If Italy is neutral what does its air force look like by Sept 1942

[Admiral Beez]

I'm sure that the Kriegsmarine would appreciate the RN's ability to give them more attention.

And the IJN, with the RN being able to deploy in some greater degree to the Far East pre-1942. Back to the Germans, the Luftwaffe won't be pleased with the RAF acquiring hundreds of Reggiane Re.2000s and other types Italy is now free to sell to Britain.

Britain and Italy; The Strange Story of Britain's attempts to buy aeroplanes from Fascist Italy - robertspublications

www.robertspublications.com

And then there's the opportunity to put RR Merlins into Italian airframes, like the Merlin-powered postwar FIAT G59 below.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YTbgs6FeS9U&pp=ygUJRmlhdCBnLjU5

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have nothing intelligent to offer to this thread, but it sure is interesting. Thanks, Beezy, for starting it.

 

[Shortround6]

Fascist Italy's economy and management was always on a dodgy standing, so with no war what does the Regia Aeronautica look like three years after war between Britain/France and Germany began? Are the Italians capable of rationalizing design and production to a few good aircraft types? If Italy is trading agricultural, minerals and finished goods to Germany they may still have access to German aero engines.

Italy may have to decide to favor either Britain or Germany. It's position as a neutral is going to require a lot of good diplomacy. Selling aircraft and MTB engines to the British is not going to make the Germans happy.
I would note that until Italy actually joined the war on the German side (summer of 1940) Italy was getting most of it's coal from Great Britain. Perhaps The Italians can still sell to Hungary until 1941? Italy can sell (deliver) to Sweden?
Rationalizing production may call for changing Italian culture/business
Italian failure to join (participate) the Axis may seriously restrict the the Germans shipment of aircraft engines to Italy. One thing to ship engines to Italy when the Italians are shooting at the British. If they are are not shooting why ship them engines the Germans need for themselves?

 

[GrauGeist]

If Italy were to fully consider a war footing (even if wishing to enforce their neutral position), they need to get serious about their manufacturing ability.

They did have some promising inlines and were even using sodium cooled valves in the 30's, but those engines were more of a hand-crafted work of art than a workhorse.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Italy may have to decide to favor either Britain or Germany. It's position as a neutral is going to require a lot of good diplomacy.

The right decision would become clearer by early 1942, with the Germans declaring war against the USA and then being driven back at Moscow. By the summer of 1942 with the Japanese crushed at Midway (butterflies permitting) and the US industrial might roaring into life, the decision will be made, Amiamo l'America!

By August 1942, the Italian naval attaché in Washington would be reporting that 23 Essex class carriers and 6 Iowa class were ordered, with four of each then under construction. In addition there's over fifty Cleveland-class heavy cruisers on order (Italy has all of seven CAs), with 2 just entering service and 16 under construction. If they have sufficient intel, the air attaché would soon be reporting about the likes of the Grumman Hellcat (first flight June 1942), Vought F4U Corsair, Republic P-47 and Packard's deal to produce engines for the superlative P-51 Mustang. Once the Italian government sees photos likes these (more into 1943) of US factories, they'll know Germany's goose is cooked. And when they see the B-29, Mamma Mia!

Here's a FIAT factory with multiple types on the same production floor, for comparison, or not.

 

[Shortround6]

They did have some promising inlines and were even using sodium cooled valves in the 30's, but those engines were more of a hand-crafted work of art than a workhorse.

I think everybody that was making high powered engines in 1939-40 was using sodium cooled valves.
I think even Continental was using sodium cooled valves in the engines used in PT-17 trainers and Ranger was using them in their inline Sixes. Perhaps other countries were not using them in trainer engines?

 

[Howard Gibson]

And where the RN saw so many of its warships and submarines sunk or critically damaged. HMS Barham and Eagle were sunk, as were eight cruisers (HMS Calypso, Gloucester, Bonaventure, Neptune, Galatea, York, Coventry and Manchester), plus HMS Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Formidable and Victorious were crippled. And what of the French fleet, with a neutral Italy, perhaps more/most of the French fleet would be a Brest and thus able to flee to Britain when France falls.

If German engines cannot be had, could Italy make any use of France's Hispano-Suiza 12Y engines? And if Italian radials can be improved, could Japan make use of them?

Did the Japanese need new radial engines, and were the Italians capable of supplying them? The Japanese had problems manufacturing Daimler Benz engines under license. Their next problem was designing new aircraft capable of using the new, bigger engines. Getting a Mitubishi A6M5 up to 350mph on a 28_litre engine is impressive, but the Americans were doing 390mph+ on 46_litre engines.

 

[z42]

Interesting point. Perhaps we'll instead see Italy push development of the Fiat A.24, A.30, and even the 16-cylinder A.38 intended for the FIAT G55, originally in a contrarotating design. And then there's the liquid-cooled engines from Isotta Fraschini, including the inverted-V12 Gamma and W18 Asso 750. If given the attention and financing we might have seen something make it to series production.

Would we see consolidation of the aircraft manufacturers? From the mid-1930s onwards we have at least eight firms (Caproni, CANT, Fiat, IMAM, Macchi, Piaggio, Reggiane, Savoia-Marchetti) producing aircraft of the same types alongside each other. In addition to these eight larger firms, there's a group of smaller aircraft producers, such as AVIA, CANSA, CMASA, and SAI Ambrosini. That's a lot of duplicated effort.

Fiat A.82 and As.8 were perhaps the most promising efforts they had for home-made high power engines? With less ahem, active, co-operation with Germany there may have been a higher impetus to develop these to production quality?

As for the I-F engines, well the Gamma as well as the follow-up Delta were air-cooled inline designs, and probably has the same issues as other air-cooled inlines had. And the Asso wasn't really a modern design by WWII standards, so..

As for consolidation of engine and aircraft manufactures, that would have been useful. However Mussolini was very afraid of labor unrest (he himself had seized power via such a period of unrest), and military procurement programs were as much as keeping factory workers happy and employed as about producing tools for the military. And of course, lots of smaller manufacturers were easier to control than larger ones which may be able to start wielding considerable political power, challenging the authority of Il Duce. Can't have that, can we.

 

[Shortround6]

If German engines cannot be had, could Italy make any use of France's Hispano-Suiza 12Y engines? And if Italian radials can be improved, could Japan make use of them?

The thread is really suffering from a lack of defined timeline. What Italy could do in the spring of 1940 is a lot different from what they could do in the Fall of 1940.
They can't decide to un-attack France in June of 1940.
SO we have two choices from which other choices branch off.
1. Italy does NOT attack France and stays neutral. What happens in 1944/45 against the Soviets takes a lot of interpretation.
2. Italy Attacks France. And in late 1940/early 1941 decided they have made a mistake but it will take years to sort that one out. When does Britain resume coal shipments, When does Britain/US start sending any real amount of oil to make up for Germany shutting off 'traitor' Italy? When do Britain and the US 'trust' Italy again?

Now back to No 1. Italy is NOT going to get French H-S 12Y engines from the Germans or Vichy France. Why would they? Germany is so desperate for money they sell used/overhauled engines to Italy, who just stabbed them in the back?
And why would Italy even want H-S 12Y engines?
Isotta has a V-12 of their own. Take one cylinder bank off of the W-18. Not as good as a DB 601 but is it worse than a H-S 12Y?
In 1938 they were claiming 960hp/2400rpm at 4,000 meters from a 594kg engine. No reason to go with a H-S 12Y engine.
Granted the Isotta Factory is not really large.
You also have the Prototype Fiat engines.

On the other hand, why would the Japanese want the Italian radials? The best radial they had was the A.74 and trying to use that in a Ki.43 or an A5M was not going to go well. Then we are arguing about Italian experimental and/or low production engines vs actual production Japanese engines. Japanese may have better fuel.

"Trust" is a key word for Italy staying neutral. Unlike neutral Switzerland, Italy had been mucking around Ethiopia and in Albania in the 1930s and acting cozy with Germany. Italy needs to distance itself from German well before the attack on France to have any impact on French troop and naval force deployment.
Britain may not decide to invade Germany though an neutral Italy but the soft underbelly was more in reference to the Italian military and not the terrain. Turned out that the soft underbelly was not so soft.

I can see Britain accepting a neutral Italy, but is going to take an awful lot of Italian "gifts" to get the British to do anything that was going to increase Italian production capabilities.
Like ship machine tools, more than a minimum amount of raw materials and the like.

 

[wiking85]

Does Italy stay out of the war completely, or does it wait until it is ready in 1943? This question probably is moot, since by 1943, the Russians will have won the battle of Kursk, the Americans will have joined the war, and it will be obvious how it all will be turning out.

It would probably be selling to the Germans and helping them with the blockade somewhat. But then does France surrender or not if they don't have to worry about Italian entry? France (or a faction) fights on from North Africa? The situation as of 1943 would be very different. For one thing Rommel would be available for the Eastern Front with an entire panzer corps AND enough trucks to supply the equivalent of an army group (yes he was sent enough trucks to sustain the equivalent of a weak army group equivalent even accounting for the Italian, captured British, and French models sold to the Germans). That could be enough to tip the balance on its own and we're not even talking about the issue of no Greek invasion with all the implications of 12th army being available in 1941 and all sorts of Luftwaffe availability.

Manufacturing under license did not cost the Germans anything. Maybe the Italians can earn some cash selling engines to the Germans!

Probably would.

The war in the Mediterranean was a complete disaster for the Germans. When Mussolini got his ass kicked in Greece and Egypt, Hitler should have left him there. The Greeks, and the British forces in Egypt were no threat to the German empire. They probably were not a threat to Italy. Both the British and the Americans learned to fight the Wehrmacht in the Sahara desert. A significant chunk of German and Italian logistics wound up at the bottom of the Mediterranean, thanks to Fairey Swordfish and Bristol Beaufighters operating out of Malta. There is no way Rommel was reaching the Suez canal, or any oil fields.

I wouldn't go that far at all, but it was a vital diversion from Barbarossa. Had everything else been the same, but the invasion 10 days earlier then Moscow would have fallen. Mud at the crucial point bogged down the Moscow offensive and saved the Soviets from collapse. However the Italians shutting down shipping through the Mediterranean forced diversions that cost the British at least 3 million tons of shipping a year. That's just from all the lost shipping time, not lost boats.
I heavily disagree that the British in Greece weren't a threat, they threatened German oil and gave the British a major bridgehead into the backyard of the German resource farm.

Consider what happens if the Americans responsible for the Kasserine Pass are in command at Omaha beach.

Assuming the US is even in the war...but yes.

If the Americans are concerned about their lack of combat experience, how do they get it? Is it worthwhile and feasible to ship an American army eastwards across the Soviet Union to Stalingrad and Kursk? Can a British army reach Murmansk?

They don't in Europe, Stalin refused to allow Allied armies on the Eastern Front.

If the Germans stay out of the MTO and North Africa, can they make an earlier and perhaps better go at Barbarossa? I still say it's doomed. The Brits will be able to transport oil and materials, and use the Suez Canal across the MTO with worry, beyond U-Boats.

Yes they could and with Rommel's forces and trucks they could have won in 1941 by taking Moscow. Plus 2nd and 5th panzer division would have been available before September 1941. Certainly the Brits benefit in the short term, but if the Italians send an expeditionary force of 'volunteers' like Spain did then Barbarossa is probably a big win and then anything the Brits do is moot. Certainly the Russian campaign lasts into 1942 or so, but Moscow falling is the death kneel of Stalin and the Soviet state. An early Barbarossa pretty much guarantees a win at Moscow and we're not even talking about no Greek campaign or Rommel's forces being available in June 1941.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I wouldn't go that far at all, but it was a vital diversion from Barbarossa. Had everything else been the same, but the invasion 10 days earlier then Moscow would have fallen. Mud at the crucial point bogged down the Moscow offensive and saved the Soviets from collapse. However the Italians shutting down shipping through the Mediterranean forced diversions that cost the British at least 3 million tons of shipping a year. That's just from all the lost shipping time, not lost boats.
I heavily disagree that the British in Greece weren't a threat, they threatened German oil and gave the British a major bridgehead into the backyard of the German resource farm.

The British in Greece would not have been a threat because they would not have entered Greece. The Greeks beat the Italians all on their own. They were determined to not have the British help them, because they were hoping the war would not expand. The British joined after the Germans joined.

on't in Europe, Stalin refused to allow Allied armies on the Eastern Front.

Yes they could and with Rommel's forces and trucks they could have won in 1941 by taking Moscow. Plus 2nd and 5th panzer division would have been available before September 1941. Certainly the Brits benefit in the short term, but if the Italians send an expeditionary force of 'volunteers' like Spain did then Barbarossa is probably a big win and then anything the Brits do is moot. Certainly the Russian campaign lasts into 1942 or so, but Moscow falling is the death kneel of Stalin and the Soviet state. An early Barbarossa pretty much guarantees a win at Moscow and we're not even talking about no Greek campaign or Rommel's forces being available in June 1941.

I have just participated in a discussion about the movie Waterloo (1970). The French under Napoleon captured Moscow. It didn't help. Maybe Stalin gets tossed out and replace with someone less homicidal.

 

[wiking85]

The British in Greece would not have been a threat because they would not have entered Greece. The Greeks beat the Italians all on their own. They were determined to not have the British help them, because they were hoping the war would not expand. The British joined after the Germans joined.

The Brits were based in Crete once the Greeks asked them for help to free up Greek troops to move to the mainland and IIRC the Brits started moving to the mainland before German entry. So at very least the Brits could end up in Crete and use it for bases and SOE operatives sent to Romania to sabotage the oil facilities. Also remember Salonika in WW1 and how the French overthrew the government to put pro-Entente people in charge, which brought the Greeks into the war on the side of the Entente/Allies. No reason the Brits wouldn't do exactly the same.

Greco-Italian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Adolf Hitler decided that the increased British intervention in the conflict represented a threat to Germany's rear,[d]​ while German build-up in the Balkans accelerated after Bulgaria joined the Axis on 1 March 1941. British ground forces began arriving in Greece the next day. This caused Hitler to come to the aid of his Axis ally. On 6 April, the Germans invaded northern Greece ("Operation Marita").

Brits entered into Greece before the Germans did.

I have just participated in a discussion about the movie Waterloo (1970). The French under Napoleon captured Moscow. It didn't help. Maybe Stalin gets tossed out and replace with someone less homicidal.

Moscow in 1812 was vastly different from 1941. Comparing the two periods is beyond silly, not least of which because in 1812 St. Petersburg was the capital and Moscow was a relatively provincial city, while in 1941 it was the center of everything. If Stalin is toppled there is no one to replace him and a horrible power struggle happens. Per David Glantz Stalin refused to leave the city when it was threatened historically because it would unravel his government. Actually, it became a great city due to the great fire during the French occupation, as the Russians rebuilt it into a major city afterwards. The only reason Napoleon went after it was because he was chasing the Russian army, not that the city was important.

 

[yulzari]

A wise Italy would see that the British would have no need to attack Italy and find it very hard to get onto the mainland anyway. If they kept neutral and left Egypt alone all would be quiet. But Germany was a very real threat if they attacked and managed to get past the Alps. They should have concluded that the best policy was to make themselves useful to the Germans and keep the British just sweet enough to avoid conflict. Greece was a dispensable campaign. Bulgaria would keep Greece out of the way in the Balkans. Selling small scale stuff to Britain would bring in useful foreign currency and technical exchanges and buying in British coal could be sold to the Germans as avoiding drawing upon German coal resources they could employ themselves. Keeping out of Greece removes the only possible avenue for the British to find a land campaign against the Germans. Where else could the British army go to fight? The Greeks were determined to avoid British forces in Greece to keep the Germans from getting involved.

So, to address the OP, by September 1942 a well lead Italian Air Force will have avoided most losses, found out what they have that works and have drawn upon both sides the technical information and materials to replace the anaemic OTL engines with near copy German or British engines and added all the self seal tanks, armour and decent radios plus investing in their own radar. Both airborne and ground based. The Italian navy should be a very interested supporter for their vessels. Maybe they can pop their existing engine stock into decent Italian tanks?

The objective, somewhat like the Swiss, is not to be able to defeat a superior opponent, but to make the fight not worth the cost and the nasty bully will go elsewhere. However this digresses into a more general 'what if' better addressed elsewhere.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Italian navy should be a very interested supporter for their vessels.

The Italian aircraft carrier program would be interesting. And I wonder if the Cavour and Doria class battleships will be put into reserve - their 12.6" guns would look increasingly obsolete as the last of the four Littorio class enter service in 1941 (assuming Roma and Impero are expedited).

And what of Pearl Harbour without Taranto? Speaking of Japan, what does Mussolini do when the IJA attacks the Italian concessions at Tianjin and Shanghai? The Italian navy maintained a small squadron in China, plus about 600 army troops - both of which would likely be attacked in Dec 1941.

The Italian Naval and Land Armed Forces in China, 1937-1943

warfarewest.x10host.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

A wise Italy would see that the British would have no need to attack Italy and find it very hard to get onto the mainland anyway. If they kept neutral and left Egypt alone all would be quiet.

Before the war, the Japanese Navy explored the possibility of submarine attacks against Allied shipping near the Suez Canal. Japanese submarines operated as far west as Madagascar and the Red Sea, but they never launched a full-scale attack on the canal itself. A active but neutral Italian navy based at Massawa would be beneficial to the British as it reduces the odds of German or Japanese attacks against the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

 

[Shortround6]

Before the war, the Japanese Navy explored the possibility of submarine attacks against Allied shipping near the Suez Canal. Japanese submarines operated as far west as Madagascar and the Red Sea, but they never launched a full-scale attack on the canal itself. A active but neutral Italian navy based at Massawa would be beneficial to the British as it reduces the odds of German or Japanese attacks against the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

When "before the war"?

Japanese were thinking about using subs in the Red Sea in 1939? Or in 1941?
Italy stays neutral (non-combative) in 1939-40-41 and England leaves 14-15 subs at Singapore and some cruisers and more destroyers than the historic 4 relics.
British had have got enough ships of their own to deal with the German surface raiders and Japanese raids in the Indian Ocean IF The British are not fighting for control of the Med at the same time.

 

[Howard Gibson]

When "before the war"?

Japanese were thinking about using subs in the Red Sea in 1939? Or in 1941?
Italy stays neutral (non-combative) in 1939-40-41 and England leaves 14-15 subs at Singapore and some cruisers and more destroyers than the historic 4 relics.
British had have got enough ships of their own to deal with the German surface raiders and Japanese raids in the Indian Ocean IF The British are not fighting for control of the Med at the same time.

What sort of aircraft would the Royal Navy be using off its carriers? Sea Gladiators and Fulmars would be no match for Zeroes. The British gained valuable experience in the Mediterranean fighting Italian biplanes. The Americans were impressed when the HMS Victorious (USS Robin) showed up in the Pacific in 1943.

 

[swampyankee]

My personal opinion is that the idea that the Italians (and other allies of Germany) were a net drag on Germany's attempt to conquer and murder its way through Europe is largely driven by losing German generals placing blame. Lying losers are incredibly common, e.g., the "Lost Cause" from the defeated secessionists, and the "Stab in the Back" from the Germans of WWI. Finding more is as easy as finding the memoir of general from the losing side in any war.

A neutral Italy would mean the RN would have a much easier time in the Mediterranean, with no significant surface opponent there, so the sea route through Suez are largely unthreatened. Italy also supplied 300,000 troops to the Soviet Front, dozens of submarines to the Battle of the Atlantic, and effective aerial torpedoes to the Luftwaffe.

 

[Howard Gibson]

My personal opinion is that the idea that the Italians (and other allies of Germany) were a net drag on Germany's attempt to conquer and murder its way through Europe is largely driven by losing German generals placing blame. Lying losers are incredibly common, e.g., the "Lost Cause" from the defeated secessionists, and the "Stab in the Back" from the Germans of WWI. Finding more is as easy as finding the memoir of general from the losing side in any war.

A neutral Italy would mean the RN would have a much easier time in the Mediterranean, with no significant surface opponent there, so the sea route through Suez are largely unthreatened. Italy also supplied 300,000 troops to the Soviet Front, dozens of submarines to the Battle of the Atlantic, and effective aerial torpedoes to the Luftwaffe.

I explained my opinion above. It has nothing to do with German officer memoirs. The Germans in the Sahara fought at the end of a long, aggressively torpedoed line of communication. It was a great place for the British and the Americans to learn to fight them. The Kasserine Pass was nothing compared to what everyone else experienced when they first contacted the Germans.

If I am Hitler, I don't care what the Royal Navy does in the Mediterranean. The more stuff they do in the Mediterranean, the better.

For fun, try imagine the conversation that takes place between Franklin Roosevelt and George Marshall, and Stalin, after Lloyd Fredendall commands a US army corps at Stalingrad or Kursk.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What sort of aircraft would the Royal Navy be using off its carriers? Sea Gladiators and Fulmars would be no match for Zeroes. The British gained valuable experience in the Mediterranean fighting Italian biplanes. The Americans were impressed when the HMS Victorious (USS Robin) showed up in the Pacific in 1943.

If you have both accurate intel of your opponent and options on what weaponry to field, you don't face your enemy where they are strongest. If they bring swords, you bring spears, if they bring horses, you bring pikes. So, presuming the British are aware of and appreciate the Kido Butai's strength, the RN will not be sending Sea Gladiators and Fulmars to face the Japanese. Instead, once Japan occupies FIC in Sept 1940, Britain will be sending the RN's deadly, Perisher-commanded submarines to Singapore and Hong Kong, against which the IJN has no credible ASW defence. Plus, since Italy is our topic and is playing merchant to the world, I expect RAF Malayan Command may well be fielding a sizeable force of Italian-made fighters and bombers.