|
Post by vonfriedman on May 25, 2019 10:14:26 GMT -6
From 1882 to 1914 Italy was part of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy). It was a purely anti-French defensive pact and moreover Italy had declared that it would never fight against the United Kingdom.
Let's suppose that Italy has remained an ally of Germany and Austria at the outbreak of WW1 and that there is a complete mutual trust between the allies, so as to implement the naval war plans.
Here is a short review of the naval agreements signed in 1913 (from: A. F. Pribram, The secret treaties of Austria-Hungary 1879-1914, Cambrige Harvard University press, 1920, available on http://www.archive.org)
The most recent Austrian ships, together with the German BC Goeben, would have moved to the Italian naval bases of Augusta, Gaeta and La Maddalena. The supply of coal was to be secured by Germany. A "Triplecodex" common signal code was envisaged.
Main objective: to secure control of the Mediterranean by defeating the French fleet as soon as possible, before Russian naval forces from the Black Sea could arrive. (Nothing was written about the British in those naval agreements). A secondary objective was to prevent the passage of the bulk of North African troops to France in the first days of the war. If a part of the French fleet had remained in its Bizerta Tunesian base, the division of the French forces would have been exploited. Destroyers and minelayer would have operated from Sardinia and Sicily especially for this purpose. Light units and coastal defense would have protected the Italian northern coastline from French raids. Older battleships and cruisers both Italian and Austrian would have remained in the Adriatic. A special patrol should have been established at the exits of the Suez Canal and the Dardanelles. Auxiliary cruisers based in Taranto, Messina, Tripoli and Tobruk would have attacked the enemy merchant traffic in the Mediterranean.
A landing of an Italian expeditionary force in Provence, in the Gulf of St. Tropez (as in 1944) was also foreseen. It would have coincided with an Italian attack on the frontline of the Maritime Alps, directed towards Nice.
Libya was an Italian colony even then but apparently no particular importance was given to the war on the border between Libya and Tunisia.
Now let's look at the naval forces of the two adversaries.
The Russians are out of the game, because Turkey closes the Straits. We can also neglect the older battleships of both parts.
The Triple Alliance can initially field 6 BBs , 1 BC, 7 Bs, more than a dozen CAs and CLs and numerous DDs.
In August 1914 the French Mediterranean fleet had from 3 to 4 BBs, a dozen Bs (six of them pre-dreadnoughts), more than a dozen CAs and CLs and many DDs.
The British Mediterranean fleet in Malta had 3 BCs (Invincible type), four CAs, four CLs and a dozen destroyers. In Gibraltar perhaps there were one more B and a few CA or CL (I am not sure of this).
Questions, for those who want to answer:
What reinforcements would the British have possibly sent?
Would they have left Malta, except to supply it by means of periodical heavily escorted convoys, as in WW2?
Was Alexandria available as a naval base in 1914, as it was in 1940?
Would the French concentrate on Toulon? or on Bizerte?
Apart from the air war, what similarities and differences would there have been between the naval war in the Mediterranean in the years 1940-43 and our hypothetical naval war between the Triple and the Entente?
Would there have been a landing somewhere in the Gallipoli style? (somewhere I read of a British plan to forge an alliance with Spain and to land 50,000 Spanish troops in Sardinia).
Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to intervene .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 25, 2019 11:34:13 GMT -6
Well, we know that France was able to strip its defenses against Italy and send them all to Paris. There were hundreds of thousands of troops performing that task. The Schlieffen plan might have worked with Italian intervention. The problem with that is the terms of the Alliance with Germany. It was defensive not offensive. The Austrian's had already annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 without ever telling the Italians; they were allies. The Austrians already had a plan against Serbia, Russia and Italy. The Alliance that Italy had was with Germany and unfortunately, she had to suffer with AH but was not happy.
Now, had Italy come into the war with the Alliance, then the AH would not have had to station troops on the border so that would have made it easier in the Balkans. The Italians could have begun a second front against France which would have made fighting the Germans even more difficult. I suspect, with Italy on the side of the Alliance, the Balkan war might have been resolved faster. I don't think it would have changed the war on the Russian Front.
On the whole, it might have ended the war in 1916-1917 and eliminated the need for the US to come into the War. The French and British might have tried to negotiate a halt to the war, with Germany simply returning to the old boundaries but that does not change the Alsace Lorraine issue since the Franco-Prussian War. The French still wanted it back.
The blockades by the French and British might have been much harder to enforce, more supplies might have gotten through and the Italian submarines might have made it difficult for British Shipping and naval power. This would have made it easier for the Ottoman Turks possibly. There offensive into Palestine might have succeeded.
There were many Italian immigrants in the US by this time so as a voting block, they might have kept the US out of the war.
On the whole, the war might have been much harder for the Allies and possibly forced them to negotiate. Its all counterfactual.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 25, 2019 14:54:40 GMT -6
In answer to the question about the British, They could have moved the Battlecruiser Australia to Gibralter or Alexandria, the battleship Triump from China along with the armored cruisers Minotaur and Hampshire, the battleship Swiftsure from the East Indies, and some ships like the Armored cruisers Suffolk, Lancaster, Essex and Berwick from Jamaica. I would leave the Carnarvon, Cornwall, Cumberland and Monmouth at Cape Verde to watch the exit from the Mediterranean Sea. This would give her three battleships and battlecruisers, six armored cruisers plus the four armored cruisers watching the Mediterranean passage through Gibraltar, plus associated escorts. With Japan watching the Far East, she would still be in a good position.
Malta was the primary base where the British Navy was stationed but I believe that Alexandria had some limited capability. The base in Alexandria was used during the Gallipoli Campaign for supplies and troops so it would have to have adequate port capability.
The French would have kept their primary fleet at Toulon, it was more complete and had better defenses. Bizerte was too exposed to Sardinia and Sicily. She was also smaller.
As to an invasion, the Gallipoli invasion was all Churchill's doing and he lost his job over it. The question that has to be asked is, where do you invade and why? Can you knock the Italian's out of the war without invading any of their possessions. I think that you possibly could using a blockade. The Italian's are in a bad position geographically to try to get supplies. They would have to come over the Alps from Germany or from Austria-Hungary. The latter had her own supply problems.
Similarities. Well, the Mediterranean Sea is an enclosed sea with the British controlling both the western exit and Suez Canal along with having Malta as a base. So, she does have covered and with the French fleet at Toulon, I don't see much difference except that neither side has to worry about air power. It would all be either surface or underwater threats.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 25, 2019 16:29:32 GMT -6
One issue that is very important in this counterfactual excursion is the Italian economy and banking system. Was it on the gold standard prior to World War 1 and how did it affect her as it did Germany and France along with England. In the period from 1894 to 1913, the Italian monetary policy was very tight. Her output grew on average 2.4% during those years. She was on a gold-silver standard but they threw it off. She was on the gold standard, but Italians could not convert their paper bank notes bank deposits to gold or silver. However, would that have continued if she had entered the war with the Alliance? We know that in WW1, Italy spend more money than she had in the previous 50 years and she had only been in the war for three years. She signed the Treaty of London in 1915 and went to war at that time. Now, if she had stayed in the Alliance, how would that have affected her economics? Well, she would not have had to fight the Austro-Hungarians but she would have had to fight the French in the same mountainous regions in Western Italy. The French were far better equipped than the AH. Now, could Germany have aided her? Probably not, because the German's were not managing their economy very well and that is why there were riots near the end and the Kaiser left Germany. Anyway, here is link to a site that apparently has good economic data for Italy during WW1. encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_italyNote that her energy needs were covered by the English coal. If they had stayed in the Alliance she would have had to get her coal from either Germany or AH, maybe. As this article indicates, because she could not survive as a neutral she had to go with the side that could satisfy her economic and financial requirements. This was the Entente. Anyway, I will leave it to you to read and comment.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 26, 2019 3:37:36 GMT -6
In answer to the question about the British, They could have moved the Battlecruiser Australia to Gibralter or Alexandria, the battleship Triump from China along with the armored cruisers Minotaur and Hampshire, the battleship Swiftsure from the East Indies, and some ships like the Armored cruisers Suffolk, Lancaster, Essex and Berwick from Jamaica. I would leave the Carnarvon, Cornwall, Cumberland and Monmouth at Cape Verde to watch the exit from the Mediterranean Sea. This would give her three battleships and battlecruisers, six armored cruisers plus the four armored cruisers watching the Mediterranean passage through Gibraltar, plus associated escorts. With Japan watching the Far East, she would still be in a good position. Malta was the primary base where the British Navy was stationed but I believe that Alexandria had some limited capability. The base in Alexandria was used during the Gallipoli Campaign for supplies and troops so it would have to have adequate port capability. The French would have kept their primary fleet at Toulon, it was more complete and had better defenses. Bizerte was too exposed to Sardinia and Sicily. She was also smaller. As to an invasion, the Gallipoli invasion was all Churchill's doing and he lost his job over it. The question that has to be asked is, where do you invade and why? Can you knock the Italian's out of the war without invading any of their possessions. I think that you possibly could using a blockade. The Italian's are in a bad position geographically to try to get supplies. They would have to come over the Alps from Germany or from Austria-Hungary. The latter had her own supply problems. Similarities. Well, the Mediterranean Sea is an enclosed sea with the British controlling both the western exit and Suez Canal along with having Malta as a base. So, she does have covered and with the French fleet at Toulon, I don't see much difference except that neither side has to worry about air power. It would all be either surface or underwater threats. I agree that Italy could not have sustained a prolonged war. However, a rapid defeat of France could not be excluded, as in 1940. I also agree that, after having transported the XIX Army Corps from North Africa to France, the French fleet would concentrated in Toulon, in order to prevent any Italian landing in Provence. They would perhaps also bombarded the Italian northern ports, for the sake of propaganda, since almost no ship entered or left those ports owing to the blockade of Italy. I am not convinced that Britain, heavily engaged in the North Sea and with von Spee still at large, would have been able to send substantial naval reinforcements in the Mediterranean. Several old British battleships would not have been of great help (in the reality a good number of them were sunk by U Boote). From three to five (including HMAS Australia) weak BCs would have had to face from six to eigth Triple Alliance dreadnoughts and one battlecruiser (24-40 12" guns against 75-100 12" + 10 11"). Sailing from Toulon, the French would have been too far away to provide help. So, keeping the Suez imperial trade route open would have been a risky gamble for the Entente. Without airpower the possession of Libya would have been of little importance, and therefore Italy could not have tried to defend it, except by taking it back, with interest, in the event of victory over the main theaters of the war (I assume that the Italian government of that time would have been less bombastic than the fascist one). As a result the Triple Alliance would not have had any merchant traffic that the British could attack, except for a few ships in the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic. An so: why the British would have kept a fleet so weak, compared to the adversary, in Malta? A question remains open, for which I have no answer: the Russian Empire would have needed reinforcements, and these reinforcements would have to pass through the Straits. Turkey, defeated by Italy in 1911-12, would hardly have favored the Triple Alliance but would not even have liked the Russian neighbor to become stronger.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 26, 2019 10:06:15 GMT -6
The Italians imported many goods: wheat, coal and scrap and her balance of payments was negative, meaning she had to import more than she exported. In the actual war, it got much worse. Her cost of living index went from 97.1 in 1912 to 264 in 1918. If she had stayed in the Alliance, she would have lost the British coal and the US Wheat.
Now, even without the AH front, she would still have had the French front and that isn't any better, in fact it is worse. The Italian people were not happy with Italy's entrance into the war, the people would have been more upset if they had stayed in the alliance. These facts cannot be avoided or your counterfactual history path is now fantasy. I don't think you want it to become fantasy.
The British ships that could have been moved, were good ships and could have provided an adequate force for the eastern Mediterranean Sea to block supplies from AH to Italy through the Otranto Passage. The British needed to block both ends of the Mediterranean Sea. It is an enclosed sea, long in the east-west, narrow north-south. The only method then to bring coal and other supplies from Germany would be through the Alps... a daunting task. This ships could have attacked Turkish ports, Italian ports with a coordinated move from Toulon by the French.
As to Russia, I don't see how the Entente could have provided any real support for the Russians, I am afraid that the Russian's were on their own. The only help that the Entente could provide is to knock the Turks out of the war quickly with an internal overthrow of the government and do the same for the Italians. This would have opened up the Mediterranean.
The Entente should just block the Mediterranean Sea to supplies for the Italians and Turks, fight the Germans and blockade their fleet. You can only do so much in a World War. They had to hope that eventually the US would finally come into their side, then the game would be over.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 26, 2019 10:45:55 GMT -6
I do not believe that there would have been much movement of merchant ships between A-H and Italy via the southern Adriatic. Going further into the Adriatic would have been dangerous, as demonstrated by the various large warships sunk in WW1: Leon Gambetta, Garibaldi, Amalfi, St. Istvan. The BB Jean Bart was also torpedoed. Apart from that, I found your comments very interesting, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 26, 2019 10:48:39 GMT -6
I do not believe that there would have been much movement of merchant ships between A-H and Italy via the southern Adriatic. Going further into the Adriatic would have been dangerous, as demonstrated by the various large warships sunk in WW1: Leon Gambetta, Garibaldi, Amalfi, St. Istvan. The BB Jean Bart was also torpedoed. Apart from that, I found your comments very interesting, as usual. It's hard to determine what might have happened from the eastern Mediterranean in regards to supplies. We would have to research the Ottoman Turks more in-depth as to economics, internal politics and their military forces. With Italy in the war, someone would have to provide her supplies, if not, its over quickly. Both the Turks and Italians were weaker nations, and they would have to assist each other. The Mediterranean operations would be a distraction to the main forces in northern France, nothing more. Same as WW2. You can't change geography or economics. The Allies in WW2 knew that moving through Sicily into Italy was just to eliminate Italy and pull more German troops from the Russian Front and France. It also allowed the bomber bases. Geostrategically, it is a backwater to a land war in France. In WW1, the main action in naval sense was the North Sea and the convoy's in the North Atlantic. With Japan as an ally in WW1, there is nothing really to worry about in the Indian Ocean area.
Here is a link on Turkey from 1911 to the end of WW1. It doesn't bode well especially trying to be a partner to a nation that you just lost a war to. Could they have decided to go with the Entente simply because Italy went to the Alliance? Interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 26, 2019 12:11:48 GMT -6
I wanted to explain why I am approaching this interesting idea. Counterfactual reasoning requires three steps. First, you must analyze the events that lead to the alternate path. You must asses how this event or new path occurs. The second step is to analyze the events that occur between the alternate event or path and the final end of the path. In our case, the end of WW1.
The third step is to examine, if possible, the events or as one author calls it, "the back-story" and their consequences. In our case, if Italy does go with the alliance, what will be the end result. This is not simple, there is much more to the process. This is one of the reasons why I've injected economics and politics but it is part of the analysis. I know its boring, but to perform the counterfactual analysis properly, this is how we have to do it.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 26, 2019 12:28:33 GMT -6
Relating to RN fleet in the Mediterranean, I think that it would be large enough with French fleet to combat Italians and K. U. K.
Several dreadnoughts could not weaken Grand fleet so much and give one QE class as they did for Gallipoli would make fleet quit potent. They can include a lot of pre-dreadnoughts, they are not much powerful but can help with blockade quite a lot.
So it would more about will sending fleet to the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 26, 2019 15:15:04 GMT -6
Relating to RN fleet in the Mediterranean, I think that it would be large enough with French fleet to combat Italians and K. U. K. Several dreadnoughts could not weaken Grand fleet so much and give one QE class as they did for Gallipoli would make fleet quit potent. They can include a lot of pre-dreadnoughts, they are not much powerful but can help with blockade quite a lot. So it would more about will sending fleet to the Mediterranean. The question that we have to answer is; how important or how much of a threat does the British General Staff feel that the Italians coming into the war on the side of the Alliance, is to there efforts? This will determine whether they will move ships that I've suggested to Alexandria and Malta. They won't have the threat of the German army entering the Mediterranean area or North Africa like WW2. They might, however, feel that this will give the AH a chance to move forces into Italy and assist in attacking France. I don't see this happening as the AH have enough to cope with the Serbian's and Russians. So, that to me is the area we have examine. My opinion is that the Italian's would have it even harder than 1940 trying to cross the Alps against the French. I don't see a threat.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 27, 2019 7:14:12 GMT -6
In addition to man the frontline in the Alps, according to the Triple Alliance military convention of early 1914, Italy lent itself to transfer its 3rd army, consisting of two cavalry divisions and three army corps - about 150,000 men - in French Alsace between the eighth and twentieth day of mobilization, using both Italian, German and Austrian railways. Within three days of arriving in Alsace, the Third Army would have begun operations in collaboration with the German army. Germany was responsible for communication lines and for the security on the flanks. An interesting fact of those times, for its reflections both on the naval war and on the extent of the Italian contribution on the main war effort, is the anti-Italian insurrection in Libya, which required the sending of numerous troops. This would have justified keeping a British naval force in Malta, as it happened in WW2 with Force K. In my opinion, the major British ships would have done better to operate jointly with the French fleet, in order to obtain that superiority which in my Steam and Iron simulations is not so obvious (British BCs blow up too easily). Above all, we must keep in mind that for the reasons we all agree on, Italy was not able to sustain a prolonged war, and therefore a brief naval war would have been fought. The warships that were available in August 1914, with the help of some old British battleships, would have fought each other. Perhaps the British 3rd Battle Sqn (HMS Dreadnougth plus King Edward type Bs) could have been deployed in the Mediterranean, if there had been a real risk of war against Italy. As for the British battlecruisers, taking into account the hunt for von Spee and the escort of the large ANZAC convoy, I doubt that there would have been more than three or four available in the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 27, 2019 13:06:15 GMT -6
I am going to try to establish a timeline with questions.
Fact 1 - WW1 begins on July 28th, 1914 Fact 2 - One week later, Allies or Entente declare war on German/ Austria-Hungary Fact 3 - August 4, 194 - Germany troops cross into Belgium and first battle starts Counterfact 1 - Italian government decides to stay in the Alliance.
Question 1 - Does the Italian Government immediately declare war and mobilize or do they wait. They could immediately mobilize and move their armies toward the frontier with France or wait until France is fully involved, probably September 1914 with the Battle Of The Marne. This would tie up much of the French Army and give the Italian government time to mobilize their fleet and army plus put the nation on a war footing but maintain neutrality.
Question 2 - What does the AH do? The Turks? The French? The British?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 27, 2019 14:56:31 GMT -6
Good questions, to which perhaps only a historian of the caliber of Professor Paul G. Halpern would know how to answer. My goal is much more limited: it consists in creating a credible Mediterranean campaign using Steam & Iron Campaign Editor (a task that turns out to be more difficult than expected). To this end I wondered where to place the bulk of the British forces. In Malta? or in Gibraltar and partly in Alexandria?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 27, 2019 15:47:07 GMT -6
Good questions, to which perhaps only a historian of the caliber of Professor Paul G. Halpern would know how to answer. My goal is much more limited: it consists in creating a credible Mediterranean campaign using Steam & Iron Campaign Editor (a task that turns out to be more difficult than expected). To this end I wondered where to place the bulk of the British forces. In Malta? or in Gibraltar and partly in Alexandria? Ok, that is a good question. I would place the bulk in Gibraltar and Alexandria. I would place a limited force of light cruisers and tin cans plus submarines in Malta. I believe that Malta's port has limitations or it should. Alternately, just put the submarines in Malta with a small force of destroyers. This is the best suggestions I have because I don't know how you are setting up the game. Your main opponents should be France, Italy and maybe Austria-Hungary along with the Ottoman Turks. I am not certain but that should be the opponents. The subs in Malta, if you game allows them, can control the passages with mines and their torpedoes. These would be the Straits of Sicily, Gibraltar, Messina, Otranto and the Malta Channel. They can attack Naples, Bari and Palermo, Sicily. The can control possibly Syracuse also. All this can be done with the Eastern Med fleet and the Western Med fleet. Hope you reach your goal.
|
|