Invasion of Sicily

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
corleone
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 17:13
Location: canada

Invasion of Sicily

#1

Post by corleone » 04 Dec 2003, 03:49

I know the allies met little resistance during the invasion of Sicily, but just how little?? Did Mussolini's troops inflict any Casualties at all on the Invaders??

Thank You for your time

solja
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 17 May 2003, 22:44
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

#2

Post by solja » 04 Dec 2003, 04:52

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Sicily/

Axis casualties: 167,000 killed, wounded, and captured, including some 10,000 German casualties

Allied casualties: Allied losses were 31,158

It was not the most difficult campaign but the British did get get a hard showing on the east coast of the island........


corleone
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 17:13
Location: canada

#3

Post by corleone » 04 Dec 2003, 06:06

Sorry, I guess I didnt specify in the initial post, but Im curious as to weather or not the Fascist Italians resisted at all and if they were able to inflict any casualties at all or did they surrender willingly with no resistance at all?? Was is just the germans who tried to repell the invasion?

User avatar
SM79Sparviero
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
Location: Culqualber

Sicily

#4

Post by SM79Sparviero » 04 Dec 2003, 21:57

Uncorrect.Not all Italian soldiers were fascists.Italian soldiers usually don't surrend without fighting.

Sicily July, 9, 1943. Husky operation.
.In Sicily Italian troops fought strongly to stop 470000 Allied soldiers with 14000 vehicles and 1800 guns and went on fighting also after July,25 when Mussolini was inprisoned and general Kesselring's German Troops had begun to retreat to Calabria without any communication to Italian Headquarteer.
Allied troops took 38 days to conquer Sicily but German troops took two days more only to conquer Paris and France!
Allieds had 5000 dieds and 10000 woundeds, Italians and germans had each 4000 dieds.
I woul like to remember two battles in Sicily where an heroic behaviour of Italian soldiers emerged :

-23 year old Sottotenente Sergio Barbadoro with 12 Infantry troopers stopped a whole American division for 9 hours between Monreale and San Giuseppe prato
- 24 year old Sottotenente Santangelo Fulci from Catania had posthumous Golden Medal for his behaviour as commander of the 75/18 Semovente employed as tank-destroyer who protected ALONE the backward of Ronco Italian Column that had been surprised at Solarino by an armoured column of 50th British division.ONE semovente faced 15-20 tanks and armoured cars and Italian soldiers went on fighting up to the last HEAT grenade or to death.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#5

Post by redcoat » 04 Dec 2003, 23:27

This web-site gives a very good account of a battle fought by the Italian forces in Sicily

http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/itroycomfvsiron.html

User avatar
Navy Vet
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 11 May 2002, 05:58
Location: USA

#6

Post by Navy Vet » 31 Dec 2003, 12:39

So why was the Sicilian Campaign called Operation Husky?

User avatar
Navy Vet
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 11 May 2002, 05:58
Location: USA

#7

Post by Navy Vet » 31 Dec 2003, 12:45

solja wrote:http://www.worldwar2history.info/Sicily/

Axis casualties: 167,000 killed, wounded, and captured, including some 10,000 German casualties

Allied casualties: Allied losses were 31,158
SM79Sparviero wrote:Uncorrect. Allieds had 5000 dieds and 10000 woundeds, Italians and germans had each 4000 dieds.
The WWII info website sources it's number of losses from:

[The primary source for this text is the U.S. Army Center for Military History]

Therefore I have to believe they are more correct. Please post your source.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#8

Post by Andy H » 31 Dec 2003, 18:56

SM79Sparviero wrote:
Allied troops took 38 days to conquer Sicily but German troops took two days more only to conquer Paris and France!
Is that supposed to be some sort of comparision!!

Husky was a naval/air assault where all the men & materials came in by sea or air and not through railheads or road.
Sicily has a natural restriction on movement, called the sea. The western part of the island fell in reasonable time. However the eastern part which guards Messina has several natural obstacles such as Mt Etna and the Nebrodi Mountains. These features mean that there are natural choke points along the main highways towards Messina and the incomplete German defensive line based on Mt Etna to contend with

Andy H

User avatar
Navy Vet
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 11 May 2002, 05:58
Location: USA

#9

Post by Navy Vet » 01 Jan 2004, 00:04

Andy, and i only know this because I have been there, but Mount Etna does not obstruct the path between Catania and Messina. Although there are some large cliffs and mountainous areas, especially around Toarmina, but it's not actually Etna itself. It was hard enough to get around that area in a car so I couldn't imagine doing it by foot.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#10

Post by Andy H » 01 Jan 2004, 01:03

Thanks for the heads up Navy Vet. (Med 6th Fleet?)

My point though stating Mt Etna was more to do with the area around it, in that it isn't contusive to mobile warfare etc, and for that reason the area was scantily defended by sides, thus forcing the advancing allies down certain obvious routes which were prepared for defence.

Andy H

User avatar
Navy Vet
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 11 May 2002, 05:58
Location: USA

#11

Post by Navy Vet » 01 Jan 2004, 10:55

Yes 6th fleet, USS George Washington CVN-73.

I went to Messina, Catania, Toarmina, Siracusa, Agrigento, Gela, Enna, Cefalu, Palermo, and Corleone... and also the top of Mount Etna.

The tours were centered mostly around the Greek history, during the whole trips the only thing WWII related I found was a "pill box" at the foot hill of Motta S. Anastasia.

I have to completely agree with you that there is no comparison between Sicily and France in terrain. Sicily has, as you said, many natural obstacles with hills, cliffs, mountains, etc. and the ground in some areas is very soft and muddy. It would be very difficult to make way across/up the east coast.
Attachments
Sicily.jpg
Sicily.jpg (126.02 KiB) Viewed 2729 times

User avatar
Navy Vet
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 11 May 2002, 05:58
Location: USA

#12

Post by Navy Vet » 01 Jan 2004, 11:00

Andy H wrote:My point though stating Mt Etna was more to do with the area around it, in that it isn't contusive to mobile warfare etc, and for that reason the area was scantily defended by sides, thus forcing the advancing allies down certain obvious routes which were prepared for defence.
In other words the Axis used the area's natural obstacles as cover and thus forcing the Allies to enter by certain known paths... got it, I understand what you meant now and agree.

User avatar
SM79Sparviero
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
Location: Culqualber

#13

Post by SM79Sparviero » 01 Jan 2004, 13:04

SM79Sparviero wrote:
Uncorrect. Allieds had 5000 dieds and 10000 woundeds, Italians and germans had each 4000 dieds.


The WWII info website sources it's number of losses from:

[The primary source for this text is the U.S. Army Center for Military History]

Therefore I have to believe they are more correct. Please post your source.
Good morning and happy new year to all the friends of the forum.
An Italian "navy vet" answers to Navy Vet:
The sources you have asked are an article on the newspaper La Stampa of July, 2003 and the book
" Sicilia 1943 Breve storia dello sbarco alleato. Introduzione di Carlo D'Este . (http://www.lenovemuse.com)" written in 2002 by Ezio Costanzo, an historical periodist.
They both say "5000 allied soldiers died and about 10.000 wounded", while Italians and Wermarcht had 8000 dieds.The axis total lost were about 137.000 soldiers if you take into consideration dieds , woundeds and prisoners.

User avatar
Navy Vet
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 11 May 2002, 05:58
Location: USA

#14

Post by Navy Vet » 01 Jan 2004, 13:13

Happy New Year to you also :D

137,000 vs. 167,000 is more viable as not all records are 100% accurate.

tutti bene 8)

Pass along to your Italiano naval vet friend a salute from me.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#15

Post by Andy H » 01 Jan 2004, 13:32

Navy Vet

Did you ever visit Gibraltar, I was there in 87-or 88 for around 3weeks and I remember going drinking with a couple of USN Senior NCO's from a carrier, which for some reason was anchored outside Gib harbour, the light British A/C longed so puny in comparison?

Andy H

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”