Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
operation husky why?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by faran3 (U14015703) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
The american invasion of siclly achived some goals but I think that the allies could just take sicily and concentrate on france.
So why the proceed to Italy? -
Message 2
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Hi,
To draw German forces away from the invasion area of Normandy. -
Message 3
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Also because it would be nother year before a US army of sufficient size could be trained and had enough landing craft to carry it to attempt an assault on norrthern France.
Then there was Churchill and his obsession with soft underbellies . -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Another attempt at airbrushing the rest of the allies out? I'm sure the British and Commonwealth troops also landed there. If they didn't, my father must have been sunning himself elsewhere.
-
Message 5
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
faran3,
The american invasion of siclly ... Μύ
Anglo-American.
... achived some goals but I think that the allies could just take sicily and concentrate on france.
Μύ
As JB points out above, the US contingent wasn't large enough to attempt a go across the Channel yet or even the French Riviera. Plus Churchill's fetish about Europe's "soft underbelly."
So why the proceed to Italy?Μύ
It was the closest terrain after Sicily. -
Message 6
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Sometimes, I like to speculate on how Operation Husky or the whole Mediterranean campaign in general could have been better done, such as 'why not land directly at Messina?' But to assume that, one would have to ask 'why didn't Operation Torch land directly in Tunisia?'
-
Message 7
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
WhiteCamry 'why not land directly at Messina?'Μύ Granted, I believe I caught it on (H) History - aka (H) Hitler - channel in the States, which I won't put too much of my money on. But, for what it's worth, US government allegedly struck a deal with Italian Mafia to facilitate problem free invasion of Italy - hence, Sicily as the landing theater. Needless to say that Mafia did not like Mussolini that much.
-
Message 8
Posted by faran3 (U14015703) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
hi spike thinks for the rply.
I know that is was a part of their target,but anyway if the german forces were still in Italy during the invasion of france the aliies could achive victory anyway,because the luftwaffe was probably a spend force untill 1944,and the allies untill 1944 achived a total air control.
But also Why the allies choose sicily and not the blkans to block the soviet advance? the allies probably had to prepare for the cold war with the russians after the war -
Message 9
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
But also Why the allies choose sicily and not the blkans to block the soviet advance? the allies probably had to prepare for the cold war with the russians after the war
I can not be sure but as Sicily was closer to North Africa than the balkans it made logistical sense.
Regards
Spike -
Message 10
Posted by faran3 (U14015703) on Thursday, 4th June 2009
Hi spike rply to your last message
I think that both the meditreanian and sicily and ths blkans were close to the allies during 1943.
but my question is why from the possible direction the allies could choose the made it in italy?
What impoprtance the allies saw in sicily? -
Message 11
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 5th June 2009
Italy is a dead-end as the Alps almost entirely close its north.
Benefits remained though a war winning outcome could never be gained from that theatre.
Benefits
- knock Italy out of the war, though I believe allies were surprised how quickly Germans filled the void. taking Italy out gave Germans a lot of ground to occupy in Italy, Balkans and Russia
- Gain airbases
- Gain further options regards S France and Balkans
- Occupy German troops that would have been used against Russia
- Gain experience of amphibious and inter-allied ops.
All that said I still find myself surprised that the allies put so much effort in slogging up Italy -
Message 12
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 5th June 2009
What impoprtance the allies saw in sicily?Μύ
Sicily has great strategic importance. There is only about 150 km between Sicily and the North-African coast, and whoever has Sicily can control the shipping routes between the western and eastern halves of the Mediterranean. As long as Sicily provided bases for both Italian and German aircraft, the safest route between Gibraltar and Alexandria was around the Cape -- at vastly increased cost -- and the supply line of Malta was at constant risk.
The strategic position of Sicily made its invasion relatively uncontroversial. Its continuation into Italy was a different issue. -
Message 13
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Friday, 5th June 2009
The Allied strategy in Italy and Sicily was sound. Looking at the USSR, USA and Brtish Commonwealth forces combined, they had the numerical advantage. Under these circumstances they could choose to bring attacks on the periphery of Europe, forcing the Axis to split their forces to defend many points at once.
As well as fighting on the Eastern front and strengthening the Western Wall, Germany had to commit forces in Italy. By invading Italy, they brought about the collapse of Mussolini's government, and lost any Italian contribution to the Axis forces and Axis economy.
Until the D-Day invasion, Germany had to devote forces to the entire Atlantic coast, the Mediterranean coast, the Italian penninsula, the air defenses of Europe, and counter-insurgency against all the SOE/OSS actions throughout Europe.
German forces were well organized, equipped and trained, but the Allied strategy forced them to be dispersed rather than concentrated. -
Message 14
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 6th June 2009
A couple of observations - as an island, Siciy was harder for the Axis to reinforce than an invasion site on the Italian mainland. It was also possible to provide air cover from North African bases. The Balkans were probably not accessible because the invasion forces would have to negotiate the Adriatic with two hostile coasts from which they could be attacked - and with Sicily as a source of further air and naval attack in their rear. I suppose it would have been posssible to go for Sardinia, then Corsica, then the South of France - but Italy needed more defending. At the time of the invasion of Normandy, there were more German divisions in Italy than allied ones, and some of the "Allies" in Italy, such as the Goumiers, were probably ill-fitted for action in areas were armour could be brought against them on any large scale. If such a mess hadn't been made of Anzio, an "end-running" strategy might have been tried repeatedly.
-
Message 15
Posted by billy the ball (U2740765) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
This has been covered before:
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.