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

[yulzari]

The Covenantor was pretty well fixed in its later iterations and updates. Sadly by then it was behind the curve as a fighting tank in armour and firepower but served usefully as a training tank up to divisional and Army level in the UK.

They would have been better served had they told all makers to make Valentines and spend more time getting to a Comet far sooner but that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The much vaunted (sarcasm) US 37mm HE shell weighed 1.6 lbs and held 38-39 grams of HE.

That's not a lot consider the standard US M2 hand grenade held 52 grams of HE. Imagine a RN 2-pdr pom pom autocannon modified to fire canister atop an AFV. Now that's what you need to clear an infantry charge. On another thing, look at the IJA's tiny Type 94 antitank gun - this won't penetrate the front or sides of Matilda at anything but point blank.

 

[Shortround6]

That's not a lot consider the standard US M2 hand grenade held 52 grams of HE. Imagine a RN 2-pdr pom pom autocannon modified to fire canister atop an AFV. Now that's what you need to clear an infantry charge. On another thing, look at the IJA's tiny Type 94 antitank gun - this won't penetrate the front or sides of Matilda at anything but point blank.

US grenade was 58mm in diameter, odd shape but volume is important for HE.
Canister is only effective at around 300yds or less. US 37mm was rated at 250yds.
Even the 1915 2pdr Pom Pom was over 500lbs for the gun, without water, belt box/tray and elevating/travers mechanism.
The Besa gun could fire at high rate 750-850rpm and it used a 225 round belt. That is a lot of fire power for a tank machine gun. The gun was almost twice as heavy as a 1919 Browning used in US tanks and the Barrel was much heavier which meant it could could fire more rounds before the barrel got too hot. It wasn't usually up to a single tank to stop an attack, but a platoon or squadron. 3-4 tanks using their turret machine guns from behind armor can cover a lot of space, Each tank covering a sector.
But if you really want to stop a bayonet charge.

3000+rpm should work
Park a few of them around the air fields in Borneo to greet the Japanese paratroopers.

The Japanese 37mm AT gun was rather weak but since you need a 57mm to even have a chance at a Matilda (German 50mm won't work) that is not really fair.
a 1.5lb projectile at 2300fps is not setting the world on fire. Of course the Japanese are really in trouble because the Type 95 Ha-Go is not using the Type 94 37 mm anti-tank gun but rather the Type 94 37mm tank gun which had a MV of 1900fps. There was a later 37mm AT but that didn't show up until 1943.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Given Italy's neutrality but the lack of commonality with British logistics, tools or spares; is there anything Italian that Britain or the Empire forces could make use of in the Far East?

 

[Shortround6]

Probably not.
A better bet would be to use Italian items in the Mid east for closer supply to Italian factories/sources and move British/commonwealth stuff to the far east.
The British did use a lot of captured stuff but I don't think they sent any east.
Italian 20mm AA guns might be useful but again, use them in the mid east, including Iraq-Iran. Use them on a few ships in the Med, Keep the number of different items in the far east as small as possible.
Italy may sell to Britain in the short term. Italian deliveries of parts/ammo cannot be counted on a number of months/a few years ahead.

 

[wiking85]

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.

If the Italians just stayed neutral they'd be able to profit tremendously, demanding from both sides some benefits to stay neutral, much like how Turkey played both sides. This is the big problem for Britain, even with all that extra shipping they would have no way to use it, as an invasion anywhere wouldn't be viable. Greece would be it, but without an Italian invasion, they'd end up Axis friendly too to stay out of trouble. Then Yugoslavia probably doesn't revolt either. Certainly Italy would buff up their military, but they also had colonies to worry about and build up. They had all sorts of construction going in Libya and East Africa.

Question is what about France? If Italy stays neutral, does France fight on?

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.

Though you're certainly right that German generals are notorious for blaming everything but themselves for defeat, in the case of Italy a very strong case exists that Italian entry did screw Germany by diverting resources to the Mediterranean and Greece at the crucial moment in the war. The question on balance is does France surrender without Italian entry in 1940 though? Italy in the war, but not behaving stupidly in 1940, especially with Greece and Egypt, could have confirmed itself as a massively helpful ally.

 

[wiking85]

The Kasserine Pass was nothing compared to what everyone else experienced when they first contacted the Germans.

To be fair Kasserine could have been vastly worse for the Americans (and then the unsupported Brits) if Rommel got what he wanted when he wanted it, but von Arnim sabotaged him in favor of his own offensive. Had that not happened then the Americans would have lost an entire corps and been forced to retreat an army.

Excerpt: Rommel’s Strategy at Kasserine Pass

Rommel realized he had landed in the central position between the Americans and British in Tunisia and Montgomery’s British 8th Army in Libya.

www.bevinalexander.com

This presented an opportunity Rommel couldn't pass up, especially as he spotted an extreme weakness in the American and French positions---they were holding the Eastern Dorsal mountain passes of Fondouk, Faid, and Gafsa far eastward into central Tunisia with only outpost detachments. Since this Allied line was a thin shell, Axis forces could crack through---Faid and Gafsa were especially poorly defended. They then could drive sixty to seventy miles to the west beyond Feriana and Kasserine through the passes in the Western Dorsals.

Once through these passes, the Axis troops would arrive at the huge American supply base and headquarters at Tebessa---well west of the Allied line in Tunisia and deep into the Allied communications zone. If Axis tanks then drove straight north to the sea a hundred miles away, they might cut off the entire Allied army in Tunisia, or force it to withdraw into Algeria, with devastating consequences.

Then Rommel could turn back, combining his forces with the 5th Panzer Army in Tunisia, and either destroy Montgomery's 8th Army or drive it into precipitate retreat. In other words, Rommel could execute a classic example of the central position. From the Mareth Line, Rommel could strike first at the Americans and British in Tunisia, then turn back on Montgomery coming up from Libya.

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.

Other than the Soviets never allowing their allies on to their territory, assuming that is handwaved away then the Allied armies would learn the meaning of technological and firepower overmatch.

 

[ThomasP]

re

There were 114 Stuarts in Burma with the 7th Armoured Brigade who landed at Rangoon and were instrumental in covering the withdrawal to India. As to what ammunition types they had I cannot advise.

From one of my posts post in the "Rn vs IJN" thread.

"According to the 7th Armoured Brigade and its Regiments' (7th Hussars & 2nd RTR) histories they lost 45 Stuarts on the retreat to the Chindwin, ~50% to enemy action and ~50% to accidents and/or mechanical break downs. About half of those lost to enemy action were due to the Japanese 50mm mortar, with at least 7 lost to enemy direct fire artillery (mostly the Japanese 75mm field gun), and 1 to an aircraft dropped bomb. While they performed quite well on the roads, in built-up areas, and in the open country, after the first attempts they avoided going off road if possible. They were considered too light and too easily bogged down for operations off road in jungle.

The remaining 70 tanks were permanently disabled and abandoned at the Chindwin. One was towed across the river on a cable ferry/raft, but subsequently permanently disabled and used as a defensive MG hardpoint."

In addition, the 7th Armoured Brigade and its Regiments' (7th Hussars & 2nd RTR) histories of their operations in Burma do not mention 37mm HE or Canister rounds. The retreat to the Chindwin took place in May'42. In my notes I have no 37mm Canister round in production until sometime in late-1942(?), so while the HE round could have been available, the Canister was not.

The M3 Honey/Stuart saw no further combat with the UK/AUS/NZ in the CBI after this - having been determined as unsuitable for off-road work in the jungle environment - and all(?) additional M3 Honey/Stuart were retained in AUS, or NZ.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The question on balance is does France surrender without Italian entry in 1940 though?

They surrender.

The Italians got what, 12, 15 miles into southern France? Meanwhile German tanks have cut off northern France, killed or captured a few hundred thousand poilus, and evicted the BEF, as well as gotten their southern flank in shape for the final battle.

 

[yulzari]

They surrender.

The Italians got what, 12, 15 miles into southern France? Meanwhile German tanks have cut off northern France, killed or captured a few hundred thousand poilus, and evicted the BEF, as well as gotten their southern flank in shape for the final battle.

My uncle was with the Chasseurs Alpins in 1940. They had absorbed the Italian advances and were pushing them back and expecting to push them back into Italy when the Armistice happened. He had no intention of becoming a PoW so abandoned his uniform and rifle and made his way to Morocco. He returned to France with the French army after much training in England (incidentally developing a taste for strong tea and Birds Custard) in 1944 and fought his way into Germany until the end of the war. The Italians were not doing well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My uncle was with the Chasseurs Alpins in 1940. They had absorbed the Italian advances and were pushing them back and expecting to push them back into Italy when the Armistice happened. He had no intention of becoming a PoW so abandoned his uniform and rifle and made his way to Morocco. He returned to France with the French army after much training in England (incidentally developing a taste for strong tea and Birds Custard) in 1944 and fought his way into Germany until the end of the war. The Italians were not doing well.

Yeah, Italian casualties were about ten times that of the French iirc, and the French had second-tier troops for the most part -- no disrespect to your uncle intended.

 

[EwenS]

re

From one of my posts post in the "Rn vs IJN" thread.

"According to the 7th Armoured Brigade and its Regiments' (7th Hussars & 2nd RTR) histories they lost 45 Stuarts on the retreat to the Chindwin, ~50% to enemy action and ~50% to accidents and/or mechanical break downs. About half of those lost to enemy action were due to the Japanese 50mm mortar, with at least 7 lost to enemy direct fire artillery (mostly the Japanese 75mm field gun), and 1 to an aircraft dropped bomb. While they performed quite well on the roads, in built-up areas, and in the open country, after the first attempts they avoided going off road if possible. They were considered too light and too easily bogged down for operations off road in jungle.

The remaining 70 tanks were permanently disabled and abandoned at the Chindwin. One was towed across the river on a cable ferry/raft, but subsequently permanently disabled and used as a defensive MG hardpoint."

In addition, the 7th Armoured Brigade and its Regiments' (7th Hussars & 2nd RTR) histories of their operations in Burma do not mention 37mm HE or Canister rounds. The retreat to the Chindwin took place in May'42. In my notes I have no 37mm Canister round in production until sometime in late-1942(?), so while the HE round could have been available, the Canister was not.

The M3 Honey/Stuart saw no further combat with the UK/AUS/NZ in the CBI after this - having been determined as unsuitable for off-road work in the jungle environment - and all(?) additional M3 Honey/Stuart were retained in AUS, or NZ.

A lot of errors in that post. You have missed the British Indian Army units that continued to use the Stuart in the Burma campaigns through until mid1945.

One Stuart from the 7th Hussars did make it all the way back to India and later returned to Burma with the 7th Light Cavalry., as a turretless command tank.

Stuart tanks served in Burma in 1944/45 with units of the British Indian Army. See this link:-

https://www.fireandfury.com/orbats/paccommonwealth_burma.pdf

Plenty of photos of them on the internet.

45th Cavalry Regt was latterly part of the 50th Indian Tank Brigade and fought in the Arakan until Feb 1945 when the campaign there was winding down and the Brigade was in most part withdrawn to India to ready itself for Operation Zipper.

The 7th Light Cavalry was equipped with the Stuart as part of the 254th Indian Tank Brigade in 1944/45 until it was withdrawn from Burma in May/June 1945 following the capture of Rangoon.

In summer 1945 there was a lot if reorganisation and re-equipment of the Indian Army tank units ahead of future operations in Malaya.

There was also a Chinese-American unit that used the Stuart in the Burma campaign fro early 1944.

1st Provisional Tank Group - CBI Theater of World War II

1st Provisional Tank Group - CBI Theater of World War II

www.cbi-theater.com

 

[SaparotRob]

Cope cage!

 

[ThomasP]

Hey EwenS,

I said "The M3 Honey/Stuart saw no further combat with the UK/AUS/NZ in the CBI after this"

I never said anything about the Indian Army, or the Chinese Army, or American Army. But you are correct, in the later war period there were Stuarts employed by the 7th Light Cavalry and 45th Light Cavalry.

 

[EwenS]

Hey EwenS,

I said "The M3 Honey/Stuart saw no further combat with the UK/AUS/NZ in the CBI after this"

I never said anything about the Indian Army, or the Chinese Army, or American Army. But you are correct, in the later war period there were Stuarts employed by the 7th Light Cavalry and 45th Light Cavalry.

I understood exactly what you said. But considering the bulk of the British forces that fought in India / Burma were British Indian Army, that was one hell of an omission.

 

[swampyankee]

They surrender.

The Italians got what, 12, 15 miles into southern France? Meanwhile German tanks have cut off northern France, killed or captured a few hundred thousand poilus, and evicted the BEF, as well as gotten their southern flank in shape for the final battle.

Do remember that the Italian troops, in addition to all the problems of many of the Italian units, were largely attacking into the Alps.

The best thing Mussolini could have done for Italy in 1938 is told Hitler to f*** off.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do remember that the Italian troops, in addition to all the problems of many of the Italian units, were largely attacking into the Alps.

The best thing Mussolini could have done for Italy in 1938 is told Hitler to f*** off.

Certainly the terrain was the big reason such a small French force held out so tenaciously.

 

[Shortround6]

Do remember that the Italian troops, in addition to all the problems of many of the Italian units, were largely attacking into the Alps.

The best thing Mussolini could have done for Italy in 1938 is told Hitler to f*** off.

As was shown by EwenS earlier, the Italians had actually placed themselves far on the outskirts of the word community by even the summer of 1939.
The British, in desperation may have asked the Italians for "war supplies" but aside from the MTB engines they didn't get much, and please note the aircraft under discussion were either 2nd or 3rd line aircraft. The Reggiane Re.2000 had been rejected by Italian Air Ministry. Buying a few hundred planes does not mean the British trusted the Italians and would send off the Mediterranean fleet en masse to the far east. Even with Italy not participating in combat and with France surrendering and taking the French fleet out of the picture the British would keep a very strong presence in the Med. Now the difference between summer of 1940 and summer of 1941 in this scenario is that the British don't suffer the Losses of ships, planes, land forces that were lost historically. British could keep a strong watch on the Italians and still send a rather sizeable force to the Far East.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Even with Italy not participating in combat and with France surrendering and taking the French fleet out of the picture the British would keep a very strong presence in the Med.

If the Italians can remain neutral to autumn 1942 where the US is now actively in the war, the Japanese fleet has been destroyed and the German's Fall Blau operation into southern Russia has failed, sealing their fate, there will no risk of Italian aggression against Britain in the Mediterranean. Mussolini will be heralded as the hero of Italy if can keep his people out of it.

By autumn 1942, Britain should have a sizeable fleet ready to sail for Ceylon in preparation for an earlier execution of Operation Zipper, Mailfist and Dracula, perhaps in 1943. Assuming that Malaya, Singapore and Burma have fallen in the first place.

Without the MTO, would HMS Ark Royal have been at Gibraltar to be sunk in Nov 1941? She would have been the RN's best PTO carrier. Plus we'd see HMS Illustrious and Formidable potentially undamaged in 1941 to join Ark Royal at Singapore, Ceylon or Sydney. Unfortunately there are no USN folding wing fighters or dive bombers to pickup along the war at this time, so at best it's Fulmars, Skuas and Ablacores. Potentially joining the three carriers are the now undamaged HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant. And then there's the British army's tanks, artillery, etc. that can sail alongside them. And best of all, many of the RN submarines deployed to the MTO can now sail for Singapore and Hong Kong - the latter is dangerously close to the IJN (1,600 nmi from Japan) and its sea route between Yokosuka and Taiwan.

 

[GrauGeist]

If the Italians can remain neutral to autumn 1942 where the US is now actively in the war, the Japanese fleet has been destroyed and the German's Fall Blau operation into southern Russia has failed, sealing their fate, there will no risk of Italian aggression against Britain in the Mediterranean. Mussolini will be heralded as the hero of Italy if can keep his people out of it.

By autumn 1942, Britain should have a sizeable fleet ready to sail for Ceylon in preparation for an earlier execution of Operation Zipper, Mailfist and Dracula. Assuming that Malaya, Singapore and Burma have fallen in the first place.

Without the MTO, would HMS Ark Royal have been at Gibraltar to be sunk in Nov 1941? She would have been the RN's best PTO carrier. Plus we'd see HMS Illustrious and Formidable potentially undamaged in 1941 to join Ark Royal at Singapore, Ceylon or Sydney. Unfortunately there are no USN folding wing fighters or dive bombers to pickup along the war at this time, so at best it's Fulmars, Skuas and Ablacores.

Keep in mind that if Germany did not have to come to Italy's aid in North Africa, then the invasion of the Soviet Union would have commensed on schedule and Germany would have had all the armor, aircraft, men and logistics available for the invasion that were otherwise committed and/or lost in the Afrika folly.

This also means that Rommel would have been unleashed in the east, too.

This all would have had a tremendous impact on the operation's success.