Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Italian campaign uses Hannibal's plan...not Montgomery's

Discussion in 'What If - Mediterranean & North Africa' started by curious, Dec 1, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. curious

    curious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    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
     
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    At least quite a demanding operation...

    For troops having previously gone through one invasion like the Torch sounds like a bit too tough cookie to go for next. (Then again the US were wanting an invasion in France 1943 already in the real world...).


    Ok, but first you´d need to have the troops figured that land, how much ships you had in use ( landing craft etc ) at the moment, what you´d need to do to bomb the railways around the landing areas etc. And also what would you do with Corsica and Sardinia. Also you´d need to think at that point about the Italian navy as well.

    If you could get the Italians on your side secretly they could help with the Venice landing without German interference, but that´s another story.
     
  3. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    Curious.

    Stop pulling by leg, read up on what happened, and edit your post.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  4. curious

    curious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    The landings in Sicily were the largest amphibious operation ever. Patch's landings at the Riviera were equally large in terms of ships required, etc. The Allies had the shipping tonnage necessary to make the landings I suggest. The Italian Navy was non-existent at this point in the war. Corsica and Sardinia were lightly defended and had no air or naval bases of any consequence.

    Bombing anywhere near the two landing zones would not have been wise. These landings would have been a complete surprise. Two phony campaigns could have been set up as was done prior to the Normandy landings when Hitler was made to believe that Calais was the intended target of DDAY. For the Venice landings, the phony operation could make Hitler believe that Albania was the intended target and the purpose of the invasion was to link up with Tito's forces in Yugoslavia (where 25 divisions were fighting 25 German divisions on more or less equal terms). For the Monaco landings the phony operation could make Hitler believe that the intended target was the Riviera.

    Given the centralized command and control of the German military, with all major decisions going through Hitler, making Hitler believe that the Monaco and Venice landings were "diversions", as he believed concerning the Normandy campaign would have been more important to the Allies than bombing the railways around Monaco and Venice. What you really want to bomb are the railways heading toward the Riviera from further north in France, and the railways which cross the rough terrain in Austria on their way to Italy.

    The Allies had the shipping, the airpower, and the men to launch this enterprise, what they lacked was audacity. The biggest mistake that the Allies made in WWII was putting Eisenhower in charge instead of Patton. And then the mistake was compounded by Eisenhower's insistence on doing what was politically expedient instead of what was militarily expedient and letting Montgomery develop the Italian campaign plans instead of giving that job to Patton.

    For a military person to purposely choose to have the Allied forces slog from south to north down the Italian peninsula with natural defensive barriers running east to west every few miles was idiocy. Marshall should have cashiered whoever presented that plan on the spot.

    The Italian Inchon campaign would have worked and worked marvelously.
     
  5. curious

    curious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    Excuse me?
     
  6. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WWII Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    587
    As someone who fought in both the Sicilian & Italian campaigns I ask Curious to consider what it would have been like fighting on the Southern Italian mainland with the Germans still in posession of Sicily ?

    It's me who's Curious :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  7. curious

    curious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    Venice and Monaco are in northern italy. Wth the Axis forces cut off from resupply and reinforcement and the industrial part of Italy in allied hands, why do the Allies have to fight in southern italy at all? The germans weren't going anywhere, especially without fuel.
     
  8. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    142
    I'll ignore the unwarrented slur on Monty, and point out a basic fact, which if you knew anything about the military stratagy of the US and and GB in WW2 you would already know, Monty did not choose to invade Sicily, he was ordered too, by the Allied governments



    According to a number of Americans, McArthur's whole campaign was of little strategic significance, according to them, it would have been far better if the Japanese troops had been left to 'wither on the vine' and concentrate on the island hopping campaign to attack Japan directly
    [
     
  9. Jaeger

    Jaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    223
    Curious

    I meant that this drivel that you posted annoyed me. And your statements show that either

    A: Very limited knowledge and understanding.
    B: You get your kicks from irritating people.

    Most of our members try to treat eachother (and the people who fought in the war) with respect. That is why we can have good discussions.
     
  10. Seadog

    Seadog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    11
    I have to agree that this smacks of drivel. Patton was a brilliant general, but you do not run a military on genius alone. Eisenhower was put in charge for the reason that he was one of the few men who could maintain control over the variety of headaches that comes with such a job. As for the business of attacking where and how, these are things that are decided months in advance, based on anticipated assets and conditions. It takes a long time to get assets arranged for any major assault. Therefor, once a target is selected, it is rare that things get changed, even if there are last minute circumstances that add to the risk.
     
  11. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    I find your attack on Monty quite disturbing, he was slow but very meticulous, he was never rushed into attacking his opponent when his troops were'nt ready.

    And now to Italy, the Italian campaign was done because rightly Stalin was putting pressure on the Western Allies to do something about Europe, America and Britain were in no shape to launch an invasion of Europe directly, so they chose the weakest option and that was through the underbelly of Europe via North Africa. Operation Torch was carried out and smacked the Italian, German and Vichy French backsides. Sicily was an extension to Operation Torch, and Italy was also an extension, you get the picture, this effectively drew the Axis into a three front war that it had no hope of winning, Italy had by this stage grown weary of war and changed sides.

    No the only way the Italian campaign could be won was from the south. if you did what you suggested then the US landing forces would come up against exclusively German forces not Italian, making the casualty rate very high indeed and if it failed it could put the Normandy invasion back one or two years.
     
  12. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    This seems to be based on the idea that Montgomery had the authority in 1943 to choose stratigic targets. As Eighth Army commander he was barely consulted on this. The strategy for the Mediterrainian and elsewhere was set at the highest levels, by Marshall and Brooke and their staffs with Roosevelt & Churchill making the final choices when there were disputes. Eisenhowers recomendations had some weight in this as he was the theatre commander. Montgomerys role was operational and confined to how the attack was to be executed, not where it was to be directed.

    The value of Sicilly was in its location next to the Mediterrainian sea lanes. The British badly wanted to reopen the route from Gibraltar to Suez. As long as the Axis had airbases on Sicilly the ship routes were threatened. The Allied air commanders also wanted airbases in Sicilly for attacking Axis industrial cities in Northern Italy and in Germany from the south, to supplement the attacks from Britian. The air bases in Africa were a little too far for efficient air raids. Last it was hoped that conquoring Sicilly would tip the Italians into surrendering.
     
  13. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    Just an aside, why is disturbing for him to disdain Montgomery, but not for you to do likewise to GS Patton. :confused: Apparently his abilities were well thought of for him to be returned to command of an army on the continent and I don't see how his lack of respect for shell-shocked soldier has any bearing on ability to be an operational commander. I'm not an especially big fan of Patton, but wasn't he successful in what he did?
     
  14. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    Yes you are quite right of course, my appolgies and will edit my post accordingly, thank you for your candid observation.

    And so i have remove the assertions on Patton and MacArthur for another thread maybe.

    Cheers
    von Rundstedt:eek:
     
  15. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I severely doubt that the Allies would have attempted such risky operations. The problems with either (or both) are many.

    First, the Venice proposal requires moving a fleet into the very restricted Adriadic 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.
     
  16. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WWII Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    692
    Likes Received:
    587

    I have been following this thread with more than some interest but have made but only one comment to date.

    However, after re-reading the earlier part of the thread I can't help but take Curious to task on one minor issue.

    He states (presumably for my benefit as he has just quoted me) "Venice & Monaco are in Northern Italy"

    Really ?

    A brief glance at my "signature" below would have revealed that I spent four winters in Italy (1943-1946) and am therefore unlikely to need a basic lesson in the geography of the area.

    As for a major landing in the Venice area ?, the mind boggles, I only wish that this thread had cropped up before May this year when I returned to stay in the Venice area after a gap of sixty odd years. I'm sure that it would have provided me with some good holiday reading !
     
  17. PeterG

    PeterG Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why? For all the reasons that T.A. Gardner sets out, viz
    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  18. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    :D A most entertaining thought.
    My god, can you imagine it... World War Three of an entirely different kind instigated within SHAEF headquarters itself...

    Thank goodness the thought is only limited to our musings here and could never have been seriously considered by the Alanbrookes and Marshalls of the period.
    I'm often staggered by how Eisenhower handled so many fractious parties and dangerous possibilities with that constant public aura of calm.
    The epitome of the political/diplomat General required to make such grand strategy work.

    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
  19. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    18,045
    Likes Received:
    2,364
    Location:
    Alabama
    I remember years ago reading a anecdotal comment about how rivalries between the countries in Eisenhower's command were handled. Americans could refer to a Brit as a son of a bitch, they just could call them a British son of a bitch. He said the same standard applied to the Brits as well, when refering to the Americans.
     
  20. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    890
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Germany was not that much out of the game not to worry about leaving them at your back door. Once you land in Venice or Monaco, you have to worry about the Germans in Southern France as well as those in the North and to the South. You are well far from Air support and supplies. The Italian not being a focal point for invading Germany, it would have taken a lot more commitment of forces and resources than the allies were willing to provide. You never leave a sizable enemy force behind you.

    As for Patton being a better theater commander......well as much as I like Patton, I would have to say that he would have to invade Germany without the French, British and all the other countries that provided support. He would have pissed them off and he would not mind it but those countries were needed to win the war. Even Hitler had to play politics with his allies as much as he disdained them. Eisenhower had a difficult job and did well with it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page