Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alternate Italian Invasion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alternate Italian Invasion

    Anyone got any theories as to why the Allies did not attack NE Italy from the Adriatic sea (say around Rivenna) and attack West(to cut the Italian Penninsula in two) instead of the historical campaign that found us attacking North up the length of the whole Penninsula?

    Landing in the NE italian plains would've also put us right on the SW frontier of Austria to boot.

    Ideas, theories, opinions?

    Obviously there was a DAMNED good reason we didn't go that route.


  • #2
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    Anyone got any theories as to why the Allies did not attack NE Italy from the Adriatic sea (say around Rivenna) and attack West(to cut the Italian Penninsula in two) instead of the historical campaign that found us attacking North up the length of the whole Penninsula?

    Landing in the NE italian plains would've also put us right on the SW frontier of Austria to boot.

    Ideas, theories, opinions?

    Obviously there was a DAMNED good reason we didn't go that route.
    You wish there was, but in truth it's only because the Brits were strategic fools and afraid of the Germans. Also they wanted to "protect" their interests in the Balkans and Greece and felt that with the U.S. involved on their side they could afford to do it. Perret has a great chapter in his "There's a War to be Won!" dealing with this very subject. The U.S. didn't want to invade Italy at all, and instead had plans for a SPring 1943 invasion of Northern France (see The Marshall Memorandum for details), but when the Brits made it clear that it (Italy) was going to happen, Ike's guys said, okay, but why a long grind? Why not just hit in the North and cut off the enemy? And in that case, you invade Corsica and Sardinia first, not Sicily. But at that point in the war the Brits were still the Big Brother of the U.S.-British alliance, and they got what they wanted.

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      Wow, that's effing unbelieveable.

      We lost a LOT of guys there. Wow.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        Wow, that's effing unbelieveable.

        We lost a LOT of guys there. Wow.
        Yep. Stuff like that is one of the reasons why I can't stand the armchair criticism of the current WoT by ignorant pansies. WWII was (in my opinion anyway) the best example of alliance warfare the world has ever seen, and the enemy was defeated decisively and completely on all fronts. And yet there were still major ****-ups (Ardennes, Rapido River, Italy, Huertgen, Metz) that got 10s of thousands of good Allied soldiers killed for no "good" reason.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dalem
          Yep. Stuff like that is one of the reasons why I can't stand the armchair criticism of the current WoT by ignorant pansies. WWII was (in my opinion anyway) the best example of alliance warfare the world has ever seen, and the enemy was defeated decisively and completely on all fronts. And yet there were still major ****-ups (Ardennes, Rapido River, Italy, Huertgen, Metz) that got 10s of thousands of good Allied soldiers killed for no "good" reason.

          -dale
          Ever heard of WWI? The whole damn thing was started because of alliances. And you could say the whol f-ing thing was a ****-up that cost an entire generation.
          [Wasting Space]

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Trajan
            Ever heard of WWI? The whole damn thing was started because of alliances. And you could say the whol f-ing thing was a ****-up that cost an entire generation.
            But I'm using WWII as an example of successful alliance warfare. Pay attention.

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Unfortunately the entire Italian campaign in WWII was the result of a rather poor compromise between the Brits and Americans. The Americans didn't want to continue the campaign in the Med at all, they wanted everything dedicated towards a major landing in France in '43. The Brits constantly argued that they weren't ready for a 'head on' confrontation with the Germans by '43, and further that there were more vunerabilities,which could be exploited, in the Med (Italy / Balkans). The Germans were in fact prepared to have to defend in Italy much further north, just exactly because of the vunerability of the Italian penninsula in the face of Allied naval superiority. However, when the Allies 'shot their bolt' by launching a major invasion as far south as Salerno, the Germans were 'freed up' to set up their main defense quite far south. A flanking invasion was attempted at Anzio, but a combination of over caution and lack of resources (as the Americans insisted that nothing be diverted from the invasion of France) limited it's effectiveness. When the Allies finally did break the German line, you can thank Gen. Mark Clark for turning to drive directly into Rome instead of cutting off the bulk of the German defenders - who then escaped to reform a line further north (one which pretty much held until the end of the war). Personally, I believe a much more effective strategy in the Med would have been for the Allies to keep the threat of invasion alive without actually carrying out a massive amphib invasion. They could have done some 'island hopping' from Sicily to Sardina to Corsica and then invaded exactly where you suggest IF the Germans tried to form a defensive line anywhere to the south. Monty had crossed over to the 'toe' without requiring a major amphib operation, and he could have moved all the way up against minimal German opposition.

              Comment


              • #8
                Remember the island hopping campaign in the Pacific? Some islands were bypassed and cut off to "wither on the vine." It does seem like the same strategy could have worked in Italy doesn't it?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Giving this one new life. ;)

                  Rifleman-

                  Yes, a war of mobility a la what the Pacific became would have been a good bet, and was done on a small scale on several occasions (Truscott did more than one amphib hop up the coast in support of Patton's advances) and a large scale once (Anzio), with success more often than failure as the result. But a big factor was the loss of naval and especially amphibious assets (landing craft) from the theater to the Overlord buildup.

                  That left a nasty slog up the boot into Kesselring's fortified lines for the main course.

                  -dale

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It still seems like we could have gone from North Africa up the Adriatic Sea to the Poe Valley.

                    If not up the Adriatic, then Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and then the Gulf of Genova, crossing into the Poe Valley where the Appennines aren't very broad.

                    We could have skipped most of the Appennine fighting and left lower Italy cut off to "wither on the vine."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rifleman View Post
                      It still seems like we could have gone from North Africa up the Adriatic Sea to the Poe Valley.

                      If not up the Adriatic, then Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and then the Gulf of Genova, crossing into the Poe Valley where the Appennines aren't very broad.

                      We could have skipped most of the Appennine fighting and left lower Italy cut off to "wither on the vine."
                      Oh certainly. But see my earlier posts - the Brits wanted to do it the hard way and at the time they were the Big Brother of the Alliance so they got what they wanted.

                      -dale

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's still unbelievable to me. An invasion in the NE that marches straight west cuts off every german on the whole penninsula....EXACTLY like we did in Korea at Inchon.

                        Oh well, yet one more of a long series of stupid decisions(by all sides) in WWII.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's still unbelievable to me. An invasion in the NE that marches straight west cuts off every german on the whole penninsula....EXACTLY like we did in Korea at Inchon.

                          Oh well, yet one more of a long series of stupid decisions(by all sides) in WWII.
                          IIRC, the brits were not hot on such an idea because 1. they didn't think much of american troops and leadership at the time (kasserine pass reinforced their superiority complex), 2. they were wary of going all the way up the adriatic with a large invasion force.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            IIRC, the brits were not hot on such an idea because 1. they didn't think much of american troops and leadership at the time (kasserine pass reinforced their superiority complex), 2. they were wary of going all the way up the adriatic with a large invasion force.
                            My tuppence worth...

                            1) Part of the rationale for landing in Sciliy and Italy was to hone the amphibious skills for a mass invasion - the landings in North Africa had been largely unopposed. Italy was to be a testing ground. From Italy, Britain certainly drew a number of valuable lessons.

                            2) An attack further up the pennisular was very risky, if very bold and imaginative. Far too risky for British sensibilities. A staged landing in Sciliy (apologies, can no longer spell it lol) and then southern Italy takes advantage of North African supply lines. To jump further up adds hudreds of miles, making securing those lines very problematical. It might have been Anzio on a much larger scale. Equally, no one wanted to risk the landing craft that were carefully being massed in preparation for D-Day.

                            Again, there was also a miscalculation - that after invasion Italy would quickly fall. Kesselring's determination was underestimated. As was how quickly the Germans would disarm the Italians.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think the main reason for Salerno being chosen for the landing was due to availability of air cover (the extent of fighter range from Sicily).

                              I think it's a good thing that we didn't try to invade in the north. The Germans expected us to invade in the north because as you note, a peninsula can be cut off.

                              In September 1943 the Germans had six armoured or mechanized divisions deployed in the Po valley, including two SS armoured divisions at full strength. The Po valley had a good road network and these divisions could have responded quickly to any landing near Ravenna. But OKW forbade the commitment of most of these units to any fighting in the south.

                              Among the German generals, I believe that only Kesselring predicted an Allied landing in the south--Rommel thought such a landing could be nothing but a feint.

                              Another consideration for the Allies in late 1943 was shipping. The extra 1200 mile round trip to the head of the Adriatic would have bad ramifications for shipping turnaround--a significant reduction in effective tonnage.

                              In the south, not only was there a better chance of a successful initial landing, but several major ports (Naples, Taranto) lay within prospect of early capture.

                              The only alternative to Salerno considered was the addition of an airborne descent on Rome ("Giant"). Montgomery quashed it, and he was right to do so, since that variant plan hinged on Italian units in the Rome garrison retaining control of the airfields near the capital.
                              Last edited by cape_royds; 13 Dec 06,, 08:29.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X