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