Battle of Monte Cassino-18.05.1944

[Soren]

but of course its much easier to defend

Oh yeah, and esp. when you're being carpet bombed by hundreds of heavy bombers..

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by Soren

Oh yeah, and esp. when you're being carpet bombed by hundreds of heavy bombers..

The Carpet bombing was only one part of the fight..And not a constant ...Were it was and what it was made of..And it is EZer to defend a hill and structure as in Monte Cassino..Thats why the Germans took it..No brainer and teh Allieds would of done the same if they had gotten to it first..

Not taking anything away from the Axis fighters and German commandos at Cassino...Lets not take away from the Axis who defended Cassino...But lets not belittle the the Allies who had to take it also.. The Germans had all the cards in that game... But if the Allies had Cassino history would of been saying the same about the Allied Commando.. Smart move my the Germans no doubt

[renrich]

The Italian campaign was a classic case of what happens when terrain that is made for defense is defended by good troops with good equipment. The traditional recipe is you need 3 to 1 numerical superiority to take well defended ground. The allies' problem was that the Germans, as soon as they were beginning to be overcome, would just pack up and retreat to another well prepared position and the same scenario was repeated. Alexander also had to contend with questionable decisions by Clark and some under him, green troops, many different nationalities with different command structures and all the attendent problems and reshuffling of his forces because his best troops were constantly being shuffled off by high command. He also had to feed the Italians and deal with diseases brought on by wartime problems as well as German mischief. The terrain and Italian weather was tailor made for defense and Kesselring used it masterfully. When you think about it, the US troops almost always were attacking against German defenders in the whole war.

[Haztoys]

I have the the most respect for Churchill ...But what was he thinking when he said "Italy was the soft under belly of the Nazi's"... One look at a map would tell you other wise...

Have done some sport bike riding in Italy ... Not a good place to have to have a war...

[renrich]

He must have been thinking of the women or pasta or something.

[Soren]

Haztoys,

Ofcourse the bombing was only one seperate part of the whole battle, I fully agree. However fact is that most German casualties were caused during this exact part of the struggle, and no wonder, they were sitting ducks on that hill.

Renrich,

I fully agree about the terrain being ideal for defense, and that the Allies had to attack, which leaves anyone more susceptible to fire. And this is undoubtedly one of the reasons that the SSF suffered more than they gave, despite mostly fighting against regular troops. However much of the terrain also made for good cover for the attacker, helping the Allies on many occasions.

The real problem facing the Allies was besides the difficult terrain they had to fight against experienced & extremely professional troops which were well led (Which was not the norm considering Hitler usually always had his nose the wrong places) by Kesselring.

[renrich]

Actually, the allies were in much the same position in Italy as the Army of the Potomac was in 1864-65 except that the terrain and weather in northern Virginia was not as favorable for the defender as it was in Italy. Grant was facing an opponent who knew his ground and who led good troops who were fighting for their country's survival and would not give up easily. Lee almost always was able to position his army to anticipate Grant's next move. If you study the campaigns during that period, the Union army sustained terrible casualties. As did the allies in Italy. One of the US divisions which suffered terribly was the 36th, a Texas National Guard division. I am pretty familiar with their ordeal. Of course Audie Murphy's division, the 3rd, was there also. The US had one probably exceptional general, Lucian Truscott, who possibly should have replaced Clark. Clark is a dirty name in Texas.