evangilder
"Shooter"
Good point. Sometimes it's better to bypass and starve them out.
What if?????
- Thread starter carpenoctem1689
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They couldn't have bypassed Cassino. It held Route 6, the only route capable of carrying the Allied armies to Rome. Monte Cassino was an artillery observation post which needed to be destroyed.
After recently reading a book about Monte Cassino I've come to realise what happened was needed. It just could have been done much better. For a start, the French Expedtionary Corps should have been supported with reserves in the first battle. They could have completely flanked and cut off all of Cassino Massif.
After recently reading a book about Monte Cassino I've come to realise what happened was needed. It just could have been done much better. For a start, the French Expedtionary Corps should have been supported with reserves in the first battle. They could have completely flanked and cut off all of Cassino Massif.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Ever hear of a flanking manuever? You come knocking at the back door instead of trying to crash through the front door.
Have you even studied the ground of the Cassino Massif? The Cassino Massif blocked off Route 6 leading north. West of the Cassino Massif was the ocean, east was the Appenines. Route 7, the other route north, on the other side of the Appenines was not enough to hold the entire Allied advance.
How do you suppose the Allies could have gotten armour to Rome without taking a road capable of taking it? Through the moutains? Cassino was needed to advance any further. The only oppurtunity the Allies had was when the FEC had flanked Monte Cassino but were forced back due to lack of reserves.
There was also the attempt to flank Monte Cassino on the left when the British landed formed a bridgehead on the Garigliano river. Which was closed up and held but provided an excellent staging post for the final attacks in the fourth battle.
You must take into account the fact that Monte Cassino did not stand alone. There was no option of out-flanking the entire area. They had to go through the moutains to avoid flanking fire on the advancing troops moving up Liri valley and into Cassino itself.
Not only that the Allied forces had to force crossings of both the Garigliano River and the Rapido River. Both the Liri and Rapido valleys had been flooded and mined by the Germans. Every mountain provided artillery observation.
Monte Cassino wasn't even the main areas of attack. The Allies sought to cut through the Liri valley and advance on Route 6, cutting off Monte Cassino. However, they were beaten back time and time again. Every single mountain and peak had to be fought for, Monte Cassino wasn't the only one.
And have you ever heard of the Anzio landings? They were flanking by sea of Cassino. Which, if more action were taken, could have been a complete success. However, as it were, that was also closed up and stalemate in Italy.
You seem to believe that the Gustav Line relied solely on Monte Cassino. Well, the whole Gustav Line was reinforced all along Italy. It was a massive line made up of minefields and fortifications blasted out in the mountains. Not something you can out-flank!
How do you suppose the Allies could have gotten armour to Rome without taking a road capable of taking it? Through the moutains? Cassino was needed to advance any further. The only oppurtunity the Allies had was when the FEC had flanked Monte Cassino but were forced back due to lack of reserves.
There was also the attempt to flank Monte Cassino on the left when the British landed formed a bridgehead on the Garigliano river. Which was closed up and held but provided an excellent staging post for the final attacks in the fourth battle.
You must take into account the fact that Monte Cassino did not stand alone. There was no option of out-flanking the entire area. They had to go through the moutains to avoid flanking fire on the advancing troops moving up Liri valley and into Cassino itself.
Not only that the Allied forces had to force crossings of both the Garigliano River and the Rapido River. Both the Liri and Rapido valleys had been flooded and mined by the Germans. Every mountain provided artillery observation.
Monte Cassino wasn't even the main areas of attack. The Allies sought to cut through the Liri valley and advance on Route 6, cutting off Monte Cassino. However, they were beaten back time and time again. Every single mountain and peak had to be fought for, Monte Cassino wasn't the only one.
And have you ever heard of the Anzio landings? They were flanking by sea of Cassino. Which, if more action were taken, could have been a complete success. However, as it were, that was also closed up and stalemate in Italy.
You seem to believe that the Gustav Line relied solely on Monte Cassino. Well, the whole Gustav Line was reinforced all along Italy. It was a massive line made up of minefields and fortifications blasted out in the mountains. Not something you can out-flank!
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
I see you are getting worked up for another one of your rants.
One did not have to have the WHOLE
Allied army go up the east side coast. Just enough of it to have the Germans see that they were being outflanked. Would the Germans have done another Stalingrad at Mt C trapping the bulk of their Italian forces or pulled back?
It is just not me that thinks that the Allies should have tried an outflanking manuever on the east coast side but also some people at the RMC. I will take what they have to say over some rank amateur.
One did not have to have the WHOLE
Allied army go up the east side coast. Just enough of it to have the Germans see that they were being outflanked. Would the Germans have done another Stalingrad at Mt C trapping the bulk of their Italian forces or pulled back?It is just not me that thinks that the Allies should have tried an outflanking manuever on the east coast side but also some people at the RMC. I will take what they have to say over some rank amateur.
Flank to the east?
Do you know what happened in December 1943? The FEC (Which I have previously mentioned) arrived in Italy. The 2nd Morrocan Division were first to arrive and relieved the U.S 34th Division. Straight away on the 16th, the 2nd Morrocan and US 45th advanced on German defences. They advanced seven miles toward the Gustav line. 3rd Algerian Division then arrived to relieve the US 45th, thus creating the FEC and activating the HQ.
Jean Murat wanted to out-flank Monte Cassino, and Cassino itself by a flanking attack toward the Atina basin. This proceeded on the 12th January, 1943. By the 15th they achieved a near success, as they had advanced four miles toward Atina and aimed to capture it. The FEC, however, had no reserves and the attacked faltered due to troop exhaustion.
Had this attack made it Caira and Cassino would have been out-flanked and encircled.
Is that a flanking attack to the east? I suppose you never heard about that.
What about the British X Corps attempt to out flank Cassino to the west by attacking across the Garigliano?
In fact, most Allied attempts were to encircle the Liri valley and Cassino rather than smash straight into it. As it were the final attack was across the whole frontage and included all rivers, valleys and mountains.
Or would you want an even further reaching flanking attack up Route 7? How would that hope to achieve a flanking attack, the British V Corps on the east of Italy would then have to cross the Appenines...impassable to tanks.
Worked up? On the contrary, I'm extremely relaxed. I would like to see your ideas of how better to defeat the German forces in Cassino.
Do you know what happened in December 1943? The FEC (Which I have previously mentioned) arrived in Italy. The 2nd Morrocan Division were first to arrive and relieved the U.S 34th Division. Straight away on the 16th, the 2nd Morrocan and US 45th advanced on German defences. They advanced seven miles toward the Gustav line. 3rd Algerian Division then arrived to relieve the US 45th, thus creating the FEC and activating the HQ.
Jean Murat wanted to out-flank Monte Cassino, and Cassino itself by a flanking attack toward the Atina basin. This proceeded on the 12th January, 1943. By the 15th they achieved a near success, as they had advanced four miles toward Atina and aimed to capture it. The FEC, however, had no reserves and the attacked faltered due to troop exhaustion.
Had this attack made it Caira and Cassino would have been out-flanked and encircled.
Is that a flanking attack to the east? I suppose you never heard about that.
What about the British X Corps attempt to out flank Cassino to the west by attacking across the Garigliano?
In fact, most Allied attempts were to encircle the Liri valley and Cassino rather than smash straight into it. As it were the final attack was across the whole frontage and included all rivers, valleys and mountains.
Or would you want an even further reaching flanking attack up Route 7? How would that hope to achieve a flanking attack, the British V Corps on the east of Italy would then have to cross the Appenines...impassable to tanks.
Worked up? On the contrary, I'm extremely relaxed. I would like to see your ideas of how better to defeat the German forces in Cassino.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Easy there, KK. I did not see plan-d's reply as a rant, but did see yours as one.
I for one, will admit that I did not know a whole lot about Monte Cassino. His response was informative and something that I learned from.
I for one, will admit that I did not know a whole lot about Monte Cassino. His response was informative and something that I learned from.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
I have passed Monti Cassino driving to Rome from Naples and it really does command the whole area for miles and miles and I can understand why it was an important position with the main highway passing just a few miles under the monastaries walls and it was because of this I believe the Germans made such an all out effort to retain it.
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Yes Evan they were informative but he is still stuck in the vicinity around Mt C. See it as you want but his post I saw as aggressive.
RMC Sandhurst, experts on military matters, says that more resources should have been used on the east coast, not the eastern flank of Mt C pD, to out-flank the Mt C bottleneck.
RMC Sandhurst, experts on military matters, says that more resources should have been used on the east coast, not the eastern flank of Mt C pD, to out-flank the Mt C bottleneck.
Nonskimmer
Captain
I don't know enough about the operation to comment, but he wasn't being aggressive KK. He was stating his view of the situation, nothing more. It was actually a fairly informative post.
The Germans hit the Allies from Monte Cassino with artilary with deadly effect. The Allies had to bomb the hell out of the monestary and litterally leveled it to get the Germans out.
Nonskimmer
Captain
I know the basics, but not the nitty-gritty details.
Basically the Allies could not really get buy because the Germans could hit them with very good accuracy just about anywhere. So they warned them to leave the monestary or it would be bombed... The rest is history.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Yeah, that much I knew already. Like I said, I know the basics.
Well good, then I will shutup now!
Nonskimmer
Captain
Had the Allies hit along the east coast of Italy, where the British V Corps were the same would have probably happened up that coast also. After all, there's only two routes in Italy heading north, Route 6 and Route 7.
Route 6 was the aim of the capture of Cassino, and Anzio landings. And Route 7 was on the east flank of Italy.
To take Route 7 the exact same would have been needed as to take Route 6. Only then it would have been a different mountain that became famous.
It took something around six Corps to eventually break on to Route 6, if I remember correctly. I highly doubt that British V Corps could do it on Route 7 themselves. However, even if the Allies moved in reinforcement to the British V Corps to break that route there's no way of them getting tanks over the Appennines to Rome until they get far up north. And that would mean the left flank, U.S 5th Army, would still be stuck at Cassino.
That is to say that British 8th Army could have even broken through on to Route 7. Remember that the Gustav Line spread across the entirety of Italy, that's over Route 7 too. The line wasn't just a static line, it had 10th Armee mobile reserves, plus in 1944 the Germans received two fresh divisions from Russia. Had an attempt been made on Route 7 they would have rushed their reserves that way instead of to Cassino.
Now, my thoughts are, beside just giving the FEC a reserve to let them break to Atina in January 1944. Would be to land at Anzio then have them breakout while Route 6 and Route 7 was attacked at the same time. The German forces wouldn't know where to throw reserves and at least one attack would have broken through. But that's the benefit of hindsight.
The reason the Allies failed so many times was because they were throwing in little bits of their strength on a narrow frontage each time. This allowed the Germans to pinpoint the attack and bring it under artillery fire and send all their reserves to that spot to counter-attack. A broad frontage of attack en masse would have broken the enemy.
Route 6 was the aim of the capture of Cassino, and Anzio landings. And Route 7 was on the east flank of Italy.
To take Route 7 the exact same would have been needed as to take Route 6. Only then it would have been a different mountain that became famous.
It took something around six Corps to eventually break on to Route 6, if I remember correctly. I highly doubt that British V Corps could do it on Route 7 themselves. However, even if the Allies moved in reinforcement to the British V Corps to break that route there's no way of them getting tanks over the Appennines to Rome until they get far up north. And that would mean the left flank, U.S 5th Army, would still be stuck at Cassino.
That is to say that British 8th Army could have even broken through on to Route 7. Remember that the Gustav Line spread across the entirety of Italy, that's over Route 7 too. The line wasn't just a static line, it had 10th Armee mobile reserves, plus in 1944 the Germans received two fresh divisions from Russia. Had an attempt been made on Route 7 they would have rushed their reserves that way instead of to Cassino.
Now, my thoughts are, beside just giving the FEC a reserve to let them break to Atina in January 1944. Would be to land at Anzio then have them breakout while Route 6 and Route 7 was attacked at the same time. The German forces wouldn't know where to throw reserves and at least one attack would have broken through. But that's the benefit of hindsight.
The reason the Allies failed so many times was because they were throwing in little bits of their strength on a narrow frontage each time. This allowed the Germans to pinpoint the attack and bring it under artillery fire and send all their reserves to that spot to counter-attack. A broad frontage of attack en masse would have broken the enemy.
I think the main thing and I also believe that most people including the soldiers that fought in Italy will say that as the attacker Italy was a very difficult campaign mostly due to the terrain. The terrain is well suited for defence and made for a very hard time.
It certainly was and the German defenders made excellent use of the terrain. They blasted out fortifications in the mountains and flooded valleys creating swamps. On top of that there's a lot of rivers in Italy which are all hard to cross.
Kesselring was probably the best defensive commander of the war.
Kesselring was probably the best defensive commander of the war.
Him or Rommel. Rommel had a way of using nothing to make a great defence and then counter attack with the best results.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
