Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
histan
Member
Posts: 1668
Joined: 14 Jan 2008, 18:22
Location: England

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#76

Post by histan » 22 Oct 2017, 22:52

Here is some more primary material to support the points made by MarkN:

With the fall of Benghazi the options of either carrying on to Tripoli or sticking with the plan for building a strategic reserve for use in Greece/Turkey were under consideration
War Cabinet Meeting on 10.02.1941:
War Cabinet 10.02.1940.jpg
The Secretary of State for India had put forward a short paper recommending the Tripoli option, which was given to the Defence Planning Staff for comment. Their response was discussed by the Chiefs of Staff Committee on the morning of 10.02.1941 - all of which fed into the evening meeting of the Defence Committee (Operations).

Defence Committee (Operations) decided to stick with the original strategy of focusing on Greece and Turkey

This decision was communicated to General Wavell in a telegram from the Prime Minister sent on 11.02.1941
Churchill to Wavell.jpg
Regards

John

There is a large amount of material on British decision making at this high level available for free download at the British National Archive and more also for download that has to be paid for.
The mistaken assumptions and assessments are clearly laid laid out as is logic behind the policy decision making

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#77

Post by ljadw » 23 Oct 2017, 15:32

This is not the point of the discussion : the point is : was it possible for Wavell to go to Tripoli on 10 february 1941,if the Cabinet had ordered him to do it ?

My answer is : NO, because already before the meeting of the Cabinet of 10 february, any advance to Tripoli was impossible, because the WDF was weaker than in december and because the Italians were stronger than in december . Thus, one can not blame the politicians for the fact that Tripoli was not captured .

On 10 february, there was no longer any option to carry on to Tripoli . Wavell said that Tripoli was unattainable, and this had nothing to do with the decision of the Cabinet .

"This rules out any serious effort against Tripoli" does not mean that such an effort had any chance to succeed .


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#78

Post by ljadw » 23 Oct 2017, 16:00

On P 55 of Regio Esercito :The Italian Royal Army in Mussolini's Wars (by Patrick Cloutier ), one can read the following :

It's unlikely that the British could have seized the rest of Libya .Italy had 7 divisions (1 armoured, 1 motorized, 5 infantry ).

Thanks to earlier resistance,sufficient Italian reinforcements arrived in time to prevent the British from seizing all of North Africa .

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#79

Post by Gooner1 » 23 Oct 2017, 16:38

ljadw wrote: My answer is : NO, because already before the meeting of the Cabinet of 10 february, any advance to Tripoli was impossible, because the WDF was weaker than in december and because the Italians were stronger than in december . Thus, one can not blame the politicians for the fact that Tripoli was not captured .
Err .. the Italians lost about 140,000 men between December '40 and February '41. Along with hundreds of guns, planes, tankettes and thousands of tons of supplies.

The WDF gained a second armoured division :D

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#80

Post by MarkN » 23 Oct 2017, 17:47

ljadw wrote:This is not the point of the discussion : the point is : was it possible for Wavell to go to Tripoli on 10 february 1941,if the Cabinet had ordered him to do it ?
The point of this discussion has varied.

There was a time when you were arguing that different commanders make no difference whatsoever to tactical and strategic success. :lol:

Then there was the time you tried to reinvent the seasonal calendar and told us that May (and April) are in the summer. :roll:

There was also your attempt to alter the historical accepted dates of arrival in Tripoli of various German combat units. :roll:

Currently, we're looking at your claim that "the Italians stopped the British", and you posted this:
ljadw wrote: Already before the arrival of the Germans, the situation in NA had stabilized and the Italians prepared a counter-offensive : the Ariete division would advance to Syrte and after that to El Agheila . This proves that the Italians had stopped the British .
So NO, the point of discussion has NOT been "was it possible for Wavell to go to Tripoli on 10 february 1941". That's your pathetic attempt to move the goalposts after being proven wrong again.

And, now having moved the goalposts, you give us more of your fake-historical nonsense.
ljadw wrote: My answer is : NO, because already before the meeting of the Cabinet of 10 february, any advance to Tripoli was impossible, because the WDF was weaker than in december and because the Italians were stronger than in december . Thus, one can not blame the politicians for the fact that Tripoli was not captured .
When Op COMPASS commenced on 9 December 1940, the Italians strength was over 15 divisions in Libya (and Egypt). Let me repeat that in big and bold letters for you: OVER FIFTEEN DIVISIONS
ljadw wrote:On P 55 of Regio Esercito :The Italian Royal Army in Mussolini's Wars (by Patrick Cloutier ), one can read the following :
It's unlikely that the British could have seized the rest of Libya .Italy had 7 divisions (1 armoured, 1 motorized, 5 infantry ).
Thanks to earlier resistance,sufficient Italian reinforcements arrived in time to prevent the British from seizing all of North Africa .
On 12 February Rommel arrived in Tripoli and immediatly went to meet General Gariboldi. The main topic of the conversation was the current state of affairs and the Italian forces in Libya available to deal with any threat. On 14 February Rommel wrote his first report. He states that the Italians had 5 divisions in Libya (Ariete, Bologna, Brescia, Pavia and Savona) and also notes how weak they were in artillery. Let me repeat that in big and bold letters for you: FIVE DIVISIONS.

Are you now tring to reinvent the numbering system and/or concept of size and telling us that 5 is bigger and stronger than 15?

What planet are you on?
ljadw wrote: On 10 february, there was no longer any option to carry on to Tripoli .
On 10 February it was not an option because the RAF had withdrawn most of its support on the (expected) instructions of London. On 8-9 February, O'Connor and his immediate boss (Wilson) were discussing moving on to Sirte immediately and looking at how to go all the way to Tripoli.


Edited to add:
Technically, the Italians had the equivalent of about 16 divisions in Libya/Egypt at the beginning of February 1941. Unfortunately, the equivalent of 11 of them had been captured or destroyed by the British/Indian/Australian forces.

histan
Member
Posts: 1668
Joined: 14 Jan 2008, 18:22
Location: England

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#81

Post by histan » 23 Oct 2017, 19:28

Hi Ijadw

The points I am making are that:

The Italians did not stop the British - there is no evidence in any of the British records.

Extract below from the Weekly Resume No 76 of the Naval, Military and Air Situation from 12 noon February 6th to 12 noon February 13th 1941
Weekly Resume 76.jpg
No one can consider the military actions described in Para 22 as "the Italians stopped the British".

The British did have a choice. They examined their options after the capture of Benghazi and chose to continue with their existing strategy - see my last post.

No one on the British side believed that an advance to Tripoli would be easy - mainly from a logistical point of view but also because initially the terrain was better from a defensive point of view. The British believed that the Italian performance so far had been abysmal and didn't believe it would be any better in future.

This is a copy of the paper produced by the Secretary of State for India in support of the advance to Tripoli:
LSA Paper.jpg
This states that it will not be easy.

This was the conclusion reached by the Defence Planning Staff:
Defence Plannin Staff.jpg
Defence Plannin Staff.jpg (25.94 KiB) Viewed 589 times
Very difficult but not dismissed as impossible.

I will post the full content of this paper in a following post.

Regards

John

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#82

Post by ljadw » 24 Oct 2017, 08:41

I have given 2 sources who said that the Italians stopped the WDF :

Keegan
and Cloutier.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#83

Post by ljadw » 24 Oct 2017, 09:03

Gooner1 wrote:
ljadw wrote: My answer is : NO, because already before the meeting of the Cabinet of 10 february, any advance to Tripoli was impossible, because the WDF was weaker than in december and because the Italians were stronger than in december . Thus, one can not blame the politicians for the fact that Tripoli was not captured .
Err .. the Italians lost about 140,000 men between December '40 and February '41. Along with hundreds of guns, planes, tankettes and thousands of tons of supplies.

The WDF gained a second armoured division :D
In october 1940 the total Italian strength in NA was 215000 (a decrease of 30000 since september )source : Italian soldier in North Africa 1941-1943.

But the WDF was NEVER facing 215000 Italians : the 10th Italian Army had only some 80000 men, and was spread over the whole of East Libya.

In february 1941 the total Italian strength was 129000 with less divisions, but these were stronger than the divisions of 1940 .In february the Italians had the armoured Ariete division, in december they had 2 "fascist militia " divisions who consisted of Italian civilians who had been mobilised a few months before .

If in the winter the Italians had collapsed, the WDF would have been in Tripoli in january : if there is no one to stop you, there is nothing that can prevent you from advancing . If the Italians had collapsed, ONE battalion would have been sufficient to capture Tripoli in january . The fact that this was not done proves that the Italians had not collapsed .

Saying that the decision to execute Lustre prevented the WDF from advancing to Tripoli,is the equivalent of saying that the Kiew decision prevented Bock to go to Moscow .

At the moment of the Kiew decision ,it was not possible to go to Moscow,and at the moment of the Lustre decision (and even before ) it was not possible to go to Tripoli .

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#84

Post by Gooner1 » 24 Oct 2017, 11:13

ljadw wrote: In february 1941 the total Italian strength was 129000 with less divisions, but these were stronger than the divisions of 1940 .In february the Italians had the armoured Ariete division,
The Ariete division arrived with only one battalion - 46 tanks - of Medium tanks. Five battalions of Italian medium tanks had been lost in Compass.

The Western Desert Force had more usable Italian medium tanks than the remainder of the Italian forces in North Africa.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#85

Post by MarkN » 24 Oct 2017, 13:34

Gooner1 wrote: The Ariete division arrived with only one battalion - 46 tanks - of Medium tanks. Five battalions of Italian medium tanks had been lost in Compass.
It "arrived" with 3 tank battalions - all of the armoured skateboard variety. Later (after 10 February for the benefit of ljadw) it recieved a 4th battalion which consisted of the M13s. And yes, Ariete had less M13s than 6RTR. :lol:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#86

Post by MarkN » 24 Oct 2017, 13:39

ljadw wrote:I have given 2 sources who said that the Italians stopped the WDF :
Keegan
and Cloutier.
Really? 2 days ago you posted this!!! :lol:
ljadw wrote:I did not say that Keegan supported my claim that the Italians stopped the British .
Do make your mind up!!!! :roll:

But please show us where in these two posts of yours either Keegen or Cloutier "said that the Italians stopped the WDF".
ljadw wrote:From John Keegan (Churchill's generals )
"The decision to help Greece was already taken before the start of Compass
Wavell appreciated that Tripoli was unattainable
The belief of Wavell that Lustre was militarily viable as well as politically and psychologically necessary steeled the cabinet for intervention . "

Thus, it was not Lustre or Tripoli, but Lustre or doing nothing while the Germans invaded Greece . Thus, the decision of London was quickly made, especially as the theater commander approved the decision .
ljadw wrote:On P 55 of Regio Esercito :The Italian Royal Army in Mussolini's Wars (by Patrick Cloutier ), one can read the following :
It's unlikely that the British could have seized the rest of Libya .Italy had 7 divisions (1 armoured, 1 motorized, 5 infantry ).
Thanks to earlier resistance,sufficient Italian reinforcements arrived in time to prevent the British from seizing all of North Africa .
If they wrote/said "... the Italians stopped the WDF" in another part of their books, perhaps you will post that for us.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#87

Post by ljadw » 24 Oct 2017, 17:24

Sufficient Italian reinforcements arrived in time to PREVENT the British from seizing all of North Africa " means : the Italians stopped the WDF .

histan
Member
Posts: 1668
Joined: 14 Jan 2008, 18:22
Location: England

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#88

Post by histan » 24 Oct 2017, 18:21

The British objective was to secure the flank of Egypt and then to form a strategic reserve in Egypt that could be used to support either Greece or Turkey.

When they believed that they had secured the flank of Egypt they stopped.

The option of carrying on was considered. Given below is the paper produced by the Defence Planning Staff.
Defence Planning Staff 01.jpg
Defence Planning Staff 02.jpg
Defence Plannin Staff.jpg
Defence Plannin Staff.jpg (25.94 KiB) Viewed 533 times
One small mention of the Italian Army.

Main operational arguments against were - the German Air Force and the size of force needed for a garrison and the need to form the strategic reserve.
Major reason against was logistical and administrative.

Note also that the view seems to be that the Italians couldn't stop them reaching Tripoli and that it was there that the battle would be fought.

More importantly, the Germans didn't believe that the Italians had stopped the British. They believed the opposite. Instead of sending just one division the decided that to stop the British capturing Tripoli they needed to send an additional panzer division.

More on the German assessment, which is more relevant in the context of the original poster's question, in a follow up post.

Regards

John

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#89

Post by MarkN » 24 Oct 2017, 18:58

I think I'm starting to understand your problem.... 8-)
ljadw wrote:Sufficient Italian reinforcements arrived in time to PREVENT the British from seizing all of North Africa " means : the Italians stopped the WDF .
Here is the whole paragraph...
Image
1. The Ariete had NOT arrived in Libya with 80 M13/40 when O'Connor and his forces reached el Agheila on 8 February. The Ariete received 46 - I repeat FORTY-SIX somewhat later. I have a report by Rommel dated 14 February where he requests that the VII Btn with 46 M13/40 be transported to Tripoli by German ships to speed their arrival. On 20 February another report by Rommel includes an orbat for Ariete. There are no M13/40s shown. Coutier is wrong!

2. Trento certainly did follow Ariete to Libya. It's arrival started at the end of February. It was certainly NOT ready to prevent a British advance on 10 February.

3. Who were the other two infantry divisions that came afterwards? Can you name them?

4. Who were the 7 divisions ready in Libya to prevent a British advance on 10 February? Can you name them? Can you describe the state that they were in?

I can quote what Rommel reported on 14 February - information he received from Gariboldi on 12 February.

And finally, ...
ljadw wrote:Sufficient Italian reinforcements arrived in time to PREVENT the British from seizing all of North Africa " means : the Italians stopped the WDF .
... is not correct.

It means that in the author's opinion, IF the British had attacked, the author THINKS the Italians would have been able to stop the British. That is not the same as meaning they DID stop the British. And, as I've just written, his data on what Italian forces were available is wrong.

If your knowledge is based upon googlesearch to win an argument, googlebooks to provide the quotes, and poorly researched books at that - then no wonder you are somewhat misinformed. :roll:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2622
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#90

Post by MarkN » 24 Oct 2017, 19:23

histan wrote:The British objective was to secure the flank of Egypt and then to form a strategic reserve in Egypt that could be used to support either Greece or Turkey.

When they believed that they had secured the flank of Egypt they stopped.

The option of carrying on was considered. Given below is the paper produced by the Defence Planning Staff.
...
One small mention of the Italian Army.

Main operational arguments against were - the German Air Force and the size of force needed for a garrison and the need to form the strategic reserve.
Major reason against was logistical and administrative.

Note also that the view seems to be that the Italians couldn't stop them reaching Tripoli and that it was there that the battle would be fought.

More importantly, the Germans didn't believe that the Italians had stopped the British. They believed the opposite. Instead of sending just one division the decided that to stop the British capturing Tripoli they needed to send an additional panzer division.

More on the German assessment, which is more relevant in the context of the original poster's question, in a follow up post.
Thank you for posting.

I have posted a contemporary report (April 1941) by General O'Connor the British field commander in Libya which states that he wanted to go to Tripoli, he felt the advance would be successful and that he was prevented/stopped from doing so by London's political decision.

You have posted minutes of the actual military advice and political decision-making in London.

Nevertheless, we must be totally wrong because some chap called Cloutier has written - and poster ljadw believes it: "The British explain away the halt of their advance as a strategic blunder by Winston Churchill, who wanted to send troops to Greece. But Churchill did not order a push to Tripoli, because the English Army could not do it."

PS. What was the English Army? :roll:
PPS. The double negative in "But Churchill did not order a push to Tripoli, because the English Army could not do it." implies O'Connor was not stopped because it couldn't be done. :roll: Badly written English on top of bad research and analysis.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”