• Get Paid to Write for Comando Supremo: We are looking for talented researchers/writers who are fluent in English and can write original content on Italy in World War Two. Please reach out to webmaster@comandosupremo.com if interested!

Battistelli's Mussolini's Army at War

jwsleser

Administrator
Staff member
I just received a copy of Pier Paolo Battistelli's Mussolini's Army at War: Regio Esercito Commands and Divisions. My overall opinion is that this book is so much less than it could have been.

One of the first issues that immediately jumped out at me was the lack of army and corps level assets in those OBs. The army and corps OBs are bare bones, listing divisions and nothing else. Given the extensive army and corps OB material in the official histories, let alone what is available in the archives, this was a big surprise. The many OBs here on Comando Supremo are mainly taken from those sources and demonstrate what could be available in this book. The OBs for the X and XX Corpo d’Armata in North Africa didn’t reflect the 1942 change where the rgt. bersaglieri were removed from the motorized divisions and placed under corps control, etc, etc. A reader looking for a corps or army OB is normally seeking for all those extra units/attachments, not just a list of the divisions in that higher unit.

The well documented X Cd'A that fought in NA.
Battistelli4.jpeg

The well documented XXXV Cd'A the fought in Russia.
Battistelli8.jpeg


As one can see in the XXXV Cd'A page, the divisions aren't listed. There are many corps entries that lack this information.

The divisional information is bare bones, but does list the subordinate units but nothing lower. Looking at a few of the units that have been a challenge for me, I didn’t read any new information. Tracking the changes in the armored divisions likely require a book of their own, but basic errors are present. Looking at the OB for «Ariete» on p.222 (Crusader 1941), it only lists two battalions for the 8º regg. bersaglieri (V and XII) . It also states that the II btg. bergs. controcarro (c.c. anti-tank) was formed from the II btg. bergs. of the 8º regg. bergs. The 8º regg. bergs had the III (motorcycle), V, and XII (motorized), never the II btg. bergs (bersaglieri battalions are individually numbered). The III btg. bergs was converted to a btg. acc e c.c (heavy weapons and anti-tank) but was still part of the regiment. The II btg. c.c. was a new formation that was never fully formed and was destroyed within a month of being built.
Battistelli7.jpeg


I thought I found another mistake in the description of the divisione corazzata A.S. tipo 42 on page186, but realized it was a formatting choice of the author. Units that are part of a subordinate unit (IBWs, they are subordinate to the subordinate unit) appeared to be directly subordinate to the division HQ. What I finally realized is rather than indenting to show subordination, the author used a very small change in font size. Given this was a self-published work, I first assumed it was an editing error but after checking a few units it dawned on me it was showing subordination. This was made worst as some parts of the subordinate unit are broken out but other parts are not.

For example:

-Reggimento Artiglieria Motorizzata with three field and one anti-aircraft battalions
-two Gruppo Artiglieria Semovente

The semovente are part of the Artillery regiment and should have been listed with the other battalions. Only the slightly smaller font (may be one point worth, certainly not more than two, titles in small caps for both entries). If I hadn’t been knowledgable about the organizations, I would never have caught on to that convention.

Battistelli1.jpeg


Immediately under the semoventi is the:

-Battalion Misto Genio in the same smallish font. The engineers are not part of the artillery.

Looking at the para. organization on p.188, it appears that the mortars, engineers, and services are all under the artillery regiment. Now I am wondering if the larger font are regiments and the smaller font is something less. I am not sure what OB is reflected below, as the text describes something other than what is shown.

Battistelli2.jpeg


At this point I am not sure how this book will fit in as reference for me. The alphabetical index to division (pp.175–178) might be useful as I am always trying to remember the divisional numbers to the names. Certainly a quick look at a unit to see its major headquarters and theater, but beyond that I am not sure what it will provide. The Nafziger OBs are better in several ways, and anyone who has read my opinions/problems with those OBs knows this isn’t saying much.

I am happy I bough the book as I like to know what I am dealing with when I get involved with internet discussions. This book has potential for many misunderstandings.

Pista! Jeff
 
Last edited:

DrG

Active Member
From the pages that you have posted this book looks like a translation of Battistelli's article "Le grandi unità, comandi e divisioni del Regio Esercito italiano nella Seconda guerra mondiale", Bollettino dell'Archivio dell'Ufficio Storico, 2002, https://issuu.com/rivista.militare1/docs/bollettino-ii-n.3-4-2002-testo
If my impression is confirmed, it seems that Battistelli has decided to sell all his earlier studies as self-published books, given that he did the same with his master's degree thesis about the military history of the Italian Social Republic and his Ph.D.'s thesis about Italo-German war strategy. Frankly, I don't like the idea of buying books written a couple of decades ago and never updated nor corrected.
 

jwsleser

Administrator
Staff member
DrG

Hummm, thanks for the link. Yes it appears to be nearly a direct lift from his earlier article. Same errors. What is interesting is that on p.330 of the article the info for the «Ariete» is more accurate than what he has in the book (p.222). In the article he still lists the III btg. ber. (although mislabeled as c.c. and not acc.) in 1941. In the book the III btg. is completely missing in 1941 and he listed the II btg. ber. in the 8º regg. ber. in 1940.

Pista! Jeff
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrG

Slavomir

New Member
The article in the "Bollettino..." lists the war diaries for each HQ or Division with signatures that may help you with the research in the archives. The few OOBs I have checked were... quite confusing.
 

jwsleser

Administrator
Staff member
If you are saying that the OBs in the book are confusing, I agree. If I use this book, it will be like I use Wiki. Check the book to quickly see the possibilities and then use other sources to validate or disprove the information. As a source to cite, I don't think so.

Pista! Jeff
 

Special K

New Member
Interesting history of where this book has come from, thanks! I suppose the big bonus for english readers is that this is now accessible. I'm really into Orders of Battle and found the book interesting to browse; slightly confusing on some topics, but thought that was me! I totally agree there is an absence of Army or Corps assets such as Artillery. For example, I cannot see details on the artillery assets assigned to the German-Italian Panzer Army in the desert.
Presently, I'm working on something which is very high level, so a rundown of divisions in Corps assigned to armies at various times is good for me. What I like about the book is this high level accessibility. If you want to see where were the Corps and their divisional strengths through the course of the war, this is pretty informative. For the lower level stuff, I'd go elsewhere, such as this website for sure!
 

jwsleser

Administrator
Staff member
There is some good information in the book. The challenge is separating the chaff from the wheat.

Frankly, I don't like the idea of buying books written a couple of decades ago and never updated nor corrected.

I agree with signor DrG. Once he pointed out that the book is decades old, why didn't the author update the information? That is what is normally done when reprinting an older work. Certainly a quick look at a unit to see its major headquarters and theater, but beyond that I am not sure what it will provide.
 

jwsleser

Administrator
Staff member
I must admit I have used Battistelli a bit more than I had thought I would. Mainly I use it for a quick check for basic information. It does have many gaps in its data, so it is usually a first stop to more detailed works.

In addressing a question here on CS, I have discovered that Battistelli had completely ignored both the 65º d. «Granatieri di Savoia» and the d. «D'Africa». This is surprising as both divisions are listed in both the 1970 and the 1990s USSME series on unit lineages. He does list the 45º d. Bersaglieri d'Africa, a unit that was never formed.

Odd.

Pista! Jeff
 
Top