Comando Supremo: What Branch of Service was CRUCIAL for Italys Victory? - Comando Supremo

Jump to content

Icon Message from the Comando Supremo staff

Follow us now on Twitter!


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What Branch of Service was CRUCIAL for Italys Victory?

Poll: What Branch Of the Service was most Crucial for Victory? and Why? (22 member(s) have cast votes)

What Branch Of the Service was most Crucial for Victory? and Why?

  1. Regia Aeronautica (10 votes [43.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.48%

  2. Regia Marina (6 votes [26.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

  3. Regio Escrito (7 votes [30.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 User is offline   Veltro 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • LocationToronto Canada

Posted 09 March 2004 - 04:55 AM

Il Duce is pushing for Italys fourth shore. Italian interest seem to lie to the south and east. Which branch of the service was CRUCIAL to ensure victory? ( yes foot soldiers are needed to occupy , but was the Regio Escrito CRUCIAL to victory)
Please comment along with your vote.


Eddy
0

#2 User is offline   Bearcat 

  • Tenente
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 13-February 04
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 09 March 2004 - 05:05 AM

I believe the RA because airpower wins wars-The Bearcat
0

#3 User is offline   stefano 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 09-April 03
  • LocationNew York e Genova

Posted 09 March 2004 - 05:34 AM

let's face it the Regia Marina performed horribly had it done better Italy might well have kept the english at bay
0

#4 User is offline   Dominick 

  • Primo Capitano
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 29-July 03
  • LocationLA, California

Posted 09 March 2004 - 10:32 PM

Airpower takes victory, Rommel even agreed with that.
0

#5 User is offline   stefano 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 09-April 03
  • LocationNew York e Genova

Posted 10 March 2004 - 12:54 AM

look airpower was not a deciding factor in WWII it played a huge role but it could not have had the same long term strategic effects that the RA could have had, had it performed better
0

#6 User is offline   Dominick 

  • Primo Capitano
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 29-July 03
  • LocationLA, California

Posted 10 March 2004 - 04:00 AM

How can you say airpower was not a deciding factor. Airpower is what destroyed German production areas. Its what gave the allies an easier time in NOrmany. We wouldve have made it off the beaches if the Luftwaffe was constantly pounding it. Airpower is very much a deciding factor
0

#7 User is offline   Bearcat 

  • Tenente
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 13-February 04
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 10 March 2004 - 06:06 AM

its a widly known fact airpower is what gets the job done if u control the skies u win the battle, u win the war-The Bearcat
0

#8 User is offline   pg 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,041
  • Joined: 16-September 03
  • LocationCumbria, U.K.

Posted 10 March 2004 - 03:00 PM

I agree in part with the airpower thing....it was definitely significant, but in 1944 Germany's production was higher than at any time during the war despite constant heavy bombing from the U.S airforce and the Royal airforce.
0

#9 User is offline   piero1971 

  • Caporale Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 30-January 04

Posted 10 March 2004 - 04:17 PM

I beg to differ and vote for Regio Esercito.

While I agree that a better trained and planned Navy and Air Force wouldh have immense ipact on how the first months of the war would have played out, an army much smaller, but better equipped and better trained army, perhaps a 20 division army, like the one suggested by balbo, fully motorized, (air transportable?) with armor and close air support would have proven efficient in the attacks on France (on Malta?), and in Africa... it would have given a motivational edge to the italians over most armies, prhaps even the professional british. Of course Mussolini's fascist system and it's boasting of 8 million bayonets was more political and propaganda than efficient..

in the end of course it was combined arms and vision that lacked...
0

#10 User is offline   Constantine 

  • Caporale
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 01-March 04

Posted 10 March 2004 - 05:35 PM

I voted Regio Escerito.

I believe a better trained and equipped army would've allowed Italy to take Greece without the help of Germany, gaining far more prestige in the process.

Better trained and better supplied infantry and mechanised units would've made all the difference in the North African campaign.

Italy didn't have radar, so a better Navy or Air-Force would've probably not helped too much, especially the Navy

Forza
0

#11 User is offline   Veltro 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • LocationToronto Canada

Posted 10 March 2004 - 05:52 PM

My personal opinion. given Italys objectives (no matter how foggy they were!), would have been the Regia Marina. Bottleing up the Med, would have given them the security needed against the English and would have freed them up in the East or even France to conduct succesfull campaigns there.
Reguarding airpower, you are looking at it with 20/20 hindsight. remember the English were locked in a life and death struggle with the Germans. German airpower collapsed under the weight of the allies by about mid 1944 that's approx 4 1/2 years into the conflict. Frankly had the Germans made a concerted effort at bombing industrial targets (particularly in Russia--where airpower was used exclusivly for ground support type missions) and air bases along with major night intruder operations the airwar could have taken a very different turn.

Haveing said that with the war in full swing English possesions in the med would have withered away with effective control of the mediterainian.


Eddy
0

#12 User is offline   Mr.Bluenote 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 25-January 04
  • LocationRingsted, Denmark

Posted 10 March 2004 - 09:49 PM

I voted Army too!

Air power is overrated, especially at the time - even today you can't WIN a war by bombing the stuffing out of somebody. Remember that even though the Germans suffered under the Allied air superiority, they still managed to move around quite a bit...

Factories and such like makes for lousy targets btw - you wanna hit railroads, trafic hubs and power plants!
Hmm, we had a discussion much like this (regarding air power during WW2) at http://www.alternate....net/discussion. I thing it's somewhere in the archives...

Good subject though!

Best regards!

- Bluenote.
Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!
0

#13 User is offline   Veltro 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • LocationToronto Canada

Posted 10 March 2004 - 11:59 PM

Reguarding the Germans, they had a special force in the east for that task and achived success, however it was much to late in the game to have effect. The Germans had many chances to win their war but lack of unified direction caused ther demise.
Consider intruder missions which proved so deadly to the germans and more so after 44. AH wanted the German people to see planes being shot down over the Reich, do he disbanded and/or disreguared the intruder force that had been put together. Their mission was to follow the bomber streams back to their home bases and blast away when they were in a landing ciruit.
Factories may make lousy targets but it's the best way to stop production, either by destroying the factory or those inside it. Would have made a huge difference in the east by way of slowing or stopping production of such war winning vehiches as the t34 or Ill's & pe series of aircraft. But again looking at the gambit soley from Italys prospective it appears to me that the navy would have been the main factor in achiving Italian goals in the mediterain.

Air power is always a major player, but what would the English have done if the Italian fleet made a sucesfull foray in the MED and closed it down? African army would have starved, Malta would have starved etc....


Eddy
0

#14 User is offline   Mr.Bluenote 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 25-January 04
  • LocationRingsted, Denmark

Posted 11 March 2004 - 01:27 AM

Veltro said:

Factories may make lousy targets but it's the best way to stop production, either by destroying the factory or those inside it.


Well, nooo! If you want to stop an industrialized country from working, you hit their infrastructure (tranportation and energy), not their production facilities. In WW2 the Germans kept producing ('44 was a record year) even though their factories were being bombed 24/7. Why? Because they were able to disperse their industry mainly due to a very efffecient net of railroads.
I can't remember where I read it, but somebody noted that had the Allies bombed the German power plants, the air campaign would have proven decisive in stopping the German rise in production (even with Speer at the helm).

Veltro said:

But again looking at the gambit soley from Italys prospective it appears to me that the navy would have been the main factor in achiving Italian goals in the mediterain.

I guess we can agree that given the circumstances the Regia Marina did do a good job? They even got von Arnims new Panzerarmee to Tunis in 43 and more or less kept Rommel supplied. But it didn't matter because the Esercito got beaten on land. Greece is a good example: the Army did not rely on the Navy in this campaing, but they would have suffered a humiliating defeat, had not the Germans intervened! Now, how would a stronger Navy had prevented that from happening?

Veltro said:

(...) but what would the English have done if the Italian fleet made a sucesfull foray in the MED and closed it down? African army would have starved, Malta would have starved etc....

Reinforced by way of Africa, as they actually did do, if I'm not quite mistaken. And even if Malta had been taken, the Italians and their German allies still had to win the land war in Africa, with they would have found somewhat difficult with only 2-3 German divisions at their disposal...

I believe that the Esercito had even more problems to deal with than the Marina or Aeronautica did, and so the war was lost because of the incompetent generals, not the likewise incompetent admirals...

Best regards!

- Bluenote.
Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!
0

#15 User is offline   Veltro 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • LocationToronto Canada

Posted 11 March 2004 - 01:41 AM

Quote

Well, nooo! If you want to stop an industrialized country from working, you hit their infrastructure (tranportation and energy), not their production facilities. In WW2 the Germans kept producing ('44 was a record year) even though their factories were being bombed 24/7. Why? Because they were able to disperse their industry mainly due to a very efffecient net of railroads.
I can't remember where I read it, but somebody noted that had the Allies bombed the German power plants, the air campaign would have proven decisive in stopping the German rise in production (even with Speer at the helm).


Actually Speer said that in his book "Inside the Third Reich". Their production at the time was false. You are using the statistics to infer that production capacity was increased. Rather the opposit occured it was going down and contiuned to do so. With Speer at the helm, the Germans began to rationalize production. Focus construction on a few basic weapons systems that were tried and true. Use mountains of spares (already manufactured) to create new product. This in it self "increased" production not some miricle of ingenuity.


Quote

Reinforced by way of Africa, as they actually did do, if I'm not quite mistaken. And even if Malta had been taken, the Italians and their German allies still had to win the land war in Africa, with they would have found somewhat difficult with only 2-3 German divisions at their disposal...

I believe that the Esercito had even more problems to deal with than the Marina or Aeronautica did, and so the war was lost because of the incompetent generals, not the likewise incompetent admirals...

Quote


Hmmm, my basic thesis would make the first paragraph a moot point... no supplies get through the army starves and runs out of ammo. No support to the Greeks( Hurricanes/Spits cut "us' to the bone). Malta is lost again because nothing is going in or out.


Great discusion!

kind reguards,

Eddy

0

#16 User is offline   Mr.Bluenote 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 25-January 04
  • LocationRingsted, Denmark

Posted 11 March 2004 - 02:22 AM

Veltro said:

Actually Speer said that in his book "Inside the Third Reich". Their production at the time was false. You are using the statistics to infer that production capacity was increased.

Haha, can't argue with the man himself, now can I? :)

Veltro said:

Focus construction on a few basic weapons systems that were tried and true. Use mountains of spares (already manufactured) to create new product. This in it self "increased" production not some miricle of ingenuity.

Still, they had get the stuff from storage around the country to the to assembly points etc etc! And even though Speer might be right, the Germans still managed to produced both jets, tanks, assault rifles and what have we?! Considering the huge amount of bombs droped on German industrial centers they shouldn't have been able to make pencils in any numbers... :wink:

Veltro said:

Hmmm, my basic thesis would make the first paragraph a moot point... no supplies get through the army starves and runs out of ammo. No support to the Greeks( Hurricanes/Spits cut "us' to the bone). Malta is lost again because nothing is going in or out.

Why would the British (I presume that it is the British that you refer to? Sorry, but your quotations was sort of messed up) starve? They could, and did, resupply via Africa (sailed the long way around, rather than through the Med). And the Greek did beat the Italians before any significant British aid arrived, you know...

Veltro said:

Great discusion!

Yes indeed, Eddy! That's what I like about this site - good debates, lots of information and nice people. :)

The very best of regards!

- Jan.
Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!
0

#17 User is offline   mvsnconsolegenerale 

  • Caporale
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 11 March 2004 - 03:26 AM

Veltro said:

Il Duce is pushing for Italys fourth shore. Italian interest seem to lie to the south and east. Which branch of the service was CRUCIAL to ensure victory? ( yes foot soldiers are needed to occupy , but was the Regio Escrito CRUCIAL to victory)
Please comment along with your vote.


Eddy


Every part of the Armed Forces was needed, but the Navy was probably the most important.

- MVSN
0

#18 User is offline   stefano 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 09-April 03
  • LocationNew York e Genova

Posted 11 March 2004 - 04:02 AM

look whether German production dropped in '44 is not that important, because it didn't drop by that much... Germany ran out of pilots and fuel not planes the same can be said for most branches of the german armed forces
0

#19 User is offline   Veltro 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 10-November 03
  • LocationToronto Canada

Posted 11 March 2004 - 06:13 PM

[quote]Why would the British (I presume that it is the British that you refer to? Sorry, but your quotations was sort of messed up) starve? They could, and did, resupply via Africa (sailed the long way around, rather than through the Med). And the Greek did beat the Italians before any significant British aid arrived, you know... [/quote]

Not going to touch this one, however I will say that this is all within the context of the RA being crucial to victory. Having said that, if the main focus of Italys war effort were the RM, I belive the Med war would have turned into a strategic victory for them.



[quote]Still, they had get the stuff from storage around the country to the to assembly points etc etc! And even though Speer might be right, the Germans still managed to produced both jets, tanks, assault rifles and what have we?! Considering the huge amount of bombs droped on German industrial centers they shouldn't have been able to make pencils in any numbers[/quote]

Returning to your point, industrial capacity [u]was not increased[/u]
The allied bombing campaign would be another thing that could take us into a whole other discusion :) Again by Jan of 45 the Germans were issueing captured weapons to the volksturm and newly formed "divsions".
Would be interesting to find out if they infact did keep on making pencils though...lol


[quote]look whether German production dropped in '44 is not that important, because it didn't drop by that much... Germany ran out of pilots and fuel not planes the same can be said for most branches of the german armed forces[/quote]

Sure it did Stefano... as the Soviets were knocking on the door of Berlin, essential workers were being let go to be burned up in the caldron of Berlin, seelow heights, Frankfurt on de oder (spelling?) Breslau etc......
But again the drama for Italy should have been on the water..life or death struggle there.



[quote] Every part of the Armed Forces was needed, but the Navy was probably the most important.[/quote]

and how!!

Best reguards to you all!!! great discusion!!!

Eddy[/quote]
0

#20 User is offline   Mr.Bluenote 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 25-January 04
  • LocationRingsted, Denmark

Posted 11 March 2004 - 06:39 PM

Veltro said:

Having said that, if the main focus of Italys war effort were the RM, I belive the Med war would have turned into a strategic victory for them.

Ok, fair enough! So lets say the British leave the central parts of the Med to the Italians! They hold on to Gibraltar and Cyprus (can't see the Italians taking them, not matter how well the RM does) and then fight it out in the North African desert. Now the Italians have plenty of ammo and whatever fuel they might need, but that don't change much since the Esercito don't have much of a chance against the Commonwealth forces arrayed against them.

As discussed elsewhere the individual Italian soldier was brave and determined, but he was ill-equiped, led and trained. Unless the Germans send massive aid, more divsions that is, then the result will still be the same. And with North Africa gone, then Torch would follow and sooner or later the invasion of Sourthern Italy...

Had the Regio Esercito been up to modern standards, better equipment, training and leadership, the British would have been driven from North Africa and Italians might even had held out in Abyssinia.

Veltro said:

Would be interesting to find out if they infact did keep on making pencils though...lol .

Haha, being Germans in The Third Reich they probably did - have to fill out all those important forms and all. :D

Best regards!

- Bluenote.
Honeste vivere, alterum non ladere, suum cuique tribuere!
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info
New Replies Italy's Royals Cleared for Return The Speak Easy Jim H 
  • 4 Replies
  • 2,337 Views
*New Replies New Italian Militaria Forum Related Links Guest_Arditi_* 
  • 0 Replies
  • 2,939 Views
*New Replies is this price resonable for carcano carbine? Trade, Buy, Sell and Collections Guest_Botto_* 
  • 2 Replies
  • 2,340 Views
*New Replies New forum Wargamers Forum Guest_Botto_* 
  • 8 Replies
  • 2,809 Views
*New Replies Italian WW2 Scenarios for SP:WaW Wargamers Forum Guest_Botto_* 
  • 0 Replies
  • 1,622 Views

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users