Military Review

Can the Allied landing in Sicily be considered the reason for the termination of the German operation Citadel?

50
Can the Allied landing in Sicily be considered the reason for the termination of the German operation Citadel?



In the midst of the battle of Kursk 10 in July 1943, our Western allies began their landing in Sicily, with the beginning of the so-called Italian company, which then continued with the landing of allied forces in mainland Italy and the battles on the Gustav line. Cassino and Anzio. As a result, the Italian campaign ended with the surrender of German troops in Northern Italy 2 in May 1945.

According to some researchers, it was the beginning of the Italian company, in particular the landing of Anglo-Americans on the Italian island of Sicily, which allegedly became the main reason why the German command refused active offensive action on the southern Kursk arc, and indeed from continuing all of its famous Operations "Citadel", was it really so? And what was the landing operation of our allies?

The decision to embark on Sicily after the seizure of North Africa was made at a conference in Casablanca in January 1943. The views of the allies about the site of the invasion of Europe were divided. The Americans insisted on landing in France, Churchill insisted on the need to ensure the safety of maritime traffic through the Mediterranean.

The Allies were also inclined to consider political considerations for this operation. It was assumed that the seizure of Sicily and the direct threat of continental Italy would push the opposition to overthrow the Duce, so the Anglo-American troops in Sicily were mainly indirectly related to the upcoming Soviet-German battle on the Kursk fields, the USSR still did not recognize the Italian direction as TVD for opening the second front.
It is known that this operation was called the Husky (the landing of the Allies in Sicily) and generally lasted from July 10 to August 17 1943.

In Sicily, the 6th Italian army was located under the command of General Alfredo Guzzoni. It included the 12th and 16th Coast Guard Corps and four infantry divisions, a total of nine Italian divisions and army units, as well as the 14th German tank corps (two divisions, including the tank division "German Goering", later - four divisions).

All in all, Sicily had 300 thousand Italian and 40 thousand German soldiers, 147 tanks, 220 guns and about 600 aircraft. Plus, the Italian troops soon received additional reinforcements in the amount of 12 thousand. and 91 tank.
For the landing of the allies in Sicily as part of the two armies of the 15 group of armies there were 13 divisions, 3 tank brigades, 3 of the Commandos squadron and 3 of the Rangers battalion. The group of allied forces consisted of 470 thousand people and 600 tanks.

For most Americans and for the entire Canadian contingent, this was the first battle. The landing of the allies in Sicily began on the morning of July 10 1943 simultaneously from the sea and from the air on the southern coast in the Gulf of Gela and south of Syracuse.
Amphibious landing with a strong wind landed on the southern (Americans) and southeastern (British) coast of Sicily. The Canadian division, with strong resistance from the enemy, landed on the southernmost tip of the island near the village of Pacino.

Due to bad weather conditions, many troops landed in the wrong place and six hours later than intended. But using the element of surprise, the British approached Syracuse with almost no resistance. Canadians met a decisive rebuff of the Italian defense, located on the hills. The Canadians were thrown back to the shore, but with the approach of reinforcements continued to advance.

On the night of July 10, the Allies threw 4 air assault. The American landing of the 505 regiment of the 82 airborne division due to strong winds deviated from the course, and half of the American paratroopers did not reach their destinations. The British landing of 12 gliders, only one reached the goal, but many fell into the sea.



On July 11, Patton ordered the landing regiments, which were in reserve, to drop in the center of the coast. But the British Mediterranean Fleet was not informed about this and opened fire on C-47 transport aircraft that were carrying troops to the landing site.

As a result, 114 33 transport aircraft were shot down and 37 damaged, 318 people were victims of their own fire.
By July 14, the landing on the bridgehead was completed. Vizzini in the west and Augusta in the east were captured. Then in the British sector, the resistance of the enemy increased. On the west coast of Sicily, the Italians managed to restrain the Americans offensive in the region of Castrofillipo-Naro.

July 22 American troops captured Palermo. The Italian and German troops retreated to Messina. A fortified line (“the line of Etna”) was prepared around Messina to ensure the organized retreat of the Italo-German troops to the Apennine Peninsula (to mainland Italy).

25 July in Italy there was a palace coup. By order of King B. Mussolini was arrested, and the government was headed by Marshal P. Badoglio.

The Germans and Italians managed to keep the main forces of their troops in Sicily from being captured and to evacuate them orderly from the island along with military equipment. After all the troops not engaged in the defense of the Etna line were evacuated, under the cover of night, its defenders also crossed over to the peninsula. Evacuation was successful. The last German-Italian units left Sicily. 17 August 1943. Part of the US 3 Infantry Division entered Messina several hours after the end of the evacuation of the German-Italian troops.

The losses of German and Italian troops amounted to 29 thousand people killed, 140 thousand (mostly Italians) were captured. The losses of the American troops were 2 237 people killed, 6 544 wounded or captured. Killed 2 721 a British soldier, 10 122 were injured or captured. Canadian troops lost 562 killed and 1 848 wounded or captured.

The operation to land the allies in Sicily at the time of its conduct was the largest naval landing operation. In the future, the experience of the landing in Sicily was used by the allies for the landing in Normandy - an even larger landing operation - the largest naval landing operation in stories.

The strategic goals of the Allied landings operation in Sicily were generally achieved, the Italian and German troops were knocked out of the island, the Mediterranean sea routes became more secure, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was overthrown, and the landing on the Apennine peninsula soon began mainland Italy.
In connection with the above facts, the question arises, what forces and means did the Germans intend to help their troops in Sicily?

At that time, it was known that the transfer of Wehrmacht divisions from the Eastern Front to the West was a fairly rare phenomenon, but the dispatch of German troops from the West to the East, to the Soviet-German front was commonplace.

For example, when the Wehrmacht suffered defeats near Moscow, Rostov, Tikhvin and Stalingrad, then from the end of 1941 to 1943 the Germans transferred 39 divisions and six brigades from the West. Among them, 18 divisions from France, moreover, later, even at the final stage of the war, and this 15 January 1945 g, to prevent the collapse of the Eastern Front, Hitler ordered to transfer more 40 divisions from the West there.

The decision to transfer the entire 3-x SS armored divisions to Italy, was allegedly made and connected precisely with the landing of the Allies in Sicily.
The Germans launched Operation Citadel 5 on July 1943, and on July 11, the Allies landed their troops in Sicily. However, the German parachute division "Hermann Goering" blocks landing. On the same day, von Kluge to the north stops the offensive. Another parachute division is being deployed from southern France to Sicily.
July 12 begins the offensive operation of the Western, Bryansk and Central Fronts of the Soviet troops.

13 July Hitler allows the transition to defense in the north and the continuation of the offensive in the south. Kesselring reports from Sicily that the situation of the German troops is getting worse, even critical.

July 15 from Italy to Sicily 29 tank armored grenadier division forwarded. On the same day, the offensive is also stopped in the south of the Orel-Kursk arc.

July 17 begins an offensive in the south of the South-Western and Western fronts. On the same day, the Germans withdraw three divisions of the SS Second Tank Corps to the reserve, and the next day the 3 Tank Division and the Grossdeutschland Division. Grossdeuchland is being transferred under the Eagle, SS divisions “Reich” and “Totenkopf” - to the Donbass, and “Leybshtandart”, without tanks, - to Italy.
Manstein, in his memoirs, and American historians hold the opinion that it was the operation in Sicily that caused Hitler to wind down the Citadel.

Manstein writes that at a meeting at GHQ, Hitler said: “that Sicily is most likely lost and we should expect an Allied landing in the near future. The Italian troops are not fighting, they immediately surrender, so the forces in the Balkans and in Italy should be strengthened. The citadel cannot continue further, since part of the forces must be transferred to the south. ”
Von Kluge declared that the Model army was not able to carry out the offensive and could hardly restrain the onslaught of the enemy. However, Manstein himself insisted on the offensive, since, according to his calculations, the Soviet offensive was already running out of steam - the last reserves were put into battle. As a result, Hitler allowed to continue the offensive in the south, which will allow to withdraw part of the forces and transfer them to Italy.

However, the study of materials and transcripts of other meetings shows that Manstein somewhat distorts events.
According to Manstein himself, an offensive in the south would have helped the north wing to strengthen the defenses, but the offensive would not have progressed further Kursk. Therefore, the meaning of the Citadel itself has already been lost, and the attack on the southern wing only straightened the situation and did not belong to the Citadel itself.

However, as Soviet historians believe, the result of the collapse of the operation "Citadel" was precisely the offensive of the Soviet troops. And the transfer of troops to Italy began only on July 25.



Even despite the statement of Hitler, if of course you believe Manstein, the facts show that neither the SS division “Das Reich” nor the SS division “Headless” did not fall into Italy, but were used as a “fire brigade” to repel the Soviet the offensive first on the Mius-front at the end of July 1943, and then in August they participated in a counterattack near Kharkov, in the area of ​​Bogodukhov.

Thus, of the three SS tank divisions from the Eastern Front, only one SS division “Leib Shtandart” landed in Italy, while leaving the Eastern Front, Leib Shtandart transferred all its tanks and self-propelled artillery mounts of the Das Reich division, which indirectly confirms high tank losses in the SS 2 case.

Actually, only one personnel of the division left for Italy left in the ranks after the fighting on the Kursk Bulge. It was hardly a terrible force capable of stopping the Allied landing in Italy. That is why Leibstandard was based in northern Italy and dealt only with police and punitive operations.

To be precise, the "Leibshtandart" was sent for re-formation and rest. Moreover, in Italy this division did not stay for a long time and in November 1943 it was returned again to the Eastern Front. Directly to Sicily, the Germans managed to transfer only two divisions, one of southern France and one of Italy.

For the American troops, landing in Sicily was the first serious test at the European theater of operations, but the landing on Sicily was not considered to be the opening of a second front in Europe, and in this case it is more important - they, the Anglo-Americans. Churchill and Roosevelt at the beginning of 43-th concluded that this year a full-scale landing in Europe is not yet possible, but to hit in the soft southern underbelly of the enemy, in Italy, is quite capable, which they successfully did.

Based on:
http://istorya.pro/kurskaya-bitva-2-t16.html
http://www.mihistory.kiev.ua/IIWW/1941-1945/1943-45/ital-kamp.htm
Author:
50 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 18 July 2013 07: 22 New
    14
    ahem ... one of me annoying loss?
    The losses of German and Italian troops amounted to 29 thousand people killed, 140 thousand (mostly Italians) were captured. The losses of the American troops were 2 237 people killed, 6 544 wounded or captured. Killed 2 721 a British soldier, 10 122 were injured or captured. Canadian troops lost 562 killed and 1 848 wounded or captured.

    In the standard theoretical story, the assaulting defender is 3 to 1, while a) the landing operation (complication factor); b) essentially unshielded troops (another factor of complication) c) weather factor. Taking these three factors I think you can raise the bar as 5k1.
    After all, they themselves said that there was strong resistance (ha, still) and frowned at the landing. In addition, the advantage was not so significant 450 thousand against 350 thousand, except that the tanks had a noticeable advantage of 600 against 150, but it was reduced to zero with the help of artillery of 220 guns. In this case, the loss of Germans and Italians 30 thousand, against 5,5 allies. Either the Germans had rubber bullets, or something else, but as for me crap is all - that, that and the fact that the Germans knew how to fight and could be recognized.
    1. avt
      avt 18 July 2013 09: 40 New
      +2
      Quote: ShadowCat
      Either the Germans had rubber bullets, or something else, but as for me, crap is all - that, that and the fact that the Germans knew how to fight and could be recognized.

      The Italians, for example, Panteleria was taken without a fight at all, here they bombed slightly and the Italians seemed to be waiting - they immediately gave up. Here is someone who highlighted the work of intelligence intelligence in Italy and in particular what the mafiosi Genovese did there before landing, then received USE citizenship.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 18 July 2013 20: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: avt
        Italians, for example, Panteleria was taken without a fight at all, here they bombed slightly and the Italians seemed to be waiting - they immediately surrendered

        I don't remember who said, but the meaning is this - "Italians are the safest enemy and the most dangerous ally ..."
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 18 July 2013 11: 31 New
      +6
      If in the standard scenario 3 to 1, then the Finnish Red Army campaign of 1940 should be considered successful. However, I always thought so.
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 18 July 2013 13: 05 New
        +5
        The historian V.P. Galitsky in the book "Finnish prisoners of war in the NKVD camps" published in 1997, relying on our and Finnish archives, gives the total losses of both sides: the total losses of the USSR-285 thousand people, Finland-250 thousand people. Killed and missing; the USSR has 90 thousand people. Finland has 95 thousand people. M: Grail, 1997, -S.36. By the way, this is a historian of "democratic style", like Sokolov and Pivovarov.
        1. Djozz
          Djozz 18 July 2013 14: 51 New
          +1
          This means that even the "democrats" have enlightenment, but rarely.
    3. biznaw
      biznaw 18 July 2013 13: 00 New
      +4
      Yes, they do not surprise anyone since the days of gray-haired ...
      Winners write history and loss statistics seem to be the same. By the way, regarding statistics, this rule doesn’t work for the Germans, recently their historians published a sensation that the Nazis had no tank losses during the battle on Prokhorovka, moreover, they added two tanks every day of the Kursk battle, due to the introduction of damaged after repair earlier.
      They repeatedly exaggerated our losses, one tank counted for three to five, taking into account the number of hits and damage. Hit three times the tank continues the battle, but there are already three tanks in the reports, the truck was killed for the fourth, and when it was set on fire, it was already five tanks.
      By the way, we have not gone far from the Germans, the civilized west, what to take from them.
      In Yugoslavia and Iraq, too, they had no losses of either planes or helicopters, so technical malfunctions.
    4. family tree
      family tree 18 July 2013 19: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: ShadowCat
      In the standard theoretical story, the 3: 1 assault defender

      3 to 1 do not apply to losses. This is simply one of the conditions for a successful assault, to create at least a three-fold superiority in strength in the direction of the strike. Further it depends on the command, there were cases of assaults when the storming officers suffered less losses than those who defended. Although in "Husky", with losses, really some kind of mess.
  2. vitek1233
    vitek1233 18 July 2013 07: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: ShadowCat
    ahem ... one of me annoying loss?
    The losses of German and Italian troops amounted to 29 thousand people killed, 140 thousand (mostly Italians) were captured. The losses of the American troops were 2 237 people killed, 6 544 wounded or captured. Killed 2 721 a British soldier, 10 122 were injured or captured. Canadian troops lost 562 killed and 1 848 wounded or captured.

    In the standard theoretical story, the assaulting defender is 3 to 1, while a) the landing operation (complication factor); b) essentially unshielded troops (another factor of complication) c) weather factor. Taking these three factors I think you can raise the bar as 5k1.
    After all, they themselves said that there was strong resistance (ha, still) and frowned at the landing. In addition, the advantage was not so significant 450 thousand against 350 thousand, except that the tanks had a noticeable advantage of 600 against 150, but it was reduced to zero with the help of artillery of 220 guns. In this case, the loss of Germans and Italians 30 thousand, against 5,5 allies. Either the Germans had rubber bullets, or something else, but as for me crap is all - that, that and the fact that the Germans knew how to fight and could be recognized.

    Quote: ShadowCat
    ahem ... one of me annoying loss?
    The losses of German and Italian troops amounted to 29 thousand people killed, 140 thousand (mostly Italians) were captured. The losses of the American troops were 2 237 people killed, 6 544 wounded or captured. Killed 2 721 a British soldier, 10 122 were injured or captured. Canadian troops lost 562 killed and 1 848 wounded or captured.

    In the standard theoretical story, the assaulting defender is 3 to 1, while a) the landing operation (complication factor); b) essentially unshielded troops (another factor of complication) c) weather factor. Taking these three factors I think you can raise the bar as 5k1.
    After all, they themselves said that there was strong resistance (ha, still) and frowned at the landing. In addition, the advantage was not so significant 450 thousand against 350 thousand, except that the tanks had a noticeable advantage of 600 against 150, but it was reduced to zero with the help of artillery of 220 guns. In this case, the loss of Germans and Italians 30 thousand, against 5,5 allies. Either the Germans had rubber bullets, or something else, but as for me crap is all - that, that and the fact that the Germans knew how to fight and could be recognized.

    I agree, but also the resistance of Italians confuses me lol
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver 18 July 2013 08: 22 New
      +4
      Quote: vitek1233
      ... and also the resistance of Italians confuses me lol

      “My Fuhrer, Italy has entered the war!”
      - Send an army corps against Duce.
      - But, my Fuhrer, they entered the war on our side: ///
      “Well ... then send them an army to help.”

      In 1941, even the Greeks beat the Italians, having less power.
    2. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 18 July 2013 11: 11 New
      +3
      Yes, I can’t stutter about pasta. But the eprst — 50 Germans could make the Americans drang nakh osten with a blitzkrieg — they made them a complete jo in the Ardennes with the same story, and attacking them. (850 thousand allies against ~ 300 thousand Germans) So I was afraid either a) treason, or b) steep falsification of losses.
  3. Whole
    Whole 18 July 2013 08: 22 New
    0
    Yeah, the losses are terrible, given that the Allies walked in their own way, helped the Germans repeat
  4. Canep
    Canep 18 July 2013 08: 28 New
    +4
    I think this way: when the Germans realized that they would not be able to achieve the objectives of Operation Citadel, a decision was made to terminate it and redeploy troops to reorganize and then send them to other theaters of operations. At the same time, all heavy weapons were left near Kursk.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 July 2013 10: 07 New
      +1
      Here on the site once a topic with "Ferdinands" came up. Two battalions, the 653rd and 654th, took part in the battles on the Kursk Bulge. After the end, all the remaining equipment was collected in the 653rd battalion, and sent to Ukraine, and the 654th left for Germany to reorganize.
      And only in January 1944, the 1st company of the 653rd battalion was transferred to Italy, where it burned almost all of its self-propelled guns due to lack of fuel. The remaining two companies continued to fight in Ukraine.
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 18 July 2013 13: 10 New
        +1
        One German "historian" generally blurted out that in the Prokhorov battle, the Germans lost as many as 3 Tiger tanks
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 18 July 2013 20: 27 New
          +2
          The Germans considered only irrevocable. Even if the tank was dragged from the field for subsequent cutting into scrap metal, it was not considered lost.

          So, formally, the historian may be right.
    2. Bigriver
      Bigriver 18 July 2013 11: 35 New
      +4
      Quote: Canep
      I think this way: when the Germans realized that the objectives of Operation Citadel could not be achieved, it was decided to terminate it and troop redeployment for reformation and further dispatch to other theater.

      So, what connections were sent to other TVDs? lol
      On July 17, the day of the start of our offensive in the Donbass, the 2nd SS TC, "Grossdeutschland" and the 3rd TD were placed in reserve. From the SS corps, only the personnel of Leibstandart (having given the materiel to the Reich) left for Northern Italy. But, he smoked bamboo there, recovered from a nervous shock laughing
      And the rest of the "elite" sat in reserve for a few days. The Grossdeutschland drove to the North, near Oryol, where the offensive of our two fronts was unfolding. And "Reich" and "Totenkompf" plugged the hole in the Donbass. By the way, Manstein's only reserve, the 24th TC, has departed there.
      As can be seen from this chain of events, the landing in Sicily was not a surprise for Hitler. Italy was strengthened by compounds stationed in Greece and France. But, by no means at the expense of the Eastern Front.
      But, it was just a surprise that we retained our shape, and without waiting for a radical change in the course of the Citadel, we were able to provide large-scale offensive actions to the north and south of it. By the way, Manstein writes about this.
  5. omsbon
    omsbon 18 July 2013 08: 42 New
    +5
    Manstein, in his memoirs, and American historians hold the opinion that it was the operation in Sicily that caused Hitler to wind down the Citadel.

    The task of the battered Manstein is to justify himself for the loss, and the task of the amers is to exalt their importance in WWII and downplay the role of winners. So everything is clear here!
    1. ss25
      ss25 18 July 2013 10: 02 New
      -2
      manstein is not at all. I didn’t read his memoirs (I read Goth and Guderian), but I think he could not bear such garbage.
      1. smile
        smile 18 July 2013 14: 43 New
        +2
        ss25
        I read. I dare to assure you - this is not the worst lie. on which he was caught, he’s an outstanding guy in this regard ... read, you won’t regret it, you will laugh a lot ... and get angry ... :)))
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 18 July 2013 20: 14 New
          0
          Quote: smile
          I dare to assure you - this is not the worst lie. on which he was caught, he is generally an outstanding guy in this regard ...

          Well, "Fast Heinz" is also not a bastard, his memoirs are still a monument to "my beloved."
      2. rexby63
        rexby63 18 July 2013 18: 05 New
        0
        Could. But his comrade in arms and subordinate Mellentin Friedrich Wilhelm, the background, not kindly treated by Adenauer and not kissed by the NATO military, spoke more objectively about the Battle of Kursk, although somewhat embarrassed
    2. olviko
      olviko 18 July 2013 10: 21 New
      +8
      I think it was exactly the opposite. The landing of the Anglo-Americans in Sicily became possible due to the diversion of the most combat-ready German units on the Eastern Front. If the Germans hit the airborne assault with the forces that they used on the Kursk, the Americans, or rather they would have remained, would have come to their senses somewhere around the East Coast of the United States. You don’t have to go far for examples, it would seem that the completely defeated Germans gave the allies in the Ardennes a full ass, and only the powerful offensive of the Soviet Army in Poland precluded a new Dunkirk.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 18 July 2013 11: 41 New
        +3
        Quote: olviko
        I think it was exactly the opposite. The landing of the Anglo-Americans in Sicily became possible due to the diversion of the most combat-ready German units on the Eastern Front ...

        And even more than that smile
        Already the planning of the operation in Sicily was tied to the Wehrmacht's summer campaign in the East. Since the allies knew about the future "Citadel", and even shared this info with us.
      2. Gomunkul
        Gomunkul 18 July 2013 12: 20 New
        +2
        Not much is out of the question, when planning a continental war in China against the Kwantung army, the Americans calculated that their losses would be under 1 million. people (I don't remember the exact figure, I read in the book "When World War II began and ended", A. Pashkov, V. Stepakov), they are such warriors. hi
        1. albert
          albert 18 July 2013 21: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Gomunkul
          Not much is out of the question, when planning a continental war in China against the Kwantung army, the Americans calculated that their losses would be under 1 million. people (I don't remember the exact number, I read it in the book "When World War II began and ended", A. Pashkov, V. Stepakov), they are such warriors

          Actually, they believed that it would take the Red Army a year and a half to defeat the Kwantung group of the Japanese. So they told our generals. And we dispersed the samurai in three weeks.
      3. Drosselmeyer
        Drosselmeyer 18 July 2013 12: 49 New
        +1
        Write nonsense. Not a single Dunkirk after Arden happened. Everything would end as it ended. Ardensk operation was another gamble.
        Yes, and think about how to shove so many German troops on a small island that there was near Kursk and how would it end for Germany about the complete domination of the allied aviation and navy. The Germans simply would have caked in Sicily without supplies under the bombing.
        1. olviko
          olviko 18 July 2013 13: 52 New
          +3
          Dear, when it comes to German forces near Kursk, this means not only ground forces, but also aviation. And this is sorry about 2000 aircraft with experienced pilots. What then air superiority could be spoken of.
          1. Bigriver
            Bigriver 18 July 2013 15: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: olviko
            Dear, when it comes to German forces near Kursk, this means not only ground forces, but also aviation. And this is sorry about 2000 aircraft with experienced pilots ...

            Yes, there was not enough of any aviation (assault, exterminate, bombardment trans.,) For two theaters. Already in 1941 there was not enough. Even during the Typhoon near Moscow, they took the Kesselring air corps and threw them to Malta for Africa.
      4. Llirik
        Llirik 18 July 2013 14: 52 New
        0
        Do not exaggerate the success of the Germans under the Ardennes. Please note that although the German units achieved some improvement in the tactical situation during the offensive, the main tasks were not fulfilled.
        Quote: By January 29, the Allies completely eliminated the Ardennes "ledge" and launched an invasion of Germany. The German counterattack ended in failure, not having completed the tasks. The Wehrmacht lost more than a third of the armored vehicles and almost all of the aircraft (including jet aircraft) involved in the operation, a large amount of resources, spent fuel and ammunition, which the Wehrmacht was already lacking at the end of the war. All this could be needed to defend the western borders of Germany, or could be used by the German command on other fronts.
    3. rexby63
      rexby63 18 July 2013 17: 57 New
      0
      Moreover, memoirs were written under the applause of the NATO generals and the Bundeswehr. Why not weaken here?
    4. Alex
      Alex 13 February 2014 19: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: omsbon
      The task of the battered Manstein is to justify himself for the loss, and the task of the amers is to exalt their importance in WWII and downplay the role of winners.
      Where they found each other. To be honest, Manstein's memoirs are somehow very ... that ... well-polished, or something. Straight, like a wang - ready-made answers for all occasions. In your favor. And in favor of the "allies", of course.
  6. RPG_
    RPG_ 18 July 2013 09: 27 New
    +3
    And you are not confused by the complete dominance in the air of the allies? What’s the name of the islet over which circled B17 waiting for the line for the bombing? IMHO the main losses were from aviation.
    1. ss25
      ss25 18 July 2013 09: 59 New
      +1
      according to the discovery, according to statistics, from the Allied bombing, 2 soldiers died every day. at 17 they ironed cities and housing estates. only Germans fought in Sicily.
  7. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 18 July 2013 11: 05 New
    +4
    Yes it is possible It is believed that the Allied landings in Sicily was a turning point in World War II, when they were in Sicily transferred from the Eastern Front of the best German infantry and ALL Tank Division of the Eastern Front, ON East remains only loosely covering forces, BUT valiant Americans under kommandovaniem greatest GENERALS who knew HISTORY: Patton and Montgomery, tricky maneuver to lull their vigilance allowed the Germans unimpeded CLEAR Sicily, and then implement a landing fool I Monte Cassino and confused OKALACHIVAYAS on employment Piglet without any action until it is destroyed then they landed VOYSK.A UP TILL MAY 1945, they used the tricky storming tactic in the forehead of the German defensive line, and by capturing one they far-sighted allowed the Germans to leave and build another, after all it had been early.
    Maybe so about a farce called "War in Italy" will be written in the future history books, but for now do not make people laugh.
    1. Djozz
      Djozz 18 July 2013 13: 17 New
      +3
      Nope, trophyers and trainers fought against us. And Patton is a big svitun "Give me 3 SS divisions and I will reach Moscow" Voyaka is still the same. Pontos threw with a 19 century Colt revolver.
  8. Taoist
    Taoist 18 July 2013 11: 58 New
    +3
    Well, some "military historians" on this topic are already "annealing as they can ...

    http://www.inosmi.ru/russia/20130717/211016627.html

    "Near Kursk, it was about tactical and operational, and in Italy about strategic goals, namely, the prevention of war on several fronts. Therefore, Hitler decided to compromise: the offensive had to begin, but immediately interrupt if the situation in Italy became critical."

    "However, in reality, 186 German and 672 Soviet tanks took part in this battle. The Red Army lost 235 tanks, and German troops only three!" (from)
    1. Rider
      Rider 18 July 2013 15: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      http://www.inosmi.ru/russia/20130717/211016627.html


      ehhh, they banned me on foreign media. belay

      I would frolic there.

      By the way, I’m retyping a post from that branch to which Dao gave a link.

      check it out and make fun of it.

      Wow! Films and official memories, and even of the Soviet period, are taken for evidence! By the way, the head of the detachment, which I mentioned above, said that during the Battle of Stalingrad they shot up to five hundred people a day retreating from the front line. And once they even shot the whole headquarters, led by a general. By the way, we officially admit that our losses were 1:12, that is, we spent 12 Soviet soldiers on one killed German. How was the Mannerheim Line taken during the Finnish War of 39? Zhukov simply threw troops into the attack. The first wave died, but a shaft of corpses allowed the second wave to move forward. There were four such ramparts from corpses, until, finally, the opportunity was given to hit with rifles and machine guns at the embrasures with aimed fire. In the battle of Kursk, as one correspondent said, when he went to take pictures after the battle, his hands trembled and his heart sank: our soldiers lay in THREE LAYERS. This means that the first wave was destroyed, then the second and then the third. Zhukov, to enter Berlin earlier than Rokossovsky, laid almost 500 thousand soldiers on the Zeelov heights. It is completely useless, as they would have surrendered. But give Rokossovsky the first to enter Berlin! It was all published in various magazines - Homeland, Science and Life, and others. Naturally, I did not write out the exact numbers and surnames - I did not know that I would fit in this forum. I do not mind that it was necessary. But the question is: why and why? Here is what you need to answer.

      this is there eksperdy!
      1. albert
        albert 18 July 2013 21: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Rider
        How was the Mannerheim Line taken during the Finnish War of 39? Zhukov simply threw troops into the attack. The first wave died, but a shaft of corpses allowed the second wave to advance

        What Zhukov fought in 1939 against Finland? belay
  9. sop.ov
    sop.ov 18 July 2013 13: 00 New
    +3
    Quote: ShadowCat
    ahem ... one of me annoying loss?
    The losses of German and Italian troops amounted to 29 thousand people killed, 140 thousand (mostly Italians) were captured. The losses of the American troops were 2 237 people killed, 6 544 wounded or captured. Killed 2 721 a British soldier, 10 122 were injured or captured. Canadian troops lost 562 killed and 1 848 wounded or captured.

    Given the German scrupulousness-punctuality and the Nordic nature, it can be assumed that most of the Germans died under the hot Italian sun while laughing on the ground from the organization of the landing of the Allies
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 18 July 2013 15: 14 New
      0
      I hope sarcasm) Given the testimony of the German aces of pilots and tankers in the USSR, neither planes nor tanks should have remained not only at the front, but also at the factory)
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 18 July 2013 15: 26 New
        +2
        Especially Rudel, who on his dive plague at a time destroyed 5 cannons from the cannons.
  10. morpogr
    morpogr 18 July 2013 13: 04 New
    +1
    Interesting information, the Germans lost 29000 thousand, and the Italians just stayed home and captured.
  11. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 18 July 2013 13: 08 New
    0
    To the author: do not disgrace the Russian language, remove the comma from the title.
  12. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 18 July 2013 15: 00 New
    0
    The landing on Secily influenced the course of the Citadel))) Well, if the Germans did break through our defenses? Maybe the landing of 3 of September in Italy and influenced the further course, but you look at the balance of forces%) and it comes to mind - I do not believe it.
  13. galiullinrasim
    galiullinrasim 18 July 2013 16: 36 New
    +4
    Yes, under the Kursk Fashi lost three tanks and the rest were knocked out during the rescue of an ordinary Ryan.
  14. chenia
    chenia 18 July 2013 19: 10 New
    +1
    Hitler generally only wanted to gain a foothold in northern Italy (in the end it happened, and without any special expenditures of forces and means the Germans sat until the end of the war). And to sacrifice a strategic operation (it has been diligently prepared for four months) for a third-rate direction - such a statement, this is a direct charge of the Germans in idiocy. It was after the war that they, for exculpatory purposes (memoirs), mowed down as a fool.
    Quote: galiullinrasim
    Yes, under the Kursk Fashi lost three tanks and the rest were knocked out during the rescue of an ordinary Ryan.


    NOT, the Russian ANTI-TANK DUST is to blame for everything that has a detrimental effect on the ARMOR of foreign cars. The Germans suddenly became a lot of faulty equipment, and that is interesting purely only as a result of operation in adverse conditions.

    For these cunning zacks, if you can pick up a bucket of nuts and bolts from a tank, then it is not considered lost.
    1. Alex
      Alex 13 February 2014 19: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      NOT, the Russian ANTI-TANK DUST is to blame for everything that has a detrimental effect on the ARMOR of foreign cars.
      And also mutant mice specially bred by biologists and geneticists in the NKVD sharashkas, who have learned to recognize our and German telephone cables and gnaw only German ones. They say that the most successful was awarded the Order of the Golden Teeth.
  15. bagpipe
    bagpipe 18 July 2013 21: 00 New
    0
    British historian Alan Clarke wrote that one of the decisive factors in the termination of Operation Citadel was not the Allied landing in Sicily, but the events in Italy and the Badoglio coup, which made a "depressing impression" on Hitler.
  16. chenia
    chenia 18 July 2013 22: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: volynyaka
    British historian Alan Clarke wrote that one of the decisive factors in the termination of Operation Citadel was not the Allied landing in Sicily, but the events in Italy and the Badoglio coup, which made a "depressing impression" on Hitler.


    Or maybe the pop-up pimple on the ass of the Fuhrer was the reason for the termination of the strategic operation (or what, the reason is more important than the coup)?

    How so, it remains to press the Russians a little bit, still throw half the battalion into battle, and their defense will collapse? And two Russian fronts, a bunch of armies surrounded (yes there was no such luck in 41).

    Yes, if they continued (taking into account our reserves) they would have received summer 44. They did not roll back to the original.

    After 3 months, we took Kiev, and it was still necessary to get to it (which means we kept reserves). And such a line as the Dnieper (and it is much easier to keep it) did not help them.

    Do not offend the German generals, they understood everything, and the troops were relatively cleverly withdrawn.
  17. SukhovAM
    SukhovAM 7 November 2013 13: 20 New
    +1
    The great Russian commander G.K. Zhukov said that he could not compare military operations in the Western TVD and the East as a military, as well as their mutual influences. The reason for the incomparability of what is happening. Armies, fronts, millions of people interact in the Eastern theater of operations, and formations and divisions in the Western theater of operations.
  18. Alex
    Alex 13 February 2014 19: 29 New
    +2
    I am not a specialist in logistics in general, and in military in particular, but, having measured the distance between Kursk and Palermo, I asked myself: how, let me say this, did you have to react with reserves for two or three days? What is the speed with which the troops would have to be deployed so that they could influence such a rapidly changing situation at such distances? Not otherwise, the Germans had teleports to their strategic missiles, nuclear bombs and other things.