and Operation Achse? Maybe we can better prepare the Italian military to counter the Germans post Sept-1943.

 

[Shortround6]

Did the Italian military resist the German invasion and Operation Achse? Maybe we can better prepare the Italian military to counter the Germans post Sept-1943.

???

Germans had both Air units and ground units in Sicily, mainland Italy and a number of the important Islands. The situation in Italy was chaotic From May through Aug of 1943.
Germans not only had some units already in Italy or in Italian Islands/possessions but the from May on things got worse for the Italians.
From Wiki so corrections welcome.

" The decision to create German units in Italy was made during the final phase of the Tunisian campaign; on 9 May 1943, two days after the fall of Tunis to the Allies, the German High Command (OKW) informed the Italian Supreme Command (Comando Supremo) that three new German units would be formed, mostly employing second-line German units evacuated from North Africa. They would be the Sardinia Command (later 90th Light Infantry Division), the Sicily Command (later 15th Infantry Division), and a "ready reserve". Adolf Hitler wrote to a dubious Benito Mussolini that since they were weak units that needed reinforcements, two additional German divisions would be sent from France. The 1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division Hermann Göring arrived mid-May 1943 and was sent to Sicily, and the 16th Panzer Division arrived in early June and was sent west of Bari. On 19 May also, the headquarters of general Hans Hube's XIV Panzer Corps was also sent from France to strengthen the command structure of the Commander-in-Chief South (Oberbefehlshaber Süd), Field Marshal Albert Kesselring."
By the end of May the Germans were considering a number of plans covering a wide area that the Italians were in nominal control over.

Basically you have from May till Sept to try to change any production, move existing weapons to different units (which will be loyal and which will not), improve communications and training?

Many Italian units resisted in the cut off areas. Some easily and some were destroyed. No commands from superior officers and having large numbers of troops that deserted.
Wiki again
" On the Greek island of Cephalonia, 1,315 Italian soldiers were killed in action against the Germans and over 5,100 Italian soldiers from the 33rd Infantry Division "Acqui" were summarily executed by the German Army after running out of ammunition and surrendering"

Wiki offers a decent over view?

Operation Achse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From the Article
" On 25 July, before he learned of the fall of Mussolini, Hitler sent six Heer (Army) divisions to Italy, including a Panzer division, and three Waffen-SS divisions. Rommel and his headquarters (then in Munich) were sent to Thessaloniki to control a new army group in the Balkans."

What can Italy do in 4-5 months or does Italy plan to get out (overthrow Mussolini) months earlier? and if so what can the rebels do that won't draw attention?

 

[EwenS]

Did the Italian military resist the German invasion and Operation Achse? Maybe we can better prepare the Italian military to counter the Germans post Sept-1943.

Some Italian Army units certainly did, and paid a heavy price.

Massacre of the Acqui Division - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Italian Army troops also fought alongside Allied troops on other Aegean islands late in 1943 in that unsuccessful campaign.


Most ships of the Italian Navy of destroyer size and larger, escaped to surrender to the RN Med Fleet at Malta on 10 Sept 1943. While the capital ships were laid up in the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt, some of the cruisers saw service in the South Atlantic hunting blockade runners in 1943/44. At least one destroyer worked with the Med Fleet in 1945. The sloop Eritrea which was serving with the IJN in the Malacca Strait escaped to Ceylon where she spent the rest of the war escorting submarines in and out of Colombo & Trincomalee.

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe. OTOH the Italian navy was arguably the one branch of their military that did somewhat decently in the war. They forced the British to keep quite substantial naval assets in the Med, and came out decently in many hard fought battles. A significantly weaker Italian navy would have led to the axis position in NA becoming untenable quicker than historically.

Now I agree that they could have spent less on capital ships. At some point AFAIU they started running out of modern destroyers, so maybe they could have built more of those instead.

Oh, and anticipating and training for night fighting, preferably with radar but even IJN style night optics would have been better than nothing, and maybe they could have avoided the Matapan disaster?

And towards the end of the involvement of Italy in the war a lot of their navy sat in port due to lack of fuel. Maybe use some of the steel not spent on capital ships to build a few synthetic fuel plants? Hard to see how they could have afforded to do this on a scale to make a substantial difference, though.

The other Italian forces did OK during the war...............Considering their state of equipment/supply. By that I meant the actual troops/airmen.

In an early Post I gave a listing of the 'normal' artillery pieces in an Italian infantry division. 36 tubes but none with a max range of even 10,000 meters. British Infantry division, once supply had caught up, had 72 tubes and each tube had a range of 12,250 meters. The thing that is harder to find is how much ammo each side per week or per month. The guns could fire 3-400 rounds per day but nobody had that kind of supply chain in North Africa.
British slowly achieved superiority in heavy artillery, and in Air Power, what is hard to find is how much food, water and shelter were the Italian troops getting. Failure of supply can result in troops surrendering just to get food and water.
Macchi was still making MC 200s quite a while after the introduction of MC.202 because of a shortage of DB 601 engines or Italian built ones. Facing Hurricane IIs, P-40Es (and later) Spitfires takes a lot of courage. Italian bomber aircraft were pretty much stuck in time. Italians did wonders with the SM. 79 but it dates from 1936. Better than Blenheim but compared to A-20s, B-25s or Wellingtons ?
And again the supply situation. Fuel, spare parts, ammo and food for the air and ground crew.

Italian navy was sort of an ego thing for Mussolini. The Italians had spent a crap load of money on their old WW I battleships with huge upgrades. The French had spent much less most of them were not up to modern warfare. Slow, old armor layout, short ranged guns and out of date fire control. The two new French 13in gun ships helped even things up.
So the question is what was the Italian navy supposed to do and when? Just take on the French? The entire French navy or just the French Mediterranean fleet (French need to keep some ships in the Atlantic against the Germans?) a combined French-British Mediterranean fleet?
Now in the 1930s things changed around a lot. Threats to England by the Japanese and/or changes in German Fleet. Scharnhorst took 3 1/2 years to build, everybody knew she and here sister were coming but when and how they would actually change the balance of power is a question.
The Italian 15in Battleships may have been needed to help balance the French but needing 4 of them?

 

[EwenS]

Don't forget that the French too had plans beyond Dunkerque & Strasbourg (intended to counter the German pocket battleships). They were with the Force de raid based out if Brest in Sept 1939.

Richelieu - laid down Oct 1935; completed 15 June 1940 and escaping to Dakar just ahead of the German advance.
Jean Bart - laid down Dec 1936; escaped incomplete from St Nazaire to Casablanca on 19 June 1940 ahead of the German advance.
This pair were intended as a counter to the first pair of Littorios.

Two more 15" capital ships were ordered in May 1938 as a response to the Germans laying down Scharnhorst & Gneisenau in mid-1935 and the two Bismarcks in mid-late 1936.
Clemenceau - modified Richelieu design. Laid down Jan 1939 & captured on the slips. Service entry was planned to be before the end of 1943.
Gascogne - further modified Richelieu with a quad turret fore and aft. Materials were being gathered for her in 1940 but she couldn't be laid down until Jean Bart was moved. Expected completion date in 1944.

In late 1939 the French Navy began work on the Alsace design with 2 ordered on 1 April 1940. 40,000 tons standard. 3 triple 15" turrets (2 forward, 1 aft).

The allocation of responsibilities for the British & French fleets changed a number of times inter war. Around 1937, the RN was to be responsible for the Straits of Gibraltar and the French for the whole of the Western Med (presumably leaving control of the Eastern Med and its approaches to the Suez Canal to the RN). On 1 Sept 1938 telegrams were sent setting out the dispositions and intentions of French naval forces in the event of war with Germany. In broad terms:-
RN - responsible for the North Sea and its exits to the Atlantic with "hope" that Dunkerque & Strasbourg could assist with Atlantic trade defence.
FN - general control of the Med, with priority to covering French troop transports bringing overseas troops to Metropolitan France.

But this was a long way from a co-ordinated response to war with Germany.

The Italians from 1937 onwards were also looking to the respective sizes of the fleets of the two alliances - Italy / Germany on the one hand and Britain / France on the other. With a programme lasting to 1943/44 giving 4 old modernised battleships and 4 new Littorios the ratio against Britain would have increased from 0.33 to 0.4. Against France from 0.66 to 0.77. In Italian eyes the expectation was that by 1944 the two alliances would have 18 & 31 capital ships respectively. Of course a lot if this was being based on announced construction plns (as required by Treaty) and a bit of Crystal ball gazing, as well as taking account of the politics of the period.

For Italy this didn't even represent a "pie in the sky" plan that was being floated for a much larger "Breakout Fleet".

 

[swampyankee]

Maybe. OTOH the Italian navy was arguably the one branch of their military that did somewhat decently in the war. They forced the British to keep quite substantial naval assets in the Med, and came out decently in many hard fought battles. A significantly weaker Italian navy would have led to the axis position in NA becoming untenable quicker than historically.

Now I agree that they could have spent less on capital ships. At some point AFAIU they started running out of modern destroyers, so maybe they could have built more of those instead.

Oh, and anticipating and training for night fighting, preferably with radar but even IJN style night optics would have been better than nothing, and maybe they could have avoided the Matapan disaster?

And towards the end of the involvement of Italy in the war a lot of their navy sat in port due to lack of fuel. Maybe use some of the steel not spent on capital ships to build a few synthetic fuel plants? Hard to see how they could have afforded to do this on a scale to make a substantial difference, though.

Of course, Italy wasn't well-endowed with coal, limiting feedstock for a syn fuel plant.

 

[z42]

Of course, Italy wasn't well-endowed with coal, limiting feedstock for a syn fuel plant.

They did have the Carbosulcis mine in Sardinia, one of the largest known deposits of sub-bitominous coal on the planet.

(sub-bitominous isn't the best quality coal, for sure, but it's better than the lignite the German Bergius plants used as feedstock.)

 

[Shortround6]

They did have the Carbosulcis mine in Sardinia, one of the largest known deposits of sub-bitominous coal on the planet.

(sub-bitominous isn't the best quality coal, for sure, but it's better than the lignite the German Bergius plants used as feedstock.)

This sounds good on first glance, but it is about 300 miles from Cagliari on Sardinia to Naples so you need a lot of freighters to move the coal and once the British figure out what is going on the the route becomes a prime hunting ground for British subs. Or you build the plant on Sardinia with most of the support (power plants and such) and then ship product by tanker (not a lot of Italian tankers?). Italy was powered in large part by British coal in the 1920s and 30s and by German coal after the Fall of France. German coal came by railroad.

I am having trouble finding the history of the Carbosulcis mine but the the nearby Serbariu Coal Mine only opened in 1939 and was the largest coal mine in Italy until the 1950s, closed in 1964?
The Carbosulcis mine deposits are around 350-550 meters deep. The Serbariu mines (they acquired some of their neighbors) only reached a depth of 179 meters from the surface but that was 103 meters below sea level.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for your corrections/expansion.

Don't forget that the French too had plans beyond Dunkerque & Strasbourg (intended to counter the German pocket battleships). They were with the Force de raid based out if Brest in Sept 1939.

Richelieu - laid down Oct 1935; completed 15 June 1940 and escaping to Dakar just ahead of the German advance.
Jean Bart - laid down Dec 1936; escaped incomplete from St Nazaire to Casablanca on 19 June 1940 ahead of the German advance.

Both sides tended to zig-zag or leap frog each other if we go year by year. The Richelieu may not have been as complete as it is sometimes claimed
From Wiki so..................
"Work on Richelieu was expedited as war with Germany became increasingly likely in 1939, and she was completed just days before the Germans won the Battle of France in June 1940. The ship, still missing most of its anti-aircraft guns, fled to Dakar in French West Africa to keep her under French control."

Which is it? completed or missing most of it's AA guns? Other reports say the ship was still undergoing machinery trials.
She also blew up 2 or 3 of her 8 guns fighting the British at Dakar and only fired 24 shells (?). French were desperate and were using powder charges from the 13 in guns of the Strasbourg. I don't know if this contributed to the problem or not. It would have thrown off the firing tables considerable making the accuracy of shooting obtained rather remarkable.

The escape and voyage of the Jean Bart was major undertaken and should be a great credit to all that participated, including the thousands of dockyard workers who did the work that allowed it. At least 3 of her boilers were fired up for the first time on the day she sailed from Saint-Nazaire. However she was still around a year from being 'complete' or more?

At Casablanca in 1942 lacking B turret, the 6in secondary guns, most of her fire control and a lot of other 'details'. The Captain in command had ordered concrete to fill the turret openings and had cobbled together a few rangefinders to form a rudimentary fire control system, (she had sailed with none?). 1/2 of the visible large AA guns had been added in Casablanca in addition to a lot of smaller AA guns.
The Clemenceau was originally hoped to be completed in 1943 even if France had not surrendered this was unrealistic once war broke out. Other priorities would have delayed or canceled her completion. Much like the Italian Impero.

 

[don4331]

She also blew up 2 or 3 of her 8 guns fighting the British at Dakar and only fired 24 shells (?). French were desperate and were using powder charges from the 13 in guns of the Strasbourg. I don't know if this contributed to the problem or not. It would have thrown off the firing tables considerable making the accuracy of shooting obtained rather remarkable.

3 of the 8 barrels blew up.

The APC projectiles had 4 cavities in the base which were designed to accept cartridges containing toxic gas. These cavities were protected by a base cap, but this broke under the pressure generated when the guns fired. Splinters from the broken base cap smashed through the gas cavities and into the burster charge which then detonated.

 

[EwenS]

Thank you for your corrections/expansion.

Both sides tended to zig-zag or leap frog each other if we go year by year. The Richelieu may not have been as complete as it is sometimes claimed
From Wiki so..................
"Work on Richelieu was expedited as war with Germany became increasingly likely in 1939, and she was completed just days before the Germans won the Battle of France in June 1940. The ship, still missing most of its anti-aircraft guns, fled to Dakar in French West Africa to keep her under French control."

Which is it? completed or missing most of it's AA guns? Other reports say the ship was still undergoing machinery trials.
She also blew up 2 or 3 of her 8 guns fighting the British at Dakar and only fired 24 shells (?). French were desperate and were using powder charges from the 13 in guns of the Strasbourg. I don't know if this contributed to the problem or not. It would have thrown off the firing tables considerable making the accuracy of shooting obtained rather remarkable.

The escape and voyage of the Jean Bart was major undertaken and should be a great credit to all that participated, including the thousands of dockyard workers who did the work that allowed it. At least 3 of her boilers were fired up for the first time on the day she sailed from Saint-Nazaire. However she was still around a year from being 'complete' or more?

View attachment 838136
At Casablanca in 1942 lacking B turret, the 6in secondary guns, most of her fire control and a lot of other 'details'. The Captain in command had ordered concrete to fill the turret openings and had cobbled together a few rangefinders to form a rudimentary fire control system, (she had sailed with none?). 1/2 of the visible large AA guns had been added in Casablanca in addition to a lot of smaller AA guns.
The Clemenceau was originally hoped to be completed in 1943 even if France had not surrendered this was unrealistic once war broke out. Other priorities would have delayed or canceled her completion. Much like the Italian Impero.

Testing of Richelieu's boilers had begun, by special permission, as soon as they was installed, while she was alongside and before her turbine installation was complete. All were run up to full pressure. On 14 Jan 1940 machinery trials began in the harbour. On 14 April she ran her acceptance trials at speeds up to 30.11 knots on 123,000shp at her designed normal displacement of 40,927 tonnes. A set of full power trials were run two days earlier than planned on 13 June when she achieved 32 knots on 155,000shp over 3.5 hours and later, forcing the machinery to 179,000shp to produce 32.63 knots. All on a displacement of 43,800 tonnes, about 900 tonnes short of her planned full load displacement.

The first 3 (of 6) twin 100mm were fitted on 11 April. These were test fired on 14 April. The last 3 were fitted 19-27 May. Starboard catapult fitted 13 April. Directors for the main & secondary armament fitted 1-4 June. 152mm guns fitted 5 June onwards. On 13 & 14 June 6 rounds were fired from each of the 380mm & 152mm guns with the only concern being around the replenishment system for the 380mm guns. The latter revolved around the length of time it took to bring ammunition up from the magazines (found to be 15 mins when she got to Dakar!)

When she left Brest on 19 June she had to rapidly embark some equipment that had not already been installed. That included some of the director mechanism for the secondary armament. Dockyard workers were embarked to allow that to be completed. She left behind some galley equipment and white tropical uniforms for her crew.

She had embarked 296x380mm shells (of 832) but only 198 quarter charges, enough for 49 firings. Until the very last minute her destination had been Britain where it was anticipated that the shortage could be made up. However her final orders were to sail for Dakar where the only charges available were for the 330mm guns of Dunkerque & Strasbourg. She carried no 152mm ammo and only 1,770 rounds for her 100mm (from 6,000) and 2,030 for her 37mm. She also embarked, 6,000 tonnes of oil fuel, 250 trainee midshipmen and some gold, but did not carry her full crew (she was short by 18 officers and about 200 seamen).

By the beginning of July the 152mm armament was fully ready for surface combat, but was awaiting completion of the simplified control system. At Dakar 330mm charges were remanufactured to produce an additional 600 charges for Richelieu, enough for another 150 rounds to be fired.

As for her light AA armament when she left Brest it consisted of 4 twin open 37mm CAD mounts dating from 1933 (these were not the twin automatic ACAD mounts originally planned and which in Nov 1939 it had become apparent would not be ready in time), 4 quad 13.2mm CAQ mounts on the upper bridge and 2 twin 13.2mm CAD mounts abreast No. 2 turret. No information on the amount of ammo carried for the 13.2mm. Not the complete outfit planned for her at the time (it was short 4 quad 13.2mm and the twin 13.2mm fitted replaced another pair of 37mm mounts). Various additions were made during her time at Dakar.

On the run south to Dakar she encountered some machinery problems with a boiler and her rudder servo motors, but these did not prove insurmountable by her crew.

Hit by a tropedo from an 814 squadron Swordfish from Hermes on 8 July 1940, there were no dry dock facilities available to repair her fully, so the French patched her up as best they could. But she wasn't fully repaired until she went to the USA in 1943.

But by Sept 1940 her crew had been further reduced and only Turret II and the centreline 152mm turret aft plus her AA armament were operational. The crew of Turret I had been sent ashore to man shore batteries. On 24 Sept 1940 at 0940 she engaged the RN force during Operation Menace using both useable turrets. No.7 gun was shattered when a shell exploded in the barrel. Gun No.8 fired two more rounds after which a jet of flame shot out of the breech and it was discovered that the the outer sleeve had been bulged and the rifling had been stripped over 8m. No5 gun in Turret II suffered similar damage to No.8 as they tried to clear the barrel some 3 days later. The final gun in Turret II (No.6) was cleared via the breech. As noted above, an enquiry revealed that the reason for the premature explosions were the gas pockets in the shells. This was quickly cured by filling them with cement and sealing them with more robust caps.

All information from "French Battleships 1922-1956" by John Jordan & Robert Dumas.

 

[EwenS]

Came across this article a few weeks ago but it is still on the pending reading list. Might be of interest.

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/63493475/British_Perceptions_of_the_Italian_Navy_1935_1943_INT_HIST_REV_FINAL.pdf

 

[Admiral Beez]

Some Italian Army units certainly did, and paid a heavy price.

The Italians seemed to pay a heavy price on all fronts. Imagine one day you're enjoying the summer in Amalfi, the next you're falling back from Stalingrad in Jan 1943. Maybe you survive and return to Italy, only to be shot at by your former German allies.

 

[Shortround6]

Back to the Italian army and going over a lot of stuff from earlier, except in one place

1. Ditch the Breda 30 and build a licensed ZB 26.
2. Ditch the Brixia 46mm mortar and replace with a licensed Brandt 60mm mortar.
3. License the Brandt 120mm mortar.
4. Build a lot more of the Cannone da 75/32 modello 37 (like 500-1000 during 1938-39-40) giving the division artillery an extra 2000 meters (or bit more) range.
Not a lot of punch but better than being both out ranged and using smaller shells.
5. Instead of the M11/39 tank build a M-12/13 with the 37mm gun in a two man turret, even if they loose the bow machine gun.
6. Replace as soon as possible with a M-14/15 tank with a high velocity 47mm gun (like the 47/40 L40) except in 1940/41 instead of Jan 1943. Try to use a 3 man turret even if losing the bow machine guns. Two 15 ton tanks may equal a single 28-30 ton tank with a MV 75mm gun.
7. Replace the 47mm Bohler gun with the 47/40 L40 as soon as possible for towed AT gun work. The extra 200m/s in velocity would be worth a lot in 1941-42.

A lot this needs to be paid for with less involvement in Spain and with a smaller Navy. Italians were lied to the Germans and the war started about 3 years early which screwed up a lot of planned programs. But the Capitani Romani class was not what the Italians actually needed even if it was what they wanted (large gun armament, large torpedo armament, very, very high speed ) Very impressive ships on paper but very expensive for they got. They were twice the displacement of a British Tribal, had a power plant that was 2 1/2 times more powerful but were only about 5kts faster, Slightly larger guns and twice the number of torpedo but if the British could build twice as many for about the same cost?
I would also note that the British 4.7in guns could fire over 50% faster which can cancel out the greater shell weight.