ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
ORIGINAL: GibClaret80
ORIGINAL: Okayrun3254
I am late getting my vote in, but for the record, I like Anzio. Always fascinated with this situation. I think the Allies did not commit enough troops to be successful. If it had been successful, that could have been a game changer. It would be interesting to see a couple of what if's, like a extra infantry division, or tank battalion for the Allies. Since Anzio was tied with an offensive from the south, maybe someday a combined Cassino/Anzio scenario.
Sounds good to me. Anzio the U.S. general wouldn't commit his troops after a recon said it was clear so he dug in giving the germans time to deploy there forces against them.
I agree that General Lucas was too conservative, but I wonder if even an aggressive General would have been successful, or if Anzio was setup for failure. Only two divisions were used in the initial landing, and no reserve division like Salerno. The Germans responded with 4+ divisions within weeks. I wonder if a more aggressive General would have been strung out too far and overrun. I think for the Anzio landings to be a success, you need a more aggressive US General, a extra infantry division, and at least a CCA ready to land within the first week. I don't know about the naval fire support at Anzio, but that would also be as important as in Salerno, and also air support. A successful Anzio could have made the Germans pull back from Cassino.
It would be good to see how it would be like in a scenario as the American's were virtually unopposed when landing.