Italy Versus Britain Without Commonwealth or US Help in WWII, Who Would Win?

BakMei said:

Britain was prepared for a war coming from Germany, not Italy. If Italy attacked blitz krieg style, Dunkirk might have been repeated.

Click to expand...

An Italian Blitzkrieg.

Is this a serious thread or?

BakMei said:

Yea, it obviously more complicated than that...but that it in a nutshell.

France was ripe for invasion from Italy, and was pathetically prepared for a Total War. Once Italy had France, they can have Antwerp, with German help or not.

Click to expand...

And Italy I suppose was prepared fot Total war?

Well this title of the thread is a little confused but you seem to be assuming Italy will beat both France and Britain on their own, sorry I don't see Italian armies sweeping through France in a Blitzkrieg and getting any where near Antwerp.

How far did they get when they did attack in 1940?

BakMei said:

Once you have Antwerp, you are secure, and the British must rule out a land campain until Antwerp falls, which can be made nearly impossible, if the local people dont mind you protecting them from the Germans.

Click to expand...

Once the Italians are at Antwerp they are completely overstretched and a long way from home, meanwhile the combined British and French Fleets are destroying Italy.

AlpinLuke said:

Italian Navy was not that bad, even in comparison with the Royal Navy, anyway my first thought goes to the air fleet on board of the UK carriers. Italy hadn't such a capability to supply air coverage to its fleet. This would have been a decisive factor in a direct general confrontation between the two countries.

Click to expand...

I don't want to seem hypercritical, but if we learned nothing else during WWII, it's that carriers were no longer an adjunct to the battle fleet-they WERE the fleet. With the sinking of the Italian navy at Taranto and disabling of the Bismark, carriers proved to be the decisive weapon with all other ship types cast in a support role. In the Pacific, of course, this was demonstrated more vividly. Properly applied, RN carrier aviation would have been decisive by itself in our hypothetical scenario-at least in the naval portion.

AlpinLuke said:

Out of the sea, we have to evaluate the British air industry and the potentiality of RAF. Also in this field I see a certain gap and not in advantage of the Italians.

Click to expand...

Its everywhere, not just in the air.
Example, in WW2 Italy built 3,500 tanks, the British built 30,396.

The Italian nation was not nearly industrialised enough to take on Britain, one of the world's major industrial nations.

I'm sorry, what's the question again. You're asking of a UK without an Empire? If the UK doesn't have an Empire Italy won't be fighting in Egypt and will therefore never be able to go to war against it. Question answered. Next?

Underlankers said:

I'm sorry, what's the question again. You're asking of a UK without an Empire? If the UK doesn't have an Empire Italy won't be fighting in Egypt and will therefore never be able to go to war against it. Question answered. Next?

Click to expand...

Dam it why didn't I think of that.

Italian Commando, you say>
I'm American, but ethnically & nationalistically Italian!

You forgot to mention that you are a believer in Fairy Stories!

The Italian army advanced quickly into Egypt in 1940, with NO OPPOSITION from the British, and then sat down to dig themselves in. The Brits, although outnumbered about 10:1, attacked those prepared positions later, and captured most of the army that occupied them. The Italian Navy fought the Brits at Matapan, and was roundly walloped. The Italian air force attacked Malta for 3 years, on and off, and could not prevent the British aircraft and submarines based there from seriously interrupting the supply route to N. Africa.

Every country has a bad spell now and then, and - just face it - these guys had no interest in fighting for Mussolini and his 'dreams of a new Roman Empire'. Yes, some Italian units fought well in WW2, and were well respected by both the Germans and British, but they were in a minority.

The leadership was rubbish, and the troops were smart enough to know it.

The all-powerful Italian army takes the British single-handedly then marches all the was to Russia and obliterates Stalin's hordes (because you know 1 Italian=100 Russians) the Italians then turn on the Germans, smash them, then sail all the way to America and set up a new colossal Italian empire.

I'll just clarify something here. the Italian airforce was on a far more developed road, especially on the naval bombers/bombers/energy fighter aspect. and their navy was superior to the british. the brits had aging BB's from WW1. the italians had a scary arsenal of modern Battleships. if this is gonna be a CV fight. the RN had a bunch of crud experimental carriers that could carry a few skuas and Swordfishes. upon entering a fairly long-term conflict/naval contest the italians would respond with modernized AA escorts and new destroyer classes even though their original destroyers had enough AA to deal with a bunch of biplanes cruising at 80-90mph. on the ground war the italians had better troops but their tanks were sub-par but again, upon entering the long-term conflict they would respond to the british with better tanks.

Sultan44 said:

I'll just clarify something here. the Italian airforce was on a far more developed road, especially on the naval bombers/bombers/energy fighter aspect. and their navy was superior to the british. the brits had aging BB's from WW1. the italians had a scary arsenal of modern Battleships. if this is gonna be a CV fight. the RN had a bunch of crud experimental carriers that could carry a few skuas and Swordfishes. upon entering a fairly long-term conflict/naval contest the italians would respond with modernized AA escorts and new destroyer classes even though their original destroyers had enough AA to deal with a bunch of biplanes cruising at 80-90mph. on the ground war the italians had better troops but their tanks were sub-par but again, upon entering the long-term conflict they would respond to the british with better tanks.

Click to expand...

Better Navy? The battles of Calabria, Matapan, Taranto and Cape Spada all beg to differ. Throughout the war the Italian navy took a complete pummelling from the RN.
On the ground the Italians had better troops, did they, did they really? The Italian troops suffered from low moral, poor training and were badly equipped not to mention their horrific leadership. They were simply no match for the British forces.

Italian Commando said:

I know that about twenty of you are just going to stupidly holler out 'Britain because Italy sucks, no question', but hear me out. Amedeo was destroying them in East Africa & Graziani was starting to in North Africa, but then they called in the Commonwealth & pushed them back into Libya. Then, after Rommel came in to even it out, the US came in to bail them out once again. What would've happened if they didn't call for help, maybe 'cause they were to proud or their allies didn't let them?

Click to expand...

Oh come on Mr Commando, this is no place to refight WWII to gain a little military prestige!

Isn't it enough to be the cradle of European culture?

Anyway, you could never decide who's side to be on (wink) let alone give the Brits anywhere near a hard time. (wink, wink)

Sultan44 said:

I'll just clarify something here. the Italian airforce was on a far more developed road.......

Click to expand...

Absolutely and unequivocally untrue. The Hurricane was marginally better than the Re-2000 and the Spitfire was undoubtedly head and shoulders above ANYTHING the Regia Aeronautica could put in the air.

Moreover, because the Italians didn't have the industrial base that the UK did, they couldn't supply spare parts for their already inferior numbers-at the outbreak of hostilities a third of their aircraft were broken down.

Sultan44 said:

.....especially on the naval bombers.......

Click to expand...

Since the Italians had no naval aviation, at all, I wonder what you base that on.

Sultan44 said:

.....bombers.......

Click to expand...

Other than being slower, less well armed, shorter ranged, and carrying a smaller payload, the Breda Ba.64/65 was a much superior aircraft to the Mosquito.

Perhaps you meant the Italian strategic air force. Oh, wait......They didn't have one. Again-advantage Britain.

Sultan44 said:

.....energy fighter aspect.......

Click to expand...

I've been reading about aerial combat for the better part of 40 years, and this is the first time that I've ever heard the term "energy fighter." Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Sultan44 said:

.....and their navy was superior to the british. the brits had aging BB's from WW1. the italians had a scary arsenal of modern Battleships.......

Click to expand...

Ummm.....Sorry, but again, this is categorically untrue. Even if we eliminate the 4-1 RN superiority in Dreadnought era battleships, the British had a 5-3 superiority in modern battleships (3 Littorio-class vs. 5 King George V-class. Moreover, the RN had superior fire control, gunnery, and longer range than their Italian counterparts.

Edit: the RN also had radar which the Italians did NOT.

Sultan44 said:

.....if this is gonna be a CV fight. the RN had a bunch of crud experimental carriers.......

Click to expand...

Sorry, but again you're wrong. In 1940, the RN had 4 Illustrious-class and 1 Ark Royal-class carriers. While slightly smaller and embarking less aircraft than their American and Japanese counterparts, they were otherwise as good as anything afloat.

Sultan44 said:

.....that could carry a few skuas and Swordfishes........

Click to expand...

And those swordfish disabled the Bismarck and disabled or sank a great deal of that "scary arsenal of modern battleships" at Taranto.

Sultan44 said:

.....upon entering a fairly long-term conflict/naval contest the italians would respond with modernized AA escorts and new destroyer classes .......

Click to expand...

One of the lessons of WWII is that anti-aircraft fire, while important, is no substitute for a naval defensive air cover. At the risk of being redundant, the British had it, the Italians didn't. But even if we ignore this reality, there is no reason to believe that the Italians would produce dedicated AA cruisers since they didn't do so historically.

Sultan44 said:

.....even though their original destroyers had enough AA to deal with a bunch of biplanes cruising at 80-90mph........

Click to expand...

But they didn't. While the Swordfish would have been vulnerable against determined fighter opposition, they did fine against anti-aircraft fire creating havoc with your vaunted Italian fleet repeatedly and disabling the Bismarck.

Sultan44 said:

.....on the ground war the italians had better troops.......

Click to expand...

Do you mean the Italian army whose only solo offensive success in WWII was the conquest of Somaliland?

Sultan44 said:

.....but their tanks were sub-par but again, upon entering the long-term conflict they would respond to the british with better tanks.

Click to expand...

And why, exactly, do you believe that the Italians would have produced decent armor since historically they produced only junk?



Perhaps you would care to try again?

Italian Commando said:

I know that about twenty of you are just going to stupidly holler out 'Britain because Italy sucks, no question', but hear me out. Amedeo was destroying them in East Africa & Graziani was starting to in North Africa, but then they called in the Commonwealth & pushed them back into Libya. Then, after Rommel came in to even it out, the US came in to bail them out once again. What would've happened if they didn't call for help, maybe 'cause they were to proud or their allies didn't let them?

Click to expand...

Well I could argue about 'Amedeo destroying them' and being 'the US came to bait them out' etc which a drastic lack of understanding of the North African campaign.

But lets address the OP, depends what it means;-

If it means in WWII would the British have found themselves 'up excrement creek without a means of propulsion' in North Africa if suddenly deprived of Commonwealth troops then it has a fair point, those troops were vital.

However it not clear whether ,given the Italians abject performance in the opening campaign (oh sorry Graziani was destroying them wasn't he), that the British would be defeated.

It however is not a sound premise because the Commonwealth didn't 'bail the British out' there was no Australian or New Zealand army (you could say there was an 'Indian' but they did not fight as a separate army) to come riding over the hill to the rescue. They were part of the British military establishment the British calculated on them being there if they weren't they'd change their plans and/or get different troops to do the task, if none avaliable fight differently.

If the OP means Great Britain v Italy in 1940 while the rest of the world stays neutral then I can see no outcome but a British victory no matter how well or bravely the Italians fight.

Where do they have the advantage?

They cannot even threaten Britains home islands because the British control the entry and exit points to 'The Med'.

The RN is bigger, as is the RAF the British army is smaller but better quality.

If its a long run war British population is bigger as is her industrial capacity.

Britain can strangle Italy seaborne trade and the Alps provide a natural choke point for land transport.

Italy can disrupt or stop British Mediterranean trade, what else?

Sultan44 said:

...................................... and their navy was superior to the british. the brits had aging BB's from WW1. the italians had a scary arsenal of modern Battleships.

Click to expand...

And just how well did the 'scary arsenal' actually do against not the whole British fleet ,or a large percentage of it, but just what could be spared from Home defence?

Sultan44 said:

....................................upon entering a fairly long-term conflict/naval contest the italians would respond with modernized AA escorts and new destroyer classes ...........................

.................................... on the ground war the italians had better troops but their tanks were sub-par but again, upon entering the long-term conflict they would respond to the british with better tanks.

Click to expand...

Why is it only the Italians who will 'respond' upon enetering into a long conflict?

The Italians would have no chance. They lacked the resolve and the will for a total war, whereas Britain did not. This alone gives Britain an advantage.

They would not be able to compete in aerial combat, whereby there will could be fractured with bombing raids and troop and naval support.

The only area they might put up some resistance is naval, but materially and qualitatively Britain would've crushed them in a war of attrition, not to mention the RN could be used as a weapon in bypassing large Italian field armies and prepared positions and landing Britih troops in areas around Italian armies, where presentable.

On the ground, Britain proved during operation Compass that they were more mobile than the Italian armies, able to cut off and surround huge swathes of troops, giving a big strategic advantage as long as Italian soldiers lacked the will to resist.