Montecasino

[our_kid2000]

My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.

He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

[Tank Fixer]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

It was a rather good obeservation post for much of the surounding area.

[Nik Simpson]

Post by our_kid2000
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place
rather than slog it out like they did?

Because they couldn't, German positions around Monte Cassino could
completely dominate all the routes around it and threaten supply lines.

[Edward Krawetz]

itwas an observation post on high ground
and its guns controlled the valley
--

[John Lansford]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Monte Cassino dominated the valley it was located over. The Allies
believed the Germans were using it as an observation post for their
artillery, but that wasn't the problem. The building wasn't occupied
but the ground around it and below it was, which prevented the Allies
from advancing further up the valley.

The Allies could have probably advanced up the coast and avoided the
valley, but that would have put a 'bulge' in their front line and
invited a counterattack.

John Lansford
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
--

[Michele Armellini]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Geography.
Have a look at a map of central Italy. Remember, the Allies had to go up the
boot. They could follow either coast; at this point, the coastal plain is
very narrow on the Adriatic, non-existent on the Tyrrenian. Inside the
peninsula, most of the valleys run from West to East at this point, i.e.
towards the Adriatic.
There are a couple of central valleys that go roughly NW-SE. One, for
instance, is the upper part of the Sangro valley (that then turns East). If
you follow that, you'll end up among the mountains and eventually at
a1,400-mt. high pass, called Passo del Diavolo (the Devil's Pass); enough
said. Another is even higher and narrower than that.

Keep in mind that the map you are looking at features more roads and
highways than you would find during WWII. Also keep in mind that if you
crater a road across flat lands, you merely cause a nuisance; the enemy
vehicles slow down, detour around the obstruction, and go on. But if you
destroy a few bridges, tunnels and viaducts along the one mountain road
running along the valley, a road that is virtually made of bridges, tunnels
and viaducts, you make the valley impassable.

Then there is the Liri valley; it's a lower, wider valley, that goes NW-SE.
If you follow that from the South you'll reach Frosinone and eventually the
Colli Albani, close to Rome.
But the hill of the Montecassino abbey overlooks the Liri valley.


--

[Jim Lillie]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Look at a map. To the west is the shore road and the Med. All traffic
had to go along here, covered by fire from the mountains. To the east
you have a steep sided river valley running up to the central Mountains.
Bare rock without roads. Mountain troops carried all food/water/ammo
on their backs.

So the Germans could spread artillery observers all along the crest.
They did NOT need the abbey, but from below that was the most visible
place to blame.

Therefore to "go around" is to wade 10 miles offshore on 1 side or hike
over icy rock carrying every supply on the other. Result is a long
fight to pry determined men out of an excellent defensive position.

Jim Lillie
--

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Well, they did try to go around strategically, at Anzio.

And they eventually did outflank it tactically, with
French North African mountain troops. Monte Cassino
was a very difficult place to go around, since it
dominated the ground to the east and south, and the
ground to the east was -extremely- rough.

EGF
--

[ArtKramr]

Post by our_kid2000
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

That would leave the full German force at the Allies backs.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
--

[Michael Emrys]

Post by our_kid2000
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

All the good, fast highways lay to the west and were dominated by the
feature. From its heights, artillery could be called and directed to any
traffic along that route. To the east were mountains without good routes
through them. And those could also be easily defended anyway. There really
was no way to "go around" it on land until you got to the east coast, and as
the 8th. Army discovered, that had its own problems.

The only possible way of flanking it would have been by sea. This was
attempted at Anzio, but for various reasons, that failed too.

Michael

[Mike]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

The only route to Rome from the south is up the Via Casilina (now Route 6).
80 mile south of Rome, the road passes through the valley of the River Liri.
MC towered over this route. The Allies couldn't bypass it without leaving a
threat to their lines.

[**bg**]

...question about the battle at Montecasino...why didn't the Allies simply

go around the place...?

__________________
For the view.

A major military objective is to *take the high ground,* and this site was
certainly that. The view from up there was truly grand.

From high ground, artillery fire from great distances can be directed onto

enemy troops with precision, and from the site itself.

Being able to see where incoming shells impact - ergo being able to radio
real-time target observations to the gunners so they can correct and have
better accuracy - is what the Germans would have had.

This is not a situation under which an Allied commander would let his troops
fight.

-rj-
www.thelittlecanadaheadphoneband.ca
www.lchb.ca

[Don Phillipson]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Monte Cassino was a mountaintop monastery
overshadowing the main road to Rome, along
which the Allies were advancing. Alternatives
were:
1. Abandon Rome in favour of an alternative
objective. Since Rome was the Italy's capital
and largest city, it had to be the main objective.
2. Outflank Monte Cassino. The Allies tried
this twice in the Italian campaign, at Anzio
and Salerno. Neither landing really succeeded.
3. Frontal assault on Monte Cassino. This
was what the Allies did.

(You cannot "go around the place." If you are
on the west side of the Italian mountains and
you want to move north, you have to pass
within 15 miles of Monte Cassino. That was
why the Germans defended it the way they
did.)

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Michael Emrys]

Outflank Monte Cassino. The Allies tried this twice in the Italian campaign,
at Anzio and Salerno. Neither landing really succeeded.

I don't understand what you are saying about Salerno. Surely you won't have
forgotten that Salerno is *south* of Casino, and therefore would offer no
opportunity of a flanking move. Also, since it was the Allied landing that
led directly to the rest of the offensive on the western side of the
penninsula, I am not clear on what you mean by it not succeeding. Granted,
since it did not result in the abandonment of the penninsula by German
forces as might have been hoped, it could be said to be a qualified success.

Michael
--

[Hal Hanig]

Post by Don Phillipson
Monte Cassino was a mountaintop monastery
overshadowing the main road to Rome, along
which the Allies were advancing. Alternatives
1. Abandon Rome in favour of an alternative
objective. Since Rome was the Italy's capital
and largest city, it had to be the main objective.
2. Outflank Monte Cassino. The Allies tried
this twice in the Italian campaign, at Anzio
and Salerno.

Salerno? Maybe Anzio, but not Salerno. Salerno was the operation that placed
allied troops on the western slope of the Appenines on the mainland of Italy
after Sicily was taken. At the time of the Salerno landings, Montecassino
wasn't any kind of allied target.....it became one after those landings were
consolidated because of its location between the bulk of the allied forces in
the Naples area and their eventual target of Rome.

Post by Don Phillipson
.....Neither landing really succeeded.

Salerno most certainly accomplished its objective, i.e.-to provide allied forces
with a foothold on the Italian mainland.

Post by Don Phillipson
3. Frontal assault on Monte Cassino. This
was what the Allies did.
(You cannot "go around the place." If you are
on the west side of the Italian mountains and
you want to move north, you have to pass
within 15 miles of Monte Cassino. That was
why the Germans defended it the way they
did.)

No argument there.

[Jeremy Thomson]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

They did, that was the idea behind the Anzio landing.
Churchill wanted a wild cat behind the lines, as the quote goes all
they got was a beached whale.
The allies where too slow moving off the beachhead giving Kesslering
time to counter attack. IIRC it was something like 6 weeks before the
Allies 'Broke out' from Anzio.

I dont think there was ever a 3-1 manpower advantage in any of the
attacks against Monte Casino until the last attack. Manpower was a
recurring problem in Italy, Mark Clarke often had to give up troops
for Normandy or later the invasion of southern France.
Italy turned into a very United Nations effort, U.S, British, Indian,
NZ, Polish, Free French & French colonial troops, even the Brazilians!
IIRC it was the Poles that finally took Cassino, though I belive the
french were in on the attack too.

Jeremy Thomson

[zirpen]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to

be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was. He was wondering
why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather than slog it out
like they did? <

If you saw the place you would understand. Germans were on the mountain with
guns. Even their infantry rifle, a Mauser bolt action with a clip fed
7.92x57 [called 8mm] cartridge, was good for 1000 yards with accuracy even
on level ground. Down hill, it's range would be even longer. They could
sweep the narrow corridor, between the road and the sea, with deadly fire
that would stop/kill anything except top-armored vehicles. Allied troop
loses were considered to be unacceptable so there were three choices
left - halt progress, retreat or go get 'em. The big hill was cleared and
the troops slogged on North to Rome. As I recall, there was preliminary
air support from B-25's which reduced the monastery to rubble that still
made excellent cover for the defending German troops which were
Fallschirmajager, German paratroops. The hill had a gulch making good
cover for
the 2nd Polish Corps spearheading the Allied assault. War IS Hell,
especially for the dog-faced
paddlefoot . But every generation seems to have one. Yankee Doodle.

[rob]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Simply put, they couldn't

Paraphrased from Roads to Rome 2nd NZ Division in Action

The Gustav Line could only be outflanked by Sea (which the Allies did do but
would have been difficult without a land advance as well), and on land there
was only one route an army could take to Rome. The valley of the Liri
River, the entrance of which was dominated by Cassino and the heights beyond
the town.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

There isn't really any "around" to go.

The position overlooks and commands the rather narrow coastal valley
and the north-south roads to the west while to the east, there is
nothing but mountains until almost the Adriatic coast.

The alternative routes to the north face equally, if not more, daunting
natural barriers and defenses.

Cheers and all,




--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Michele Armellini]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

There isn't really any "around" to go.
The position overlooks and commands the rather narrow coastal valley
and the north-south roads to the west while to the east, there is
nothing but mountains until almost the Adriatic coast.
The alternative routes to the north face equally, if not more, daunting
natural barriers and defenses.

All correct save that it wasn't a coastal valley. Between the Liri valley
and the closest coast there are the Monti Aurunci and the Monti Ausoni, not
tall but rather steep, and the coast there is very narrow. To this date, the
North-South highway goes through the Liri valley, not along the coast, where
you can find a narrow road clinging to the steep sides of the mountain; the
North-South railway goes largely _under_ the mountains, through tunnels that
are several kms long.
--

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Because the rest of the front was even worse. Monte Cassino (2 s's)
overlooks the Liri Valley to its west. The Liri Valley is where the
main road to Rome runs.

West and south west of the Liri Valley are the Aurunci mountains,
which are extremely rugged and go right down to the coast. Also
the Garigliano river runs across the front.

East and northeast of Cassino is the crest of the Appennines, the
highest and roughest part of the peninsula. The Appennines run all
the way to the east coast.

However, the most direct answer to the question is simple: the
Allies _did_ go around Cassino - by sea, to Anzio, about 100 km
up the west coast.

Unfortunately the Germans contained this flanking thrust. The
final success in the Cassino sector came in spring 1944, when
French mountain troops overcame the difficult terrain of the
Aurunci mountains and outflanked the Cassino stronghold.

[George Hardy]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Because Montecasino was not just a strong point, it was in a whole
fortified line. Montecasino had no importance in itself -- the
monastery was not used by the Germans. But it upset the Allied
troops, as they knew they could be seen from the monastery. The
Germans called this front the Gustav Line.

The Allies did "simply go around". That operation is called
Anzio.

GFH

[Wesley Johnston]

No thoughts on Monte Casino, but this same qeustion could be asked about
Huertgen Forest and also about Metz ... seems like a good idea for a
dissertation and/or a book about all of these.

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

[Martin Rapier]

Post by Wesley Johnston
No thoughts on Monte Casino, but this same qeustion could be asked about
Huertgen Forest and also about Metz ... seems like a good idea for a
dissertation and/or a book about all of these.

The reason Metz was a fortress in the first place was that it was a vital
communications node and controlled one of the few passable routes through
fairly broken terrain. It was fought over for centuries precisely because
it was difficult to bypass.

Huertgen Forest was just inexcusable though, it was attacked because it was
there, although specious arguments wrt the 'vital' Roer dams were tacked on
afterwards.

Cheers
Martin

[a425couple]

Post by our_kid2000
question about the battle at Montecasino,
why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

Probably best to remember some basics before the particulars.

When the enemy has a well defensed position,
a good leader must consider several approaches.
Going around is valid if there is a reasonable way to
go around, and that position is not a threat to you.

So for example for many Japanese held well fortified islands,
once their offensive threat was neutralized (no ships or
airfields) they could be left to "wither on the vine."

Monte Cassino was not like that.
The Allies were pushing up the boot of Italy with the
main desires of 1) putting pressure on Germany and
2) removing Italy from the Axis (and capturing Rome
was important to this psychologically, politically &
logistically).
During the winter of 1943-44 Axis forces held quite
defensible positions along the Gustav Line. One of
the strongpoints of this was the hill at Monte Cassino.
This hill overlooked (and thus to a very large extent
controlled ((by observation directing air and artillery,
and by direct fire)) the important avenues of movement.

Try finding a map to make better sense of my words.
Italy in this area is quite hilly with few easy routes to
move armies and the supplies they need north.
Monte Cassino overlooks the Liri river and valley,
route 6, railroad tracks, and the Garigliano and
Rapido valleys. It is very hard to avoid these and get
to Rome. So in December '43 Allies started trying and
could not.

In January '44 they tried 'going around' with the amphibian.
landings at Anzio, but this also had problems. It was
decided that the main force had to push through to
link up with the Anzio force. So from January until
18 May 1944 many efforts were made and the hill was
finally taken.
Germany then had to withdraw through various defensive
positions (Viterbo line, Trasimene line, Arno line), to the
quite strong Gothic line in August.
As part of this Rome was 'given up' on 4 June.
Sometimes there is just no avoiding a tough hard fight.

[Martin Rapier]

Post by our_kid2000
My father asked me a good question about the battle at Montecasino, and to
be perfectly honest, I had no idea what the answer was.

Monte Cassino.

Post by our_kid2000
He was wondering why didn't the Allies simply go around the place rather
than slog it out like they did?

It dominated the coastal route to Rome, and even if the allies had simply
pushed up the plain they had to reduce the fortress in their flank to
eliminate it as an artillery observation post if nothing else. Inland it was
just ever bigger mountains however the allies did try to outflank the
position from the sea by landing at Anzio. That didn't work out quite so
well, so all that was left was frontal assault (albeit with some tactical
flanking manouvres).

Cheers
Martin