If italy Joined the allies World War 2

[nuuumannn]

do you think Italy was really that underpowered in 1940 like

Depends on which country you are comparing Italy with. Against Balkan and Aegean states, not so much, but against Germany and Britain in 1940, very much so. This is a picture of a CR.42 that was shot down over Britain in November 1940 and is on display at the RAF Museum.

RAFM 119


At the time the CR.42 was the most numerous fighter in the Italian Air Force, although Fiat G.50s and Macchi MC.200s were also available, but when Italy entered the war in 1940, numbers of serviceable aircraft were in double figures only (less than 100 each) for both types, whereas the CR.42 was into the triple figures, with over 300 constructed. Aside from the numbers, compared to contemporary aircraft of dominant combatant countries in Europe, these aircraft definitely had their advantages, but they were under-armed and possessed poorer performance, to say nothing for the accumulated experience the Germans and the British airmen had earned through battling it out over British and French skies through May to October.

At the RAF Museum, there are four aircraft arranged in a circle in the main hall, all of which carried out combat operations over Britain in 1940, including the CR.42. They make a stark contrast to the CR.42 and illustrate what the Italians were up against.

RAFM 122

RAFM 109

RAFM 113

By the time Italy enters the war, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 are arguably the best fighters in service, being flown by the most experienced combat pilots in the world.

 

[GrauGeist]

... or Rommel, who earnt his Pour le Mérite in the mountains of northern Italy in 1917.

I'm under the impression this scenario is based in 1940 - at that point in time, Guderian is in his prime and a senior to Rommel. Both performed remarkably well in the Polish, Low Countries and French campaigns and both were masters of armor tactics.
I would give it to Rommel to have the upper hand in the Italian Alps, as this was his element in WWI, but Guderian would be a terror as well, since he was known to exploit adverse terrain to his advantage.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm under the impression this scenario is based in 1940 - at that point in time, Guderian is in his prime and a senior to Rommel. Both performed remarkably well in the Polish, Low Countries and French campaigns and both were masters of armor tactics.
I would give it to Rommel to have the upper hand in the Italian Alps, as this was his element in WWI, but Guderian would be a terror as well, since he was known to exploit adverse terrain to his advantage.

Either/or, I just think Rommel's direct experience would be handy.

 

[GrauGeist]

Either/or, I just think Rommel's direct experience would be handy.

There's no doubt that Rommel would be exceptionally dangerous in the Alps, he knew the lay of the land well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's no doubt that Rommel would be exceptionally dangerous in the Alps, he knew the lay of the land well.

He also had experience in WWI fighting in the Carpathians.

 

[ThomasP]

I think those (pops-paulo, pbehn, Greg Boeser, et al) who have expressed the idea of what would happen if the Italian Navy was on the Allied side may have hit the biggest effects of this what if scenario.

1. As Greg Boeser pointed out, without the RM on Germany's side, the Med is largely a free route to/from NA and the South of France. Aside from U-boats there would be no significant effective German offensive capability in the MTO.

2. Without control of the Med, the South of France is vulnerable to invasion at any point that the Allies can muster up enough force to do so. If Italy is on the Allied side, Italian ground forces do not have to go through the Alps, they can invade through the South of France. At the least Germany would have to dedicate a few units to the French/Italian Alpine sector AND would have to build up a small but significant force to defend the southern coast of France.

3. Without Axis contesting the control of the Med, there would be no need for the UK/Commonwealth forces to be tied up in NA. That would leave all those units doing nothing. I am sure that the Allies would find something for them to do. The only stumbling block to an invasion through southern France would be how quickly the Allies would build the infrastructure for a landing force (ie landing craft/ships, and seaborne logistics chain). If when such an invasion took place, the Germans would still have to keep forces in place in the Alpine sector to prevent Italian ground forces from moving into France with impunity. As pbehn pointed out, in effect Italy could be the base of operations for the Allies. In effect there might be a D-Day in 1942(?), only on the south coast of France.

I do not know how many divisions the Germans had tied up historically in France as a whole, ie occupation troops vs potential combat units on the South Coast, but I can easily see the need for somewhere in the region of 20 additional ground divisions plus Luftwaffe and (secure) logistics assets in this what if scenario. What would the effect of that type of reassignment of forces from the historical situation have? In effect there could be a sizable and active third front before the end of 1942.

 

[GrauGeist]

One the same token, all the men, material and assets Germany dedicated to bail out the Italians in North Africa would be freed up as well.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The range (not endurance) with 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) payload was around 800–900 km (500–560 mi). Sgarlato, Nico. Sparviero (The Great Historical Planes series) N.2 (in Italian), West-ward editzioni, October–November. 2002.
my bad not 1000 km 900km

Which gets you were? And what numbers? The entire fleet is not made up of these aircraft. Even the RAF was not mustering up much of an offensive air operation.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What weight of bombs? And how much fuel does flying around Switzerland consume?



I think The Basket is pointing out political fallout rather than operational value. I think we both agree that nothing of operational value will come from this hypothetical front no matter who opens it, right? But the domestic effect of having another European power arrayed against it might in Germany have some effect. Might.

Yeah, I can see that.

 

[GrauGeist]

It's times like this, that I miss Michael (Parsifal) and his input.
His alternate simulations that he worked on for years were flawless.

I'd love to see what he'd have to say.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

re: "One the same token, all the men, material and assets Germany dedicated to bail out the Italians in North Africa would be freed up as well."

True, and I do not have any info on just how many ground units, air, and logistic assets, this entailed. On the one hand, you would think that in this what if scenario the Germans would hold those units back for the potential defense of southern France. On the other hand, Hitler might have decided they would be of more use for Operation Barbarossa. And either might be have been true. Yikes!

 

[The Basket]

The Greater German Reich had a land border with Italy as in Austria so direct military action could be undertaken.

Ww1 rinse and repeat.

Whether the Generals would have done a coup against Hitler is up to who you believe. But Italy was a major European power with a powerful military and so the concept of UK, France and Italy against you may have been the straw that spoilt the broth.

All supposition. Whether Italy was or wasn't isn't the issue but the concept of war with Italy is a unpalatable one.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Greater German Reich had a land border with Italy as in Austria so direct military action could be undertaken.

Ww1 rinse and repeat.

Whether the Generals would have done a coup against Hitler is up to who you believe. But Italy was a major European power with a powerful military and so the concept of UK, France and Italy against you may have been the straw that spoilt the broth.

All supposition. Whether Italy was or wasn't isn't the issue but the concept of war with Italy is a unpalatable one.

Again, that border is not conducive to mobile warfare, and that terrain favors the defender. Italy was not going to mass a large offensive into Germany though its southern border.

 

[The Basket]

Again, that border is not conducive to mobile warfare, and that terrain favors the defender. Italy was not going to mass a large offensive into Germany though its southern border.

Doesn't have to.
Declaration of war and full mobilisation should do it.

Then German planners are facing a war without allies and on 2 fronts

How would Halder and Brauchitsch deal with that? Ur facing ww1 the second round and that's not good.

 

[ljadw]

Invading Poland is neutal?

If Stalin did nothing, Hitler would have occupied the whole of Poland .
It was Churchill who said that the Soviet attack had also positive effects for the Wallies .

 

[ljadw]

Indeed. The stage for the French defeat was set, I think, long before Poland was invaded, and has more to do with French politics that French equipment or the French fighting man. The poilus showed valor and determination during the second half of the campaign, trying to overcome the inept leadership of the first half. It simply wasn't enough by that point.

In 1928 the French saw that they were better without the alliance with Poland,because this alliance risked to involve them in wars who benefited only Poland: war between the Czechs and Poland, between the Czechs and the USSR ,AND because the aid Poland could give to France/would give to France if France was attacked by Germany, was almost non existent.That's why France blew up the alliance by building the Maginot Line .
And Poland knew it,and reconciled themselves with the loss .
Because ? Because they knew that their survival depended on the hostility between Germany and the USSR and on the willingness of G to fight if the Soviets attacked Poland, and the opposite

 

[ljadw]

Really !!!! It was neutral because of the threaty of Rapallo in 1922 and the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact in 1939 and also the invasion on Poland in the September 1939 together with the Nazi Germany.

Not together with the Germans, but after the Germans : on September 17 .
The Poles had the choice : the whole of Poland occupied by Germany, or a partition of Poland .

 

[Greg Boeser]

The Polish state in 1939 had existed less than 20 years, being created from the ashes of the collapsed German, Austrian and Russian empires. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were eager to reassert their territorial claims. While not formally allied, the non-aggression pact had clauses which recognized the territorial ambitions of both parties. Plus Germany and the Soviet Union had been conducting secret military and economic cooperation for years.

 

[swampyankee]

One the same token, all the men, material and assets Germany dedicated to bail out the Italians in North Africa would be freed up as well.

..and all the assets Italy sent to the Soviet Front would be lost to Germany. At absolute worst, were Italy to join the Allies, the Axis would be no better off than it was historically. More likely, the loss of the Italian Forces would significantly weaken the Axis.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If Stalin did nothing, Hitler would have occupied the whole of Poland .
It was Churchill who said that the Soviet attack had also positive effects for the Wallies .

Still does not make them neutral. They had an agreement with Germany to split up Poland. Attacking another country is the exact opposite of neutral.

Let's ask our Polish members here if they had a preference over being occupied by Germany or Russia in 1939.