WI:WAllies instead invaded europe using italy.

I know this sound's rather crazy but what if , instead of making landfall in france. The Western Allies decided to use Italy as springboard into Germany instead. Instead of waging a two front war in the mediterranean europe, they simply push upward to Central Europe. I read some books suggesting it but is it possble to do so and how hard the fight would be?

MasterOledom said:

I know this sound's rather crazy but what if , instead of making landfall in france. The Western Allies decided to use Italy as springboard into Germany instead. Instead of waging a two front war in the mediterranean europe, they simply push upward to Central Europe. I read some books suggesting it but is it possble to do so and how hard the fight would be?

Click to expand...

The Alps. That is all.

MasterOledom said:

I know this sound's rather crazy but what if , instead of making landfall in france. The Western Allies decided to use Italy as springboard into Germany instead. Instead of waging a two front war in the mediterranean europe, they simply push upward to Central Europe. I read some books suggesting it but is it possble to do so and how hard the fight would be?

Click to expand...

You've been channeling your inner Churchill recently, haven't you?


He was obsessed with the Soft-Underbelly of Europe trope.

You've been channeling your inner Churchill recently, haven't you?


He was obsessed with the Soft-Underbelly of Europe trope.

Click to expand...

Nah, just something that crossed my mind. Though if t did happen, if the WAllies instead used Italy, would they have gotten to poland first and cut off the soviets from reaching it and piss off Stalin by a millionth percent. If it did, how would the future of eastern europe look.

The easiest way would be to complete the encirclement of the German troops in northern Italy before they have a chance to dig in and finish another defensive line as originally planned instead of driving to capture Rome. After that move into Austria through Slovenia. See if it is possible to flip some minor axis allies like Hungary. Lastly Invade southern Germany or liberate Czechoslovakia.

frustrated progressive said:

The Alps. That is all.

Click to expand...

The Alps? The Apennines gave the Allies enough trouble.

Going through Italy to get to Germany (forget Poland) is like having your proctologist fix your teeth by...well, you get the idea

Italian Alps
French Alps
Swiss Alps
Austrian Alps
Bavarian Alps
Alp Alps
Bohemian Mountains

Western Allies Southern Strategy Results:

NATO:
USA
Canada
UK
Portugal
Italy
Republican (Southern) Greece
Turkey
Norway (ITTL, eventually drops out of NATO)


Warsaw Pact:
USSR
Poland
Rumania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Grecian Peoples Democratic Republic (North)
Yugoslavia
Germany
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Holland
Belgium
Luxemburg
France

Neutral
Albania (pro-WP, eventually becomes pro-Chinese when they decide that Krushchev, the guy who crushed the Hungarian Uprising, is a wimp)
Finland (neutered Neutral)
Spain (pro-NATO, joins when Franco croaks)
Switzerland (pro-$$$, mobilizes for war only during invasion by H.G. Wells' Martian War Machines)
Ireland (pro-NATO but Anti-British-duh, eventual NATO member)
Sweden (tingly pro-NATO, but goddam, if we catch even ONE more F..king Russian sub beached in our waters!!!)

Aside from numerous mountain ranges already noted the ports were usually smaller, with the overall capacity not supporting multiple army groups advancing north into Germany. Between supplying the Allied army group that actually was in Italy, and keeping the Italian population alive with food, coal, and medical supplies the existing ports were inadaquate.

The automotive and rail roads in Italy and northwards into Austria or east to the Danube region were to few and to low in capacity to support much more that a dozen 'divisions'. Six or seven armies as were used in France & Germany in 1944-45 would be impractical on the rail network in Italy & southern Europe.

Multiple studies by several different staff groups identified the northern France/Belgium route as the most practical for getting at Germany. A study made by a class at the US Army Staff & Command College in the mid 1930s recommeded the UK>France>Ruhr route as the most practical for defeating a enemy occupying western Europe. British studies while Dill was CIGS 1941-42 came to a similar conclusion & Eisenhower & his staff endorsed that in early 1944. The region from Britianny to Rotterdam had the highest concentration of modern high capacity ports in Europe. leading east from those ports was a modern, dense, and high capacity railway system leading across France & deep into Germany. A network of paved automotive roads supplemented that railway capacity, as did a extensive cannal network. No other sector of Europe could support a military force of six or more ground armies and tactical air forces, plus imports for sustaining the civilian population.

Churchill seems to have been as weak as Hitler on logistics, at least on some days, and the blue arrows he drew on the maps often reflected a lack of reflection on how fuel, ammunition, food, and other material were to be transported to the battle front.

Carl Schwamberger said:

<snip>
Churchill seems to have been as weak as Hitler on logistics, at least on some days, and the blue arrows he drew on the maps often reflected a lack of reflection on how fuel, ammunition, food, and other material were to be transported to the battle front.

Click to expand...

Outstanding points made in a clear, turgid, well-researched post Kudos.

As to Churchill, IMVHO he was a man who lacked the understanding of the operational art, and the natural barriers of nature that state "you can't get there from here". Not surprising since he never got past low to middling rank as a commissioned officer.

JFK was the same, only worse. Some of his questions, suggestions, and demands made of his Joint Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis were down right bizarre, (1) but hardly surprising for a guy who never got past the level of a full lieutenant commanding a torpedo boat.

1) Mind, his Supreme Armchair Field Marshal (SecDef) Robert MacNamara was far far worse.

usertron2020 said:

Going through Italy to get to Germany (forget Poland) is like having your proctologist fix your teeth by...well, you get the idea

Italian Alps
French Alps
Swiss Alps
Austrian Alps
Bavarian Alps
Alp Alps
Bohemian Mountains

Western Allies Southern Strategy Results:

NATO:
USA
Canada
UK
Portugal
Italy
Republican (Southern) Greece
Turkey
Norway (ITTL, eventually drops out of NATO)


Warsaw Pact:
USSR
Poland
Rumania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Grecian Peoples Democratic Republic (North)
Yugoslavia
Germany
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Holland
Belgium
Luxemburg
France

Neutral
Albania (pro-WP, eventually becomes pro-Chinese when they decide that Krushchev, the guy who crushed the Hungarian Uprising, is a wimp)
Finland (neutered Neutral)
Spain (pro-NATO, joins when Franco croaks)
Switzerland (pro-$$$, mobilizes for war only during invasion by H.G. Wells' Martian War Machines)
Ireland (pro-NATO but Anti-British-duh, eventual NATO member)
Sweden (tingly pro-NATO, but goddam, if we catch even ONE more F..king Russian sub beached in our waters!!!)

Click to expand...

France will likely liberate itself by the time the Russians reach Berlin. Interestingly Petain could betray the Germans once they are weak enough, with allied help (weapons essentially - probably even the Free French forces). That Petain was a closet résistant waiting for the right opportunity to strike was a popular myth from the 40s up until the 60s-70s. So essentially there would be a Franco in France. With Franco and Salazar, and possibly new dictatorships NATO will have many fascistic members - wonder how will that turn out.
Yugoslavia is likely to be independent from WP like OTL, unless the WAllies decide the Cetniks will rule better and it goes full civil war. Albania and all Greece, I can see them being in the western sphere too with a Italy strategy.
Norway... I once toyed with the idea of them becoming a nazi qatar-esque state, with all the oil.

Food for thought: Passo dello Stelvio





In comparison, the Dardanelles are a sensible plan.

Carl Schwamberger said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

In addition to the supply issues Carl already mentioned it should be added that all allied supplies/reinforcements will also have to pass either Suez or Gibraltar. Suez had been blocked OTL for a while already, so in this all-going-through-Italy scenario Germany is very likely to try to repeat this.
And whilst the Gibraltar strait is too large to block completely it will be quite the battleground for German submarines/minelayers.

The problem with this 'go through Italy' scenario is while it might start out like that it wont end like that.

You'll eventually have an alt-Dragoon - because why not, you have your landing craft handy after invading Italy

and i think as you suck more and more Germans south you'll probably end up with an alt-Overlord - probably because the WA will be stalled somewhere in Italy/Slovenia and the Soviets will be moving west at a pace comparable to OTL and the Allies will want to make sure they dont end up too far west

Considering the Allies invaded Provence using Italian front troops, could Dragoon still go ahead as planned? The ports there are great, the FFI in the region powerful, and they could strike east or north depending on how many troops are landed. The Allies could make their main French strike come from the south. OTL the attack came at the exact moment that the German army in the west was falling apart, so it was quite a success. In this case, with more troops, they might be able to match that.

Well, the WAllies would reach Berlin sometime around 1948.

Oh, ya. The Soviets would have already reached the Channel, so no big rush at that point.

TinyTartar said:

Considering the Allies invaded Provence using Italian front troops, could Dragoon still go ahead as planned? The ports there are great, the FFI in the region powerful, and they could strike east or north depending on how many troops are landed. The Allies could make their main French strike come from the south. OTL the attack came at the exact moment that the German army in the west was falling apart, so it was quite a success. In this case, with more troops, they might be able to match that.

Click to expand...

Sure, tho there are limits. The Marsaille port group counted as a 'super port', with a nominal peace time capacity of 15,000+ tons daily average. And there was a high capacity railway running north to east central France. Still OTL that was only supplying about a 20 division slice of the armies and tactical air forces ashore in France. to run the Germans out of France & set up for a early 1945 crossing of the Rhine in a timely manner you need 40+ divisions & 5000+ tactical aircraft ashore within three to four months.

To put a war winning force of 50+ divisions on the German border with corps and army level echelons, plus tactical airforces based right behind them, plus support services you need a port capacity of somewhere beyond 45,000 tons daily. ...and of course you need a transportation system than can move that daily right up to the army depots & division supply trains.

Antwerp had a nominal peacetime capacity of 18,000 tons daily. The Cherbourg/Mulberry combination was briefly surged to 30,000+ tons daily in late August, then fell off as weather & temporary expedients broke down. smaller ports like LeHavre or St Malo were pushed to 4,000 to 8,000 tons each daily for a little while.

All the italian & Balkans ports fall short, and as before the inland transportation cant do it either. Allied armies in the Balkans would have been better off loading horses on their landing craft and leaving all their tactical mechanization behind.

alexcoppo said:

Food for thought: Passo dello Stelvio

In comparison, the Dardanelles are a sensible plan.

Click to expand...

I trained in shit like that in Korea & the Bullion Mountains in the Mojave Desert. First thing you do is drop terms like "Blitzkrieg" from your vocabulary.

Maybe not going straight up Italy, but perhaps using it as a staging ground for conquering Southern France?

Basically, flip DRAGOON and OVERLORD: DRAGOON is the main event, with OVERLORD being the follow up a few weeks later?

I'd say they did that and it didn't work out too well.

While I agree that Italy was the weakest of the Axis powers, it was ideal defensive terrain as we've seen. My opinion is the best way to invade Italy was not through Sicily but rather by attacking Sardinia with Operation Brimstone.

Here's my reasons:

• Sardinia was lightly defended compared to Sicily
• Sicily falls, then Corsica becomes indefensible for the Axis
• Axis forces would have to have been deployed across hundreds of miles of coastline rather than being able to concentrate around the Allied landing sites
• Capture of Sardinia and Corsica allows for Allied landings at Civitaveccia and Anzio in the Summer rather than winter thus cutting off Rome and the entire southern portion of Italy