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

Well, 'curious' certainly hooked us out onto the dryland. Probablly just to watch us flop around his propositions. At least I'd rather think him a clever troll than actually beliving his assertations.

 

Non-existent? On 8 September 1943 the Italian battle fleet Regia Marina consisted of:
6 modern battleships (the Littoria-Italia, Vittorio Veneto, Roma, Dullio, Doria, and Cesere)
5 heavy battle-cruisers (the Montecuccoli, Duca d'Aosta, Eugenio di Savoia, Duca degli Abruzzi, and Garibaldi)
4 light cruisers (Cadorna, Pompeo Magno, Scipione Africano, and Attilio Regolo)
16 destroyers (Artigliere, Carabiniere, Crispi, Da Noli, Da Recco, Euro, Fuciliere, Grecale, Legionario, Mitragliere, Oriani, Riboty, Sella, Turbine, Velite, and Vivaldi)
40 torpedo boats
33 submarines
90 MAS (fast anti-submarine torpedo boats)

The Italian fleet, under the command of Admiral Pier Paolo Bergamini, was ready to leave port to oppose the Allied landings on 8 September 1943, which was expected in the Gulf of Salerno. Supermarina had already sent operational battle orders at 8 AM. Subsequently, whilst at sea details of the armistice were passed to Admiral Bergamini and he was ordered by the king to proceed to Malta to surrender the fleet to the Allies. The bulk of the Italian fleet sailed for Malta - three battleships, cruisers and destroyers from La Spezia and Genoa, and three more battleships and other vessels from Taranto and the Adriatic.

The trouble with what if scenarios is that if you change one fact the ramifications are incalculable. Had Pantelleria and Sicily not been taken it is hardly likely that the Fascist Grand Council would have been convened on 25 July 1943 and Dino Grandi's motion passed. Without the fall of Mussolini Italy's presence in the war would have dragged on and the Italian Partisan movement would not have arisen. There was a formidable Italian naval presence at La Spezia, which conveniently faces Monaco across the Gulf of Genoa. Brilliant planning to stage a tricky invasion opposite the Italian equivalent of Portsmouth and Toulon, what? And all this without land-based air cover, Salerno was chosen because it was at the extreme limit of the air range of fighters from airfields captured in Sicily, allowing for ten minutes combat time over the landing beaches for American Lightnings but about half that for Mustangs and Spitfires.

 

Wow. Curious you are awsome. This is the second of your threads that I got to and, WOW.

No need for me to visit more than severl ideas here.

1) Why Italy at all. There was no way any Allied force was going to make it into Germany until Germany was beaten. Look at the Alps.

2) The position that Eisenhower filled was very difficult becasue of polotics. Roosevelt told Churchill in 41 that Americans hate the British it is part of our culture but when it comes to fighting Germany we will make it work.

Churchill was the man behind all of the activities in the Med. If you dont like them look their for your source.

3) Supply lines.

 

With respect, I think you are a bit confused here. In 1943 Fascist Italy was part of the Axis and had to be defeated. Italy's collapse in September 1943 was entirely unforeseen, much as France's collapse was unforeseen in 1940.

The Allies, in Europe, were fighting against both Italy and Germany.

 

Monaco is an independent nation that is neither part of Italy nor does its population speak Italian. I think you meant "north of Italy".

 

Hardly a nation, it is a small independent principality just beyond the Italian border at the western limit of the Gulf of Genoa, practically facing La Spezia.

It was originally a Genoese fortress, in the charge of the Genoese Grimaldi family. It had a population of under 20,000 in 1943. Today the population is just over 32,000. But you are right in that an invasion there would land you in France, not Italy. It was linked up to France in the 19th century.

 

That is correct Peter. The Assault of the rock by the Grimaldis is quite a legend.

 

On a side note, fact is that the Principality of Monaco must have a male ruler so at this stage Prince Albert has no ligimate children and if he was to die now the Pricipality of Monaco would revert back to The Republic of France.

 

Hmm, interesting thought to have all these taxpayers back.

 

Not confused at all. Italy was a minor ally in the war. As shown, without Italy, Germany could fight on for years. However, had Germany fallen in 44 the war would have ended in 44, Italy could not nor would not fight without her.

The original American plan called for an invasion of France in 43 if not 42. Churchill did not want to invade the continent until that last moment to avoid loss of life, and so he redirected the build up for RoundUp to Torch. Which the invasion of Italy was an extenion of.

So again why Italy. What did defeating Italy do that invading France would not have done?

 

Oh that is so easy, it opens up a third front, Germany must send in units that otherwise would be facing the Soviets, Italy had proven a worthless ally, Germany from 1941 had to continually bale out its ally. US and Britain knew that Germany's achillies heel was Italy.

 

I definitely have to agree with this one. Ike was the right man for the job. Though he was just a colonel when he was under Doug Macarthur and never saw action in World War I, he had the skills needed for the demanding job of handling a multinational force.

I admire Patton but I don't think that his personal temperament was suited for such a sensitive position that Ike handled. I remember a book describing how Ike handled a Monty outburst. Ike said, "Careful Monty, I'm still your boss." And Monty, taken aback, immediately apologized. Would Patton have the same tact? Unfortunately, I don't think so.

 

And again, if France had been invaded it would have also made the Germans send men from the east to fight. But when in France the Allies have the possibility of conquering German industry both in France and Germany, something not available in Italy.


Back to the question why even bother with Italy?

 

Agreed.
Even earlier. When France was already on her knees in June 1940 , Italy stabbed her in her back by declaring war on her. However they never got through the alps, despite an ill prepared offensive and had the battle gone on they would have had their asses kicked.

 

Indeed, Italy was worthless as ally, their real succes was taking Etiopia (Ethiopië) because the civilization there still fought with sticks. Germany always had to rescue the Italians in North-Africa..

Italy never had to join the war. Mussolini waited till Germany invaded France and had beaten it and then declared war to them in hope to get some land. But Mussolini lost almost every where he went. Italy wasn't ready for war and were unprepared surely in Greece and North-Africa. He made early succes in Tripoli but they lost again.

Mussolini dreamed about a new Italian / Roman Empire. He needed some easy gains for it. He thought that Germany would've ended the war in matters of months but it wasn't. Still some Italian troops fought with Germany side-by-side.. But they were incapable to fight a war, Mussolini gambled and as result for gambling he lost.

 

Which proves even the most twisted what-if can give birth to a jewel of a post.

 

It might have been smarter for the Allies to leave Italy alone and let Il Duce's bumbling continue to drain Germany. After clearing Africa air and naval superiority could be established in the Mediterianian, and then Allied deception efforts, like Mincemeat or Fortitude drawn many more German corps southwards to fend off phantoms.

As it was 'liberating' Italy left the industrial north of Italy in Germanys hands for two more years and the US got to feed the impovrished and stratigicly worthless Southern Italy.

 

I'd say that by August 1944 Ike lost the dressingroom. His army commanders disagreed with his politics, and given the egos about, many were fed up with some amateur points.

Ike was doing what Chamberlain had done before him appeasement poletics, something that fuel the feud between British and US commanders.

If Ike had read Monty and Patton (in particular) the riot-act and drawn up his own plan and given them the option to follow orders or jog off, we might have had a different setting.

I am still searching for info on Alex to form an oppinion on how he fared. People are split between him beeing an efficient leader that managed to get the best out of his men, to an absolute donkey.

 

Must say that at times Ike seemed to be too far away from the front in his HQ, then again at times when forced he did some tough decisions, too. Somewhow though he managed to keep it all together. Don´t know if anyone else had the nerves/capability to it?

--------

Patton and slapping incident ( Ike let Patton back to "work" even if the scandal might have required sending him back to the US so Patton owed Ike )

General Patton was relieved of his command of the 7th Army on 31
December 1943, more than four months after the "slapping incident".
This long time span between the incident and the consequences may seem
odd at first sight; but the "slapping incident" did not become a
public scandal before late November 1944. On 1 January 1944, General
Mark W. Clark became acting commander of the 7th Army, until General
Alexander M. Patch took command on 2 March 1944.

Later, General Patton was commander of the 3rd Army from 26 January
1944 to 7 October 1945. That means, his time without a command was
considerably short, only 26 days in January 1944.

AmericanHeritage.com / A FATEFUL FRIENDSHIP

The final command collision happened after the Battle of the Bulge.Picking the absolute worst time to further upset the supreme allied commander, Montgomery sent Eisenhower another letter demanding that he be promoted to ground-force commander of all allied forces facing Germany. He had finally pushed Ike beyond his limit of endurance with respect to such blatant insubordination. Montgomery’s press conference, the resulting British press reports, and the letter demanding promotion all combined to blatantly suggest to the world that Ike could not handle battle command.

Eisenhower convened a staff meeting at his headquarters, which Monty’s Chief of Staff Major General Francis de Guingand attended, and announced that he was relieving Montgomery of command. Ike circulated a cable he would send the Joint Chiefs of Staff requesting Monty’s removal from office. Unlike his boss, Freddie de Guingand fully recognized that Montgomery would lose in any open confrontation and implored Ike to give him 24 hours to sort out the situation with Montgomery. Reluctantly, Ike agreed.

General de Guingand immediately flew to Montgomery’s headquarters in Brussels and informed him that he would be replaced. It had not dawned on Monty that he had finally pushed Eisenhower too far and that he would lose his command. A chagrined Montgomery sat down and penned a letter to Eisenhower which he began with “Dear Ike” and ended with the words, “Very distressed that my letter may have upset you and I would ask you to tear it up. Your very devoted subordinate, Monty.”

Eisenhower Memorial Commission: Ike and Monty

 

Interesting thought. It would be nice to actually start a "what if" topic on this alone. The question about Germany gettinig stronger or weaker with or without Italy is worth a debate.
The Germans would still have to invade the Balkans because if they had left the Greeks and the British going up north, Austria might not have secure for long and Yougoslavia unocupied would have been too dangerous.