The 'Third' Front

TerrorFirmer

Allied forces in Italy: the forgotten front in every conceivable way.

Up until April 1945, there were 20+ German divisions tied down in Italy. At the campaigns peak in summer 1944, there were 30 German divisions defending the Southern approach to Germany.

Especially considering the myth of the 'D-Day Dodger'...and that the total losses on both sides were amongst the highest in any western campaign. Yet those who ran the gauntlet were denied a place in everyday history.

Victor

Don't forget the Northern Front (in Finland)! I hadn't realised, but the Germans had 214,000 troops in Finland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

The Italian campaign doesn't have the notoriety of others as it didn't have the same level of manoeuvre.

Tzar Chasm

italy isn't really a country condusive to broad fronts, but people shouldn't forget the brutality of the campaign, montecasino is always held up as an example of a/vicious dogged winner take all battle.

and of course anzio is held up as a 'how to' 101 for clusterfncks

Tony EH

Those divisions were "paper divisions" though and in reality, they were never at divisional strength and were always very poorly equipped.

By 1944, the vast majority of German divisions operating anywhere were very understrength in both men and armour, even the prestige divisions.

Capt'n Midnight

what were the casualties on both sides compared to other fronts ?

IMHO it was another Churchill special like Gallipoli. "a soft underbelly" that was anything but.

Yes Italy surrendered in '43 but given the number of German troops and the terrain it didn't help much.

Had the allied forces been deployed in southern France ( D Day pincer) or the Balkans (Oil fields) how would it have gone ?

Tony EH

Casualty figures were about 300.000 on each side.

Churchill routinely got it woefully wrong. The "Tough old Gut" somebody else nicknamed it. Although, Churchill's advocation of an Italian campaign had more to do with the continuing Allied logic of letting the Russians soak up as much Wehrmacht blood as possible, before getting into the frey in a proper capacity.

Although Italy formerly surrendered on Sept 8th, there were still a large number of Italian troops fighting against the Allies for the remainder of the campaign.

Manach

Offhand, did the Italian naval assets that were operational after the Italian surrender play any major role in the conflict on the Allied side?

Skylinehead

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, did the Italian naval assets that were operational after the Italian surrender play any major role in the conflict on the Allied side?

I think one battleship was sunk (Roma?) by the Germans after the Italians had surrendered. Other than that, I can't think of much.

Tony EH

Most of the larger ships were held in Egypt, but some of the lighter vessels were used for patrols in the Atlantic and fast boats were used in the Mediterranean.

I couldn't tell you how much success they had though.

Capt'n Midnight

Tony EH wrote: »

Casualty figures were about 300.000 on each side.

So no real advantage then

even the old first world war logic of bleeding them a little more than they are bleeding us didn't apply

Tony EH

That's just the Italian campaign.

The Sicilian campaign cost many more Italian lives AFAIK.

I think it's major advantage was knocking Italy out of the war, but it didn't shorten it.

BlaasForRafa

Skylinehead wrote: »

I think one battleship was sunk (Roma?) by the Germans after the Italians had surrendered. Other than that, I can't think of much.

Correct, Roma was sunk by the Germans in what is believed to be the first ever sinking with precision-guided bombs.

Stovepipe

Also sunk was HMS Egret, a sloop and HMS Warspite was hit by three Fritz Xs, but survived.

regards
Stovepipe

donaghs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what were the casualties on both sides compared to other fronts ?

IMHO it was another Churchill special like Gallipoli. "a soft underbelly" that was anything but.

Yes Italy surrendered in '43 but given the number of German troops and the terrain it didn't help much.

Had the allied forces been deployed in southern France ( D Day pincer) or the Balkans (Oil fields) how would it have gone ?

A landing in Southern France would have been a disaster without the gains that already had been made in Italy, Sicily and Sardinia. Although the eventual Southern France landing, Operation Dragoon, was in August only 2 months after D-Day.

A Balkans invasion would have had more interesting results. With the resources available, it seemed to be a choice of the Balkans or South of France. Churchill preferred the Balkans options. Wanting to preserve British influence in the region, or still afraid of confronting Germany directly?
From the point of view of ending the war quickest, the American view was most likely correct. Once the men, material and supply chains were in place, invade France as quickly as possible and head straight for Berlin (e.g. Churchill advised invasions of North Africa and Italy, instead of earlier invasions of France).

But one thing missing from the American view was the postwar outcome. A Balkans invasion could have greatly changed the look of Eastern Europe and the Iron Curtain.

Although the dangers of operating in the Balkans without sufficient resources is shown in Churchill's ill-fated Dodecanese Campaign after the Italian surrender.

Victor

The problem with invading the Balkans was primarily one of logistics. They could attack across the English Channel under air supremacy from defended airfields and ports and then sweep across wide plains or take a 4,000km detour and fight through the mountains and get nowhere.

In reality, Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia and to a lesser degree Romania stayed out of hte Eastern bloc.