Thread 64273523

if the italians were so incompetent in ww2, then why was italy such a hard nut to crack that convinced truman into nuking japan instead of committing for a normal invasion, to spare the US enormous casualties again?

>>64273523 (OP)
Geography.
Italy is basically a slow incline with a large mountain range in the middle. It's highly defensible, especially when approached from the south. You're subtly going uphill the whole way, and you don't stop going uphill until you hit the Alps in Austria.

Because it was mostly Germans who put up a fight to defend Italian peninsula.

Extrapolations are abused.
In that pic they used mid 1943 to estimate the rest of Europe ignoring the industrial collapse, the manpower depletion and the obvious fact the Axis was fighting near the landing zone instead of randomly across Europe. Meanwhile the allies were still ramping up production and ended with a huge surplus by the early 1945. The opposite also happens, see russia 2022 extrapolating its advance after a collapse of Ukraine when in reality their stockpile collapsed and the snail out-run them.
The Pacific was similar with the retarded island-hopping.

>>64273541
The OP image is just axis propaganda, but Italy was genuinely a tough fight. People forget that the capture of Rome was overshadowed by D-Day.

>>64273545
The Italian Campaign did have the highest amount of Allied casualties on the Western Front.

>>64273529
The Po Valley isn't that bad.

>>64273523 (OP)
Benito had been thrown out of power prior to the landings, and the new government signed an armistace with the allies. There was a puppet Axis government setup that was officially still headed by Benito (after Skorzeny rescued his ass), but their military contributions were pretty token and they controlled little actual territory. Functionally speaking Italy became another Axis occupied country that was overwhelmingly defended by German soldiers. Who should be noted were very much *not* incompetent and as anon >>64273583 clearly showcases the vast majority of Italy consists of hugely defendable mountainious terrain.

>>64273583
funny how the eastern border, the one that has been historically the hottest one for italy and still is now, is geographically in stark disadvantage when compared to the western front.
the po basin doesn't have much in defenses save for maybe shallow waters in the northern adriatic preventing big ships from transiting. the adriatic coast is smooth and easy to land on, in contrast to the istrian coast which is a nautical nightmare.
were russians able to reach nato territories up to the italian border, it would've been much more difficult to fend them off. that obviously, is an assumption to be made based on cold war era assessments which have no value in modern day.

>>64273523 (OP)
because all the Italians gave up and went home lol

>>64273630
The Central Powers broke through the Italian lines at Kobarid but weren't able to sweep the plain.

>>64273781
>one month of operations
>Central Powers take magnitudes more land than Cadorna took in 11 prior Isonzo battles
It still baffles me that incompetent asses like Cadorna, Haig, and Hötzendorf weren't publicly executed by their own monarchs.

>>64273630
I dunno. The Julian alps aren't as bad as the mountains up north, but they still seem like terrain where you could get deadlocked pretty easily. And naval landings in North Eastern Italy are a silly prospect. The Pact would need to conquer Western Turkey, push the black Sea fleet through the Bosporus straits, and then not get sunk as they traversed the Aegean/Ionian/Adriatic Sea's. That seems unlikely given the naval superiority NATO had.

>>64273523 (OP)
Because they were so incompetent that even a Luftwaffe General could defend their country more competently than their Army Generals. It's mainly Kesselring's generalship that saved Axis Italy.

I will never not be annoyed at Italy having rifle mounted grenade launchers that required no special ammo (but did need your rifle bolt) to use, but canning the concept

>>64273781
that's because the provision lines were too stretched and austro hungarian logistics would make the russian look like they owned ice cream barges. altough breaching into the basin was a stupid idea to begin with, now your men are surrounded in all directions in the most industrialized region of italy.

>>64273809
>why do incompetent monarchs appoint their incompetent buddies to be generals and listen their idiotic excuses for catastrophic failure?
It should be considered with some amazement that for all the Soviets murderous retardation, they were still a fairly big step up in running a tyrannical empire with some degree of efficiency compared to the previous royalists. A decent chunk of what made WW1 into such a mess was the involvement of the remaining non-ceremonial monarchs actually exercising their power in high level political and military strategy. The Austrians and Russians were generally in a race to see whose royalty could fuck things up the most.

>>64273809
the alpine front was a glorified match of arm wrestling between the two armies. the second one broke, the other could flood the others territories unimpeded. it happened with the austrians at caporetto, it happened with the italians at vittorio veneto

>>64273809
You call them incompetent when in reality it was a brand new war that nobody had any real idea how to fix. Haig at least listened to people who came up with ideas (tanks, creeping barrages etc) to solve the situations. Germany did stormtroopers. Etc.

>>64273993
Lots of what they did was blatantly incompetent, inexcuseably so. Haig couldn't figure out a reasonable 1st day objective, no matter how many battles he fought, and let's not forget Passchendael. Cadorna threw blame on everybody else and couldn't innovate. Hötzendorf was just damn retarded to the point that he himself aknowledged it, AND THE WAR WAS HIS IDEA. At some point you have to shoot your chief 'tards to hopefully inspire others not to be similarly 'tarded.

>>64273523 (OP)
>if the italians were so incompetent in ww2, then why was italy such a hard nut to crack
the german army and the fact a mountain chain runs down the middle of it plus civilians to govern

>>64273529
Even today Americans have trouble getting from one end of Italy to the other, although with less resistance than during World War II...

>>64274074
You don't need hindsight to see Passchendael as retarded.

>>64273523 (OP)
Italy was a pretty minor concern for Olympic vs Nukes. The major factor was Admiral King putting his foot down and flatly stating that the Navy would not be able to maintain a logistical tail over the beach for the size of force required due to Kamikazees. The Big Blue Blanket would not have worked like it did in Okinawa as there would be no advanced radar warning and time to position hellcats to intercept if they were coming straight off the mainland and only airborne for 2-3 minutes before ploughing into an LST or whatever.

King rarely threw his weight around like that so when he flatly stated Olympic was not possible it carried a lot of weight.

>>64274190
>King rarely threw his weight around

>>64273809
Haig wasn’t incompetent

>>64274578
See
>>64274173
Add on his repeated inability, despite multiple battles, to understand the phrase "reasonable 1st day objective."

>>64273523 (OP)
Because the German were holding Italy after the shitilians gave up, retard

>>64274861
That's not the answer, because the Germans folded like a wet noodle in France.

>>64273523 (OP)
>The German army was better at holding onto Italian land than the Italian army
Now that isn't surprising.
But ultimately, Italy was a questionable place to seek resolution of the war due to geography. Allied effort there was wasteful after Rome fell. But they could afford to be wasteful

>>64273583
Italy is beautiful

Russia Russia Russia

>>64275317
And difficult to drive in it:
https://youtu.be/yfYC_CBNtiM

>>64273568
because you are grinding down a single axis of advance with no way to flank or maneuver
Pushing defensive line after defensive line

Very different to chasing collapsing german forces through France

>>64273523 (OP)
>if the italians were so incompetent in ww2
first of all, the biggest allied mistake was diverting troops away from chasing the still disorganized italian and german army and instead taking rome for propaganda points
this allowed the german defenders to absorb their half of the italian army and prevent them from defecting to the allies while also running them as part of the german army, increasing their effectiveness
it also gave time for the germans to solidify multiple defensive lines along the mountainous center of italy, which robbed the allies of their greatest strength of armor and artillery

the second was that it was actually very hard to supply the allies in italy, the pacific campaign was eating up more amphibious capability than expected, and the supply lines to italy were longer than they would have been in france
and they could never fully commit to the italian campaign because they needed to keep men for overlord

other than churchill frothing about the soft underbelly, everyone ultimately understood italy was a limited campaign that wouldnt knock germany out of the war
it was a stopgap to relieve pressure from the soviets at a time when invading france was still not possible but they still needed something to show stalin
and it did have some other beneficial effects, airbases in italy could now strike southern germany and romania, it knocked the germans and italians mostly out of the med, it ended up being a staging point for operation dragoon, and it gave much needed experience in amphibious operations for the army

while the germans were able to preserve half the italian army for themselves, the allies did manage to capture the other half, depriving germany of over a million troops, on top of the million that was needed to keep the allies pinned down in the center

not a rousing success, but not a failure either

>>64275530
>half of the italian army
Much, much lower. Most of those men chose to become pows rather than fight for the german, we're talking about 90% or so among all surrendered regiments.

>>64273583
Italy looks like a boot, and po basin and the sea look like another boot. What is going on? Is this a proof we live in a simulation?

>>64275498
>with no way to flank or maneuver
Why just not make another landing behind enemy lines? I thought Italy is impossible to defend without naval superiority due how fucking long its coastline.

>>64276812
>Why just not make another landing behind enemy lines?
anzio was already a very near-run thing, the pacific campaign was eating up a ton of amphibious assets, and the all the rest was being hoarded for normandy

>>64276816
Operation Dragoon as well, even if it was much smaller in scale.

>>64276781
it was just the Demiurge having a laught whilst shaping Earth

>>64273880
How expensive is a rifle bolt anyway? Can't they just take two with them?

>>64275530
Yeah. It does seem like the allies kinda screwed the pooch in terms of properly taking advantage of the Italians trying to nope out of the conflict. Not a war defining thing since Italy was always a sideshow, but it might have meant less of an attritional slog up the peninsula.

>Semi related: When you gotta help Uncle Sam conquer the last bits of Italy or it'll be a Shamefur Dispray on your entire family

>>64274097
lol

>>64277867
Traveling is easy and laid back they said, take the train they said.

Was Operation Shingle a success?

>>64274074
Yeah, uh, you can't cry hindsight anymore when someone critizises that you did THE SAME FUCKING THING ELEVEN TIMES IN A ROW and failed every single time.

>>64273809
Don't lump Haig in with those other two.

>>64273917
Counterpoint: Kliment Voroshilov and Semyon Budyonny

>>64273523 (OP)
>WWI veterans in leadership positions
>the best interwar armor force (until Shermans show up in North Africa).

Not staying Neutral basically won the war for the allies before it started. Ciano writes in his diaries that Mussolini ALMOST followed through on guaranteeing Austrian sovereignty, but balked at the last moment.

>>64278733
I don't think anyone was defending Luigi.

>>64278713
The operation itself was a success, it secured a beachhead and resisted attempts by the germans to contain them

The failures were primarily at the campaign level, notably going for rome instead of monte cassino and allowing the german defenders to make a fighting retreat to another defensive line and prolonging the campaign by another year
The operation itself was a tactical and strategic success, but failed to be turned into a campaign level success because of a gloryhound ignoring orders so he could claim to have liberated rome

>>64279986
Do you consider the Gallipoli landings a success because they established a beachhead?
Anzio was contained from January to May and while they eventually linked up to the rest, it didn't collapse the German lines like the Commies did at Inchon.

>>64280578
gallipoli was a total failure, in which the british never left their beachhead and eventually were forced to leave entirely
anzio was a technical success, in that the beachhead not only resisted counter-attacks but they succeafully broke out and threatened german forces and forced them to withdraw from the area

the operation, on its own, was succesful
its failures was on the campaign level, where they drove to rome instead of pursuing the german army and therefore missing a chance to end the campaign decisively, but thats a different thing entirely from whether this specific operation was a success or not

>didn't collapse the German lines like the Commies did at Inchon.
failure to achieve a total destruction of the enemy army doesnt mean failure, since the goal of the anzio landing was to help breach the gustav line

>>64280619
>forced them to withdraw from the area
Five months after the landing and after Monte Cassino, the main obstacle in the line, was taken.
They didn't directly reach Rome after the landing.

>>64280639
>Five months after the landing and after Monte Cassino
meeting enemy resistance does not mean the failure of the plan
they were able to overcome the resistance and achieve a breakthrough
this is not comparable at all to gallipoli, where no breakthrough was achieved and the british withdrew for no gains

the failure to destroy the german army does not mean they failed t

>>64278687
Mussolini never had this problem

>>64273523 (OP)
>if the italians were so incompetent in ww2, then why was italy such a hard nut to crack that convinced truman into nuking japan instead of committing for a normal invasion

I imagine Okinawa and Iwo Jima (both territories of Japan) had more to do with it.

>>64277392
You aren’t able to operate the GL with another bolt on the rifle

>>64280660
I fail to see how it achieved anything that wouldn't have happened without the landing. The obvious objective was to bypass the German lines and force them to withdraw northward to avoid getting cut off, which didn't happen until the Gustav line was broken regularly.
It's not a question of destroying the army but whether the landing made a difference at all.
Imagine if Operation Dragoon had been confined to the vicinity of Saint-Tropez until eventually getting relieved by forces from Italy or the Normandy.

>>64280762
Civilians murdering their children and then committing suicide while American soldiers are trying to bribe them with chocolate was probably eye opening. The amount of long term PTSD from that must have been unreal.

Couldn't they have avoided fighting along the mountain defense line by landing on the Tuscan coast from Sardinia and Corsica?

>>64278687
you could have gotten a Ryanair flight
but you are probably lugging around half a dozen bags for a two week trip so they'd rape you paying for your luggage

>>64280804
It wasn't the Allies' preferred landing geography. In WW2, the Allies preferred saddle shaped beaches with lots of sand (makes the landing itself and logistics infinitely easier). Normandy also conforms to this.

>>64273583
You think that until you realize that it's a nightmare of river crossings as soon as it rains.

>>64273630
>were russians able to reach nato territories up to the italian border, it would've been much more difficult to fend them off
The Soviets has their Southern Group of Forces in Hungary to do exactly that.
They planned to invade Austria and northern Yugoslavia (Slovenia, NATO called the area Ljubljana Gap) and then go into Italy.

The plan was considered overly optimistic by NATO..

>>64280899
How would Austria and Yugoslavia have responded to that?
Would they just let them pass through or join up with NATO?

>>64281032
They'd have been run over, and the first in line on this image.

>>64273529
/thread

>>64281032
>How would Austria and Yugoslavia have responded to that?
Austria's plan was to more or less abandon the parts north of the Danube and fight in the mountains.
Which means the Soviet plan to go through Carinthia (that is in SE Austria in the mountains, next to Yugoslavia/Slovenia)ends up in a horrible clusterfuck because the Soviets are now fighting the Austrians uphill in a mountain valley with the aim of taking a pass to then come down into Italy.
The Yugoslavians would regard this as an act of war, would not let the Soviets through without a fight and planned to coordinate their defense with Italy/NATO.
The plan as such is classic and straighforward, it follows the roads and rail lines. It also means pushing through two very obvious chokepoints up mountain valleys against two non-NATO opponenets who planned to fight defensive campaigns in the mountains.


Do note that the Soviets had six or so divisions in Czechoslovakia, meant to support the push into norhtern Austria (and then into Bavaria, so this is part of teh push aimed at Germany)
This plan was rather questionable because there are no rail lines and roads to support such a push north of the Danube. . . so if you want the railway and highway you have to cross the river and open a fuckhuge flank to the Austrian alpine redoubt areas. Plus you now have to fight for Vienna instead of bypassing it, which will slow you down even if you just nuke the city.

>>64280781
Do you have any sources on that? Not questioning if it's real it just seems like an interesting read

>>64280772
why not

>>64273541

Did you confuse Russia with NATO?

>>64273523 (OP)
What is your source that the Italian campaign was the reason why they nuked Japan?
Basic geography would be enough to explain why an invasion of the Japanese archipelago would be a complete nightmare. They don't need experience of Italy to judge that.
But more than that, they had a new toy and they wanted to use it. That's the reason why they nuked Japan. They would have dropped another if it were ready. They would have dropped one on Germany if it were ready in time.

>>64281120
I'll have to dig them up but most of the stuff about the island campaign is propaganda. The Japanese forces were very weak overall. Okinawa's forces were especially fanatical but incompetent. The civilians who "committed suicide" were mostly murdered by Japanese soldiers. It was pretty much a cakewalk in most battles. Not to mention the fact that MILLIONS of Japanese surrendered to the Soviets kills idea that they were overall fanatical.
But if you acknowledge those facts, it weakens the case that using the nukes was a matter of necessity.

>>64285540
>especially fanatical but incompetent
>Okinawa
>Japanese incompetent
Have you read the US Army post war assessment of the battle? The Japanese were far from incompetent. Some of the generals were over-zealous in driving off the invasion force through nighttime infiltration counter-attacks, but that was not the overall design of the defense. The design of the defenses was excellent, the material and weapons Japanese forces had were vast, and the Japanese themselves were very dedicated to the defense.
The idea that it was a cakewalk is laughable, and you tacking on the nukes being "unnecessary" makes me believe that you're one of those vatniks who believe that the Soviet Union did far more in the PTO than they actually did.
read NIGGA READ https://history.army.mil/Publications/Publications-Catalog/Okinawa-The-Last-Battle/

>>64285864
Did you read your own source? It's a catalog of humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat at the hand of the US Forces. They were bested in every sense possible despite their inherent advantages as the defenders.
and my discussion of the nuke is no way an attempt to big up the Russians.
The Japs were complete dominated in every sense by 1945. Nuke or no nuke, there was no way 1945 would end without surrender

>>64285920
Your claim that the PTO was a cakewalk is what I call into doubt, Ive read that book front to back, and nothing about the invasion of Okinawa was cakewalk except for the landings themselves. Yes the Japanese took disproportionately higher losses in nearly every battle. That does not mean it was easy. The battle of oki was a long drawn-out slog where American logistics and technology allowed for lower casualties compared to the Japanese' own. Im trying to pin down why you care that it was "humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat" when the combat itself was cruel, brutal, and relentless.