Tom, Italy+Turkey is not impossible. It's complex, and unconventional, but it's not impossible, and people that refuse to consider it are limiting their options. It's not an alliance for inflexible and hard headed players, which is probably why you do not like it. You see things from your own perspective, and cannot even consider alternate viewpoints. In that light I+T is a bad idea for you, but it's not because there is no potential there. The trick is managing Turkey's natural naval inclinations against those of Italy.
One of the pitfalls players run into is this entire concept of playing the games as scripted and named openings (Lepanto, Juggernaut, Key, Churchill, Western Triple, etc.)What most players don't realize tis that there are diplomatic components of these alliance openings, and there are adjustments that need to occur based on the rest of unfolding of the board. Italy attacking Austria right out of the gate is unwise even if Austria falls unless he has the diplomatic ability to hold what he takes. If you take Italy into Austria on a dot grabbing expedition, you're game is going to come unraveled.
There's nothing wrong with gunboat. In fact it's a great exercise in establishing non-verbal diplomacy skills. Players that pretend it's some form heresy are uninformed and denying themselves learning opportunities. Is it the purest form of the game? No, of course not, but gunboat offers a lot more than it gets credit for.