After Anzio: the slowness of the American advance

Discussion in 'Italy' started by vitellino, Nov 18, 2018.

  1. vitellino

    vitellino Senior Member

    Hello everybody and especially all experts on the Italian campaign.

    I read today in the Italian newspaper 'La Nazione' an article by nutritionist Ciro Vestita who, as an introduction to an artice about the content of K rations, had this to say about the American advance following the breakout from Anzio:

    The American advance on Rome was deliberately slow in order to keep the Wehrmacht in Italy, which otherwise would have gone back to Germany to give a helping hand to Hitler.

    Should he stick to vitamins in future?


    Vitellino
     
  2. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    My initial response would be

    Did the 'other' Allies know and accept this - as it cant be 'fake news' - or was it only USA in this campaign??:wacko:


    Allies:
    United Kingdom
    British Raj India
    United States
    Free France
    Canada
    Italian Resistance
    Italy (from September 1943)
    South Africa
    Poland
    Australia
    Brazil
    New Zealand
    Greece
    Belgium
    Czechoslovakia


    TD
     
    Chris C likes this.
  3. minden1759

    minden1759 Senior Member

    Janet.

    He has obviously been sniffing the grappa. The strategic aim in Italy was to tie down as many German Divisions as possible and keep them away from Russia and, when it came, Normandy. He got that bit right.

    However, Lt Gen Mark Clark was in a hurry to get to Rome and be the first General in fourteen centuries to take it from the south. It would have made him a household name in the US.

    His hugely time consuming fight up from Salerno was caused by the excellence of the German defence and the geography of Italy - a defender's dream. Unfortunately for Clark, his occupation of Rome got no more than one day of coverage in the world press because he only arrived on 4-5 Jun 44. After that, the press in Italy moved quickly to cover the Normandy and the Italian Campaign was largely forgotten: especially in the US.

    Clark resented the slowness of the advance on Rome because it robbed him of fame.

    Regards

    Frank
     
    dave500, stolpi, Dave55 and 1 other person like this.
  4. vitellino

    vitellino Senior Member

    Tricky Dicky, as to the Americans, Ciro Vestita works in Pisa, and they did go up the west coast......and they did bring white bread, tinned meat and chocolate....

    Frank, there is a tendency here in Italy to blame the Allies for this 'slow advance' - otherwise it might be necessary to give some credit to the Germans......
     
    dave500 and Tricky Dicky like this.
  5. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    I understand
    TD
     
  6. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    But as far as Anzio is concerned, I read an offhand remark about the commanding American general being more concerned with setting up reserves than seizing ground further inland, letting the Germans recover and surround the beachhead.

    Ahh, whoops, the author in question wasn't talking about after the Anzio landings, but after the Anzio breakout.

    The other thing about Clark is that his thrust to Rome was counter to orders, right? And the Allies missed an opportunity to capture some German units?
     
  7. minden1759

    minden1759 Senior Member

    Go easy on Maj Gen John Lucas the American Officer who commanded VI (US) Corps at the Anzio landings.

    He was given too few men and so was, in my view, right to land and consolidate before launching a larger push on Rome when more men had been ferried into the beachhead.

    Whilst his decision did not make good press in London and Washington, it did mean that, having built up massive artillery stocks, when the enormous German counter attack came on 16 Feb 44, Lucas able to deal with it. This led to stalemate and the opportunity to reinforce the beachhead over many months. When the breakout came on 23 May 44, it was an unstoppable roller coaster until Clark changed the direct of the main effort.

    Whilst Clark technically did not disobey Alexander’s order - 3 US Inf Div carried on with the thrust towards Valmontone, he had, by withdrawing 1 US Armd Div from that thrust, effectively halted any chance of reaching Valmontone in force before HG Pz Div got there.

    Clark will go down in history as a first class t*sser.

    I am confident that Lucas’s reputation will one day be restored.

    Regards

    Frank
     
    Red Jim, dave500, Rich Payne and 3 others like this.
  8. bexley84

    bexley84 Well-Known Member

    John Lucas died in 1949 and is buried at Arlington.

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/8858952/john-porter-lucas

    lucas1.jpg
     
  9. vitellino

    vitellino Senior Member

    Chris,
    his words were (translated) 'the advance to Rome', which could mean anything - he also commented on the bombing of the Abbey at Cassino and other things which I won't go into...

    Frank, from what I've read I am with you on both Lucas and Clark,

    Vitellino (Janet)
     
    Chris C likes this.
  10. Osborne2

    Osborne2 Well-Known Member

    General Troy Middleton, having been hospitalised for a while and withdrawn from combat with the 45th Infantry Division was brought in at the last minute by Eisenhower to review the proposed Anzio landings and he condemned the plan as being under resourced with only 2 divisions, difficult to get off that beach head and capable of being easily opposed by troops moving from Rome. Price F.J. Troy H Middleton: A Biography p169-170. Middleton had landed with Patton in Sicily and knew about close run landings.

    Clark was a blue eyed boy after his secret landing in N Africa from a submarine ahead of the Torch landings in order to try to get a Vichy French North Africa to declare for the Allies.

    Not really the fault of those who landed at Anzio, only those who planned and commanded the landing.
     
    dave500 likes this.
  11. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    While I do have some sympathy for Lucas, this has been undermined somewhat by the evidence I found in Niall Barr's 'Yanks and Limeys' of him being very free with his criticism of other commander struggling to achieve progress in Sicily and Italy against the Germans:

    'the British are rather surprisingly slow' he wrote in Sicily blaming both 'strong opposition' but also Montgomery's obsessive caution.

    When he took over 6 US Corps after Salerno and began to personally experience the challenge caused by the combination of both terrain and professional opposition, however, he doesn't appear to have gone much quicker! (for his complaints about conditions in Italy see Barr, p.281.

    As for Anzio, he did order 1 Br Div to advance after a couple of days sitting tight - was his Corps much stronger by that point?

    Regards

    Tom
     
    Chris C and Tricky Dicky like this.
  12. Stuart Avery

    Stuart Avery In my wagon & not a muleteer.

    Clark got sent to Coventry in the end & the (best place for him!) Lucas used his brain, & used what (few) Divisions he had at the time. A wise old bird if you ask me? He sat tight for a while & waited to build up his supplys.

    Even the Yanks got fed up with Clark in time. Like Frank says, a first class tosser. I'm sure that General Truscott had some kind words to say about Lucas. People seem to forget about what Clark did to the US 36 Division in the Italian Campaign (The Texas Army!)
    Robert L. Wagner's book is something to obtain.

    Regards,
    Stu.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2018
    dave500 likes this.
  13. minden1759

    minden1759 Senior Member

    Tom.

    Lucas ordered 1 BR Inf Div to advance towards Campoleone and 3 US US Inf Div towards Cisterna but he did so have been ordered to do so by Clark who was, himself, under pressure from Alexander.

    If Lucas had been left alone, her would not have advanced quite so early. There are certainly no records to show that he intended to advance at any time before being ordered to do so.

    Regards

    Frank
     

Share This Page