Sardinia, not Sicily?
- Thread starter Cymraeg
- Start date
Didnt Allies leaked on purpose that an invasion was imminent to Sardinia and Peloponese in order to weaken the Germans in Normandy by forcing them to transfer their units there?
I think it would have been a better decision to invade Sardinia, since it would open up all the Italian coastline to invasion. Once Italy turns after the loss of Sardinia, the Allies can grab a lot of the peninsula. They might even be able to trap some Nazi formations in Sicily and the south if they go about it boldly.
I think the reason they didn't do it OTL was because they feared that a lack of overwhelming fighter cover might prove damaging. In the long run however, I think the losses averted and the damage inflicted would have more than made up for the slightly higher casualties in taking the island.
I think the reason they didn't do it OTL was because they feared that a lack of overwhelming fighter cover might prove damaging. In the long run however, I think the losses averted and the damage inflicted would have more than made up for the slightly higher casualties in taking the island.
To my, admiteddly limited, knowledge of Italian infrastructures, Sardinia totally lack of harbours that can host an invasion fleet enough to take, well Latium, Toscana or Campania.
Furthermore, the western coast of Italy was more close (both geographically and infrastructure-speaking) of italian and german reinforcments. By striking at the bottom of the peninsula, Anglo-Americans had chances to progress faster, with the reinforcment having more hard times to came, critically with a crushed Italian navy.
Operation Mincemeat, aka The Man Who Never Was, was designed to make the Axis think that the next operation by the Allied forces in the Med would be against Sardinia or Greece - and it worked very well indeed.
I can see the attractions of Sardinia - it would make a strike against central Italy possible and might mean that Rome is liberated a year earlier. IIRC the Germans only had a weak division on the island, so seizing it wouldn't have been too difficult. I guess that the problem would have been getting air support there (I'm not going to claim that the Allies could have used eleventy billion carriers that were obviously not needed in the Pacific
) and if the port facilities in Sardinia were good enough to support a jump-off from there to the Italian mainland.
I can see the attractions of Sardinia - it would make a strike against central Italy possible and might mean that Rome is liberated a year earlier. IIRC the Germans only had a weak division on the island, so seizing it wouldn't have been too difficult. I guess that the problem would have been getting air support there (I'm not going to claim that the Allies could have used eleventy billion carriers that were obviously not needed in the Pacific
) and if the port facilities in Sardinia were good enough to support a jump-off from there to the Italian mainland.Well my knowledge of Italian infrastructures is probably even lower. However, here's a question: Couldn't allied vessels have embarked from north african ports (maybe also Calgiari) and then sail south of Sardinia, as far to the north-west from Axis-controlled Sicily as possible, for this hypothetical invasion of central Italy following a success in Sardinia ?
Weren't most german formations, despite allied deceptions, nonetheless located on Sicily (Herman Goring divison etc)? And following Sicily, weren't most german divisions either south around Naples or north under the command of Rommel ?
I think fast would be the last word I would use to describe Allied progress in Italy.
A successful landing near Rome might mean the Italian HQ survives, meaning that maybe they can organize some sort of defense against their former allies, now enemies, the Germans. There were, I think, quite a number of Italian divisions around Rome. Properly motivated, those could prove pretty useful in the early stages. Rhodes (and thus the Dodecanese) might go the other way as well.
Last edited:
The problem with Sardinia is the general infrastructure very few and not very big for an idea in the 60/70's Albania were described as 'Sardinia with communism'.
In this scenario, is not even necessary to take Sardinia. This island isn't really the Malta of Fascism, it's basically a rock that could indeed serve as a giant ship.
But the so-called "USS Corsica" already plays this role, at a lesser cost : the corsican resistants, furthermore the demotivated Italian Army, quickly managed to beat the Germans. I agree that a still axis-tied Italian Army could make the things harder, but nothing comparable to an invasion of Sardinia.
Even with a allied-invaded Sardinia, it could only play the role of a aerial base, except and unlikely for some secondary sea operations.
The operation that you describe seems to me a bit unlikely, as the western Italian coast, at least on my little knowledge, are less interesting and usable for a massive landing.
Weren't most german formations, despite allied deceptions, nonetheless located on Sicily (Herman Goring divison etc)? And following Sicily, weren't most german divisions either south around Naples or north under the command of Rommel ?
I think fast would be the last word I would use to describe Allied progress in Italy.
I doubt that a landing at Rome would make the Italian so quick to switch their alliance. Invading the capital would maybe make the king and HQ more quick to switch, but they will loose as much credibility and legitimacy as Leopold of Belgium. In the better case, you'll have a greater and more powerful RSI.
And probably the 60/70 have more numerous and better infrastructures than Sardinia in the same time, at least only for trying to replace the no-more aid and trade with USSR.
No a WWII Sardinia could be a aerial base, maybe a secondary sea warfare base too, but i wouldn't count too much on it. I wonder if it would be worthy to occup all the island or only the coast even in these cases.
I think the Italians switched before US troops set foot at Salerno. If I remember correctly, the Italians were basically begging (in their secret negotiations prior to the landings) the Allies to land at least a paratrooper division in Rome to ensure the safety of the HQ and to make sure that their own divisions around Rome would fight the Germans, now that they can see the Americans have arrived.
If Lazio is taken early, than there's no way the Germans can keep their forces around Naples and in Sicily supplied, all the more so since now they will have to actually fight Italian forces instead of just disarming confused formations.
Hem. Yes, after the Operation Husky and the landing on Sicily.
Oh, i'm not denying that Fascist, once Mussolini out, wanted peace.
But i think you're underestimate how an invasion of Rome could increase the prestige of Benny, and make Italians more likely, even in the Army, to join the RSI or at least to not collaborate as they did OTL.
Maybe, but even by not seeing the implication regarding loyalties of Italians, i tought the whole thing was about no invasion in Sicily but in Sardinia instead.