RE: Rommel - A great general?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Rommel - A great general?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: Rommel - A great general?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 2/12/2009 8:08:02 PM

Shawkhan

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline

...Interestingly enough, I think both sides in this thread are correct, given historical hindsight. Only one major relevant fact from the Malta situation has not been discussed. Logistics was the ONLY thing keeping Rommel from taking Cairo in 1942. The fact that the British had broken the Axis codes I believe was the deciding factor in Rommel's defeat. Supply was so critical to him that he insisted on knowing the exact dates Italian tankers and freighters would sail for Tripoli. As the British had access to the same information, it was a simple matter to arrange a fatal rendezvous for the unfortunate Italians. If Rommel had not unwittingly provided this information to the Allies, I maintain that the Suez Canal would have been taken by the Axis.
...Of course, the whole North African campaign would have been different if Hitler had had any strategic ability at all, since the whole Med would have been closed if he had seized the opportunity to take Gibraltar before the end of 1940.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 91

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 2/12/2009 8:26:13 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...
...Of course, the whole North African campaign would have been different if Hitler had had any strategic ability at all, since the whole Med would have been closed if he had seized the opportunity to take Gibraltar before the end of 1940.�

How? Supplies only rarely came via Gibraltar.

The route was far too dangerous. The normal route was around Africa.

Then too, the Malta question tends to be misstated. There wasn't a choice between successfully attacking it and supporting Rommel. It's not like the Germans could have taken it by assault in any case. Seriously: the British really had made it impregnable.

Now, the Germans could have kept up their bombardment, which (a) might have eventually forced Malta to surrender, and (b) certainly would have prevented it reviving as a base for interdicting Rommel's supply lines. However, I doubt if Malta would have actually surrendered in time to do Rommel any good.

In any case, continuing the bombardment strips Rommel of what air support he had for his plunge into Egypt. Does his plunge still happen in this case?

Secondly, I don't see anything improving in time to affect Rommel's July attempt to hustle the British out of El Alamein. In fact, a continuing effort against Malta only weakens that effort.

After that point, Rommel wasn't going to break through. It's possible that with improved supplies, he might have fared better against Montgomery's offensive -- but if that air force is still plastering Malta, then the Allies have even greater air superiority over the desert.

So maybe those supplies make it to North Africa -- but can't be brought up to the front. They're blown up in trucks in the desert instead of sunk in ships on the sea.

In any case, my understanding is that once Rommel was up at El Alamein a surprising volume of his supplies was brought over from Greece and Crete rather than via Tripoli -- which was rather far in the rear by that point. Neutralizing Malta might not be quite as decisive as you assume. That is to say, there's some portion of Rommel's supply stream that is simply unaffected by what happens to Malta.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/12/2009 8:40:17 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Shawkhan)

Post #: 92

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 2/13/2009 2:24:44 AM

Shawkhan

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline

...Tiger convoy ring a bell? W/o emergency convoys run into Malta via Gibraltar I do believe starvation would have occurred before the Fall of Tobruk. Of course we only conjecture for argument's sake. Naturally Malta would have been taken by 1941 if some one in Berlin had been thinking.
...Greece and Crete do not have a land connection to North Africa. Are you talking just air transport?

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 93

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 2/14/2009 9:10:47 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...Tiger convoy ring a bell? W/o emergency convoys run into Malta via Gibraltar I do believe starvation would have occurred before the Fall of Tobruk. Of course we only conjecture for argument's sake. Naturally Malta would have been taken by 1941 if some one in Berlin had been thinking.

The Tiger convoy would be the exception that proves the rule -- and that was before the Luftwaffe showed up. Thereafter, any convoy into the Mediterranean Basin was an extravagantly expensive and risky proposition, usually requiring several escorts for every merchant vessel, and often ending in complete failure, with most ships sunk or forced to turn back. See the attempts to succor Malta. In fact, after Tiger, I don't think any convoy ran the gauntlet all the way from Gibraltar to Egypt until 1943.

As to Malta herself, the reliefs were usually mounted from Egypt -- since air cover could be furnished from Cyrenician airfields. While fighters were flown in from carriers staging out of Gibraltar, I don't believe most civilians supplies were brought in that way. Had the need been there, the fighters could have been brought in via Egypt as well. Again, Gibraltar wasn't critical. Nice, but not a sin qua non.

At the end of the day, while Gibraltar was important, it was not pivotal to the situation in the Mediterranean. Had it fallen, the manner in which it fell, what this implied about Spain entering the war, and the various knock-on effects from that would have far outshadowed any actual change in the situation from the Rock changing hands.

quote:

...Greece and Crete do not have a land connection to North Africa. Are you talking just air transport?�

Tripoli does have a land connection? Man, are my atlases out of whack...

Anyway, it's just something I recall reading. By the time he was up at El Alamein, an awful lot of what Rommel was getting was being brought over from Greece/Crete. I'm not saying it eliminates Malta as an important factor in the equation, but it does qualify it.

I don't want to assert Gibraltar was valueless. However, it wasn't a ten. I'd give it about a six. Others might argue for eight. Had it fallen, though, I don't see the situation in North Africa changing except through such indirect effects as Spain entering the war, French North Africa becoming available to the Axis, etc. The base -- in and of itself -- wasn't a war winner or a war loser.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 2/14/2009 9:13:50 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Shawkhan)

Post #: 94

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 6/29/2009 7:12:48 PM

hank

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline

by wmorris
snippet
"...
Erhard Raus' memoir Panzer Operations and his many contributions to the postwar papers published by the US Army show him to have been both a remarkable tactician and an innovator. He, along with Gotthard Heinrici seem to be the originators of "zone defense" tactics, that gave greater success with less force than prior German practice. He too came to be a nuisance due to truth-telling and got the sack after several remarkable operational performances."

Very interesting thread.

I was wondering when/if anyone would mention these two guys. Raus and Heinrici were great tacticians. I have Raus' book. I find few significant sections in any of the books I have that were written with details on Heinrici's accomplishments and from the little I've read his were mostly limited to the ending months of the war (are there any?). IMHO the best strategists were Manstein and Guderian and the great divisional/corp generals who made the German army so effective, i.e. Rommel, Balck, Raus, Hausser, and others whose names escapes me. It takes a different mindset to command entire armies as opposed to corps or divisions. I prefer reading about division commanders and their up close and personal accounts like von Luck's adventures at Cagney July 18 during Operation Goodwood; Raus' actions near the Aksay River, etc. ... and all the way down to the individual soldiers ... like tank commanders Wittmann, Bolter, Dr. Bakke and their gunners Kurt Knisple, Bobbi Wohl, and dozens of others. (my Tiger Aces books are so worn out I need to buy new ones) ... my 2 pennies for its worth

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 95

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 8/15/2009 2:37:03 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

Reading Irving's The Trail of the Fox here. Okay, it has to be admitted Rommel was...exuberant.

From a Memorandum written by the Wehrmacht chief of Army personnel:

"...It is remarkable that in the case of one officer, a battalion commander in the Fifth Panzer Regiment, a recommendation for the Knight's Cross, a cowardice charge, and his dismissal followed one another in the briefest interval..."

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to hank)

Post #: 96

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: Rommel - A great general?