If Italy is neutral what does its air force look like by Sept 1942 (1 Viewer)

[Admiral Beez]

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

To some degree, yes. By June 1941, the Afrika Korps consisted of two key divisions; the 15th Pzr Div. and the 5th Mobile Div. The total strength by mid-1941 was approximately 20,000 to 25,000 troops, including both German and Italian units. Would an extra 2 Germany divisions have made a difference in Barbarossa where 165 divisions (historically this was 174 Div's, but we must omit the 8 Italian Div's) would be taking part? IDK. I believe the greater German effort in North Africa with regards to trucks, logistics, troops and tanks deployed was in 1942, by which time Germany was ground to a halt outside Moscow. A one month earlier launch date as originally planned for May 1941 might have helped, but it might have led to an earlier Stalingrad-like experience for the Wehrmacht at Moscow instead. And what of those missing eight Italian divisions, someone has to fill in that role.

But anyway, once Hitler declares war on the US it's over for Germany one way or another. Italy will be thanking its lucky stars by summer 1943…. And perhaps beginning to worry that the coming Soviet wave that just rolled over the Germans at Kursk might be coming their way. By early 1944 we might see Mussolini considering to join the Wallies just to avoid getting attacked by Stalin.

On another tack, can we see any way Italy, still neutral in Europe, joins the Wallies against Japan?

 

[GrauGeist]

A quick summary of German losses in the North African campaign:

18,594 KIA
3,400 MIA
180,000 POW
2,550 AFVs lost
8,000 aircraft lost
70,000 trucks lost
2,400,000 tons of shipping lost.

These are fairly substantial numbers and would have most certainly had an impact on operations in the East.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A quick summary of German losses in the North African campaign:

18,594 KIA
3,400 MIA
180,000 POW
2,550 AFVs lost
8,000 aircraft lost
70,000 trucks lost
2,400,000 tons of shipping lost.

These are fairly substantial numbers and would have most certainly had an impact on operations in the East.

That's up until the final surrender of the Axis forces in Tunisia on May 13, 1943. By 1943 the German operation in the USSR was irrevocably lost no matter if the entirety of the Afrika Korp was diverted to the eastern front. To make any difference we must focus German forces eastward in May 1941, not 43. But the all of two German divisions sent to North Africa by May 1941 were too small to make a difference.

 

[don4331]

Barbarossa doesn't start any earlier than it did because of the late spring on '41.

Unless you are changing the weather in Europe as well, you can't significantly pull in the date.
Now, if with Rommel/Afrika Korps, you close the final 20 miles to Moscow and surround the city before winter really hits, you might displace Stalin and who knows what happens in the power vacuum.​

Italy might successfully remain neutral, but a fascist country isn't going to be welcomed with open arms into the Allies.

They would have to give up their holdings in Africa that they had just fought to secure and that wasn't happening.​

We also note that while Germany controlled northern France, the southern region was Vichy. As well, portions of Morocco are controlled by Vichy French.

The RN needs a strong presence in the Mediterranean. Attack on Mers-el_Kébir probably happens even with neutral Italy; the ships retreating to Toulon is probably still a threat.
​

Italy isn't buying German (BMW/DB/Junkers) engines when their own industry can probably meet demand as there are no combat losses. And their 2nd/3rd line aircraft probably aren't in big demand by anyone who can pay, and Italy isn't really in positionfinancially to supply to those who can't pay.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the Italians can remain neutral to autumn 1942 where the US is now actively in the war, the Japanese fleet has been destroyed [...]

No, the Japanese fleet has not been "destroyed" by that time. They still have two Kongos, the Ises and Fusos, and the two Yamatos. Two fleet carriers (the Shokakus) and two medium carriers (the Junyos), as well as a couple of light flattops, and a large array of destroyers that did competent battle well into 1943.

Compare to the USN's two modern battleships and two CVs at the same time. The cruisers are a rabbit-hole all their own, but by Aug 1943 we Americans are reduced to stuffing destroyers into gaps. In the fall of 1942 the USN had suffered as much as it has sunk.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Unless you are changing the weather in Europe as well, you can't significantly pull in the date.​

A lot of people miss this. The mud season in Eastern Europe ran long that year, and would have seriously hampered a late-May launch of Barbarossa.

 

[GrauGeist]

That's up until the final surrender of the Axis forces in Tunisia on May 13, 1943. By 1943 the German operation in the USSR was irrevocably lost no matter if the entirety of the Afrika Korp was diverted to the eastern front. To make any difference we must focus German forces eastward in May 1941, not 43. But the all of two German divisions sent to North Africa by May 1941 were too small to make a difference.

With all due respect, the DAK was comprised initially of two armor divisions, yes.

But also infantry, Luftwaffe, and the logistics train both by air and by sea.

*if* all of the resources committed to North Afrika from the onset in 1941 were instead thrown at the Soviet Union from 1941 onward, it would have made a considerable difference.

It was the early days of Barbarossa that set the stage for German conquest against an unprepared Red Army.

The additional two armored divisions cimmanded by Rommel as well as the support of additional Luftwaffe assets would have made an impact.

 

[Onslow]

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.

One book on the retreat, possibly "Dawn like thunder" said that they actually got one Stuart all the way back to India - and then used it through the advance - for a forward controller, I think.

 

[EwenS]

One book on the retreat, possibly "Dawn like thunder" said that they actually got one Stuart all the way back to India - and then used it through the advance - for a forward controller, I think.

I posted a photo of that tank, named "The Curse of Scotland", back in post #92.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Italy might successfully remain neutral, but a fascist country isn't going to be welcomed with open arms into the Allies.

They would have to give up their holdings in Africa that they had just fought to secure and that wasn't happening.​

To whom? I don't think the Allies would care if Italy holds Libya. I can see some concern about Italian East Africa, but as long as Italy plays nice it should be fine. The Italian naval base at Massawa (some pics here) might have been useful to the Allies.

 

[Shortround6]

To whom? I don't think the Allies would care if Italy holds Libya. I can see some concern about Italian East Africa, but as long as Italy plays nice it should be fine. The Italian naval base at Massawa (some pics here) might have been useful to the Allies.

A lot in a short paragraph.
A lot depends on the alternate history. If Italy does not invade Ethiopia in the mid-30s playing nice goes one way, but following actual history until the BoF goes a lot the other way.
If Italy is neutral then the Massawa naval base is not much of a factor. Just like the Graf Spee in reverse British (and later American) ships can only spend 24-48? hours in the base.
Not sure if there were any restrictions on fueling. Some might be OK, totally filling tanks might not? Britain still needs to send just about all supplies to Massawa even if the Italians take a very tilted view of the neutrality laws or even join as an ally. Italy has no oil, it does not make/stock British ammo, it does not have any machinery parts for British power plants and so on.

Having a port/base/repair facility in the middle of the Red Sea does very little for the Allies when they have ports/bases just outside of the Red Sea on both sides, a port in Kenya and ports further away in India and South Africa.

 

[EwenS]

A lot in a short paragraph.
A lot depends on the alternate history. If Italy does not invade Ethiopia in the mid-30s playing nice goes one way, but following actual history until the BoF goes a lot the other way.
If Italy is neutral then the Massawa naval base is not much of a factor. Just like the Graf Spee in reverse British (and later American) ships can only spend 24-48? hours in the base.
Not sure if there were any restrictions on fueling. Some might be OK, totally filling tanks might not? Britain still needs to send just about all supplies to Massawa even if the Italians take a very tilted view of the neutrality laws or even join as an ally. Italy has no oil, it does not make/stock British ammo, it does not have any machinery parts for British power plants and so on.

Having a port/base/repair facility in the middle of the Red Sea does very little for the Allies when they have ports/bases just outside of the Red Sea on both sides, a port in Kenya and ports further away in India and South Africa.

Don't underestimate the importance of Massawa for the Allies particularly after the fall of Singapore. At that stage the combined repair facilities in the entire Indian Ocean area, including Massawa, were stated to be the equivalent to one half the capacity of the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard. (D K Brown).

While the port fell in April 1941 with most of the ships scuttled, salvage work began immediately, but proved difficult so it was Spring / Summer 1942 before it could be used after help arrived from the USN. The most important items salvaged were 2 floating dry docks which by Aug 1942 were back in service as Admiralty Floating Docks in the port:-
AFD.29 capable of lifting 9,500 tons enough for smaller cruisers
AFD.30 capable of lifting 2,500 tons enough for destroyers

The cruisers Dido, Cleopatra and Euryalus from the Med Fleet all underwent a self-refits there in Aug-Oct 1942 using the services of the available floating dry docks.

"The Miracle of Massawa*" Revisited: A Conversation with Ted Pollard, grandson of Commande

Eritreans celebrated the 28th anniversary of the liberation of the port city of Massawa last month. The liberation of Massawa, an old picturesque beautiful city with its incredibly blue glittering sea, was the beginning of the end of the Derg. With the loss of Massawa in 1990, the Derg...

www.kemey.net

While the 10,000 miles might be a bit of an exaggeration, the nearest dock facilities were all very limited. The principal ones were Alexandria (on one AFD capable of docking a capital ship), Durban (For capital ships), Simonstown South Africa (one cruiser sized dock), Colombo (docking for ships up to cruiser size), Bombay (up to carrier sized). But the facilities to carry out the repairs were all limited. Bombay for example took a year to put a new stern onto the destroyer Nubian (Oct 1941-Oct 1942). While Kilindini / Mombasa provided a great natural anchorage for the Eastern Fleet and was a principal stopping off point for merchant traffic up and down the East African Coast, I'm not clear what it's repair facilities were like. A lot of EF ships got sent to Durban for refit / repair. Aden was little more than a refuelling stop.

So Massawa was a great addition once it was re-opened and got working again.

Edit. On the positive side, no war with Italy means the Dockyard at Malta is available with its extensive facilities that were used to support the Med Fleet interwar.

 

[SaparotRob]

I posted a photo of that tank, named "The Curse of Scotland", back in post #92.

So that's what the writing says!

 

[SaparotRob]

Don't underestimate the importance of Massawa for the Allies particularly after the fall of Singapore. At that stage the combined repair facilities in the entire Indian Ocean area, including Massawa, were stated to be the equivalent to one half the capacity of the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard. (D K Brown).

While the port fell in April 1941 with most of the ships scuttled, salvage work began immediately, but proved difficult so it was Spring / Summer 1942 before it could be used after help arrived from the USN. The most important items salvaged were 2 floating dry docks which by Aug 1942 were back in service as Admiralty Floating Docks in the port:-
AFD.29 capable of lifting 9,500 tons enough for smaller cruisers
AFD.30 capable of lifting 2,500 tons enough for destroyers

The cruisers Dido, Cleopatra and Euryalus from the Med Fleet all underwent a self-refits there in Aug-Oct 1942 using the services of the available floating dry docks.

"The Miracle of Massawa*" Revisited: A Conversation with Ted Pollard, grandson of Commande

Eritreans celebrated the 28th anniversary of the liberation of the port city of Massawa last month. The liberation of Massawa, an old picturesque beautiful city with its incredibly blue glittering sea, was the beginning of the end of the Derg. With the loss of Massawa in 1990, the Derg...

www.kemey.net

While the 10,000 miles might be a bit of an exaggeration, the nearest dock facilities were all very limited. The principal ones were Alexandria (on one AFD capable of docking a capital ship), Durban (For capital ships), Simonstown South Africa (one cruiser sized dock), Colombo (docking for ships up to cruiser size), Bombay (up to carrier sized). But the facilities to carry out the repairs were all limited. Bombay for example took a year to put a new stern onto the destroyer Nubian (Oct 1941-Oct 1942). While Kilindini / Mombasa provided a great natural anchorage for the Eastern Fleet and was a principal stopping off point for merchant traffic up and down the East African Coast, I'm not clear what it's repair facilities were like. A lot of EF ships got sent to Durban for refit / repair. Aden was little more than a refuelling stop.

So Massawa was a great addition once it was re-opened and got working again.

Edit. On the positive side, no war with Italy means the Dockyard at Malta is available with its extensive facilities that were used to support the Med Fleet interwar.

Fascinating article. Great stuff!

 

[wiking85]

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.

It's not that easy. The Italian advance wasn't an issue per se, but they tied down French forces that could otherwise have been redeployed and the most important part was the issue of North Africa. There was a plan to fight on from Algeria, but the threat of Italian invasion ended that plan, since the Italian fleet and bases in Libya and the islands in the central Mediterranean pretty much invalidated their plan to continue to resist. Certainly without that there is the potential for a split, since the fall of France itself is going to see a faction want to make peace with Petain and the Free French fighting on, but then the fight goes on.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not that easy. The Italian advance wasn't an issue per se, but they tied down French forces that could otherwise have been redeployed and the most important part was the issue of North Africa. There was a plan to fight on from Algeria, but the threat of Italian invasion ended that plan, since the Italian fleet and bases in Libya and the islands in the central Mediterranean pretty much invalidated their plan to continue to resist. Certainly without that there is the potential for a split, since the fall of France itself is going to see a faction want to make peace with Petain and the Free French fighting on, but then the fight goes on.

The French lost the cream of their army in northern France, and the British were evicted. Would Gamelin's strategy have been different without Italian involvement? I don't think so; he still has to consider the Italian threat and can't strip that front. Metropolitan France is still lost.

Whether some continue to fight on from North Africa doesn't save France itself.

 

[SaparotRob]

I was half paying attention to a video about Italy in WW II. It was postulated that had Italy not bothered with Greece and other adventures, Italy may have been able to grab Malta instead. That sounded intriguing. I didn't watch it through since Shortround6, EwenS, and Geoffrey Sinclair weren't part of the panel.

 

[Shortround6]

18,594 KIA
3,400 MIA
180,000 POW
2,550 AFVs lost
8,000 aircraft lost
70,000 trucks lost
2,400,000 tons of shipping lost.

These are fairly substantial numbers and would have most certainly had an impact on operations in the East.

There are two types of information being used here.
The Figures for personnel are just for the Germans.
The Figures for material a combined total of German and Italian. For instance the Germans may only have shipped 1434 tanks to North Africa, Now maybe the Germans lost around 1100 armored cars, sp guns and armored 1/2 tracks or perhaps hundreds of Italian tanks are included in the total?
The Italians did loose 10s of thousands of truck and the vast majority of the shipping was Italian.

Of the German tanks sent to North Africa 54 were Pz 1s, 177 were Pz IIs, 832 were Pz IIIs (a small number still had 37mm guns), 307 were Pz IVs and 31 were Tigers. 33 were command tanks (?).
Another source claims that the Germans lost 240 Pz II, III, IV tanks in NA from June 1941 through Dec. Germans lost total, on both fronts over 3300 tanks/tank chassis vehicles of all types during that time period. A number of the vehicles lost in Russia were salvaged/rebuilt. What the German workshop units in the NA were able to do I don't know. They did some work but compared to shipping tanks back to the factories it was not as much and their is a difference between break downs and combat damage.

 

[yulzari]

It's not that easy. The Italian advance wasn't an issue per se, but they tied down French forces that could otherwise have been redeployed and the most important part was the issue of North Africa. There was a plan to fight on from Algeria, but the threat of Italian invasion ended that plan, since the Italian fleet and bases in Libya and the islands in the central Mediterranean pretty much invalidated their plan to continue to resist. Certainly without that there is the potential for a split, since the fall of France itself is going to see a faction want to make peace with Petain and the Free French fighting on, but then the fight goes on.

The armistice allowed the transfer of some troops and civilians across to FNA without an engagement between the three fleets in the Mediterranean. Had the metropolitan front stabilised long enough for a transfer of the French army and equipment to FNA then inevitably the Italians would have intervened to stop it and the transports be defended by the French and British naval forces. Should the transfer been able to send the major part of the forces to FNA it would put the Italians in a difficult place in Libya. Again the Armistice played its part in the OTL situation. Essentially the opportunity was taken to make French PoWs and Southern France into hostages to Germany and control the problem politically rather than by a sea war.

The French forces in the Alps were capable of holding off the Italians by themselves but were the same forces that would be evacuated to FNA had France fought on. The Germans were very clever to agree to an Armistice, delay evacuations and neutralise any chance of France fighting on. The raison d'etre of Vichy was to prevent the occupation of Southern France and this coloured Vichy actions thereafter. It was the saviour of what was left of France in the eyes of many at the time and the legitimate government.

Had the evacuation been successful and Germany taking over all of Metropolitan France one might find the Mediterranean to be a Franco British lake and Italian Libya attacked from both East and West and rolling up Italian Libya by the middle of 1941. French colonies across the world continuing the fight and French Indo China reinforced to deter Japanese aggression and avoid the loss of Malaya and Burma. Maybe deterring Japan from beginning a war at all.

A neutral Italy allows the evacuation of the French army to FNA and continue the war to liberate France with the same knock ons as above across the world with no need to take Libya.

It still leaves the Franco British with the problem of where to go next to find a way to engage Germany on land. Italy, the Balkans and Iberia are neutral counties determined not to provoke the Germans, who have now buffer states protecting their southern flank when Barbarossa is launched. With the Commonwealth and American industry supplying all the Franco British allies it limits the aid that can be supplied to the Soviet Union but at least there is a warm water route to southern Russia either through Syria etc. or through the Suez Canal and Iran. This can run all year round and is largely out of range of major German air and naval attack with Franco British airfields all along the shore of North Africa and naval bases there and in the Indian Ocean.

China, which has been fighting the Japanese for years, will now have a direct land route for military supplies to combat the Japanese so that war will be very different in countless ways.

It opens up the whole 'what if' history to a wholesale change to post BoF history. Maybe the eventual engagement with the Germans may be in Northern France in 1943 and a far slower advance across France into Germany?

With no Japanese attack upon the USA in the Pacific America may have no involvement except industrially. Not entirely unakin to the British role in the Russo Japanese war whereby Japan was propped up by British loans and financial guarantees without which they would have found it difficult to prosecute the war at all.

Let your alternative history minds run free…….

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's not that easy. The Italian advance wasn't an issue per se, but they tied down French forces that could otherwise have been redeployed…

It's noteworthy that in both their greatest successes, that against Poland and France, the Germans benefited from an "ally" opening up a second front that disrupted the defenders. OTOH, when the Germans faced an opponent who was entirely focused against them, be it Sealion or Barbarossa, the Germans were found wanting.