Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success ?
Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success ?
I would like to discuss benefits and negative aspects of Italian Campaign here. What were the benefits and what was wasteful utilization of Allied resources ?
1) Landing Italy and knocking Italy out of war and collapse of Mussolini's goverment were no doubt important both in political and moral sense. Italian Armed Foces were out of war which made Allied cause much easier. ( Surrender of Italian Navy was big bonus especially )
2) Tying at least 20 to 25 German divisions in Italy is also an important factor in sucess of Overlord , Invasion of France in June 1944. Not to mention all other strategic areas where Italian forces surrendered ( like Aegean and Adriatic Coast ) and Germans took over. This led to a further distribution of limited German Armed Forces. All these divisions to defend Italy and its former possesions might have been utilized to defend France in 1944 and made a significant difference in defeating Allied invasion in Normandy.
3) Capture of Foggia airfields in Central Italy made Strategic Bombing Campaign much easier. It opened up a southern front in Strategic Bombign Campaign of Allies against Germany.
4) Capture of Sicily and Southern Italian coastline made Mediterranean a complate Allied lake , complated the aims of Torch , made Allied shipping lanes secure in Med. and released thousands of Allied shipping free.
Anything else you would like to add ?
1) Landing Italy and knocking Italy out of war and collapse of Mussolini's goverment were no doubt important both in political and moral sense. Italian Armed Foces were out of war which made Allied cause much easier. ( Surrender of Italian Navy was big bonus especially )
2) Tying at least 20 to 25 German divisions in Italy is also an important factor in sucess of Overlord , Invasion of France in June 1944. Not to mention all other strategic areas where Italian forces surrendered ( like Aegean and Adriatic Coast ) and Germans took over. This led to a further distribution of limited German Armed Forces. All these divisions to defend Italy and its former possesions might have been utilized to defend France in 1944 and made a significant difference in defeating Allied invasion in Normandy.
3) Capture of Foggia airfields in Central Italy made Strategic Bombing Campaign much easier. It opened up a southern front in Strategic Bombign Campaign of Allies against Germany.
4) Capture of Sicily and Southern Italian coastline made Mediterranean a complate Allied lake , complated the aims of Torch , made Allied shipping lanes secure in Med. and released thousands of Allied shipping free.
Anything else you would like to add ?
Last edited by merdiolu on 06 Apr 2010, 11:45, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
1) It was brilliant defending territory for the Germans, and they could successfully bleed the Allied armies as they advanced through the boot of Italy. Because all the best units kept getting taken away for other operations (eg Dragoon, Overlord) the Germans had the upper hand for most of the time in Italy. It did not take a lot of units to defend, and the fact that the Allies could not use their amour to its full therefore meant Germany was able to fight on a front where tanks were not vital, freeing Panzers for other theaters.
2)It also offered Germany a win at a difficult time, eg repulsing attacks on Cassino could be used as great propaganda that the Axis is still strong. To a lesser extent it was also a good position for new units to train before being sent to other theaters.
3) By fighting in Italy, Germany was able to keep the Allies as far from the Alps as possible, which would offer them an easy way into Europe. It was worth the divisions sent there.
2)It also offered Germany a win at a difficult time, eg repulsing attacks on Cassino could be used as great propaganda that the Axis is still strong. To a lesser extent it was also a good position for new units to train before being sent to other theaters.
3) By fighting in Italy, Germany was able to keep the Allies as far from the Alps as possible, which would offer them an easy way into Europe. It was worth the divisions sent there.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
Yes that was also looking from Axis side. I would continue to list benefits Allies gained from Italian Campaign...
5 ) Capturing Southern Italy and holding superirity in Mediterranean enabled Allies to launch Operation Dragoon in August 1944 to support the invasion of Normandy.
5 ) Capturing Southern Italy and holding superirity in Mediterranean enabled Allies to launch Operation Dragoon in August 1944 to support the invasion of Normandy.
-
- Member
- Posts: 877
- Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
- Location: Australia
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
I wouldn't say I have read or studied the Italian campaign extensively but all I know is that it was and is controversial.
In broad strategic and political terms I think it was successful. Not a stellar success but a success and necessary campaign. Committing and pinning German forces to the defence of Italy did give essential and material assistance to D Day.
It's failures were that to be successful the Italian campaign had to be very cunning and economical at the tactical and operation level. I don't think it achieved this success. The terrain was difficult and disadvantageous but there were other factors. For one, I think the Germans were at their best in their tactical flexibility taking full advantage of the terrain. The lack of unequivocal support from the Americans and the resulting lack of clear definable strategic aims was a hindrance and limitation.
For me 'the jury is still out' although at this stage I consider it a success and a useful contributor to the demise of Nazi Germany.
In broad strategic and political terms I think it was successful. Not a stellar success but a success and necessary campaign. Committing and pinning German forces to the defence of Italy did give essential and material assistance to D Day.
It's failures were that to be successful the Italian campaign had to be very cunning and economical at the tactical and operation level. I don't think it achieved this success. The terrain was difficult and disadvantageous but there were other factors. For one, I think the Germans were at their best in their tactical flexibility taking full advantage of the terrain. The lack of unequivocal support from the Americans and the resulting lack of clear definable strategic aims was a hindrance and limitation.
For me 'the jury is still out' although at this stage I consider it a success and a useful contributor to the demise of Nazi Germany.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
This is probably venturing into 'what if' territory, but I believe the allied war effort would have produced far better results at less cost had they adopted an indirect approach and gone the route NA-Sicily-Sardinia-Corsica rather than directly to the Italian mainland. By doing so you effectively turn the flank of the Axis defenses in southern and central Italy without having to fight thru it. It also allows for the progressive expansion of allied air cover, something that weighed heavily in the decision to go to Salerno rather than Rome.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
After surrender of Italy both Corsica and Sardinia were evacuated by Axis anyway. Weren't they ? ( I am not sure. Might be wrong ) But I agree Allied commanders should try a few more seaborne outflanking operations like Anzio. That attacking headfirst through Italian peninsula slowed them a lot.
-
- Member
- Posts: 877
- Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
- Location: Australia
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
The limitation was the availability of Allied naval assets in general and landing craft in particular. Normandy and the Pacific had priority, and an insatiable demand.merdiolu wrote: But I agree Allied commanders should try a few more seaborne outflanking operations like Anzio. That attacking headfirst through Italian peninsula slowed them a lot.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
6. The escape and return of thousands of Allied Prisoners of War including Lt. General Richard O'Connor and Monty's son-in-law.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
Yes I heard that nearly 12.000 Allied POWs escaped and returned to Allied forces when Italy has surrendered.Gooner1 wrote:6. The escape and return of thousands of Allied Prisoners of War including Lt. General Richard O'Connor and Monty's son-in-law.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
Italy was getting better and better in war with much better planes and armored vehicles, also better navy all with more professional soldiers. It would be a much bigger problem for Allies if they went to Italy in 44 or 45.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
That was a big controversy. What if the Dragoon troops had been used in Italy like the British wanted?merdiolu wrote:Yes that was also looking from Axis side. I would continue to list benefits Allies gained from Italian Campaign...
5 ) Capturing Southern Italy and holding superirity in Mediterranean enabled Allies to launch Operation Dragoon in August 1944 to support the invasion of Normandy.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
The invasion and defeat of Italy, thus gave the Allies a great base from which to launch possible landings along the Adriatic coast, upsetting the rather weak pro-Axis governments in SE Europe (Romania, Bulgaria etc), thus requiring the Germans to divert assets which could be used on more important fronts. Also the Romanian olfields came within easy reach, Turkey fell further into the Allied camp with Italy's defeat, release of major naval assets to other theatres etc
Regards
Andy H
Regards
Andy H
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
Optiow wrote:That was a big controversy. What if the Dragoon troops had been used in Italy like the British wanted?merdiolu wrote:Yes that was also looking from Axis side. I would continue to list benefits Allies gained from Italian Campaign...
5 ) Capturing Southern Italy and holding superirity in Mediterranean enabled Allies to launch Operation Dragoon in August 1944 to support the invasion of Normandy.
I know that Churchill was pressing for cancelling Operation Dragoon and using its forces for ongoing Italian Campaign. But he was thinking political considerations on that one. In his opinion Allied armies in Italy might cross Alps , enter Austria and Balkans and meet Red Army as far as possible. But in military terms I don't think it was a good option. Not only it would make Russians more suspicious and sow disharmony in Alliance in the wake of Germany's defeat ( that was what Nazis was counting to the end ) Germans always might have evacuated North Italy and retreat beyond Alps ( a very formidabble mountain range to cross ) It could turn another bloody attrition war that might look Monte Cassino like picnic. At the other hand by invading Southern France Allied Front in Western Europe became stable and orderly. It secured right flank of Eisenhower during Rhine battles. And provided some very good harbours like Marseilles ort Toulon to supply Allied armies. Not to mention railroad network in Southern France was in good condition and Allies also took advantage from that to supply their forces in field.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
I totally agree with that. While the Germans in Italy were strong, Army Group G in Southern France had few divisions, with all reserves being moved into the northern sectors of France. Most divisions that were left were refitting, and were understrength, and so it was a prefect place for a landing my my opinion.merdiolu wrote:Optiow wrote:That was a big controversy. What if the Dragoon troops had been used in Italy like the British wanted?merdiolu wrote:Yes that was also looking from Axis side. I would continue to list benefits Allies gained from Italian Campaign...
5 ) Capturing Southern Italy and holding superirity in Mediterranean enabled Allies to launch Operation Dragoon in August 1944 to support the invasion of Normandy.
I know that Churchill was pressing for cancelling Operation Dragoon and using its forces for ongoing Italian Campaign. But he was thinking political considerations on that one. In his opinion Allied armies in Italy might cross Alps , enter Austria and Balkans and meet Red Army as far as possible. But in military terms I don't think it was a good option. Not only it would make Russians more suspicious and sow disharmony in Alliance in the wake of Germany's defeat ( that was what Nazis was counting to the end ) Germans always might have evacuated North Italy and retreat beyond Alps ( a very formidabble mountain range to cross ) It could turn another bloody attrition war that might look Monte Cassino like picnic. At the other hand by invading Southern France Allied Front in Western Europe became stable and orderly. It secured right flank of Eisenhower during Rhine battles. And provided some very good harbours like Marseilles ort Toulon to supply Allied armies. Not to mention railroad network in Southern France was in good condition and Allies also took advantage from that to supply their forces in field.
~But it did lengthen the war at the Gothic line, as it removed around 7 divisions of good troops away from Italy, and left the Allies with nothing to strike at the Gothic line with.
Re: Italian Campaign (1943-1945) Strategic Waste or Success
I would argue it was a waste. True German troops were diverted there -- but so were Allied military pinned down in extremely
difficult terrain.
IMO, just with threats and commondo raids Hitler would have kept a large garrison in Italy (He did keep a full division
in the English Channel Islands till the end of the war -- he was known for never retreating once he had troops stationed
somewhere).
My personal feeling is that an invasion of S. France in late '43 / early '44 would have been a much better strategy
than the crawl up Italy.
difficult terrain.
IMO, just with threats and commondo raids Hitler would have kept a large garrison in Italy (He did keep a full division
in the English Channel Islands till the end of the war -- he was known for never retreating once he had troops stationed
somewhere).
My personal feeling is that an invasion of S. France in late '43 / early '44 would have been a much better strategy
than the crawl up Italy.