Originally Posted by curious

I always wondered why any sane person would ever allow that timid old woman Montgomery plan anything more adventurous than a tea party. Take the Italian campaign. Why invade Sicily at all? It is not a strategic target.

McArthur never fought a battle that was not of strategic significance, and MacArthur's entire pacific campaign after the fall of the Philipines suffered fewer casualties than the battle of Anzio.

Patton had a rule, always fight campaigns the way the best ancient military minds fought them.

At the time of the Italian campaign Italy had never been successfully conquered from the toe or the heel up. Although, lots of generals had tried, and failed. Italy had only been successfully conquered from the top down.

So, what if Patton, not Montgomery had laid out the plan for the conquest of Italy. I think I know what Patton would have done.

Hannibal landed an army in a position so that he could enter Italy from the top. Napoleon said that the only way to conquer Italy is from the top. A review of any of the innumerable attempts at conquering Italy shows that Napoleon was right. Patton was a student of history. He would have copied Hannibal and Napoleon.

The invasion would have consisted of two landings, one at Monaco and one at Venice. The landing force at Venice would immediately move to the PO valley and move up the valley with the end target of Cremona. The force landing at Monaco moves north to the Tanaro valley and move East with the end target of Cremona.

When the two armies link up the Axis troops in Italy are cut off from reinforcement and resupply, and the Allies control the industrial center of Italy. The Axis forces, if they want to break out then have to slog hundreds of miles over mountainous terrain while being harrassed by Allied air power.

Have fun boyz.

Curious