Italian Army Seems Underpowered

[tommylotto]

PDX should give them the right numbers

The right numbers of divisions or battalions? In real life, each division had 9 battalions. In the game, each division has only 6. Just giving them the same number of binary divisions cheats them of 33% of their battalions on 1/1/36, as well as 33% of their infantry equipment I presume.

 

[WeissRaben]

The more I think about Italy in WWII, the more I compare them to hordes in EU3: DW. I think I have an idea about how the Italian player could be pushed to do bad decisions (if he wants to remain Fascist, of course).

To elaborate, instead of that King national spirit, Italy would get "Mussolini's Bombast", giving a net loss to National Unity: as with many others in the history of Italy, the Duce had reached power via making promises of greatness and glory, and as he failed to do so in the game's timeline his power eroded until he was deposed in '43.

Italy would be a constantly crumbling nation, then. How to counter that? By doing "great" things. Conquering Ethiopia (rather than puppeting it or similar, to keep in the West's good graces) would give a boost to NU. Moving to binary divisions (to get an apparently larger army) would give a boost to NU. Occupying Albania would give a boost to NU. Declaring war on France would give a boost to NU. Conquering Greece... you get it. Of course, if these end up in failure, said bonus could well be reversed. The point being, when an eventual Allied invasion comes, if the Duce didn't bring great results (as in OTL), the conquest of Sicily should be enough to have the government arrest Mussolini and trying to sue for peace.

The other spirit would be not unlike France's, but honestly worse: "A botched union". Lowered organization, lowered morale, and lowered plan organization (defensive lines, I hear, do not depend on plans, and thus the heavily defensive mindset shouldn't be touched excessively). Solving it would require challenging the very aristocratic officer corps, toning down the bombast, and improving industrial production rather than agriculture - in short, going completely against Mussolini's policies.

And, in fact, playing as Italy successfully should be a battle against Mussolini: avoid his fancy economic ideas, tone down his bombast, mend foreign relations, and eradicate the rot in the army, with the Duce trying to trip you at every attempt. Or you could try and win with Benny's ideas, but well... good luck.

 

[Secret Master]

The right numbers of divisions or battalions?

Hopefully the right number of battalions.

I'm okay with binary division templates if the equipment and manpower is still there. (Growing pains and all that.)

I would also accept fewer battalions, but a larger pool of equipment and manpower ready for use as compensation. You would lose some XP at the division level (battalions that don't exist cannot have a training level), but you could hand-wave that away as just "The army was not ready for a European war in 1936."

 

[Sir Garnet]

Fascism was the prop for imperialism, militarism and aggressive "great power" diplomacy. For a more peaceful game, a focus could take that away - less likelihood of a the change triggering civil war later the date and the more disillusionment with the regime. The government at the top would charnge back to a fractured parliamentary monarchy. Unless forced into war or submission, Italy would continue on its backwater path. Italy would keep its original colonies but maybe give back Ethiopia to the Emperor sooner or later as too much of a burden and a source of international disgrace.

Italy would probably end up with binary divisions anyway, not by splitting off regiments to form new divisions but by reducing the number of regiments in existing divisions from 3 to 2 as an economy measure and step toward disarmament. Staffs would be littlle reduced, and the third regiments might retain staff as shadow divisions to be activated on mobilization, ensuring the officers were not severely impacted.

Conceding the futility of a naval rivalry with Britain or France, the navy would be retrenched and expenses slashed and the air force, being a darling of the fascists, would probably be sharply reduced. The Italian procurement boondoggle would doubtless continue.

 

[amalric de g.]

The right numbers of divisions or battalions? In real life, each division had 9 battalions. In the game, each division has only 6. Just giving them the same number of binary divisions cheats them of 33% of their battalions on 1/1/36, as well as 33% of their infantry equipment I presume.

If they get only historical binary Divisions as in the current OOB, thats plain cheating for me. Italy should receive the right numbers of battalions including the CNN.

 

[The Balbinater]

Italy should receive the right numbers of battalions including the CNN.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisioni_del_Regio_Esercito_nella_seconda_guerra_mondiale

I've started in on the Italian language for some of this stuff, when I discovered that THIS --->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/136th_Armoured_Division_Centauro_II

doesn't tell me crap about THIS -->

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/1ª_Divisione_corazzata_"M"

but lots of you want to stick to your English based secondary sources, go ahead, but don't get bent out of shape when it gets pointed out you sound like you don't know what you're talking about...

in regards to Italy versus Greece, I'm stunned to see that some of you want to discuss Germany's intervention when the intervention that truly mattered was BRTIAINS. without British intervention, Italy would have been able to exercise its total air and naval superiority to crush the greeks. you guys are discussing about Italy "losing" the war against Greeks only by analyzing one narrow front. if that front was only one part of a combined land, sea, air offensive, Greece would have been screwed. so the intervention that mattered was that of the British.

just because the Greeks bloodied the noses of the Italians don't mean they "won" the war. it doesn't mean that any more then the fins saying they "won" the war against the soviets in the winter war. they were still screwed, regardless, and could not have survived a protracted engagement.

Greece still could have been screwed even with the death of the Italian Tenth Army-->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Army_(Italy)

oops, I meant

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/10ª_Armata_(Regio_Esercito)

but British and Greek success was predicated in the loss of this unit in Libya by the Italians IN THE FIRST PLACE. if this unit had survived it would have changed the strategic position in Greece drastically, as well as perhaps the remainder of Italy's war. So the war as it happened in Greece was greatly dependent on events occurring in Libya. Operation Lustre could not have happened if the Italian Tenth Army has stayed intact -->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lustre

anyway, Italy's air, land, and sea force completely overshadowed that of the Greeks and were it not fear of losing the Regia Marina in a pitched sea battle against the British, possibly including the loss of an Italian naval landing force, I believe that the Italians would have easily opened a second front against Greece by naval invasion. and THAT would have drastically altered the situation for Greece, whether the Germans invade or not.... but that is a personal pet theory of my own....many of you will believe whatever you want, as evidenced by some of the posts I'm seeing...

 

[shri]

The more I think about Italy in WWII, the more I compare them to hordes in EU3: DW. I think I have an idea about how the Italian player could be pushed to do bad decisions (if he wants to remain Fascist, of course).

To elaborate, instead of that King national spirit, Italy would get "Mussolini's Bombast", giving a net loss to National Unity: as with many others in the history of Italy, the Duce had reached power via making promises of greatness and glory, and as he failed to do so in the game's timeline his power eroded until he was deposed in '43.

Italy would be a constantly crumbling nation, then. How to counter that? By doing "great" things. Conquering Ethiopia (rather than puppeting it or similar, to keep in the West's good graces) would give a boost to NU. Moving to binary divisions (to get an apparently larger army) would give a boost to NU. Occupying Albania would give a boost to NU. Declaring war on France would give a boost to NU. Conquering Greece... you get it. Of course, if these end up in failure, said bonus could well be reversed. The point being, when an eventual Allied invasion comes, if the Duce didn't bring great results (as in OTL), the conquest of Sicily should be enough to have the government arrest Mussolini and trying to sue for peace.

The other spirit would be not unlike France's, but honestly worse: "A botched union". Lowered organization, lowered morale, and lowered plan organization (defensive lines, I hear, do not depend on plans, and thus the heavily defensive mindset shouldn't be touched excessively). Solving it would require challenging the very aristocratic officer corps, toning down the bombast, and improving industrial production rather than agriculture - in short, going completely against Mussolini's policies.

And, in fact, playing as Italy successfully should be a battle against Mussolini: avoid his fancy economic ideas, tone down his bombast, mend foreign relations, and eradicate the rot in the army, with the Duce trying to trip you at every attempt. Or you could try and win with Benny's ideas, but well... good luck.

This sounds good, so Musso loses/creaks 1% NM each month and you can do nothing about it other than go on a conquering spree sounds just about right.
Attacking Egypt could also be one of the modifiers as would Yugoslavia, helping Spain etc. Just enough NM gained from these would help Italy survive, If Italy starts at around 70 NM, it will surrender in 6 years if none of the objectives are met. Seems like a good fix.

 

[tommylotto]

but lots of you want to stick to your English based secondary sources, go ahead, but don't get bent out of shape when it gets pointed out you sound like you don't know what you're talking about...

Eh, wiki is for wankers. Try here. Or if, like me, and you can't read Eye-Tie, try here.

But you are right. The fact that the war between Greece and Italy took place at the same time Italy was fighting a war against Great Britain limited Italy's use of its superior land air sea military, but this was a war of choice launched at a time of Benito's choosing. So, the existing war against the British is sort of baked into the cake.

The more I think about Italy in WWII, the more I compare them to hordes in EU3: DW. I think I have an idea about how the Italian player could be pushed to do bad decisions (if he wants to remain Fascist, of course).

To elaborate, instead of that King national spirit, Italy would get "Mussolini's Bombast", giving a net loss to National Unity: as with many others in the history of Italy, the Duce had reached power via making promises of greatness and glory, and as he failed to do so in the game's timeline his power eroded until he was deposed in '43.

Italy would be a constantly crumbling nation, then. How to counter that? By doing "great" things. Conquering Ethiopia (rather than puppeting it or similar, to keep in the West's good graces) would give a boost to NU. Moving to binary divisions (to get an apparently larger army) would give a boost to NU. Occupying Albania would give a boost to NU. Declaring war on France would give a boost to NU. Conquering Greece... you get it. Of course, if these end up in failure, said bonus could well be reversed. The point being, when an eventual Allied invasion comes, if the Duce didn't bring great results (as in OTL), the conquest of Sicily should be enough to have the government arrest Mussolini and trying to sue for peace.

The other spirit would be not unlike France's, but honestly worse: "A botched union". Lowered organization, lowered morale, and lowered plan organization (defensive lines, I hear, do not depend on plans, and thus the heavily defensive mindset shouldn't be touched excessively). Solving it would require challenging the very aristocratic officer corps, toning down the bombast, and improving industrial production rather than agriculture - in short, going completely against Mussolini's policies.

And, in fact, playing as Italy successfully should be a battle against Mussolini: avoid his fancy economic ideas, tone down his bombast, mend foreign relations, and eradicate the rot in the army, with the Duce trying to trip you at every attempt. Or you could try and win with Benny's ideas, but well... good luck.

If you haven't tried my Hoi3 mod, check it out. National unity is a much bigger factor, as it has an effect on combat too, and there are a series of events as Italy goes down the Axis path (the dark side) that drains national unity. The loss of the colonies drains it even more. However, there is no Mussolini factor compelling you to make bad decisions.

 

[WeissRaben]

This sounds good, so Musso loses/creaks 1% NM each month and you can do nothing about it other than go on a conquering spree sounds just about right.
Attacking Egypt could also be one of the modifiers as would Yugoslavia, helping Spain etc. Just enough NM gained from these would help Italy survive, If Italy starts at around 70 NM, it will surrender in 6 years if none of the objectives are met. Seems like a good fix.

Either you do like Mussolini and try to keep unity high by doing highly popular, highly questionable choices, or you try to actually solve those problems, with the caveat that you'll probably find a civil war in your hands if you make a mistake. I think it would provide for interesting gameplay, honestly.

 

[amalric de g.]

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisioni_del_Regio_Esercito_nella_seconda_guerra_mondiale

I've started in on the Italian language for some of this stuff, when I discovered that THIS --->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/136th_Armoured_Division_Centauro_II

doesn't tell me crap about THIS -->

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/1ª_Divisione_corazzata_"M"

but lots of you want to stick to your English based secondary sources, go ahead, but don't get bent out of shape when it gets pointed out you sound like you don't know what you're talking about...

in regards to Italy versus Greece, I'm stunned to see that some of you want to discuss Germany's intervention when the intervention that truly mattered was BRTIAINS. without British intervention, Italy would have been able to exercise its total air and naval superiority to crush the greeks. you guys are discussing about Italy "losing" the war against Greeks only by analyzing one narrow front. if that front was only one part of a combined land, sea, air offensive, Greece would have been screwed. so the intervention that mattered was that of the British.

just because the Greeks bloodied the noses of the Italians don't mean they "won" the war. it doesn't mean that any more then the fins saying they "won" the war against the soviets in the winter war. they were still screwed, regardless, and could not have survived a protracted engagement.

Greece still could have been screwed even with the death of the Italian Tenth Army-->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Army_(Italy)

oops, I meant

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/10ª_Armata_(Regio_Esercito)

but British and Greek success was predicated in the loss of this unit in Libya by the Italians IN THE FIRST PLACE. if this unit had survived it would have changed the strategic position in Greece drastically, as well as perhaps the remainder of Italy's war. So the war as it happened in Greece was greatly dependent on events occurring in Libya. Operation Lustre could not have happened if the Italian Tenth Army has stayed intact -->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lustre

anyway, Italy's air, land, and sea force completely overshadowed that of the Greeks and were it not fear of losing the Regia Marina in a pitched sea battle against the British, possibly including the loss of an Italian naval landing force, I believe that the Italians would have easily opened a second front against Greece by naval invasion. and THAT would have drastically altered the situation for Greece, whether the Germans invade or not.... but that is a personal pet theory of my own....many of you will believe whatever you want, as evidenced by some of the posts I'm seeing...

Italy was at war with the UK, so what did you expect, that Churchill says hello dear friend Benito, you can conquer greece and have a nice day?!
Opening another front against Greece, was one of the biggest mistakes Il Duce made, that decision plays in the same league as Hitlers decision to attack the SU.

 

[The Balbinater]

Italy was at war with the UK, so what did you expect, that Churchill says hello dear friend Benito, you can conquer greece and have a nice day?.

yes, actually.

it's still debated in some brit circles whether or not Churchill's decision to back Greece wasn't a blunder of epic proportions itself. they could have just as easily ran Italy out of north Africa BEFORE Rommel ever got there. errors abound, it seems, but the only ones called out are against the Italians.

 

[Praetonia]

yes, actually.

it's still debated in some brit circles whether or not Churchill's decision to back Greece wasn't a blunder of epic proportions itself. they could have just as easily ran Italy out of north Africa BEFORE Rommel ever got there. errors abound, it seems, but the only ones called out are against the Italians.

That might be true as far as Britain deploying troops to Greece in concerned, but you said that without British support Italy could use its navy against Greece and stage landings. That isn't the case because Britain would still have attacked the Italian fleet at sea when given a favourable opportunity regardless of any desire to help Greece.

 

[jcd000]

yes, actually.

it's still debated in some brit circles whether or not Churchill's decision to back Greece wasn't a blunder of epic proportions itself. they could have just as easily ran Italy out of north Africa BEFORE Rommel ever got there. errors abound, it seems, but the only ones called out are against the Italians.

What land forces Churchill commited into the Greek-Italian front in Albania? Insignificant numbers.
By the time the Germans came to the party, this was not the case, but during the war-in-Albania-part, Churchill could stop the Italian fleet and focus on Libya at the same time...

PS. From wiki on operation Marita (wiki is well sourced on this op)
Germany:
680,000 men
1,200 tanks
700 aircraft

Italy:
565,000 men
463 aircraft
163 tanks

Greece:
430,000 men, 20 tanks

British Empire:
62,612 men
100 tanks
200–300 aircraft

Even at that time, what UK land forces? (in the context of Axis involvement ofc)

 

[The Balbinater]

That might be true as far as Britain deploying troops to Greece in concerned, but you said that without British support Italy could use its navy against Greece and stage landings. That isn't the case because Britain would still have attacked the Italian fleet at sea when given a favourable opportunity regardless of any desire to help Greece.

i agree for the most part, but it would depend on the nature of the Italian landings, were it to be tried. landing in crete im sure would def lead to a royal navy engagement, for sure... but as had been pointed out before, royal navy couldn't interfere overly much in Adriatic sea... and Ionian sea is very close to it...

 

[amalric de g.]

yes, actually.

it's still debated in some brit circles whether or not Churchill's decision to back Greece wasn't a blunder of epic proportions itself. they could have just as easily ran Italy out of north Africa BEFORE Rommel ever got there. errors abound, it seems, but the only ones called out are against the Italians.

Yeah, thats why i wrote this sentence.
"that decision plays in the same league as Hitlers decision to attack the SU."

 

[jcd000]

Well, the thing is the decision could gain nothing of value for Italy.
Minimal resource gains, partisans, that's it. It's not like even Crete helped the Axis much.

Otoh if they could go to Suez and the Middle East, they will make the Med much safer for them, and bag Turkey and the rest of the Balkan countries into the Axis. (Turkey and Greece were hanging in the balance afaik and a clear local axis victory would bring them to the axis side, to save themselves if not anything else)

But Il Duce is famous for good reason (or bad reasoning)

 

[Praetonia]

Well, the thing is the decision could gain nothing of value for Italy.
Minimal resource gains, partisans, that's it. It's not like even Crete helped the Axis much.

Otoh if they could go to Suez and the Middle East, they will make the Med much safer for them, and bag Turkey and the rest of the Balkan countries into the Axis. (Turkey and Greece were hanging in the balance afaik and a clear local axis victory would bring them to the axis side, to save themselves if not anything else)

But Il Duce is famous for good reason (or bad reasoning)

I don't think it's as simple as Mussolini being some fat idiot who couldn't do anything right.

Mussolini was fighting a very 19th century war for what he thought were 19th century stakes. His plan was to enter a war that was as good as won and stake his claim to marginal expansion at the borders of his empire as a prize for joining the winning side. This plan blew up in his face because the British didn't give in and the Germans attacked the Soviets, but in late 1940 it wasn't obvious that would happen.

If WWII had ended in December 1940 and Mussolini had eaten Greece and perhaps part of Egypt "for free" he would not look like a fool with hindsight. He looks like a fool with hindsight for not committing to the total war WWII became but it was never his intention to join that war. If he had known that allying with Germany meant joining that war, chances are Italy would have stayed neutral.

 

[jcd000]

To be sure, he must have been a fat idiot, at least since he thought his enemies would roll over and die easily under pressure, when his army was unprepared for the commitment needed, while he must have also known that the RM could not take on the RN with or without Germany's help.

But you must be right in that he was expecting another kind of war. Thanks for the insight.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Italy's air, land, and sea force completely overshadowed that of the Greeks and were it not fear of losing the Regia Marina in a pitched sea battle against the British, possibly including the loss of an Italian naval landing force, I believe that the Italians would have easily opened a second front against Greece by naval invasion. and THAT would have drastically altered the situation for Greece, whether the Germans invade or not.... but that is a personal pet theory of my own....many of you will believe whatever you want, as evidenced by some of the posts I'm seeing...

I don't doubt that in the absence of British intervention and the absence of German intervention that the Italian forces on the Albanian front could have (if authorized and provided with effective command structure) reorganized, reinforced, trained, resupplied, and staged a more workmanlike offensive and eventually prevailed over the Greeks with winter preparation and a spring offensive. But would those resources have been unstintingly available against Greece rather than being sent to Libya or sunk en route?

As you say, Greek geography invites naval landings to turn the defense lines and cut the north-south connections. In HOI3 this can cut off Greek supplies with devastating effect, but only if the British fleet is not present to smash the effort. HOI4 gives the British the promising option of feeding equipment and air wings to the Greeks rather than ground troops. HOI4 seems to be more forgiving for troops without a connection to their capital, but I am assuming that the north cannot support the large forces on northern frontiers without convoys getting through to Salonica past Italian submarines.

 

[jcd000]

If you manage to land on the Greek West coast AND reach all the way to the East coast, you've practically won. Its not a matter of supplying the army from the South via convoys, but the fact that Athens will get conquered and Greece will capitulate, just as happened IRL.

But the terrain is very mountainous between the coasts and the only good port is in Patras (useless for invaders since it is too South and should warrant RN reaction)

Landing just behind the Greek deployed army, in Parga maybe, should divide the Greek army's attention, but the terrain is again pretty bad for attackers and i'm not sure if an attack could go over the mountains.

It would be interesting to find out via which route the Albanian front was supplied. I'd bet it was via Athens-Trikala-Ioannina (via train to Trikala - horse after that). Take Ioannina and the front is in dire straits.