Monte Cassino

[Ken The Kanuck]

An interesting battle, one must ask why though.

KTK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4827392/Images-lines-WWII-S-Monte-Cassino.html#ixzz4qxrQN7AJ

[clintonhater]

Like Dresden, Hamburg, Nuremburg, the bombing of the Abbey was a war crime swept under the rug by the winning side.

[Sunray]

The monastery occupied the highest ground on the road to Rome. The bombing did nothing but increase the defenses. The rubble became excellent fortifications.

[dave]

I do not think the bombing of the abbey, and German towns mentioned were war crimes no more then the bombing of London and other Brit. cities. Which, by the way, came first! It was a nasty war as was the Pacific theater. Many prisoners on both sides were shot out of hand! War crimes? yes, but lets mention the other side, swept under the rug? every one who paid attention knows about it!

[blackhawknj]

More like the Huertgen Forest, it was a battle that shouldn't have been fought. The terrain favored the defense, our advantages in artillery and airpower were largely negated. Our generals in the ETO never grasped-as MacArthur did-that a good strategy often involves bypassing strongpoints.

[clintonhater]

I do not think the bombing of the abbey, and German towns mentioned were war crimes no more then the bombing of London and other Brit. cities. Which, by the way, came first!

Incorrect if you check the facts. Brits first bombed a German city (Mönchengladbach) on May 11, 1940, weeks before any German raids on British cities; in fact, Hitler was hoping desperately to keep Britain out of the war by holding off air attacks.

[Sako]

A late friend of mine was the FO that directed artillery fire on Monte Cassino before the bombers took over and leveled it. George was German descent and when he became POW in Italy he was allowed to work on a farm as he spoke fluent German.

[leftyo]

More like the Huertgen Forest, it was a battle that shouldn't have been fought. The terrain favored the defense, our advantages in artillery and airpower were largely negated. Our generals in the ETO never grasped-as MacArthur did-that a good strategy often involves bypassing strongpoints.

well good ol bugout doug didnt grasp the bypass uneccessary targets very well either.

[Vern Humphrey]

An interesting battle, one must ask why though.

KTK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4827392/Images-lines-WWII-S-Monte-Cassino.html#ixzz4qxrQN7AJ

You could ask that about the whole bloody Italian Campaign. Why would ANYONE want to land in Italy?

[sid]

Vern, you are absolutely right about this. This was Churchill's idea. He said something about "slitting the soft underbelly of the beast." My quote might not be exact, but you get the idea. The mountains in Italy are excellent for defense. A relatively small force can tie up many divisions for a long time and inflict horrendous casualties. Which is just what the Germans did.

[Dan Shapiro]

You could ask that about the whole bloody Italian Campaign. Why would ANYONE want to land in Italy?

As Sid noted, Churchill was obsessed with 'the soft under-belly of Europe'. And not for the first time. He committed political suicide when he ordered the invasion of Gallipoli during WWI.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, you are absolutely right about this. This was Churchill's idea. He said something about "slitting the soft underbelly of the beast." My quote might not be exact, but you get the idea. The mountains in Italy are excellent for defense. A relatively small force can tie up many divisions for a long time and inflict horrendous casualties. Which is just what the Germans did.

Exactly right. What a goat rope.

We could just as easily landed in the south of France, made it to the Swiss border and trapped the German forces inside Italy.

[Ken The Kanuck]

My wife's father was captured in Italy, I am sure that he would agree with you.

KTK

[blackhawknj]

They thought that by knocking Italy out of the war they would fatally undermine the Axis, not understanding that it was not an alliance as we thought but that by 1943 Italy was merely a German satellite. Also FDR and Churchill were under pressure from Stalin to open a Second Front.

[Vern Humphrey]

The south of France would have made a better second front -- with a good chance of cutting off all the German forces in Italy at the outset, and then drawing German forces to the south and trapping them by landing behind them in Normandy.

[Sako]

You could ask that about the whole bloody Italian Campaign. Why would ANYONE want to land in Italy?

As Sid noted, Churchill was obsessed with 'the soft under-belly of Europe'. And not for the first time. He committed political suicide when he ordered the invasion of Gallipoli during WWI.
That is true Churchhill never got to be the Queen of England.

[jjrothWA]

I must disagree about Gallipoli, the strategy was sound, the operational commanders were jerks.

The RN admiral in command had obsolete battleships that were expendable for clearing the Dardanelles strait minefields but did not want to loose them.
and the Ottoman troops were playing on HOME turf.

Read the first two books of Manchester's biography of Churchill.

For WWII, read the book "An Army at Dawn", about the North African Campaign and why Churchill wanted to the soft underbelly of Europe.

[Vern Humphrey]

Just finished a book on Gallipoli. It was doomed from the start. The "Navy Only" approach couldn't possibly have worked -- for one thing, the Turks could lay mines faster than the British could clear them, and British gunnery wasn't up to successfully dueling with the Turkish defense.

The Turks communicated better, had better situational awareness, and successfully operated inside the British decision cycle.

[blackhawknj]

Gallipoli might have succeeded if the planning had been more careful and thorough, it was very slipshod, very much a too quickly improvised operation.
Battleships were unsuited for that sort of shore bombardment, their trajectory was too flat. And yes, they badly underestimated the Turks.

[Vern Humphrey]

Gallipoli might have succeeded if the planning had been more careful and thorough, it was very slipshod, very much a too quickly improvised operation.
Battleships were unsuited for that sort of shore bombardment, their trajectory was too flat. And yes, they badly underestimated the Turks.

The simple point is, why would the British think they could do on Gallipoli what they could not do in France? For them to succeed, they needed to be able to fight a maneuver campaign. Instead, at Gallipoli as in France, they were stuck in trench warfare.

They also had very poor communications and situational awareness. For example, at Suvla they sent a telegraph terminal ashore. But it was manned by naval ratings, who knew nothing about the Army and there were no provisions for forwarding messages once they arrived ashore. Similarly, there were no provisions for the commander ashore to send messages back to the telegraph station.

[Jeff L]

Having been there, it is a strategic high ground. You can see for miles in all directions.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monte+Cassino/@41.4824659,13.6334272,10.8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x133abbf093da4079:0x6c171f25c437c 96f!8m2!3d41.4916194!4d13.8158578!5m1!1e4

[Vern Humphrey]

Having been there, it is a strategic high ground. You can see for miles in all directions.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Monte+Cassino/@41.4824659,13.6334272,10.8z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x133abbf093da4079:0x6c171f25c437c 96f!8m2!3d41.4916194!4d13.8158578!5m1!1e4

Tactical high ground -- "strategic" refers to winning wars. "Operational art" is planning and conducting campaigns. "Tactics" is actual fighting.

[Jeff L]

You get my point. Who ever was up there controls the entire valley with the ability to call in artillery or air strike coordinates.