Salerno - revisited

ivanotter

I have also heard that the air cover insofar as Anzio was concerned was not a first-line option.

The Italian campaign to me has always come across as a rather improvised and messy affair. Loads of opportunities but not exactly getting there.

Even with Salerno being a success, Anzio could have been wiped out and that would leave the entire Casino battle in a different light.

It can be argued that Italy was a dead-end from a strategic point of view. Fighting all the way up to the Alps just leaves the next question: now what? The Alps are not great for infantry going from South to North into Germany proper.

That said, Brooke believed (gambled) that Hitler would never give up Italy and even a smaller force would tie down a serious amount of German troops that would not be available to fight Overlord. It was is strategic trap. Even at the best of days it is hard to move massive amounts through the Alps.

So, maybe the need for any major concern over a failed Salerno should not be overstated.
 

Cryhavoc101

ivanotter said:
I have also heard that the air cover insofar as Anzio was concerned was not a first-line option.

The Italian campaign to me has always come across as a rather improvised and messy affair. Loads of opportunities but not exactly getting there.

Even with Salerno being a success, Anzio could have been wiped out and that would leave the entire Casino battle in a different light.

It can be argued that Italy was a dead-end from a strategic point of view. Fighting all the way up to the Alps just leaves the next question: now what? The Alps are not great for infantry going from South to North into Germany proper.

That said, Brooke believed (gambled) that Hitler would never give up Italy and even a smaller force would tie down a serious amount of German troops that would not be available to fight Overlord. It was is strategic trap. Even at the best of days it is hard to move massive amounts through the Alps.

So, maybe the need for any major concern over a failed Salerno should not be overstated.
Click to expand...
As you have alluded - knocking Italy out of the war forced the Germans to scramble and move 40 odd divisions (about a 5th of its full strength to cover the gaps left by the Italians

Also the further north the Allies get the closer their bombers get and the further their escorts can fly.

Conversely this increases the distance that Axis planes can reach going south - the invasion and removal of Italy as a member of the Axis effectively opened up the Med for mercantile traffic via the Suez - that's many mega tonnes of shipping every year not having to got he long way round

Also the further north they get more of the Italian industry comes under control of the Allies and whatever little use it was to the Axis lost to them.

So Germany has to take holding Italy very seriously
 

ivanotter

Just moving any major body of forces through the Alps is not easy.

However, if we look at end 1943 and early 1944, the Med is cleared up. The saving of 1 million tons of shipping per month has been achieved. Now it is a matter of ensuring that whatever there is of German forces cannot easily be shipped off to France.

Also correct that having Allied bomber force in Italy within striking distance of Ploetsi oil fields is not a good idea.

So yes, Germany had to take it serious.

That, however, all points to one fact: the one to benefit will be the air forces. The land armies might get to the Alps, but then ....

Invading Germany through the Alps is a bit difficult.

Maybe the conclusion is that whether Salerno is a success or not is irrelevant. It will have drawn the German troops into Italy with no (easy) way back .
 

Carl Schwamberger

ivanotter said:
Thanks Carl,

Taranto and Calabria were even further south.

If Italian campaign had to be reviewed, I could imagine that US will cancell the lot and focus on Overlord.
Click to expand...

Thinking over this further:

By this point, September 1943, COSSAC already had a outline plan that included what became the ANVIL & DRAGOON operations. Since there is evidence of earlier discussions of invading the southern French coast by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff I suspect COSSAC was developing the ANVIL plans at the JCS direction. Also plans for operations BRIMSTONE & FIREBRAND (Sardinia & Corsica were well along. I suspect that for political reasons those would have been executed anyway. The French were very anxious to liberate some of their territory, and these were low cost operations as the Axis or German defenses were weak.

Since Op ANVIL was technically a subset of OVERLORD as COSSAC saw it yes the focus would technically be on OVERLORD, but there is still a strong possibility of the operations vs Sardinia, Corsica, & eventually south France would be executed.
 

ivanotter

Brooke's strategic trap was to get the German divisions down to Italy and gt them to stay there, not necessarily fighting them.
 
H.Flashman(VC)

H.Flashman(VC)

Cryhavoc101 said:
Also the further north the Allies get the closer their bombers get and the further their escorts can fly.
Click to expand...
urn_cambridge.org_id_binary_20191021092957000-0423_9781139855969_03892map17_1.png

(Not a question for you personal, but more to all responders here) Wasn't this the big pro of the Italian campaign? Ploesti and the southern parts of the Reich in range. Or was this a neglible factor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top