Quote:
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.
|
Why? For all the reasons that T.A. Gardner sets out, viz
Quote:
First, the Venice proposal requires moving a fleet into the very restricted Adriatic Sea unsupported by air power (beyond whatever carrier aircraft might be provided. It is a long and exposed sea route that would have given the Germans and Italians considerable time to apply both sea and air power to attack the invasion convoys.
The Monaco version would have required the conquest of Corsica and Sardinia first to avoid having Axis forces and air power in the rear of the Allied landings. These islands would also be required for the Allies to base their own air power for support.
Both landings expose the Allied supply train to attack. Both would have long and very vulnerable sea routes of supply. It would be akin the Rommel's problem with Malta in North Africa.
Dual landings would not be possible given the amount of amphibious equipment the Allies had available.
This does not even cover the problems in politics that either would face, particularly from the British.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious
Hannibal landed an army in a position so that he could enter Italy from the top.
|
I'm afraid that wasn't the case. Hannibal was in Iberia (modern Spain) with his army at the start of the Second Punic War. He crossed the Pyrenees and then Transalpine Gaul (modern France) reaching the Rhone Vally before the Romans could block him. He then crossed the Alps into Cisalpine Gaul (modern northern Italy), the crucial factor here was that the Gauls of the Po Valley were allied with Hannibal and at war with Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious
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.
|
Napoleon didn't choose where to invade Italy. The French Revolutionary Army of Italy was already in Italy strung out from Nizza (Nice, then an Italian port) to Savona when he was sent from France to take command on 17 March 1796. At that time Italy was a series of dukedoms, republics, minor kingdoms, and the papal states. Where else would he have gone to fight the Piedmontese and the Austrians except to northern Italy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious
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.
|
Ever hear of the Republic of Venice? Venice in its impregnable position resisted every attempt at invasion for over 1,500 years. It is the worst terrain possible with its seemingly endless saline swamps and the very best place to defend. In addition to its advantageous position there was the Third Reich armed to the teeth on the Brenner Pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curious
The biggest mistake that the Allies made in WWII was putting Eisenhower in charge instead of Patton.
|
You feel that Patton would have been the better diplomat, do you? He wouldn't have caused as many ruffled feathers as Eisenhower, possibly with Montgomery as his deputy.