Chapter 3: Planning for Invasion
Despite the constantly changing fortunes of ANVIL in the higher Allied councils, planning for the operation continued at lower echelons almost without interruption throughout 1944. The long strategic debate, of course, created major problems. For example, in January 1944 when ANVIL planning staffs first assembled, they had no idea of the size and composition of the assault force; and the theater headquarters had allocated no troops for the endeavor, established no command organization, assigned no shipping or amphibious lift, and designated no staging or training areas. No decision had even been made concerning the specific assault area, and, without a definite operational directive, no foundation existed on which to make logistical requisitions. Moreover, as the fortunes of ANVIL waxed and waned, planners found it necessary to draw up a variety of invasion scenarios, including a one-division “threat”; a one-, two-, or three-division amphibious assault; and a semi-administrative landing—each under different estimates of German resistance in southern France. In the end, planners had to act on differing assumptions and, until July 1944, had little concrete information on which to base detailed tactical and operational plans. Despite these difficulties the staffs associated with the ANVIL effort had done their homework well enough by this time to mesh their preliminary plans quickly with the actual requirements and assets available.
The Main Assault Force
Probably the most serious problem that Force 163-Seventh Army faced during the planning for ANVIL was ascertaining the size and composition of the assault force. Of the two, size proved the more challenging, and the inability of the Allied leaders to agree on this matter seriously inhibited detailed tactical and logistical planning and organization. For composition, planners employed the “division slice” concept—an infantry or armored division with its normal supporting combat and service force attachments. But until the number of divisions participating in both the assault and the operations that immediately followed was determined, it was impossible for tactical planners to estimate the number and type of supporting forces needed.
The earliest planning assumptions,
dating from the CCS conferences of late 1943, called for a two-division assault with an ultimate buildup to ten divisions.1 The plan Eisenhower prepared in December 1943 called for a three-division assault and was also used by Force 163 planners. In February 1944 Wilson instructed Force 163 to assume that the main assault would consist of two divisions, with a third coming ashore in a quick followup. This concept governed tactical planning until July, when the CCS reinstated the three-division assault.
In December 1943 General Clark, who was then still in the planning picture, had proposed to AFHQ that the assault force include Headquarters, U.S. VI Corps, the 3rd and 45th Infantry Divisions, and the 1st Armored Division, all in Italy at the time. Clark had selected units experienced in amphibious warfare, and he expected that they would be replaced in Italy by divisions scheduled to come from the United States in the spring of 1944. Headquarters, VI Corps, and the two infantry divisions remained constants in all subsequent planning for ANVIL, but Wilson decided that he would have to keep the 1st Armored Division in Italy, leaving the Seventh Army to depend on French armored divisions during the early phases of ANVIL. Force 163, which had been planning for a two-division assault with an early one-division follow-up, substituted the 85th Infantry Division for the 1st Armored Division and assigned the 85th the follow-up role. Training at the time in North Africa, the 85th Division would have combat experience in Italy before ANVIL.
Toward late February 1944 Wilson announced that ANVIL could be launched in mid-June if the CCS approved and confirmed the selection of assault units. AFHQ began preparations to relieve the U.S. VI Corps headquarters and the U.S. 3rd and 45th Infantry Divisions from the lines in Italy between 1 and 15 April, and to replace them with fresh units from the United States. However, in mid-April, the combined pressures from OVERLORD and Italy forced another cancellation of ANVIL, and tactical planning slowed until its reinstatement in June.
By 15 June, Wilson was sure that some major amphibious operation would take place in the Mediterranean and accordingly directed the VI Corps headquarters and the 45th Division to pull out of the lines in Italy at once, followed by the 3rd Division on the 17th. With indications growing clearer that there would be a three-division assault, Wilson further ordered that the 36th Infantry Division, which also had amphibious experience, be relieved in Italy by 27 June and replace the 85th Division as the third major element of the assault force.
The three American infantry divisions were organized along standard wartime lines. Each division had three infantry regiments, and each regiment had three infantry battalions of about 800 to 900 men apiece. Also organic to each division were three medium (105-mm.) and one heavy (155-mm.) howitzer battalion (of twelve tubes each) and supporting cavalry (one company-sized troop), engineer, signal, quartermaster, medical, and other service elements. In addition,
the infantry regiments had mortars, one battery of lightweight howitzers, and an antitank battery. These forces were also accompanied by the supporting combat, combat support, and service units that had for the most part long served with the divisions. Normally attached to each division were one tank battalion (of one light and three medium tank companies with fifteen tanks each), one tank destroyer battalion (75-mm. or 3-inch guns, self-propelled or towed pieces, with three twelve-gun companies), one antiaircraft artillery battalion, and one or two corps artillery battalions. The corps headquarters controlled additional supporting elements as well as its own independent mechanized cavalry squadron. Aside from the infantry battalions, all units of the corps and divisions were motorized in some fashion.
Almost all of these forces had served together for many months during the Italian campaign, and thus constituted an experienced team. The 3rd Division had entered combat in North Africa in late 1942 and, along with both the VI Corps and the 45th Division, had fought in Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio in 1943, and participated in the drive on Rome during the following year. The 36th, only slightly younger, had begun its journey at Salerno in mid-1943 and arrived in Rome with the others after many grueling battles. In combat, the infantry divisions had formed closely knit regimental combat teams, each with an infantry regiment, a medium artillery battalion, and attached armor, engineer, and signal units. Tailored by the division commanders to serve as semi-independent battle groups, these units had acquired a degree of battlefield expertise that made them potentially much more effective than the American OVERLORD forces, many of which were entering combat for the first time. Nevertheless, all of the U.S. ANVIL units were tired, fairly worn out by the continuous uphill fighting in Italy, and due for a rest. But little time was available for such pursuits. The 45th Division reached its staging area in Naples on 17 June and was soon followed by the VI Corps headquarters and the other participants. Preparations for their new mission began almost immediately.
For ANVIL, the VI Corps would be commanded by Maj. Gen. Lucian Truscott; the 3rd Division, by Maj. Gen. John E. “Iron Mike” O’Daniel; the 45th, by Maj. Gen. William W. Eagles; and the 36th, by Maj. Gen. John E. Dahlquist. Of Truscott and his three division commanders, only Eagles was a graduate of West Point, and only O’Daniel had served in France during World War I. But more important, all were about the same age, forty-eight to fifty years old, and all were long-term career officers. In fact, three of the four had worked closely together for nearly a year and a half: Truscott had commanded the 3rd Division from March 1943 to January 1944, when he became the deputy VI Corps commander at Anzio, taking over the corps one month later; O’Daniel had served as Truscott’s deputy division commander and had taken over the 3rd after Truscott’s departure; and Eagles had been Truscott’s assistant division commander before assuming command of the 45th Division in November 1943.
Only Dahlquist was not a member of Truscott’s original team. Taking command of the 36th Division after its withdrawal from the Italian campaign, he had no combat experience and had the difficult task of turning around the 36th’s reputation as a “hard luck” division, one that had suffered heavy casualties at San Pietro in December 1943 as well as during the Rapido River crossing one month later.2
Supporting Assault Forces
From the earliest discussions of ANVIL, Allied planners had wanted airborne support for the amphibious assault but had no idea what airborne forces would be available.3 By May 1944, AFHQ and Force 163 had decided that nothing less than a full airborne division was needed, but Allied airborne strength in the Mediterranean was limited to a British parachute brigade group, an understrength French parachute regiment, an American parachute battalion, and two batteries of American parachute field artillery. Language problems and insufficient training ruled out the French unit, leaving Force 163 with only an unbalanced Anglo-American parachute regimental combat team.
In May and June airborne reinforcements reached Italy from the United States—a parachute regimental combat team, another parachute battalion, and a glider infantry battalion. AFHQ and Seventh Army also put together a full battalion of parachute field artillery; converted a 75-mm. pack howitzer battalion to a glider unit; trained two 4.2-inch mortar companies for glider operations; and transformed the antitank company of the Japanese-American 442nd Infantry regiment into a glider unit. Devers’ NATOUSA staff also arranged training for various small engineer, signal, and medical detachments participating in the airborne operation. In the end, the total of parachute and glider units approximated a full airborne division, and on 12 July the Seventh Army named the new organization the Seventh Army Airborne Division (Provisional), changing its formal title a week later to the 1st Airborne Task Force. Maj. Gen. Robert T. Frederick, formerly the commander of the renowned 1st Special Service Force (an American-Canadian commando unit), became commander of the new airborne force and began assembling it near Rome in July.4
Maj. Gen. Robert T. Frederick
The next problem was finding the airlift to employ Frederick’s force. In early June 1944, AFHQ had under its control only two troop carrier groups and 160 gliders. Eisenhower made available two troop carrier wings and approximately 375 glider pilots from the IX Troop Carrier Command in England; in addition, some 350 gliders arrived in the Mediterranean from the United States in July. The whole assemblage was organized into the Provisional Troop Carrier Air Division under Maj. Gen. Paul L. Williams, the commander of the IX Troop Carrier Command, which had gained ample experience during OVERLORD.
The list of other assault units included ranger and commando forces assigned special missions. The largest was the 1st Special Service Force, approximately 2,060 men under Col. Edwin A. Walker (USA). This force, which had been in combat under the VI Corps in Italy, reached the Salerno area for final training on 3 July. There were also two French commando units: the African Commando Group of some 850 men under Lt. Col. Georges Regis Bouvet, and the 67-man Naval Assault Group, commanded by Capitaine de Fregate (Commander) Seriot.
Force 163-Seventh Army also encountered problems with the major follow-up forces for ANVIL—the combat echelons of the First French Army.5 The demands of the Italian campaign before the capture of Rome in June made it virtually impossible for AFHQ to set a date for the release of the French Expeditionary Corps from Italy. The debate over the question of command likewise helped postpone assignment of French forces until late May. In addition, a long-standing disagreement over the size and composition of the rebuilding French Army,
largely equipped by the United States, proved a delaying factor. Because of their limited manpower resources, the French wanted to form ground combat units exclusively, while the Americans wanted them to establish a balanced force with the appropriate number of supporting service units. Still feeling the impact of the disastrous 1940 campaign, the French generals felt that honor demanded that they put their manpower into fighting units; in addition, they believed that their army did not require what they considered the luxurious service support enjoyed by American forces. More to the point, the French military manpower consisted primarily of colonial levees drawn from north and central Africa—personnel who lacked technical skills and were often functionally illiterate. Thus until the French military were able to tap the manpower resources of the metropole, they found it extremely difficult to form the technical service organizations necessary to sustain their combat forces.
Despite these difficulties, the Allies insisted that the French establish at least a minimal combat support base. Since the entire French rearmament process depended on Allied and especially American largess, the French had little choice. In mid-February 1944, they accordingly agreed to limit their major combat units to eight divisions, including three armored, to which were added separate combat organizations such as light infantry regiments, commandos, tank destroyer battalions, reconnaissance formations, and field artillery battalions.6 Their remaining manpower went into service units, but the French high command was never able to organize enough to provide the First French Army with all the support it required.
Of the major French units assigned to ANVIL, the French 1st Infantry Division7 and the 2nd Moroccan, 3rd Algerian, and 4th Moroccan Mountain Divisions were in Italy with the French Expeditionary Corps, as were the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Moroccan Tabor (Infantry) Regiments. The headquarters of the First French Army (Army B) and the French II Corps, scheduled to be merged for the initial phases of ANVIL, were in North Africa, along with the newly formed French 1st and 5th Armored Divisions. The French I Corps headquarters, the 9th Colonial Infantry Division, the 2nd Moroccan Tabor Regiment, and the African Commando Group were on Corsica. Although French unit designations differed somewhat from American nomenclature, French military organizations and their equipment—except in certain colonial formations like the Tabors—were nearly identical to that of their American counterparts in 1944. Specifically, like the American armored divisions employed in northern France, the French division blindée had three combat commands (instead of regiments or brigades), each with one tank, one armored infantry (half-tracks), and one armored artillery
(105-mm. self-propelled) battalion; one mechanized cavalry squadron; and mechanized or motorized supporting elements. The infantry divisions were also organized on a triangular basis and used American tables of organization and equipment as well. Thus, despite differences in language, culture, and history, the two principal national components of ANVIL had an unusual degree of homogeneity.
The French forces outside Italy passed to Seventh Army control on 7 July, but Patch and de Lattre did not gain control of the units in Italy until 23 July, when the Fifth Army released them. Patch passed all of these units over to de Lattre’s command with the exception of Brig. Gen. Aime M. Sudre’s Combat Command 1 (Combat Command Sudre or CC Sudre) of the French 1st Armored Division. To give the assault force a mobile striking capability, Patch had detached CC Sudre from the First French Army for the assault and placed it under the operational control of the U.S. VI Corps.
French Guerrillas
The Allies expected considerable help from French partisans in southern France, and the plans of AFHQ and Seventh Army took into consideration the potential of the guerrillas for disrupting German communications and harassing German rear areas.8 The guerrillas—or, as they were better known, the French Forces of the Interior (FFI)—had proved their value as intelligence sources long before ANVIL took place, and the Allies also anticipated that the FFI could supply reinforcements and replacements for the First French Army.
Until the CCS issued the directive for ANVIL in July, the operations of the FFI in southern France were designed primarily to support OVERLORD. Thus, responsibility for the control and support of the southern FFI was vested in SHAEF, operating through the Special Force Headquarters (SFHQ), an Anglo-American agency in London. The Special Projects Operations Center of G-3 AFHQ only assisted SHAEF’s supervision of FFI groups in southern France.
Although the Free French government had a voice in FFI operations, that voice was only as loud as the Americans and British, who controlled guerrilla supplies, allowed it to be. With their approval, de Gaulle had appointed Lt. Gen. Pierre Koenig as commander of the FFI and had made Koenig directly responsible to Eisenhower. As a practical matter, Koenig remained subordinate to SFHQ even after SHAEF, at French insistence, approved the formation of a tripartite FFI general headquarters. Commanded by Koenig and established in London, this organization included representatives of various British, American, and French agencies.
The Allies were unable to make similar command and control arrangements for the FFI in southern France until the last moment. On 8 July, with ANVIL scarcely a month from the launching, SHAEF and Koenig transferred control of the FFI in southern France to AFHQ and Maj.
Gen. Gabriel Cochet, de Gaulle’s representative for guerrilla affairs at AFHQ. Nominally responsible only to Wilson, Cochet actually had to operate through the Special Projects Operations Center at G-3 AFHQ.
The British had carefully nurtured the FFI ever since the fall of France, but by mid-1944 American support directed by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) began to equal or outstrip the British effort. Aircraft of both nations, supplemented by French planes, delivered supplies and arms of all types to the FFI, and took an ever-increasing number of “regular” troops to France to coordinate FFI and Allied operations, to assist the FFI in organizational and supply matters, and to increase the FFI’s combat potential. Such support came from OSS Operational Groups, each consisting of four officers and thirty enlisted men, and from the British Special Air Service Brigade, which included two battalions of French paratroopers.9 The principal mission of the commando units inserted into France was usually sabotage at a particular point, after which the commandos would become part of the FFI.
Other Allied units sent into France included the Jedburgh teams, each consisting of two officers (one of them French) and an enlisted communications expert.10 Their main missions were to establish liaison among FFI units and various Allied headquarters and to provide leadership for FFI organizations. Finally, for operations in southern France, the Allies trained a limited number of “counterscorching” groups, which contained men from the French Navy and the OSS. The primary mission of these units was to thwart German efforts to destroy the port facilities along the coast of southern France. The groups also had secondary intelligence missions.
By 15 August 1944, the FFI in southern France could put about 75,000 men in the field, but only about one-third of them were armed. These activists, locally known as the maquis, had the support of probably thousands of part-time agents in the cities, towns, and villages. Although the guerrillas were not strong enough to engage the German Army in positional warfare, they severely limited its freedom of movement by constantly harassing German support organizations and interfering with the displacements of tactical units behind the battlefield. In addition, the sabotage activities of the maquis continually forced the Germans to employ large numbers of troops to protect and repair rail, highway, telephone, and telegraph communications. Perhaps if ANVIL had been approved sooner and responsibility for FFI operations transferred to AFHQ at an earlier date, more could have been done with the resistance forces, which were much stronger and better organized than in the north.
Organization for the Assault
The organization and responsibilities of the air, ground, and naval
FFI Partisan Group, August 1944
components for ANVIL followed established practice in the Mediterranean and northwest Europe.11 The ANVIL assault organization centered around a joint combined command designated Western Task Force, which included the Seventh Army, the XII Tactical Air Command, and the Western Naval Task Force. However, although this so-called Western Task Force was ostensibly under the joint command of the leaders of the ground, air, and naval components, it was actually a notational, or fictional, organization with no separate headquarters. Overall control of the ANVIL assault was, in fact, vested in Wilson at AFHQ. During the assault phase, Patch and Hewitt theoretically would have equal joint command responsibilities; but from the time Western Naval Task Force embarked Seventh Army until the time Patch established his headquarters ashore, Hewitt was in actual command of both the ground and naval echelons, responsible only to Wilson.
Air support responsibility during ANVIL presented a rather complicated picture. Eaker’s MAAF had only general control and coordination responsibilities. Mediterranean Allied Strategic Air Force operated the heavy
bombers and their escorts assigned to the support of ANVIL, while Mediterranean Allied Coastal Air Force protected the staging areas and covered the assault convoys to a point forty miles out from the assault beaches. The remainder of the air support responsibility rested with Cannon’s MATAF, which undertook detailed air planning, coordinated bomber operations, supervised troop carrier aircraft operations, and provided air cover for the convoys within forty miles of the beaches in southern France. Under MATAF, Saville’s XII Tactical Air Command was responsible for close air support and for air cover in the assault area. Saville had operational control over land-based and carrier-based aircraft in the assault area that were directly engaged in the close support of the invasion. The only exceptions were the aviation units of Western Naval Task Force’s nine escort-carriers (CVEs), which Hewitt combined into Task Force 88 under Rear Adm. T. H. Troubridge (RN). Troubridge, in turn, formed those CVE-based aircraft not needed for local air defense into a pool available to Saville for whatever missions were within their capabilities.
Beach operations and ship unloadings were the responsibility of beach groups, one assigned to each of the three assault divisions. One Army combat engineer regiment (about 1,900 troops) and one Navy beach battalion (around 445 personnel) formed the nucleus of each beach group. The engineer regimental commander became the beach group commander, while the Navy beach battalion commander served as the beach-master at each division beach. Theoretically, the Army beach group commander was responsible for all beach and unloading activities, but the Navy beach-masters were responsible only to Admiral Hewitt for naval matters. Since these matters included routing and control of landing craft (including Army DUKWs12), beaching directions, and ship-to-shore communications concerned with unloading operations, the Navy beach-masters had responsibilities that overlapped those of the beach group commanders.
In the end, the beach control system for ANVIL produced few difficulties and little friction. The Navy beach battalions trained for ANVIL with the Army engineer combat regiments with which they were scheduled to operate during the assault. Both Army and Navy echelons of the beach groups were well versed in the responsibilities and capabilities of the other well before the invasion.
To achieve surprise, Admiral Hewitt planned to dispense with a lengthy preinvasion naval bombardment; moreover, since no interference was expected from German surface forces, he believed that a separate naval cover (or support) force was unnecessary. For the actual assault, Hewitt divided his fire support vessels among the attack forces responsible for landing the assault divisions and the commando units. For postassault operations, he intended to form his bombardment and fire support vessels into a single force that would continue to support operations ashore as necessary. This enabled him to allocate all his major
combat vessels to various bombardment, fire support, and convoy duties.13
Two aspects of the command arrangements for ANVIL deserve special notice.14 First, there were no naval or air echelons in the chain of command that corresponded to the VI Corps headquarters. Second, VI Corps did not control all of the ground forces participating in the assault; for example, the French commandos, the 1st Airborne Task Force, and the 1st Special Service Force were to operate initially under direct control of the Seventh Army.
In late June, General Truscott, the VI Corps commander, reviewed Seventh Army’s ANVIL plans and recommended several changes. First, he asked Patch to arrange for naval and air echelons on the same level as VI Corps for both the planning and assault phases of the operation. In addition, Truscott objected to dividing the command of ground elements during the assault. He suggested that since the main assault was a corps task, all units should be under his command as the ground assault force commander, operating on the same level as a corresponding naval commander. If the VI Corps was to be responsible for the success of the entire assault, then its commander ought to have commensurate authority.
Patch did not agree. Because Truscott’s corps headquarters had been released from Italy so late, the Seventh Army, the XII Tactical Air Command, and the Western Naval Task Force had already undertaken much of the detailed planning that would normally be accomplished by the corps staff. Creating corps-level air and naval planning staffs at this late date would only result in confusion. Patch also believed that the VI Corps staff could not effectively control the operations of the airborne and commando forces during the assault as well as those of the three assault divisions. Instead, he directed that the airborne and commando units should pass to VI Corps control only when they physically joined Truscott’s forces on the mainland or as otherwise commanded by the Seventh Army. Truscott accepted these judgments; the final arrangements thus embodied the Seventh Army commander’s concepts, except that once the assault force was embarked, Truscott would report to Admiral Hewitt until Patch opened his Seventh Army post ashore.
The arrangement left one gap in the Army-Navy chain of command, namely, the lack of any corps-level echelon in Hewitt’s organization, as noted earlier by Truscott. Hewitt had arranged for his landing force commanders to deal directly with the Army divisions, dividing his amphibious assault units into four task forces, one for each assault division with the fourth to land the commandos. There was no provision for consultations at these levels with the army corps commander.
During the actual landings, the commander of each Army division would be responsible to his corresponding attack force (task force) commander. When Truscott established his command post ashore, the division commanders would theoretically pass to his control; but in reality the individual naval task force commanders, acting for Admiral Hewitt, could maintain discretionary control over landing operations at the division beaches without reference to Truscott. Most of the participants were experienced and knew that the transition between naval and ground command during the assault phase of an amphibious landing was always a delicate matter, one that depended more on the close relationships between the principal ground and naval commanders than on detailed but sometimes inflexible command arrangements.
Organization for Logistics
Logistical support responsibility for American ground forces engaged in ANVIL rested with General Larkin’s Services of Supply (SOS), NATOUSA, which had worked closely with Rear Force 163 during the planning phase.15 French ground forces received their initial supplies and equipment from the Franco-American Joint Rearmament Committee, an agency under the control of Headquarters, NATOUSA, which procured supplies and equipment from the United States for the rebuilding French Army. As a practical matter, Services of Supply had to make up many French shortages from American stocks in the Mediterranean.
Logistical support of American land-based air units assigned to back up ANVIL was the responsibility of the Army Air Forces Service Command, NATOUSA, a subordinate echelon of Eaker’s U.S. Army Air Forces, NATOUSA. Most land-based aircraft directly supporting ANVIL were located on Corsican airfields and supplied by XII Air Service Command stocks provided by the Army Air Forces Service Command. Royal Air Force units attached to the XII Tactical Air Command received most of their supplies through British channels, but drew some items from the XII Air Service Command. French Air Force organizations supporting ANVIL drew initial supplies and equipment from stocks made available by the tripartite Joint Air Commission, which was responsible for reequipping the French Air Force, but the XII Air Service Command also provided some support for French air units on Corsica.
Service Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, was the channel through which supplies flowed to U.S. Navy forces in the Mediterranean, although Hewitt’s Eighth Fleet maintained its own logistical
base for storage and issue. Since the bulk of the French Navy had obtained its original supplies and equipment through the Joint Rearmament Commission, the U.S. Navy provided support for most French naval units participating in ANVIL. The Royal Navy supplied its own vessels, some French ships, and almost all of the shipping that belonged to the minor Allied navies (Greek and Polish, for example). All naval echelons could also draw on SOS NATOUSA stocks in an emergency.
Arrangements for supplying and distributing fuels and lubricants in the Mediterranean provided an effective system of combined and joint responsibilities and activities. All POL (petroleum, oil, and lubricants) products available in the theater came into a general pool under the control of Petroleum Section, AFHQ, which allocated stocks on a percentage basis to various national forces and civilian agencies. While each service of each nation administered and operated its own POL depots, the pool system provided that any ship, plane, or truck of any service of any nation could obtain POL supplies at any air, ground, or naval depot of any other nation or service; the amount requisitioned was subtracted from the drawer’s allocation.
In obtaining, storing, and issuing supplies for U.S. Army (and to a large extent French Army) forces assigned to ANVIL, SOS operated through subordinate base sections at various ports in the Mediterranean. Of these, the Peninsular Base Section at Naples, the Mediterranean Base Section at Oran, and the Northern Base Section on Corsica bore the major burden of supplying, equipping, and loading the ground forces for ANVIL.16 Once the Seventh Army was ashore in southern France, supplies would continue to flow through established channels until a new organization, Coastal Base Section, could take over logistical support of the army, estimated to occur on D plus 30. SOS NATOUSA organized Coastal Base Section at Naples on 7 July and placed it under the command of Maj. Gen. Arthur R. Wilson, previously the commander of Peninsular Base Section. The staff of Coastal Base Section operated closely with Peninsular Base Section and with the Seventh Army G-4 (assistant chief of staff for logistics) during final planning and loading; Wilson made arrangements for a large part of his staff to work in appropriate staff sections of the Seventh Army headquarters in southern France until Coastal Base Section became operational ashore.
Support of French forces in southern France was ostensibly the responsibility of Operations Base 901 which, commanded by Brig. Gen. Jean Gross, French Army, was theoretically a parallel organization to Coastal Base Section. But the French lacked the technicians, equipment, and trained service troops to staff and operate Base 901 effectively; therefore, by default, Coastal Base Section became the agency actually responsible for supplying Army B (the First French Army). Base 901 essentially
became a French component of Coastal Base Section and served as liaison between the First French Army and the American base. To make this arrangement more effective, General Gross served simultaneously as the commander of Base 901 and as Deputy Commanding General, Coastal Base Section for French affairs; in addition, each of Coastal Base Section’s principal staff sections had French deputy chiefs.
Supply and Shipping Problems
Logistical support was critical for ANVIL and the ensuing operations of the Seventh Army. When, in January 1944, Force 163 and SOS NATOUSA began to study ANVIL’s logistical problems, the indefinite nature, date, place, and size of the operation made it impossible for planners to take more than preliminary steps toward obtaining supplies and equipment for the operation. Working from Eisenhower’s draft ANVIL plan of December, SOS developed a rough basic plan for supporting a force of 450,000 troops for thirty days in southern France. Using this plan as a tentative guideline, SOS began forwarding supply requisitions to the New York port of embarkation (POE) as early as 18 January, and later sent a liaison officer to the POE armed with detailed requisitions and loading plans. With the cooperation of the U.S. Army Service Forces, SOS also made arrangements to have convoys sailing to the Mediterranean during the period February through April—at this time ANVIL was still projected for May—partially loaded with supplies allocated to ANVIL. At the same time, SOS began earmarking ANVIL supplies in various theater depots, hoping to keep such items inviolate from the demands of the Italian campaign.
Loading began in New York in February, employing a process called “flatting,” in which cargo was carefully packed into a ship’s hold up to a certain level and then boarded over to provide space in which to stow cargo not meant for ANVIL. The flatted cargo space of these ships was filled with ANVIL matériel, while above this level (and on the weather decks) the vessels carried general supplies for the Mediterranean. SOS planned to unload the general supplies in the theater and to reload the empty space with supplies, equipment, and vehicles needed for ANVIL.
In April, after sixty-four cargo ships carrying flatted ANVIL supplies had left the United States for the Mediterranean, the CCS canceled ANVIL. U.S. agencies thereafter refused to honor further requisitions from SOS for ANVIL and likewise refused to fulfill the incomplete portions of requisitions already submitted. Army Service Forces halted further shipments of supplies to the Mediterranean over and above those required for theater maintenance and the Italian campaign.
This turn of events still left large quantities of supplies and equipment earmarked for ANVIL in the Mediterranean. The sixty-four cargo ships that had reached the theater with flatted ANVIL supplies continued to sail the Mediterranean with about half their cargo capacity still taken up by ANVIL matériel. Moreover, since January, SOS had been building up local
depot stocks of matériel also allocated to ANVIL. Generals Devers and Larkin, hoping that ANVIL would be revived, now acted to freeze all matériel, both afloat and ashore, that SOS had assembled for the operation. Although General Devers was generally successful in resisting War Department pressure to have these ANVIL supplies reallocated to Italy, he also found that emergency requisitions from the Fifth Army began to eat into ANVIL supplies at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, when prospects for ANVIL brightened in June, SOS estimated that it had on hand in the Mediterranean, either afloat or ashore, about 75 percent of the supplies required for a two-division ANVIL assault, and could also see its way clear to sustain ANVIL forces ashore for some thirty days after the first landings. The most serious shortages were in certain types of engineer, transportation corps, and signal equipment.
In response to a War Department request, SOS submitted in June new requisitions to the Army Service Forces for supplies and equipment needed to make up the most critical shortages for a three-division ANVIL assault. SOS also forwarded requisitions for maintenance matériel that would be shipped directly to southern France after the assault. Since the CCS had not yet reached a firm decision on ANVIL, the War Department could make no final arrangements for loading and shipping the supplies that SOS requisitioned, but did direct Army Service Forces to start moving the matériel to embarkation ports on the east coast.
The ANVIL supply picture thus looked promising in mid-June, and prospects brightened further when, on the 13th, Devers directed SOS to switch the priority of supply operations from the Fifth Army in Italy to preparations for ANVIL. The action was not entirely effective until 2 July, when the CCS issued their ANVIL directive, which also permitted convoys loaded with ANVIL supplies to start sailing from the United States. The first ANVIL supply convoy since April left New York on 1 July—one day before the CCS directive—and the first of the new convoys reached the Mediterranean on the 15th. By this date SOS was able to report that virtually all the matériel needed for the assault and for the support of American and French forces in southern France through D plus 90 was on hand, on the way, or promised. There is no doubt that this goal was attained on such short notice largely because of Devers’ generally successful efforts to freeze ANVIL supplies after the CCS had canceled the operation in April.
At least indirectly, Devers’ freeze also helped solve ANVIL’s shipping problems which, as the result of the on-again, off-again nature of the operation, threatened to be extremely troublesome. In general, ANVIL plans estimated that, in addition to naval assault shipping, 100 merchant-type cargo vessels were needed to carry ANVIL assault supplies and enough additional merchant shipping to provide at least 200 individual sailings through D plus 90. These requirements were over and above the shipping needed for general Mediterranean maintenance and for the support of the Italian campaign.
The first American contribution toward meeting the ANVIL requirements was the sixty-four merchant ships with flatted cargo that had reached the theater between February and April. The United States also supplied sixty more large merchant ships that arrived in fast convoys during June and July, and seventy-five generally smaller vessels from slower convoys. From June through August, the Americans also allocated additional merchant ships to the theater for general maintenance, while AFHQ scraped up the rest of the required merchant shipping from commands within the theater or borrowed it from British resources.
The shortage of amphibious assault ships in the Mediterranean for ANVIL was more serious. In June Admiral Hewitt lacked 65 landing ships, tank (LSTs); 160 landing ships, infantry (LSIs), or attack troop transports (APAs); 24 large landing craft, infantry (LCI[L]s); and 3 auxiliary troop transports (XAPs). The U.S. Navy dispatched 28 new LSTs to the Mediterranean, and Eisenhower supplied 24 more from his resources. This left a deficit of 13 out of the 96 LSTs planned for the assault. In the end, judicious juggling of shipping and units made it possible to launch the assault with only 81 LSTs. Eisenhower also sent south the LSIs, APAs, and LCI(L)s that ANVIL required, while the U.S. Navy sent the XAPs from American ports. But the newly arriving assault shipping, added to the one-division amphibious lift that AFHQ already had in the Mediterranean, was scarcely enough to carry the three assault divisions and the supporting commando units, much less the follow-up supplies and the French troops that were to reach southern France during the first few days after the assault.
To make up for the shortage of amphibious assault vessels, various expedients were necessary. AFHQ and Seventh Army had to plan for a much earlier employment of merchant-type shipping, a risk taken largely because intelligence estimates indicated that German air and naval forces could offer little effective resistance to the ANVIL assault. In the end, the sixty-four merchant ships that had been carrying flatted ANVIL cargo around the theater since April were included in the D-day convoy. Likewise, the forces of First French Army that were to start ashore on D plus 1 were largely loaded on merchant ships.17
Logistics
The general supply plan for ANVIL called for VI Corps assault units to reach southern France with a seven-day supply of rations, unit equipment, clothing, and POL products.18 Of this total, a three-day supply was to be on the backs of the troops or aboard the vehicles of the assault units, and the remainder was to be unloaded and stockpiled on the beaches. If all went well, some 84,000 troops and 12,000 vehicles would go ashore over the VI Corps’ beaches on D-day. An additional 33,500 troops and another
8,000 vehicles, including the leading elements of the French Army, would unload over the same beaches by D plus 4. These follow-up units, arriving from D plus 1 through D plus 4, would carry the same amount of supplies as the initial assault units. From D plus 5 to D plus 30 troop convoys would reach southern France at five-day intervals, each loaded with a seven-day supply of rations, unit equipment, clothing, and POL products for the units carried.
Planners expected that ranger and commando units would start drawing supplies from the beach depots on D plus 1. The 1st Airborne Task Force would drop with the minimum supplies necessary to accomplish its initial missions, but would require aerial resupply for at least two days. As an added margin of safety, AFHQ put aside seven more days of supply at airfields in the Rome area, which the Provisional Troop Carrier Air Division could move to southern France for either the 1st Airborne Task Force or for any other Seventh Army unit that might become isolated. No aerial resupply was planned for D-day, but the Provisional Troop Carrier Air Division was to have 112 loaded aircraft on call and ready to fly to southern France at any time by D plus 1.
The ammunition supply plan called for all assault units to land on D-day with five units of fire for all weapons.19 The D plus 5 convoy was to bring with it five units of fire for all the troops it carried, plus three and one-third units of fire for all elements already ashore. The D plus 10 convoy would also carry five units of fire for its troops, plus one and two-thirds units of fire for troops ashore, and so on to ensure a steady buildup.
SOS NATOUSA and Seventh Army intended that by D plus 30, when the Coastal Base Section was to assume supply responsibility in southern France, Seventh Army units would have ten days of supply for operations in hand plus twenty days of supply in reserve. The planners estimated that through D plus 30 some 277,700 tons of cargo would have been unloaded over the beaches; roughly 188,350 of these tons would have been forwarded to units, and the remainder would be in depots.
Two closely related estimates concerning the probable course of operations in southern France had a marked bearing on the supply plan. First, intelligence information indicated to tactical planners that the advance inland would be fairly slow. As a result they did not expect that Toulon could be captured before D plus 20, or that Marseille could be secured until at least D plus 45. Logisticians estimated that the American and French ground forces would have to be supported over the beaches until about D plus 30 and that beach supply operations could not support the tactical forces much farther than twenty miles inland.
Based on these extremely conservative logistical and operational projections, Army and Navy planners saw an opportunity to make better use of the limited amount of assault shipping by reducing the amount of supplies
needed for a fast-paced, mobile battle. Expecting determined enemy resistance, they instructed the logisticians to emphasize ammunition and to save shipping space by cutting deeply into early loadings of POL and rations for the period D-day through D plus 4. The planners subsequently reduced POL loadings for these days by 20 percent, lowered the amount of rations from a ten- to a seven-day supply, and cut the number of vehicles designated to haul supplies rapidly and deeply inland from the beaches. The Seventh Army was taking a calculated risk. If its forces penetrated German defenses faster and farther than expected, the reductions of POL supplies and vehicles could have a marked delaying effect on the course of the campaign. On the other hand, if the Germans offered determined resistance as they had done at Salerno, Anzio, and Normandy, then the fuel and vehicles would be a grave liability and ammunition much more vital to the troops ashore. With the limited number of amphibious ships available, the Seventh Army planners had little flexibility in this regard, and the emphasis on munitions would provide the best means of ensuring that the combat forces had the ability to secure the initial beachhead.20