Allies invade Sardinia instead of Sicily

[tallwingedgoat]

The entire Italian campaign was sort of a bust because progress was too agonizingly slow. Italy was mountainous and only the narrow coastlines were useful for allied advance. These coasts were easy choke points for the Axis to defend, especially where nearby hilltop provided highground to cover the coastal roads below, as was the case at Monte Cassino. As a result Italy was still being contested after D-Day.

This costly push up the pennisula could have been avoided had the Allies started in northern Italy to begin with. Amphibious invasions needed air cover. After invading Sicily, allied fighters operating from there still could not reach as far north as Rome. This would not have been a problem had the Allies invaded Sardinia instead of Sicily. Using Sardinia as the airbase, Allied forces would be able to land near Rome or even north to Tuscany.

The British succeeded using the deception campaign, Operation Mincemeat to convince the Germans that the invasion would be at Sardinia, with the Sicilian invasion being a diversion. It made perfect sense to the Germans. But what if the Allies actually invaded Sardinia and deceived the Germans into thinking the main thrust would be at Sicily?

Altogether the initial invasion might have been more difficult, due to Sardinia being further from North Africa than Sicily. But it was doable and would have saved the Allied forces more trouble than they encountered.

 

[panzerjay]

but launching an invasion of mainland Italy from there would be a lot more tricky

 

[krull1m]

True, there were a few problems with this operation, but most of them were due to delays in launching the attacks on Italy.

When deciding on where to attack, Sicily or Sardinia there are other factors that you have to consider. For one, it was much easier and safer to attack Siciily as it is closer to Malta and North Africa so the supply lines are much shorter.
I also believe there was an issue around the differences in terrain of the 2 islands. Sardinia pretty much had nothing there and little land that was suitable for building airfields, whereas Sicily had plenty of good flat land as well as a number of existing airfields the allies could use.
And leaving Sicily in Axis hands is not a good idea as it meant they could continue to threaten sea traffic in the area.

And attacking Northern italy would be a somewhat risky move as it leaves your flanks very exposed. Not only during the invasion phase where you would be open to attacks from mainland italy and sicily (putting the invasion itself at risk) but also once you have landed you are in a nasty position. You have to advance across the top of italy to the Adriatic, while also defending on both flanks. And then where do you go? Up or down? Whichever way you go your rear is open to enemy attacks and so you will require vast numbers of troops and resources to both advance on one front and defend on the other, or worse, try to advance on both!

Often in war there are no "good" choices, only less-bad ones. Invading Italy the was it was done was not good, but it pretty much the best option on the table.

 

[wolf_brother]

Um, supply lines?

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Often in war there are no "good" choices, only less-bad ones. Invading Italy the was it was done was not good, but it pretty much the best option on the table.

Your reasonings are sound from a military point of view. But war is inseparable from political ends. Sardinia was the smarter play when Italian politics is taken into account.

One crucial mistake in Allied planning was assuming the Italians would put up a stiff resistance. What actually happened was as soon as Sicily fell the Italians accepted the war was lost and were looking to get rid of Mussolini. The Allies however were stuck in southern Italy and not in position to capitalize on this. As a result the Germans were able to move in and put together a proper defensive campaign.

Had Sardinia been the base of operations the Allies would liberate Rome early in the campaign, and that would have been a huge coup, possibly the end of major hostilities in the country. Most of Italy would have switched sides.

Italy's fate would be sealed the moment the Allies captured either Sardinia or Sicily. The Italians knew it. But of the two islands, Sardinia was a far better choice to take advantage of the political situation. In modern parlance, Sardinia would've been the better effects based operation.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Um, supply lines?

If you can refer to a specific supply problem we can discuss them.

 

[wolf_brother]

If you can refer to a specific supply problem we can discuss them.

Attempting to land an allied force in Sardinia instead of Sicily would mean leaving Sicily and Naples under Axis control, which would mean the allied supply lines to the Sardinian landings would be under constant threat from Axis air and naval power. If the allies were going to knock-out Italy from North Africa, Sicily was required to be the first-step.

 

[krull1m]

Your reasonings are sound from a military point of view. But war is inseparable from political ends. Sardinia was the smarter play when Italian politics is taken into account.

One crucial mistake in Allied planning was assuming the Italians would put up a stiff resistance. What actually happened was as soon as Sicily fell the Italians accepted the war was lost and were looking to get rid of Mussolini. The Allies however were stuck in southern Italy and not in position to capitalize on this. As a result the Germans were able to move in and put together a proper defensive campaign.

Had Sardinia been the base of operations the Allies would liberate Rome early in the campaign, and that would have been a huge coup, possibly the end of major hostilities in the country. Most of Italy would have switched sides.

Italy's fate would be sealed the moment the Allies captured either Sardinia or Sicily. The Italians knew it. But of the two islands, Sardinia was a far better choice to take advantage of the political situation. In modern parlance, Sardinia would've been the better effects based operation.

That may true, however there was virually no way to know that this would happen as it did. And taking a chance that it would happen would be asking for a huge military screw-up.
If you took Sardinia and then landed in Northern italy and the Italians DIDNT give in, then you are in an awful tactical position that it is impossible to get out of easily.

Also, if you took Sardinia then the Italians may well have been thinking the same way, and correct me if I am wrong, but the Germans were already starting to move heavy forces into the Italian area anyway (that was half of the reason for the invasion anyway, to draw nazi troops from France). So who is to say that the overall situation would have changed much?
Sure Italy gives in quickly, but the Germans are right there to grab the land and the allies will still have to fight for it. But this time they are stuck on Sardinia, which is not a good place to defend or launch an attack from.

All in all, even when you consider the political issues, the final decision on where to go HAS to be made from a solid military perspective. Sure the political way could give you the instant win, but often if it fails then the military situation is screwed. Personally thats what I think would have happened here, the military would have ended up in a terrible tactical and strategic position. Because even if everything with the Italians had gone to plan, the Nazis would not have simply sat back and allowed it. They didnt in OTL so why would they now?

 

[krull1m]

I have found this online, its a good article which talks about the discussions that allied command had on the whole theater of operations. The reasons why Sicily was chosen over Sardinia is detailed out.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-Sicily/USA-MTO-Sicily-1.html

""General Marshall reiterated American opposition to an invasion of Sardinia because that island offered merely an air advantage whereas either Sicily or the cross-Channel operation might produce decisive results. Though invading Sicily would be more difficult than invading Sardinia, Marshall was more concerned with the security of Mediterranean shipping and with the immediate effects of operations against Germany, however indirect, than he was with eliminating Italy from the war""

""The CCS at Casablanca were hopeful that an amphibious invasion of Sicily and a subsequent ground campaign on that island, together with intensified air bombardment of the Italian mainland, would produce Italian collapse. But after the conference, as planners in Washington, London, and Algiers began to consider the Sicilian decision, the question arose not only how to use the Allied forces in the Mediterranean if the Sicilian Campaign did indeed precipitate Italian collapse, but also what to do if it did not.
An Italian collapse would leave Germany facing three alternatives, all of them favorable to the Allies: (1) occupation of Italy, Sicily, and perhaps Sardinia; (2) withdrawal from Italy but reinforcement of the Balkans; and (3) occupation of both Italy and the Balkans. The Allies regarded the latter as the most improbable of the three alternatives, for they felt that Germany did not have the resources to undertake so large an enterprise while at the same time trying to stabilize the Russian front""

 

[Don_Giorgio]

If i remember correctly operation Mincemeat was launched in order to make Germans believe that the allies planned an assault to both Sardinia and Peloponese...
How about the attack being twofold in Sardinia and Peloponese instead of Sardinia only?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Attempting to land an allied force in Sardinia instead of Sicily would mean leaving Sicily and Naples under Axis control, which would mean the allied supply lines to the Sardinian landings would be under constant threat from Axis air and naval power. If the allies were going to knock-out Italy from North Africa, Sicily was required to be the first-step.

Quoted for truth.

 

[BlairWitch749]

the logical thing would have been to launch a more aggressive operation huskey

patton's army at palermo, monty at syracuse AND some sort of mixed corps landing at Calabria and Messina to cut off the two German divisions on the island without hope of escape

THEN the assault on mainland italy should have been launched much farther north, with any defensive lines bypassed by seaborne invasion on either coast

 

[Faeelin]

THEN the assault on mainland italy should have been launched much farther north, with any defensive lines bypassed by seaborne invasion on either coast

Wasn't the issue that there would have been no air support?

 

[BlairWitch749]

Wasn't the issue that there would have been no air support?

Civitavecchia (where Kesselring thought it would be smart to land) is only 30 miles north of Rome... allied fighter aircraft and medium bombers could reach there from northern Sicily without any special difficulty, plus possession of Sicily lets them bomb the main fields around Foggia and Pescara anyway

it would still be a lot better than landing at Salerno for a broken back campaign and right into the teeth of the 16th panzer division

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

well i dont think its a good idea to invade the place we told the germans were gonna invade....

 

[Cook]

Occupying Sardinia and Corsica after Sicily opens up the entire peninsular to invasion. Jumbo Wilson and Eisenhower both considered landings in the Ligurian Sea near Genoa and the possiblility of this was a constant worry for Kesselring throughout the entire Italian campaign.

 

[Readman]

A lot of others have pointed this out, but I will as well: Flank and Supply. Also good points were raised about airfields being better suited to Sicily.

 

[Cook]

Also good points were raised about airfields being better suited to Sicily.

I doubt that because the Desert Air Force was based in Corsica after its occupation. Sicily is just too far south for most of the Italian Peninsular.

 

[Readman]

I doubt that because the Desert Air Force was based in Corsica after its occupation. Sicily is just too far south for most of the Italian Peninsular.

Yeah the Italian peninsula, but Sicily is closer to Europe in general isn't it? And was a huge help for bomber bases to get to Romania

 

[krull1m]

Reading some more of the comments I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that the invasion of Italy was nothing more than a diversional sideshow. it was never intended to be a direct invasion route into Germany as those pesky things called the Alps were in the way.

The invasion was there to force the Nazis to redeploy a number of their units to Italy, thereby weakening the forces in France which could oppose the invasion. The allies had more men, so they could afford to have troops tied up fighting for control of Italy where as the Nazis really couldnt
If a consequence of the operation was that it knocked Italy out of the war then all the better, as more Nazi forces would be needed to occupy the country.

If D-day was not planned, and if the only way into Germany was via Italy than perhaps the operation would have been handled differently, a there then would be a good chance that Sardinia would have been occupied after Sicily was taken and some airbases constructed on it.
Even with this scenario Sicily would be taken first as it offered huge benefits that Sardinia didnt, not just airfield and terrain (which was the judgement of the entire allied command) but also for protection for shipping convoys.