Monte Cassino/ Anzio

You're right, Nine. But it is still the best way to attack Italy - on paper. Just have a look at the map... Napoléon's axiom is like those thoughts of Tsun-Tzu, undebatable and always the best option, despite they cannot be performed EVERY time...

 

I suppose what they’re all saying Freddy, is first capture the lowlands around the rivers Po and Ticino, i.e. Piedmont, Lombardy, Venito, then move south east through Piacenza, Parma, Bologna etc. At some point you’ll need to cross the Apennines and take Florence, Rome. You’ll never take the mountains, just pass through them. You can support west coast town assault with sea landings and thereafter the remaining southern ports would probably tumble if not capitulate?

Rommel wanted to withdraw from Italy after ’43 and hold the Alps which form the natural northern border? Kesselring disagreed, but none could have anticipated the effectiveness and ferocity of the Partisan movement that grew. As well documented, at any one time at least 6 German division were tied-up with the Partisans, excluding Karl Wolff’s SS and the Italian fascist units!

No.9

 

No, I wouldn't say Mark Clark was an idiot, but like a lot of generals, he had a big ego. He was likely jealous of Ike and wanted to become president, too, but becoming the first conqueror of Rome from the south since Belisarius didn't accomplish what he wanted.

No, I would have to say that bombing the monastery at Monte Cassino was one of the dumbest moves by the Western Allies in the entire war.

Possibly, but with the big guns of the navy as heavy artillery to back VI Corps up, it would likely have been a close-run thing.

Yes, I'd have to think that a better man than John Lucas should've been in charge at Anzio. For example, what if Patton had taken a temporary reduction in rank to major general just to command VI Corps?

A statement I'd like to make: I think Italy is the most underrated theater of the whole war, especially after the taking of Rome. All the headlines went to France after that. The soldiers who fought in Italy deserve more credit than their descendants normally give them--and that goes for the men on both sides.

Yours,
Paul

 

I noticed that I know way too little about this theater... can anybody recommend a good websource?

 

Knight, member Pat has done a great deal of work transcribing much American data to his website http://www.milhist.net/#ord. From an American perspective there’s a lot there. Other info, such as British Order of Battle should be taken as a rough guide only as there are inaccuracies, but there again the site does not set-out to cover all aspects.

Though Italy was the first invasion of Europe, (surprising how many Play Station kiddies think it was Normandy), and references used centre on Cassino, Cassino, Cassino – as if that was all the Italian campaign was about. All this has been gone into on this site in the past. If you really want to study what the Italian campaign was about you need good books and official records.

To understand what Italy was about you need to start your reading from about 1858 (and I don't mean 2 minutes to 7).

Thank you for resurrecting a six week old thread Paul, however, it is well and correctly established on this site that Clark is a prime contender for rectum of the war, and, it’s hard to fathom you believe Clark was beset with egotism and jealously yet wasn’t an idiot? Clark put his personal ambitions before the welfare of his men, his country and the whole Allied directive. Hence if as you say he wasn’t an idiot, then he knew exactly what he was doing and everything was thoroughly intentional – so he was scum in command who was responsible for lengthening the war in Italy and the deaths of thousands. Perhaps an idiot would have been better as law of averages says they usually get some things right by accident.

A “what if” (which I personally don’t care for) involving Patton would depend on what he or any other commander did. Whatever they did was without accurate in-depth intelligence and insufficient men and materiel, which hampered things in the first place. If he beachheaded and dug-in, that’s what Walker did. If acted like he may well have done and rushed straight into Rome, his inadequate force and supplies would have been grossly over stretched and easily chipped away at and at best secured a propaganda objective but one which was also strategically insignificant, and, still failed in the prime objective of relieving pressure on the Gustav Line offensive and preventing the German withdrawal north. If he had ignored the German counter attack Clark was paranoid about, and pushed east to cut and hold the access roads to the Gustav, if the Allies didn’t revise their plans and increase the divisions allocated, he would have been isolated in pockets where after it would have been a case of seeing if they could hold out with air supply till a breakthrough and link-up occurred.

No.9

 

* oops double post *

 

KM, I had to beef myself up on this theater as well, Pan Ballentine released a wholes series of books in the 70s, about reader's digest size, they covered all aspects of the war from weapons, to battles, to countries fighting in the war.
Not a definitive book but a more than adequate "Dummy's guide" which assumes you know more than the average guy about military history. They are also cheap (of course second hand) I got mine for £3.

I've got my hands on "Cassino" by Dominick Graham, (1970) and it is a great read.

 

Thanks for reviving the thread, Paul and Knight! I really enjoy it.

Knight and Brat, I guess you'll have to add some Italian campaign books to your wish list this Christmas...! I think you could start by John McDonald's "Great Battles of WWII" which is a great book covering many battles in detailed, short and yet a precise way. Many good photographs, maps, battle plans, 3D diagrams and paintings of the battle. Anzio/Cassino is one of the best ones there.

And Paul, we have come to the conclussion in this forum that indeed, general Mark Clark was an idiot. Perhaps graduating from West Point and reaching the rank of general is not a sign of idiocy at all, but doing all what he did at Italy IS...

This is true. I have always been a strong advocate of the big naval guns. The only problem here is that Kesselring had a few attack planes, bombs and midget submarines to attack the fleet and make it pay dearly to be there. No the exact same case than in the Baltic nor Normandy.

Patton temporarily under command of VI Army Corps? Do not think so at all. Mark Clark wouldn't have allowed some one as bright and as charming and rebell as Patton to serve under his orders - nor I think Patton would have agreed. Kesselring precisely claimed that "if Patton would have been in command he would have taken Rome and attacked the X Army by the rear, since there wasn't a single German soldier between Cassino and Vienna".

And just to add that it was Mark Clark the one who told Lucas to dig in and wait, preventing a new Salerno. And even if Nine is right about the limited forces that landed there, it was better to achieve little things because of the surprise factor and the momentum advancing towards anywhere, than sitting there waiting for Kesselring to mass ten divisions in front of you... (That was supported by Clark, in complete disagreement and disobedience with his superior, general Alexander).

 

Do you have any references Freddy that say the Anzio landing was adequately provided for to the satisfaction of the commanders? Re-supply was always going to be a problem especially because of the restricted ships and crafts allocated. There were directives to start transferring for Normandy.

There’s a useful map at http://userpages.aug.com/mcintire/prop/latium.jpg

It’s a modern one, not a battle map as such, but it does show, given the circumstances, what little value taking the city of Rome was in relation to preventing or at least inhibiting German troop movements up and down to the Gustav.

Even when the breakout eventually was achieved, Clark sent only a token force to the edge of the Albani hills and concentrated on entering Rome, while the Germans waltzed along route 7 with impunity.

No.9

 

Well, it was just a thought, Friedrich. I do passionately believe that someone other than Lucas could've done a lot better. Probably someone with a lot more determination would've insisted that more than two divisions were needed for an "end run" like Anzio.

Don't get me wrong, No. 9; I'm not the president of the Georgia chapter of the Mark Clark Fan Club or anything. But I'm just too charitable to see people as "stupid", and besides, Clark wouldn't have gotten where he was if he had been "stupid".

My personal favorite Allied commander in Italy is Alexander--I guess, partially, because that's my last name, too. But entirely aside from possible familial connections, Alexander was a darn fine combat general who was equally skilled at retreats (at Dunkirk and Burma) and offensives (as, for example, in finishing off the Axis in North Africa; he did, after all, take the title "Earl of Tunis" after his greatest victory). He may not have been a "Great Captain", but he was a real professional who got the job done, whatever it was he was called upon to do.

Yours,
Paul

 

Actually Paul, perhaps ‘idiot’ is the wrong term for Clark if you want to be accurate, but I think true to say he was a person of limited capacity in respect of command astuteness. He was no great war-horse who rose through the ranks by battlefield distinction. Everything suggests he should have been/stayed an admin man. I’m sure he was a ‘good ‘ole boy’ with his superiors, but IMHO, he was egocentric and over ambitious at the expense of the men he commanded.

He titled his biography ‘Calculated Risk’ which could sum him up quite well if you take it he got it wrong all the time. The only time Clark went out on a limb was in seizing Rome, which, as he confesses in his book, he had every intention of doing from the beginning, irrespective. Apart from this there is little to show he ever thought for himself, but quite a bit to show his arrogance to those he did not have to, or was not ordered to, kiss-up to. I’ve sited this before, but to restate, before Torch (America’s first ‘biggie’), he was sent to receive a briefing at British MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service). As this was very important, Stewart Menzies, the head of MI6, conducted the briefing personally. Clark started to fidget then looked at his watch, said he had to leave and walked out! If he had been a British officer he’d have been filling sandbags the next day.

Can’t agree only the best commanders are made generals, sorry.

I also can’t heap too much praise on Alexander. I by no means under-rate him, (quite like him actually), and when it comes to ‘good ‘ole boys’ and charisma he wrote the book. By all accounts he was talented and was an awfully, awfully nice man (they wanted him for Ike’s deputy), but, the downside is that occasionally even an awfully, awfully nice man needs to ‘kick a little arse’. One such occasion was when Clark was engineering his advance into Rome. Attempting to cover his butt, Clark was selective in his reports to Alexander with ambiguity to achieve replies which could be construed as consent. Alexander should have been dogmatic in objectives set Clark with no deviation, or else!

You rightfully say, Alexander was successful in North Africa and Burma. Now ask yourself who his field commanders were? Montgomery, Patton, Slim, Stillwell, Merrill, Wingate – well?

No.9

[ 19. December 2003, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: No.9 ]

 

As I stated above, Clark of course, was not and idiot. Graduating from West Point and getting some stars on his shoulders is no sign of idiocy. But then Mark Clark was a very incompetent field commander, strategist and tactician. Add a huge ego to all that and then you'll have a general who disobbeys his superiors and doesn't listen to his subordinates' advices. The strategic blunders that he made, when deploying and managing his forces in Italy, cost the Allied war effort dearly. And field marshal Alexander, who was a very capable strategist, was - as nine said - a too nice man. Being such a charming officer, he succeeded in cooperating with Slim, Monty, Patton, Bradley and others - who, even if egotistical, were realistic. But when he came up with someone as indolent and pedantic as Clark, he was too nice to him. Clark needed someone above him who told him: "You're a bloody idiot and you just do as I say!". Alexander's main flaw was that he didn't give orders, but suggestions. Suggestions that a realistic general listens to. But of course, someone who believes himself a new Napoléon and Alexander the Great...

I agree with you that Lucas wasn't precisely the best general to do the job, even if he was a master with artillery. Kesselring's troops paid very expensive Lucas' genious for artillery managing. But Lucas didn't advance from the beach head because Clark told him not to, because at Salerno, Clark had advanced and been almost defeated. Alexander suggested Clark to do neither in either case...

You're right, nine, about the logistical problems that the Allies would have experienced if advancing through Anzio. The lack of ships and support because of D-day was not helping matters. And even if Rome was not strategically important at all, Albani mountains and the route to Rome were, and having pushed through them would have made Kesselring very nervous, thus, weakening his position at Cassino. Which was the very intention of the landing at Anzio!

But again, Italy is the perfect theatre for the what-ifs...

 

I read of the Flyover Bridge at Anzio. Can someone tell more of the bridge and the important battles around it?

 

This was a concrete overpass where an east-west road crossed the main road to Albano in the Anzio beachhead.

'After The Battle' magazine featured this bridge in their 'Anzio' issue some years ago. The battle-scarred bridge could still be seen at that time but sadly, I believe it has since been demolished.

 

Found it - in issue 52 of 'After The Battle' .

The overpass was on the Via Anziate and was the focus of very heavy fighting during Operation 'Fischfang'; the major German counteroffensive of 16-20 February 1944.

The US 179th Infantry came under determined attack from a force comprising parts of Infanterie-Regiments 145, 725 and 741. The overpass became a crisis-point as it was less than one mile from the final beachhead line. Some Panzers actually reached the bridge and in response the area came under fire from the entire US Corps artillery and XII Air Support Command who dropped 830 tons of ordnance.

Tanks of the US 1st Armored Regiment arrived to fight off further attacks.

The 'ATB' article contains several photos of the overpass including an aerial view showing the knocked-out Panzers. The article was prepared in 1976 and contains a photo of the surviving bridge supports which were demolished shortly afterwards to make way for a new highway bridge.

 

Yes, the flyover has gone. It is one of the things my father remembers well, and I went looking for it last year, to no avail. There isn't much left at Anzio, but I didn't get a chance to explore the gullies and nullahs, and front line area, when I was last there - I was told it was all built on, but from a brief recce there is still much out in the country. Am saving that one for another day.

There is much more left at Cassino; but you have to get off the beaten track. Last year we found sangars (infantry positions), mortar pits, MG positions etc. all within a short walk of where all the tourists go to the abbey, but not another visitor in sight - bliss!

 

Reading bits from Nigel Nicolson´s "Alex"

In this book it is mentioned that the Germans would have escaped the subsidiary routes throught the mountains ( Valmente ) so that trying to cut the German´s route from the Anzio beach head would not have been very succesful in the end...(??). So one might as well go for Rome.

Anyone heard of this one before?

 

Kai,

Its one thing to march your troops over subsidiary routes, but to move your Armour, Guns and heavier trucks you need a well made road with bridges capable of carrying their weight.

While the Italian main roads were excellent, their secondary network was deplorable.

I've never heard of any good reasons of heading for Rome, except from those trying to excuse Clark's actions.

 

Monte Camino, or what is left of it, is irreverently referred to as Million Dollar Hill.

A week later, after dark of December 2nd, 600 Allied guns in the valley began the greatest artillery concentration since El Alamein. This artillery expenditure earned for the target the popular name of "Million Dollar Mountain."

http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36division/archives/million/million.htm

 

General Alexander sought unsuccessfully to have the death penalty reinstated for desertion as the battle wore on....

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3487075.stm