Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Monte Casino Debate

  1. #1
    sniper's Avatar
    sniper is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    627
    Country: United Kingdom

    DefaultMonte Casino Debate

    Hi All,

    Another disscussion point i'd like to bring up on the Italian Campaign. Would it of been feasable to of skirted round Monte Casino surrounding it and waiting for the Germans to be starved out rather than waste the lives of over 100,000 Allied servicemen? The Americans bombed the crap out of it anyway so what was the point on wasting those lives.
    Personnally i think they should of bombed and moved, bombed and moved but the allied command as usual just sat round waiting for someone else to make the move. We could of had troops across the Gustuav Line and heading towards Rome before the Germans would of been able to react.
    Would be great to hear some other views on this discussion.

    Sniper

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Just Behind You
    Posts
    2,666
    Country: United Kingdom

    Default

    Monte Casino: biggest cockup of the Italian Campaign that one. Why not skirt around it and just let the bombers have a go on occassion? if it was proving too much of a nuisance why not get 617 & 9 Sqadrons to bomb it with Grandslam/Tallboy? An earthquake bomb under it would have shaken out any resolve to hold out. Instead there was an almost WW1 thinking to the Allied Commanders logic of throwing men at an impregnable fortress.

    The main road the Allies were using ran close to the monastry, so I suppose they had to do something, but they chose the most stupid, idiotic way possible to attack it.

  3. #3
    Adrian Roberts's Avatar
    Adrian Roberts is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Wickham, Kent
    Posts
    869
    Country: United Kingdom

    Default

    The Tallboy wasn't available until June 44, which was virtually the end of the Monte Cassino fighting, and the bombs and the Lancs would have had to be flown over from England specially. I imagine Harris et al wouldn't have been too happy about that. And by then the monastery was rubble in any case, so dropping large bombs would just have bounced the rubble around and been very inefficient as an anti-personnel device.

    But I do think that with a bit of imagination the Allies could have bypassed the monastery altogether. As Kitty says it was WW1 thinking to have huge numbers of troops directly attacking strong points. In fact by 1918 both sides had stopped doing that, which was why the deadlock of the trenches was broken during that year. But how often do the hard-won lessons of one war get carried over to another?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Just Behind You
    Posts
    2,666
    Country: United Kingdom

    Default

    The fact the Allies tried to fight the Blitzkrieg with WW1 methods says everything

  5. #5
    Captain Parker's Avatar
    Captain Parker is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    7
    Country: United States

    Default

    I've been to Monte Cassino and hiked some of the terrain. There was no need to bomb the abbey at first, according to von Senger und Etterlin. He mentions in his memoir, that the Germans were not initially in the abbey. They had tried to get some of the art and relics out of the site. An artillerie observation post was in a different structure, which looks like a tower on the hill in the foreground of Monte Cassino. After Clarke ordered the bombing of the abbey, it became prime realestate to set up defensive positions as well as a better protected artlillerie op.

    Some interesting comments about Tallboy. Had the device been available it could have caused serious damage, if not directly in the form of AP, but to the morale of the Germans underneath.

    The locals, when I was there, stated that the Allies continued to bomb the area after the battle had ended. Some sixty years later, there were some anti Allied feelings from the bombing, but excellent food in the local trattoria in town.

    Tactically, the Allies could have cut the boot coming across from Nettuno to L'Aquila, with a second landing at Pescara or airborne landing at Tempera. The mountains are more traversable than to the south at this point. The Gustav line was also to the south and its troops would be cut off from supply. If they moved north to engage, they would lose their cover, artillerie fire support and defensive positions, as well as be subjected to more effective Allied air attack.

    The Operation would need a hard charging commander such as Lucian Truscott as it would fail with someone like John Lucas. During the landing the Allies caught the Germans unprepared. Remember the story of the German offiziers coming back from Rome? It was Lucas' indecision that allowed Kesslering time for reinforcement almost leading to dislodgement.

    Although not likely, there was the possibility of a Pass too far.
    Last edited by Captain Parker; 06-12-2010 at 12:38 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Arnhem debate
    By sniper in forum Allied advance in to Germany
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-20-2011, 06:19 PM
  2. Royal Sussex Monte Cassino Feb 1944
    By stumpy6 in forum Unit History
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 02:09 PM
  3. BBC History debate - BofB
    By Adrian Roberts in forum Battle of Britain & the Blitz
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-18-2009, 08:25 PM
  4. Lost Evidence: Monte Cassino
    By Kyt in forum Italian Campaign
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 08:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •