Italian Surrender

[Panzer39]

In a recent PBEM game I played I pulled a sneak attack late in the war on Rome. Italy did not fall the first turn but after the second turn surrendered. My opponent had more Italian troops than the USA and UK combined and controlled the Med except Malta (thats where the sneak attack came from). I don't think Italy should give up so easily.

[xwormwood]

In my opinion there should be such a small chance which obviously brought you this lucky lucky lucky lucky victory.

I think this happens not very often, so why don't you simply enjoy your lucky day?

[Panzer39]

True enough, I think it is a guilty conscience.

[JerseyJohn]

Excellent, retain the memory of that guilt in our present game and go easy!

[ October 06, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[pzgndr]

I don't think Italy should give up so easily.

But ... did not Italy surrender in September 1943 prior to Rome being taken in June 1944? The game (SC2) should make reasonable allowances for early surrender conditions as well as delayed surrender. You know, for that historical accuracy thing.

[JerseyJohn]

But Italy hadn't lost Libya or Sicily or Albania.

Still, it's an interesting premise; a successful Allied landing taking Rome while all else (except East Africa, presumably) is in tact.

It's hard to say whether there would have been a Fascist overthrow. In a historical context it would probably have depended upon casualties. By the fall of Sicily in the real war Italy had been through the proverbial ringer, so it wasn't the easy collapse it appears.

[ October 06, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Did Italy ever fight in WW-2? Any history guys with some stats?

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Did Italy ever fight in WW-2? Any history guys with some stats?

Yes but not successfully, since they drew first blood, not the Allies.

[JerseyJohn]

The Italians fought hard in East Africa but had to surrender as their supply stores dwindled.

In Libya they were ordered into Egypt by Mussolini, a couple of hundred thousand infantry, a mechanized British force made an end run, flanking them in the open desert, completing the movement to the coast and cutting off their water supply. They were forced to immediatly abandon their positions and retreat toward Tobruck, which was captured in a surprise move. At that point the British Western Desert Force bagged the 200,000 or so infantry and artillerymen of Grazziani's army. Grazziani never wanted to move east in the first place.

Later, when Rommel arrived, he used that same flanking maneuver employed by Wavell and O'Connor, to defeat and often capture Common Wealth and British troops; again, the major concern was being cut off from water. Rommel always felt the Italian soldiers were good but poorly led and ill equiped.

In Albania Mussolini ordered an invasion of Greece in late Autumn, just when it began raining and also about the time both Greece and Yugoslavia (ruled by related Royal families) were on the verge of joining the Axis. As a ruse, IL Duce had gone one better and withdrawn troops before launching the offensive. It was a Fall / Winter fiasco with the Germans bailing them out in the Spring.

Upon entering the war Mussolini ordered an attack from Genoa into Southern France. It doesn't show on the map, but the mountainous region was well fortified and garrisoned and that earliest offensive also went nowhere.

The Italian Army had a string of impressive defeats but at times it did fight pretty hard, especially under German leadership, which was achieved through greater inspiration and not intimidation.

The Italian Air Force was one of the world's best in 1930 but full of obsolete aircraft by 1940.

Italy's Navy lacked fuel oil, spare parts and worst of all had no radar. It's officers were the best of all her branches and British Admiral Cunningham never took them for granted. Italian Frogmen and midget sub operators were especially respected by the British and, after Italy's surrender, the British trained with those who came over to them.

Regular Italian submarines tended to be large and well suited for carrying cargo rather than taking part in combat missions. Unlike their frogmen and midget subs, the regular sub arm didn't particularly distinguish itself.

[ October 06, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

Italy had beautiful warships, shame most of them sunk. The Roma was the first and only BB to be sunk by a guided bomb which by the way was German

[Liam]

The Italians also committed quite a few troops to the Eastern Front... in 1940 their armor was beyond obsolete and perhaps that's the main reason for their poor performance. They did however managed to defeat Ethiopia!!!<I think it was a little trouble vs those pre 19th century bolt action rifles > Their airforce however was fairly decent, I'd say not a complete disaster.<the Italian Airforce was probably un par with the French and not far off the German> Their Navies one of the finest in European Navies.

Why shouldn't the Italians surrender when the Americans do after the fall of D.C.?

[ October 06, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Beautiful Warships ... first smartbomb"

Panzer39

And I said they didn't distinguish themselves! Shows what I know.

But they did the Americans and British a favor. The ship was on it's way to join the Allied fleet off Salerno, instead of going to fight them, as Kesselring was made to believe. Normally he was called "Smiling Albert," but on that particular day he behaved very humorlessly, ordering that contraption let loose!

The Americans and Brits, however, examined the way the weapon behaved and were easily able to jam it's frequencies.

[ October 06, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

"Why shouldn't the Italians surrender when the Americans do after the fall of D.C.?"

Liam

All the more interesting because historically D. C. was captured and burned to the ground by a party who will remain nameless -- but it's initials are UK -- and the country didn't surrender then.

On the other hand, without radio nobody knew about it for a couple of years and by that time the Battle of New Orleans was fought. Or sumptin.

[Liam]

John,

really few nations surrender after a Capitol Falls that have a strong sense of Nationality. It's only the fact that by the time the Capitol Falls the rest of the Nation is captured as well. Thinking about Moscow captured by the Poles. Vienna Captured by the Turks. on and on

what makes a gamey tactic in SC, is that someone will make a plan to capture the capitol while leaving the armed forces and Nation in tact. Historically with most major nations, you'd probably incur more casaulties for yourself and get the people to fight harder. I doubt Germany would've surrendered after the Fall of Berlin if it wasn't for the fact Germany was squeezed like a grape. As well as Russia, Britian, France<well, I have to admit they gave in rather quickly, but still had to be put down more or less>

[ October 06, 2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Blashy]

Canada marched on Washington, burned the White House and told em to lay off our Country, we left and became pansies after that.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

Most definitely agreed. This is especially true in the French surrender of 1940. Looking on a map it appears the French might have fought on but anyone who knows the real history realizes the French had already lost the war in Belgium and only put up a last defense for their own borders. The line was broken, the remaining French armies shattered and there was nothing remaining to resist the invasion, so they surrendered. That is was a sellout was only wartime propaganda which, unfortunately, lingered on decades after the war.

Blashy

I've never quite read it that way. Nor do I expect to ever again.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'm not sure why the capture of a capital is considered "gamey" in SC.

Its been changed, so that with the exception of France, you have to destroy a certain number of units before the nation will surrender.

Whats wrong with that?

[JerseyJohn]

"Its been changed, so that with the exception of France, you have to destroy a certain number of units before the nation will surrender." -- Shaka

There's nothing wrong with that, but I think there are still countries, such as Norway, Denmark and the Low Countries, where it's sufficient to only take the capitol to have the country surrender. Of those, Denmark should probably be that way, it's a little more complicated with the LC, having two units though only one city, and a bit further complicated with Norway, having two cities and two units.

Personally I have no problem with the way it's set up no, including those listed above.

[Liam]

Personally I think that the Russian Goverment wouldn't of moved to the Urals

If Leningrad, Moscow and Staligrad all fell. So did Russia<she gets 3 Capitols?> Why doesn't the USA get 3 Capitols. Why does Vichy move to N.Africa? Why does England move to Manchester??? Then why doesn't Italy switch sides when it falls like it did Historically

[ October 07, 2003, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Iron Ranger]

Italy didn't 'switch sides'. The northern half became a Facist Republic ruled by El Duce and the Black Shirts still fought with the Germans. The southern half provided support services (hospital, R&F areas ect..) to the Allied armys but at a price. Italy was also the greatest supply problem for the allies, because of theft! An entire train was lost (and never found!) by Napels, some stitict's show over 50% of the war material that landed in Italy never reached its destination, now thats theft on a grand scale.

One service did switch side's, almost the entire navy came over the the allies and the ships continued to be staffed by the Itialians but did as the allies asked without any known problems.

[jon_j_rambo]

USA doesn't surrender until Boise, Idaho is taken. In addition they'll have to find me too.

I've never understood why Germany wasted their time with N.Africa.

[Orange Devil]

From what I remember from history classes Germany wanted to become a grand colonial power, kinda like England was at the time and France/Spain/Portugal/The Netherlands had been.

So the place to have colonies was Africa because the Italians already had colonies there.

[Liam]

Iron:

Thanks for the elaboration on What Italy did...of course the Puppet North killed their own leader or was it the Southern Sector of the Alliance who snuck over assassins...Oddly enough the Italians vastly improved in their performance after the so-called Liberation then before. lol We all know those Italians, especially Sicilians have skill in stealing, but a whole a train!!!???

Orange:

Think it was a little late for Germany to get in on the Colonial Game.<though she may have later>I think she was far more worried about the LifeLine of the British Empire, the Suez Canal, a Southern Approach to cut off Russia from Supply via the Mid-East...and a conjoined border with them to help focus upon the Red Giant...which never went down well with the Japanese who were focused Island hopping in Tahiti<I suppose they wanted the local ladies> instead of India real War Gain... Lets not forget that MidEast Oil and Far East Rubber together would've been nice for both nations with a pretty nullified Britian... It definitely wasn't nice during the War.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

I've never understood why Germany wasted their time with N.Africa.

It just wouldn't do for the Italians to be run -- head over heals, out of Libya, which is the direction it was going before the Afrika Korps showed up to bloody the Dunes. :eek:

It wouldn't do because... for any ego-maniacal leader like Mussolini, with a power-flow based almost entirely on martial successes over-seas... a sudden humiliating defeat in the Desert could, and likely would... cause the entire Fascist scheme, diseased from the inside, as it was, and with blustery promises of... a revived (...unholy) Roman Empire... well, that bullying Regime would collapse like... a lost little Legion in a treacherous stretch of olde Teutonic Forest.

There certainly was NO hard information (or truly accurate maps) on those spoiling Oil reserves (... though there was some hesitant exploration going on in Libya) and it was only Rommel's daring exploits that allowed the German/Italian Panzer Armee to succeed... to the extent that, at one point, classified documents were being hastily burned in Alexandria, and desparate prepartions being made for British evacuation of that city.

In hindsight, we all tend to OVER value that vast and apparently endless (... when flying over in a prop plane) tract of inhospitable terrain known as the "near & middle East."

Just about every game-maker has it right, from SC to 3rd Reich to WiF... with VERY FEW resource points allotted to that area.

And actually, Hubert (... perhaps responding to current events, and/or trying to provide a rationale for more rabid conflict in the Med Theatre) has OVER-VALUED the area a bit, with those oil wells in Iraq... sure, the Brits culled some small tea-cup fulls, but in truth, the SC value of Iraq is somewhat over-stated.

Back to the original question: in the historical context, and given the established knowledge of that time, rambo is right... there really was no good and sufficient reason to "mess with Afrika."

I for one am convinced that Hitler (... and not OKW or the German General Staff, who were hard-nosed real politik believers, long before any of the modern Euro-styled Bismarcks) was so utterly focused on liebensraum for the thirsting Volk, that he could not remotely envision ANY long-term use for that huge and forbidding desert-land.

Better by far to annex the bread-basket, Ukraine, than waste prime military resources... out in the Desert (... which, incidentally, is why there are no major Industries located in New Mexico, or Nevada, or even most of Arizona, other than Govt installations, secret and known... simply, there is not enough... precious water).

[Liam]

Immer:

Odd the that during both WW1 and WW2 the region was part of the World's Greatest Wars.. In one way or another, it has found value..and men have fought there and died there<some of the best the World has had to offer, almost an echo of it's Great History rather than more modern use>.. Even though, I can't really see much value in the Balkans altogether myself either.<aside from Ploesti it's a ethnic nightmare, and you can just buy the oil hehe> Or, bringing Italy on board, facist weakling that can at best defeat the Golden Albanian Horde, the elder Ethiopian Orthodox Monster and with help subdue the Greek Gigantuan<sp,hehe>

Quite frankly, the Germans were better off without Italy...What did the Italians contribute, diversions and finally a 3rd Front the Germans had to themselves fight on. Before then a N.African diversion<as you say a Political disaster to lose Libya?>