Adventures in Italy

[hingram]

I'm doing Brenner against the machine. The minute I get some traction on the mainland, I invade Taranto. It has a supply point. Southern Italy is a supply desert.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: hingram
I'm doing Brenner against the machine. The minute I get some traction on the mainland, I invade Taranto. It has a supply point. Southern Italy is a supply desert.

Is it a LOT different playing against the machine? How's your game going? I'll have to take a hard look at Taranto.
Thanks for the heads up. And thanks for posting....it helps me keep going.

[sPzAbt653]

I could really use some naval support in getting ashore in these
invasions. It's sorely missed.

Maybe we should have a few TO's for the Allied player to bring in some Naval Support from time to time ?

[devoncop]

Hey steady on there

Naval Guns given the force balance would finish the scenario in about 50 turns

To be serious I think the landings are harder for the Allies than historically but the Air dominance in terms of interdiction in particular is much more effective across the whole length of Italy than was actually the case.

It is difficult to see from Larry's screenshots due to the fog of war but German forces are very few and far between so pretty much the MLR and port cover is all there is. It is really interesting the difference in this updated patched scenario we are playing which is a two turns a week rather than the stock scenario with the game which is a turn a day, that Axis forces are both less numerous and often fixed until allies reach them.

Turn 18th January 1943

So this turn more effective bombardment of two US Regiments plodding through the central mountain pass SE of Lauria is more effective causing 10% then another 10% and then 11% losses. This is much better.
Troops are having more problems getting down to the front lines from Northern Italy due to a combination of blown bridges and interdiction and the FJ Division is having a nightmare train journey in particular !

Larry's Brits are now almost at the small (non supply) port SW of Taranto. There are fixed dug in defenders but this will not hold him long. As Mike has pointed out, the terrain gets much easier for attacking (for a while) after Taranto which is not good...

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I could really use some naval support in getting ashore in these
invasions. It's sorely missed.

Maybe we should have a few TO's for the Allied player to bring in some Naval Support from time to time ?

It would make for a more realistic and innovative scenario. It would make slogging up the coastal
roads easier. I'm not sure what ships the Axis might have available but if Malta is still in Allied
hands then I would guess not many ships, if any. But the Allies would probably have a plethera of
them. I haven't done any research but I'm pretty sure there were at least several ships. I can't
remember if Italy has an aircraft carrier or not but I think the British did.

Would it wreck the balance of the scenario? Depending on how the Allied player uses his ships they
could make a remarkable difference. I start off by assuming it WOULD make difference of course.
I suppose only a playtest would demonstrate by how much. I'm thinking it would give the Allies a
winning edge, a massive boost; it might make the scenario unwinable by the Axis. But if the Axis
player concentrates in the middle of the map it might make no difference at all. A playtest would
show that too. I think it all comes down to a valid playtest.

It would make the scenario greater yet.

[devoncop]

It would certainly make a great game earlier in the war when the navies were more closely matched but by the invasion of Italy Axis navies largely comprised minesweepers and patrol boats and not a lot else.

Having seen the devastation shore bombardment does in the CFNA scenario and the necessity of the Axis defending the coast roads I am not convinced it would be balanced but I would love to be proved wrong.[:)]

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: devoncop
It would certainly make a great game earlier in the war when the navies were more closely matched but by the invasion of Italy Axis navies largely comprised minesweepers and patrol boats and not a lot else.

Having seen the devastation shore bombardment does in the CFNA scenario and the necessity of the Axis defending the coast roads I am not convinced it would be balanced but I would love to be proved wrong.[:)]

An Allied navy would probably accellerate the progress of the coastal roads in the south but by the
time you get to the Gustav Line there aren't very many coastal roads any more. Northern Italy is
far removed from the coast I think. The city of Genova on the west coast is the extent of the coastal
roads on the west side. And Northern Italy is largely land locked. Maybe to balance the Allied ships
we give the Axis more anti-ship planes, Stukas? Or CD guns or both.

[UP844]

At the date the Allied forces landed in Sicily, the Italian Navy still had 3 modern battleships, 3 older battleships, half a dozen light cruisers and some destroyer squadrons (the latter suffered heavy attrition escorting convoys to North Africa in the previous year), plus some submarines and light forces.

The Germans had very few surface ships (mostly captured in the previous years), plus a few U-boats and MTB's. They captured some Italian ships (none larger than a destroyer) when Italy surrendered.

The Italian Navy never had an operational aircraft carrier: the only one, the Aquila (Eagle) was almost ready for sea trials in 1943, but she never left the port of Genoa.

All this said and done, I strongly doubt any action by the Italian Navy could be successful: besides the Ultra intercepts, the Allied air assets (and the lack of air cover) would have turned any approach to the landing beaches (either in Sicily or at Salerno) into a preview of the Yamato last mission. It could be worth exploring, anyway.

After the Italian Navy surrendered, the scarce German forces cannot be (and were not) more than a nuisance for the Allied: in fact, the Germans never ceased to worry about Allied landings behind their lines of resistance. The Anzio operation, though failed, only reinforced this line of thought, which persisted up to the end of the campaign (in April 1945, the 29th Panzergrenadier Division was kept in reserve well behind the front as a reserve in case of an Allied landing). We now know the Allied had not enough landing craft to implement such a strategy, but it would be an interesting option to pursue. Moreover, the British repeatedly used naval gunfire support (even though limited to destroyers) during their advance along the Adriatic Coast.

On a side note, I am following your AAR's with great interest, but I wonder why in both STBP games the Allied player just crossed the Messina Strait instead of landing at Salerno or in some other place [&:]. Isn't blocking a potential landing site a bit too easy for the German player?

[hingram]

I dropped the 82nd into the airfields around Taranto to scout out the situation. After you land the first unit, you can figure out the defensive situation. If it is clear, I drop the rest of the 82nd and here comes the 36th and 34th by ship. Then I head west(34 and 36) and hook up with the advancing east group with 1 or 2 units just to get supply going from Taranto(I use Americans east and Brits west just for simplicity). The bulk of 34 and 36 is headed to smash into the German flank while it is focused on the Brits and generally cause supply problems. Little by little I add groups to Taranto(that blue French unit was added and an Italian unit just showed up unannounced in the heel). VII Corps came later. You'll need rail fixers.

There is little of interest to the northeast of Taranto. The 82nd can hold the line there, maybe probe a bit. The game makes it too easy to show up uninvited at some port. The key is to find a port near a supply conduit.

This is my 5th time playing this scenario up to about 40 turns when I start over again. I'm still learning how the game works.

[devoncop]

All good points. In fact it may push the Axis into a more historically faithful strategy of abandoning the South and fighting on the prepared lines further north.

I don't think more JU87s would be worthwhile as the fighter numbers are so unequal that they would get slaughtered very early on.

The Sicilian battle would still prove difficult to balance unless the capital ships use is restricted in some way.

Interesting concept though.

[devoncop]

ORIGINAL: UP844

At the date the Allied forces landed in Sicily, the Italian Navy still had 3 modern battleships, 3 older battleships, half a dozen light cruisers and some destroyer squadrons (the latter suffered heavy attrition escorting convoys to North Africa in the previous year), plus some submarines and light forces.

The Germans had very few surface ships (mostly captured in the previous years), plus a few U-boats and MTB's. They captured some Italian ships (none larger than a destroyer) when Italy surrendered.

The Italian Navy never had an operational aircraft carrier: the only one, the Aquila (Eagle) was almost ready for sea trials in 1943, but she never left the port of Genoa.

All this said and done, I strongly doubt any action by the Italian Navy could be successful: besides the Ultra intercepts, the Allied air assets (and the lack of air cover) would have turned any approach to the landing beaches (either in Sicily or at Salerno) into a preview of the Yamato last mission. It could be worth exploring, anyway.

After the Italian Navy surrendered, the scarce German forces cannot be (and were not) more than a nuisance for the Allied: in fact, the Germans never ceased to worry about Allied landings behind their lines of resistance. The Anzio operation, though failed, only reinforced this line of thought, which persisted up to the end of the campaign (in April 1945, the 29th Panzergrenadier Division was kept in reserve well behind the front as a reserve in case of an Allied landing). We now know the Allied had not enough landing craft to implement such a strategy, but it would be an interesting option to pursue. Moreover, the British repeatedly used naval gunfire support (even though limited to destroyers) during their advance along the Adriatic Coast.

On a side note, I am following your AAR's with great interest, but I wonder why in both STBP games the Allied player just crossed the Messina Strait instead of landing at Salerno or in some other place [&:]. Isn't blocking a potential landing site a bit too easy for the German player?

Really interesting ...thanks for that.

As for the invasion sites I would agree with you....I had very little available to defend certain ports further north. The only advantage to the Allies is the ability to bombard Reggio for several turns from Messina area to degrade the defences prior to the assault....something not available further North of course.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: UP844
On a side note, I am following your AAR's with great interest, but I wonder why in both STBP games the Allied player just crossed the Messina Strait instead of landing at Salerno or in some other place . Isn't blocking a potential landing site a bit too easy for the German player?

I was faced with that decision myself and my thinking was that the strengths of the south outweighs
the importance of landing further north. There are about four airfields around Messina and an airdrome
of about 8 airfields a little further south on Sicily and you could park your arty on the eastern shore
of Sicily and bombard the west coastal hexes of the mainland with ease. So you have massive air power
and ARTY too. A landing couldn't be denied to the Allies under those circumstances. Plus there's a
supply point near Reggio. It has everything you need for an invasion site.

A landing up north, near Napoli or Salerno would be interesting. If I ever play this scenario again
and I'm the Allies, I'd have to try an initial landing at Salerno. Just to see how different the game
would be.

[devoncop]

This turn the Panzer Grenadiers of the 15th Division, who have done a lot of the heavy lifting to date continue to hold the Americans in the West whilst the British in the East will soon hit elements of an SS Panzer Division South of Taranto.
I lost another fighter unit near Tarantino this turn despite flak support and Larry is going hard after the few air assets I have left. 1st FJ Divn finally can get off their much bombed trains having arrived in the vicinity of Naples.

[hingram]

The problem with invading anywhere but Reggio and trying to defend on two fronts. When you come up from the south, the enemy is always at your north. When you come in the middle, they are coming at you from the north and south. When I invaded at Reggio, I dropped the British para's at Palmi. That blocked any units coming south to help (if they were). Luckily, Taranto was undefended. I can land a division at Rossano and head west. The computer makes it too easy. I took Marsala by dropping a para on it and then leaving.

I'm holding the British para's for a drop to cut off supply on the western flank.

[sPzAbt653]

Naval Guns given the force balance would finish the scenario in about 50 turns

The original design had no naval units for a reason, and when we made these modifications we stayed with the original on this point. Naval units can be misused and can create a pain in the butt for the Axis player trying to move along the coast roads, which are prevalent. However, the Germans did report that the Allied shore bombardments were more than annoying.

Larry is a well respected TOAW'er and since he has mentioned the lack of naval units a few times here, I thought I would bring it up, and it has resulted in interesting points being raised. I would be interested in fully researching the details of naval support in Italy, and would probably be inclined to add a few Theater Options for Naval Units to become available for a few turns here and there. In such a limited capacity, such units may assist the Allies in repeating historical successes such as Salerno and Anzio. And also, in such a limited capacity, I would not worry about balancing as it was an unbalanced campaign [Allied superiority in all respects except leadership].

[DanNeely]

Using TO's to limit major naval involvement to the approximate historical levels but giving the allied player control over timing sounds reasonable to me. The allies having a limited number of light ships running around conducting harassment operations along the coast (as someone up-thread said the Brits did) shouldn't have a huge impact - the number of ships in game would need to be adjusted based on how much time they spent harassing the coast vs conducting ASW operations that're outside the scope of TOAW.

A quick search turned up this page which gives ship totals for the Husky, Salerno, and Anzio landings.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsItaly.htm

If the victory conditions in this scenario weren't so heavily fixated on Brenner Pass or bust, I'd consider letting the allies have the option to release a larger cruiser force and/or a second battleship force for a few turns once or twice for a significant VP price and a major VP award to the Germans for sinking any of the ships. Preserving naval firepower for DDay was more important than the grind up the Italian peninsula once it was clear that the Italian anti-fascists had failed in their attempt to defect the entire country to the allies, and the resulting fight had turned into a grinding slugfest with little hope of a major breakout. But in the current scenario design even a 10% VP shift isn't that likely to shift the final result and I'd expect the allied human player to always take the extra ships.

[larryfulkerson]

I just now got up from a nap. I dreamed about the game and I think I've waited
too long to invade somewhere. We're at T58 or so and Ian has had plenty of time
to move his reinforcements to the various ports to at least garrison them and
I'm pretty sure he left none of them naked for assault. I'd have to do some
recon bombardments to be sure but by now every port is probably protected and
at least has a garrison. The INT missions didn't really prevent the Axis
from reaching their final positions in the south and breaking bridges was
just a pain in the neck but not a game saver for me. I'll see if I can
find a suitable port. It's got to have a supply point nearby and that
will eliminate a lot of ports.

[hingram]

I tried a landing at Napoli while I was battling for Salerno and it was a dumpster fire. I would have prepped but it was covered by heavy AA. So much for that idea. We'll just keep on slugging away against the Panzers.

[devoncop]

ORIGINAL: hingram

I tried a landing at Napoli while I was battling for Salerno and it was a dumpster fire. I would have prepped but it was covered by heavy AA. So much for that idea. We'll just keep on slugging away against the Panzers.

To add insult to injury.....the scenario notes restrict invasions to nothing north of Salerno...so technically that was illegal[:D] [:D]

[devoncop]

This turn the HQ of the fresh 95th Infantry Division is obliterated whilst trying to fail down to Foggia. The rest of the Division decides to walk !

Elsewhere reinforcements arrive near Taranto which is handy and the Axis can do is bombard the advancing Allied hordes.