Talk:Second Battle of the Piave River

This battle caused the disintegration of the Austrian Army?

All nationalistic propoganda aside lets just look at the numbers. On the Eastern Front the Austrians suffered millions of casualties, here they suffer 100,000 and this breaks their back ? Lets be a bit more conservative with the words used. Maybe this broke the back of the Austrian Army on the Italian front. But the million men they lost in 1916 during the Brusilov offensive was alot more dameging.

All nationalistic propoganda aside lets just look at the results. The million men they lost in 1916 during the Brusilov offensive didn't led to the disgregation of the Austrian army and of the Empire, and the Austrians fought for two years (and beyond) more. The Battle of the solstice did. If you want to point out the general causes of the defeat, a lot more damaging that the Brusilov offensive was the Italian fleet's bolckade of the Austrian ports. Without supplies, the defeat was only a question of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.211.207 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You look at the numbers when you play Call of Duty. The sources clearly report that defeat was felt by the Central Powers after this battle. Unless you can provide us with other sources rather than some arithmetic exercises.

French and British Divisions

The number of British and French divisions is wrong. There were only five left. The other six were withdrawn in March 1918 when a German offensive in France started. The 11 divisions had been sent to Italy in November 1917 (after Caporetto, October 24) and started to support the Italians at the end of November (the French at the beginning of December). As far as the discussion about nationalism and "broken backs" is concerned, it should be noted, that by June 1918 the war against Russia had already been over ("Red" October 1917) and that therefore the Austrians could concentrate all their forces on the italian front where the Italians in November 1917 (Caporetto) had lost an enormous amount of men and material. In June 1918 Austria was looking for a decisive victory because her exhausted armies were already fainting. This last and massive effort failed. That's why it was the beginning of the end for Austria.

The USA flag in the template is an error. The only US Army brigade deployed on the Italian front, was employed only in the battle of Vittorio Veneto.

I've just double checked this, and you are correct - the US 332nd regiment didn't arive until late 1918, just in time for the Battle of Vittorio Veneto. I will remove the US icon. MWadwell (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the number of French Divisions are wrong - I've found records that indicate, that post-Caporetto, the 23rd, 24th, 46th, 47th, 64th and 65th French Divisions were sent to Italy. However, all bar the 23rd and 24th went back to France in early 1918 to face the German Spring Offensive. (With the 23rd and 24th still in Italy for the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in late October 1918.) Indeed, the Italian language version of this article gives (correctly) 2 French Divisions and 3 British Divisions.

Can anyone name a source for the 11 British/French Divisions being listed as being present in this battle? MWadwell (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The most important and overtime italian victory

You are right with regard to differences of losses but with that intervention shows that they have understood nothing of the value of battle, which is sorpendente because of its ease, Austria-Hungary was exhausted by the war effort and, if quell'offensiva had been successful probably Italy perhaps there would, in fact, the battle of the river piave coincided with the final part of Michael German and was the last imperial hope to win the war by folding the first Italy, and then the other powers Allied. In any case, the battle was decisive because annientò the latest military capabilities and Austrian neutralizzò the danger of a collapse Italian, and allowed the offensive to wipe vittorio Venetian imperial forces and have a total victory sull'Impero. Affirming that was less bloody other not only demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability but also not to bring respect to the thousands of victims, should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.105.225 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Decisive

The battle appears to not have been decisive, as the results section indicates. Therefore, edited to remove that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.208.163 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Two qualified sources dubbing this battle 'decisive' added now.--Darius (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A Farewell to Arms

I had always thought Hemingway's experiences at the Piave and his later hospitalization in Milan inspired "A Farewell to Arms." Does it not deserve to be mentioned? --68.226.16.229 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

The Casualties of this battle seem to vary from all the sources I've seen, but most of them place Italian casualties between 80000 and 130000 and Austrian casualties from 150000 to over 200000.68.149.54.222 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in numbers of casualties

The body of the article states 20,000 Austro-Hungarian soldiers drowned while trying to cross the Piave river during the battle but the infobox lists only 11,000 Austro-Hungarian deaths, what's with this discrepancy could somebody please explain if this is a mistake? Thanks in advance.

--177.225.172.224 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi having looked at the 2 sources for these figures I would say that the source used for the infobox is a far more reliable one than that used for the figure in the body. It is signed by Alessandro Massignani a modern day specialist in Italian Military History who has been cited in over 100 articles. The other source is a digest of contemporary sources written by Francis Whiting Halsey originally published in 1919 and the figures seem to be based on a dispatch written at the time of the battle by an American reporter to the New York Times. The real figures would not have been known until much later and the source actually says "it was reported that...". So I think we can safely remove this figure as being unreliable. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

---Thanks a bunch! ;) --177.225.172.224 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)