Anzio

In OTL the Anzio landing did not work troops were stuck on a weak bridghead.

However I have heard it claimed that initially the Germans were not well prepared.

Could Rome have fallen in January of February 1945 and the German army be forced to surrender in the early Spring.

Could the Invasion of Southern France have started a couple of months earlier and would that have assisted D-Day?

Could a quicker Western advance have helpful consequences for Politics after the end of WW2?
 
Derek, Rome OTL actually fell to Mark Clark's 5th Army on 5th June 1944, but this great achievement was overshadowed by the D-Day landings of course.

I just flicked thru a book on the 10th Mtn Div in WWII while I was in the massive Borders bookshop at the Bullring shopping complex in Birmingham, where there was 1 section on how Clark stated that, on the absence of any mtn warfare-trained troops in his army, he could well have used the 10th Mtn in winter 1943 to outflank the Gothic Line, instead of being bogged down for 17 days.

I believe that the landings at Anzio itself could've gone a lot better had Gen Lucian Truscott decided to not just idly sit on the beaches while waiting for the beach-head to be reinforced.
 
Any more thoughts on a quicker Allied victory in Italy. My guess is that if a more aggressive force with more aggressive leadership made the landing (a wild cat rather than beached whale) and Rome fell the German army could have been cut off and maybe surrendered,

Then the Nazis would have faced an attack from the South and maybe the war would end earlier and be better for the West.
 
Derek Jackson said:
Any more thoughts on a quicker Allied victory in Italy. My guess is that if a more aggressive force with more aggressive leadership made the landing (a wild cat rather than beached whale) and Rome fell the German army could have been cut off and maybe surrendered,

Then the Nazis would have faced an attack from the South and maybe the war would end earlier and be better for the West.

It is possible with a more aggressive leader the Allied forces may have been able to take Rome more quickly. Had that happened it may have compelled the surrounded german forces to surrender. Personally I don't think moving more quickly would have worked to the allied advantage, had they moved more quickly the lack of adequate reinforcement and supply difficulties amid German raiding of the supply line would have at least slowed the advance adequately to allow the Germans to disengage and shift north.

Even in the best case scenario where the Germans were forced to surrender after taking Rome. Crossing the Alps would be no easy matter in the face of any opposition. Germany would have been able to defend their southern frontier with minimal troop deployment.

My overall thoughts on Italy are that, even after the Italian surrender, Germany was able to bottle up a not insignificant portion of allied resources using minimal force of its own. In short: Italy was a distraction from the main event.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong in that assessment.
 
I have to agree with Battle Cry there... The Germans could easily hold the alps with minimal forces.

What could eventually happen is the Western Allies push into Yugoslavia and Tito is forced to negotiate with them instead of the Soviets perhaps bringing Yugoslavia into NATO...
 

Hyperion

Banned
I think only 4 divisions where commited to the Anzio operation. Best way make the Anzio operations effective would be to commit 8 divisions overall, with at least 4 in reserve to come in later.

Also, someone would have to give orders to Truscott to move as fast as he could once his men hit the beaches.

Would an airborne drop have effected the situation in the allies favor to any extent, or simply got a lot of paratroopers killed or captured for nothing?
 
We were already building up for the Phillipines in the Pacific. A POD in 1942 would have given us an extra few divisions in Sicily, which would have stopped the German evacuation, and then an extra few divisions of our troops at Anzio combined with an few less German divisions and we take Italy in 1943 as the Germans withdraw to the French and Austrian Alps.
In 1945 the Italian army occupies Austria as the French occupy the Rhineland and the US and Britain occupy the rest of Germany.
 
I am still curious about this.

Could the Nazi armies South of Rome have been cut off and forced to surrender?

I accept that an invasion through the Austrian Alps would not have been a good strategy.

However if all Italy were in allied hands could a move through the South of France have eased D-day, and done so much more easily than the seaborne operation on the Southern Coast which happened in OTL around June 1944?
 
I read claims too that it could've worked. The war in Italy would've been significantly shortened.

The question is what the Germans'd do with still-occupied Rome.
 
I believe that the landings at Anzio itself could've gone a lot better had Gen Lucian Truscott decided to not just idly sit on the beaches while waiting for the beach-head to be reinforced.

Are you sure that was Truscott and not his predecessor, John P. Lucas? I've read that Lucas, who commanded 6th Corps at the Anzio landings, was a cautious, pessimistic officer who moved with extreme slowness while his German counterpart Kesselring moved with great speed and skill.

Another point I want to make is this. I read this in Bevin Alexander's How Hitler Could Have Won World War II that Siegfried Westphal, Kesselring's chief of staff, said that the 2 German divisions near Rome were too weak to fight the Italians and the Allies. He said the Allies should have landed at Civitavecchia, thirty miles north of Rome rather than Salerno, and that "A combined sea and air landing would have taken the Italian capital inside 72 hours."

An attack like this would have given the Allies control of Italy south of Rome. Eisenhower didn't try it because it was beyond the reach of fighter aircraft. His subordinates also recommended landing at Taranto and Brindisi, in the heel of Italy. These sites were also beyond fighter cover, but had no German troops there.

Imagine if Ike had been a bit more daring. Italy was well suited to a defensive campaign, but it might not have gone as slowly as it did in OTL
 
What was this fixation with Rome!? Mark Clark had it - disobeyed orders (but then they didn't count as they were only Alexsander's orders), to get it. He should have headed east to cut off retreating Germans, but headed north for Rome.

Yes Lucas was ill chosen to command the Anzio landing - rather than secure the 'hills' in front he was too concerned with the beachhead - leaving the Germans to dominate the beachhead from the hills.

I have posted before elsewhere that Tarranto & Brindissi should have been taken earlier (air support could have been available from carriers). And taken before the Sicilly campaign was over!

Italy was only important in that it dragged German Divisions away from France, where they could interfere with the Normandy invasion. It wasn't to my mind of overall importance to fight all the way up the 'leg' of the country.

Objectives: the Foggia airfields, to multiply allied options for future landings - South of France or the Adriatic coast to further spread German forces.

But given what happened OTL then yes, a wildcat of an Anzio landing followed by a campaign that surrounded to German forces there - could have shortened the war in Italy by many, many months.
 
I believe that the landings at Anzio itself could've gone a lot better had Gen Lucian Truscott decided to not just idly sit on the beaches while waiting for the beach-head to be reinforced.
He didn't. Lucas did, more/less under orders from Clark not to risk his force, which was contrary to the objective & to Alex's orders... Had Lucas grabbed the Alban Hills on D-day, it would've been at least 12h before von Kesselring could muster a counterattack (as it was OTL), & there's half a chance Lucas could've had M4 tanks ashore & waiting. Of course, the big problems were a) Clark's changing Alex's orders, b) Lucas being too damn old & cautious, & c) Truscott not being given command in the first place. Trusctott could've done it.

If you want another option, drop airborne on the Alban Hills & on the highways North & South during the night, just beyond the planned beach. They'd create a hella panic in 10h Army's line south of Anzio & maybe see a pullout, which was the objective. Either way, they'd give Shingle something to aim for...
 

burmafrd

Banned
Clark is one of the most over rated Generals in History. He screwed up so many times its ridiculous. Truscot was a very good general and if he had been in command at the first he would have taken the High Ground. He knew the value of HIGH GROUND around a bridgehead. Lucas was a very cautious general and sometimes that gets you into more trouble then being agressive does.
 
Supply roads south of Rome and American scouts in Rome

Folklore in Rome says that American scouts reached the outskirts of Rome without encountering any opposition just after the landings. However I could not find any documents on that matter.

Probably reaching Rome was perfectly possible, holding it would be a serious headache. Would the status of Open City be respected? To respect it the allies would have to block routes to Rome north (Civitavecchia, Cassia Flaminia and Salaria much more inland) and probably east. Otherwise the choice would be fighting in the streets and breaking the open city status, or, have the odd situation of Allied and Nazi troops wandering in an out Rome without fighting.

The failed objective at Anzio was not to reach and hold the Alban hills (quite gentle) or the hills south of them (rough). To say the truth the allies were understrengh for this objective but with initial boldness and intelligent defense and subsequent reinforcements it could be done. Reaching them would block the Pontina and other coastal roads, the Appia (Alban Hills, southwest) and possibly the Tuscolana (alban hills norteast). And mostly expose the Prenestina and Casilina and other roads in the inland valley between the Alban Hills and the Appenines. The German divisions defending the thyrennian coast south would have the supplies, if not totaly blocked, very severely hampered. Without blocking this route the german managed to supply them easily. Instead in the Anzio landing the Allies managed to reach the Pontina but not even holding it. In effect all the allies managed is to hamper, but not block, the coastal roads. Roads that were anyway already exposed to the allied navy.

Motorways (orange red) and the Rome loop were not present at the WW2 time. Other roads are older with many back to roman times.

Picture 2.jpg
 
Top