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?

#91

Post by histan » 24 Oct 2017, 21:17

Hi MarkN

Yes, it's quite clear that the commander at the front made an assessment that there was a opportunity to continue on to Tripoli and that some people in London, such as the Secretary of State for India, proposed that this opportunity should be taken.

The military thinking in London was (mistakenly) that the strategic objective of securing the flank of Egypt had been achieved and that any strategic advantages of moving on to Tripoli were not big enough to justify changing the current strategic concept of now forming a strategic reserve in Egypt for commitment in either Greece or Turkey.

There is more information in archives that I have not yet been able to find and download that will complete the picture:
One is the minute prepared by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at the meeting on the morning of 10.02.1941 when they reviewed the Defence Planning Staff paper.
The second is minutes of the meeting of the Defence Committee (Operations) where the final assessment was made.

It is, however, quite clear that the strategic objective set for the WDF was considered to have been achieved and that the discussion was about whether to change the currently established strategy of now forming a strategic reserve in Egypt.

Regards

John

PS Shows what can be done when we combine the primary sources

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#92

Post by MarkN » 24 Oct 2017, 22:00

histan wrote:Hi MarkN

Yes, it's quite clear that the commander at the front made an assessment that there was a opportunity to continue on to Tripoli and that some people in London, such as the Secretary of State for India, proposed that this opportunity should be taken.

The military thinking in London was (mistakenly) that the strategic objective of securing the flank of Egypt had been achieved and that any strategic advantages of moving on to Tripoli were not big enough to justify changing the current strategic concept of now forming a strategic reserve in Egypt for commitment in either Greece or Turkey.

There is more information in archives that I have not yet been able to find and download that will complete the picture:
One is the minute prepared by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at the meeting on the morning of 10.02.1941 when they reviewed the Defence Planning Staff paper.
The second is minutes of the meeting of the Defence Committee (Operations) where the final assessment was made.

It is, however, quite clear that the strategic objective set for the WDF was considered to have been achieved and that the discussion was about whether to change the currently established strategy of now forming a strategic reserve in Egypt.

Regards

John

PS Shows what can be done when we combine the primary sources
Indeed.

Interestingly, it is worth comparing what O'Connor remembered to be between him and Tripoli (one incomplete division)...
Image

...and what his staff darksiders were putting out in their intsumms at the very time (4 divs + Ariete).
Image
Image
Image

The intsumms are almost identical to what Rommel reported on 14 February. 8-)

PS. If I get the chance tomorrow, I'll see if I have the files you mention as being absent so far. I know I have the ones you posted already so it is a possibility.


NBrotz
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 26 Sep 2017, 10:25
Location: United States

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#93

Post by NBrotz » 25 Oct 2017, 01:43

Well, I am awed by the amount of primary source material that MarkN and Histan have brought to the table; I thank you guys for your contributions. I also realize that there was a previous discussion on this board considering the feasibility of the British seizing Tripoli. Admittedly, I do find myself daunted by the amount of variables involved in a push on Tripoli, and amount of reading involved with understanding the scenario. Maybe you guys can help summarize things to improve my understanding of the scenario.

At any rate, while this thread seems to have been originally about Rommel's (or the lack thereof) impact on the desert war, I do find the circumstances ironic that Rommel, with minimal forces & support, launched the deep raid that O'Connor failed to, even if Rommel over-exhausted his forces in a premature attempt to capture Tobruk afterward. Granted, I do realize that the Italians were planning to launch a counter-offensive and the British were expecting it, but neither expected Rommel to do it so soon. Granted, Rommel could take advantage of a divided and ambiguous chain-of-command, while O'Connor had Wilson, Wavell, Dill, and Churchill all breathing down his neck; presumably O'Connor would've been sacked for insubordination and his career prospects made even worse than by his capture OTL. Still,

What was the strength of Italian forces in Tripolitania in Feb. 1942?

On paper, 5ª Armata had listed the following divisions: 17th 'Pavia', 25th 'Bologna', 27th 'Brescia', and 55th 'Savona', along with the recently arrived 132nd Armored 'Ariete.' While their manpower seems impressive (upward to ~100,000); the aforementioned British intelligence report suggests that most of their artillery had been loaned to 10ª Armata and lost.
Two other potential divisions:
  • 102nd Motorized 'Trento' - it presumably wouldn't have arrived in time to contribute to the defense (same with most of the Afrika Korps). Though, I am curious about the hypothetical time-table for a British push toward Tripoli. Did O'Connor provide any date by which his forces could have entered Tripoli? Did his plan even have a code-name, or did it not officially exist?
  • 60th 'Sabratha' - Some remnants of this division might've survived the Cyrenaica campaign - "the incomplete division"? Note the "unaccounted for" status of Generale Della Bona - does his name show up later on in the desert war?
This doesn't count any 'hidden' miscellaneous units like police/security troops and coastal defense artillery that the Italians might've possessed. Though, I'm guessing these units, if they existed, had negligible combat value.

While the British had clear on land in firepower & mobility, I do wonder about the situation in the air & sea. I haven't seen any mention of the Italian Air Force, though the Luftwaffe does seem to have begun making its presence known, so I'm guessing the RAF wouldn't have complete air superiority. Could the RN guarantee safe passage of supplies to Benghazi? If not, how far could O'Connor go on captured Italian supplies & equipment? If the WDF did indeed have more captured Italian tanks than the 5ª Armata had left in their arsenal, did they ever utilize these tanks against their former owners? Was it (would it have been) practical, given the learning curve of operating & servicing?

What was the disposition of Italian forces in Tripolitania in Feb. 1942?

I am curious if the WDF had to face the whole of the Italian forces still in North Africa, or whether certain strongholds could've been bypassed, which begs what route(s) of advance could've been used. In that, I do realize that the WDF might need to piggyback off Italian supplies, and they didn't have enough troops to besiege/isolate Italian forts, particularly if they put up the sort of resistance that Giarabub did. This also assumes that the Italians were in absolutely no position to threaten the WDF's rear-area, and if Tripoli was taken, the rest of Italian Libya automatically surrenders.

In any case, the key Italian positions seem to have been Sirte, Tmed Hassan, and Buerat; does anybody have a map or any information concerning what their garrisons comprised of?

On that note, I wonder if an amphibious assault on the Libyan coast was out of the question. While a direct assault on Tripoli was probably suicide, presuming the RN's full cooperation, could part of the Italian defenses have been outflanked?

Short of seizing Tripoli, could O'Connor have done anything to improve the British position in Libya?

I assume that in the pursuit to El Agheila, the WDF had liquidated whatever stragglers were left from Beda Fomm, so going farther west wasn't going to freely net more prisoners. On one hand, a limited offensive to Sirte might've convinced his superiors to the viability of taking Tripoli, though I'm not sure what sort of resistance would've been encountered (hence my previous question). On the other hand, if his forces are withdrawn for Lustre anyway, the remainder might be in even more of a precarious position than they were OTL, which leads me to ask - where should the fallback point have been?

Thanks
/NBrotz

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#94

Post by Urmel » 25 Oct 2017, 13:51

ljadw wrote:
Urmel wrote:
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 .
It proves nothing of the sort.
And why was Tripoli not captured, if the British were not stopped ? :P
Ignorance is never a pretty sight. The logic failure in your post is so blatant, it is not worth treating it seriously.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#95

Post by Urmel » 25 Oct 2017, 14:07

NBrotz wrote: What was the strength of Italian forces in Tripolitania in Feb. 1942?

On paper, 5ª Armata had listed the following divisions: 17th 'Pavia', 25th 'Bologna', 27th 'Brescia', and 55th 'Savona', along with the recently arrived 132nd Armored 'Ariete.' While their manpower seems impressive (upward to ~100,000); the aforementioned British intelligence report suggests that most of their artillery had been loaned to 10ª Armata and lost.
Two other potential divisions:
  • 102nd Motorized 'Trento' - it presumably wouldn't have arrived in time to contribute to the defense (same with most of the Afrika Korps). Though, I am curious about the hypothetical time-table for a British push toward Tripoli. Did O'Connor provide any date by which his forces could have entered Tripoli? Did his plan even have a code-name, or did it not officially exist?
  • 60th 'Sabratha' - Some remnants of this division might've survived the Cyrenaica campaign - "the incomplete division"? Note the "unaccounted for" status of Generale Della Bona - does his name show up later on in the desert war?
This doesn't count any 'hidden' miscellaneous units like police/security troops and coastal defense artillery that the Italians might've possessed. Though, I'm guessing these units, if they existed, had negligible combat value.
1941, I guess.

1) Ariete did not have its full complement of tanks in February. Cannot comment on artillery, but generally Italian artillery was weak in any case. For Savona you can see here that they were still missing a substantial part of their artillery in November: https://rommelsriposte.com/2010/06/23/o ... mber-1941/

2) Manpower. There is no way these divisions had 100,000 men. They had less than 10,000 each at full strength, so between them maybe about 40,000.

3) Trento's arrival at Tobruk can be followed here: https://rommelsriposte.com/d-a-k-war-di ... ries-1941/ It's worth noting that Trento did not perform that well when it entered the line.

4) Sabratha went back into the fray at the end of January 1942. I think that gives you an idea of its state in February 1941.

5) Yes there were lots of odds and ends about. But they are not exactly the forces that will make a difference. There was a reason that in WW2 the basic unit of warfare was the division. Everything below that became a speed bump during a full-on battle, since it could not generate the firepower and reserves to sustain combat.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#96

Post by MarkN » 25 Oct 2017, 15:58

Urmel wrote: Ignorance is never a pretty sight.
For some, ignorance is pure bliss. :lol:
Urmel wrote:
ljadw wrote:
Urmel wrote:
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 .
It proves nothing of the sort.
And why was Tripoli not captured, if the British were not stopped ? :P
The logic failure in your post is so blatant, it is not worth treating it seriously.
Very true. But I'm finding it good sport for now. It will soon wear off though, I expect. 8-)

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#97

Post by MarkN » 25 Oct 2017, 16:03

Urmel wrote: 1941, I guess.
Me too!

Here is Anlage 2, Erste Lagebericht, Erkundungsstab Rommel, 14.2.41

Data on the state of Italian forces came from Gen Gariboldi after their meeting on afternoon of 12 Feb.

Image
Image

Mind you, I suspect that some posters would prefer to believe some other nonsense that they found in a gamers handbook for other gamers. :roll:

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#98

Post by histan » 25 Oct 2017, 16:30

Some more information on the attitude of the senior British generals in the Middle East

"At Gehnimes later that afternoon, halfway between Beda Fomm and Benghazi, both [O'Connor and 'Chink' Dorman-Smith] agreed that Tripoli - Tunis too given luck - was now theirs for the taking with the extra Italian transport if they could send off quick pursuit via Sirte. But O'Connor was unable to act independently because Wison's appointment as Governor General of of Cyrenaica took effect from that day. And Wilson's whereabouts were vague. On the off chance that he might be making for Barce on the far side of Benghazi, Chink was dispatched on his second diplomatic mission of the week with instructions to drive to Tobruk and get a message through to Wavell from there if he failed to locate him....
....He combed the town for a second time and found Wilson pulling up in a borrowed armoured car, having outstripped his signals. Disheveled and muddied to the eyes, Wilson gave permission at once but pointed out that Wavell's agreement was necessary too, and until the signals caught up they were out of contact with Cairo......Chink did not hesitate. The 160 miles to Tobruk along wrecked roads took him fourteen hours, and he signalled Wavell and was on the Caro road as soon as possible."
Taken from Chink a Biography by Lavinia Green

"When Wavell received Wilson's signal on 10 February, he immediately telegraphed London in the vain hope of winning a last minute stay of execution
'The extent of the Italian defeat at Benghazi seems to me to make it possible that Tripoli might yield to small force if dispatched without delay. [emphasis mine] I ... hesitate to advance further in view of the Balkan situation. But you may think that the capture of Tripoli might have favourable effect of French North Africa.... I will make plans for the capture of Syrte which must be the next step. Please cable your views..'

On 13th {must mean telegram sent on 11th quoted in my post above] Churchill replied that Greece ruled out Tripoli. After the was Wavell loyally made an excellent case (as he would) for pronouncing a further advance beyond our strength, Greek intervention or no. But Rommel himself, who arrived in Tripoli on 12th February five days after Beda Fomm agreed with O'Connor:
On 8th February leading troops of the British army occupied El Agheila .... Graziani's army had virtually ceased to exist. All that remained of it were a few lorry columns and hordes of unarmed soldiers in full flight to the West. If Wavell had now continued his advance into Tripolitania no resistance worthy of the name could be mounted against him.
Taken from The Desert Generals by Correlli Barnett

Quite clear that at the time all three of the senior generals in the chain of command (O'Connor, Wilson, and Wavell) believed that it could be possible to continue to Tripoli.

Also clear that the German's did not believe that the Italians had stopped the WDF and also believed that the British could have continued their advance.

Regards

John

PS But I think it is important to produce chapter and verse of what the actual assessments and decisions were to counter badly informed posts so that readers who do not have access to the available information are not misled.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#99

Post by MarkN » 25 Oct 2017, 21:39

histan,
histan wrote: There is more information in archives that I have not yet been able to find and download that will complete the picture:
One is the minute prepared by the Combined Chiefs of Staff at the meeting on the morning of 10.02.1941 when they reviewed the Defence Planning Staff paper.
The second is minutes of the meeting of the Defence Committee (Operations) where the final assessment was made.
I haven't yet found the first item but I have the minutes of the Defence Committee (Operations) meetings of both the 10th and 11th February. Here are a couple of excerpts.

The conclusions from the 10th Feb meeting:-

Image
Image

The PM's telegram to Wavell explaining policy, choices, decisions etc etc etc.:-

Image
Image
Image
Image

And, just to wet your whistle, telegram No.48 sent from London to Wavell and Longmore explaining the policy and intended actions decided upon after the 16 January meeting. The policy that O'Connor, Wilson and Wavell were hoping to overturn with their 10 Feb request:-

Image
Image

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#100

Post by ljadw » 25 Oct 2017, 21:54

If the army of Graziani had ceased to exist and nothing could stop the British if they advanced to Tripoli (following the recently arrived Rommel, whose information about the situation of the Italian army is very suspicious) ,how is it than possible that this army that had ceased to exist (following the man who blamed the Italians for all the setbacks)expelled a few weeks later, with some German help, the British out of Libya ?

And, if nothing could stop the British if they went to Tripoli, why did they not go to Tripoli in january , before the veto of the cabinet ?

Besides, the cabinet was wrong : Greece did not exclude Tripoli and Tripoli did not exclude Greece :

If the Italians had ceased to exist, one batallion could capture tripoli in january and Greece was possible without this batallion .

If the italians were not on the run, and a whole division was needed to capture Tripoli, this would not affect Greece, because the amount of troops going to Greece was not depending on the amount of troops that was available in Egypt , but on the shipping tonnage that was available .

in one month, 58000 men were transported to Greece :why only 58000 ,when more were available ? Because there was not enough shipping tonnage to transport and supply more men .

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#101

Post by histan » 25 Oct 2017, 21:57

Brilliant - Thanks Mark

I have found a copy of the telegram, referred to by Churchill in his telegram of 11.02.1941, sent by the Chiefs of Staff to Wavell after the 10 February meeting - also dated 11.02.1941 which presents to Wavell the conclusion of the meeting on the 10th and gives him more orders.

I guess that you almost certainly have a copy of that.

The picture is very clear - the British believed that they had a viable option to continue the advance and capture Tripoli.

The Defence Committee (Operations) rejected that option and chose instead to continue with their existing policy of building a strategic reserve in Egypt for commitment into Greece or Turkey.

Regards

John

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

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#102

Post by histan » 25 Oct 2017, 22:52

Three posts:

"And, it was NOT Lustre or Tripoli :Lustre was executed because it was impossible to capture Tripoli ."

"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 ."

"Besides, the cabinet was wrong : Greece did not exclude Tripoli and Tripoli did not exclude Greece :"

If, when attempting to prove a point, your line of argument fails - then simply argue the opposite! No one will notice :)

Regards

John

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#103

Post by MarkN » 26 Oct 2017, 14:00

ljadw wrote:If the army of Graziani had ceased to exist and nothing could stop the British if they advanced to Tripoli (following the recently arrived Rommel, whose information about the situation of the Italian army is very suspicious) ,how is it than possible that this army that had ceased to exist (following the man who blamed the Italians for all the setbacks)expelled a few weeks later, with some German help, the British out of Libya ?

And, if nothing could stop the British if they went to Tripoli, why did they not go to Tripoli in january , before the veto of the cabinet ?

Besides, the cabinet was wrong : Greece did not exclude Tripoli and Tripoli did not exclude Greece :

If the Italians had ceased to exist, one batallion could capture tripoli in january and Greece was possible without this batallion .

If the italians were not on the run, and a whole division was needed to capture Tripoli, this would not affect Greece, because the amount of troops going to Greece was not depending on the amount of troops that was available in Egypt , but on the shipping tonnage that was available .

in one month, 58000 men were transported to Greece :why only 58000 ,when more were available ? Because there was not enough shipping tonnage to transport and supply more men .
All that contemporary documentary evidence to engage with and all you do is ignore it and continue with your illogical, nonsensical babble: "the cabinet was wrong", Rommel's report is "suspicious", capture Tripoli with a single battalion, capture Tripoli in January "before the veto of the cabinet", and so on...

The words of a clown.

You are not here for serious discussion it seems. You are just trolling. Good bye.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#104

Post by Richard Anderson » 26 Oct 2017, 19:42

MarkN wrote:
ljadw wrote:If the army of Graziani had ceased to exist and nothing could stop the British if they advanced to Tripoli (following the recently arrived Rommel, whose information about the situation of the Italian army is very suspicious) ,how is it than possible that this army that had ceased to exist (following the man who blamed the Italians for all the setbacks)expelled a few weeks later, with some German help, the British out of Libya ?

And, if nothing could stop the British if they went to Tripoli, why did they not go to Tripoli in january , before the veto of the cabinet ?

Besides, the cabinet was wrong : Greece did not exclude Tripoli and Tripoli did not exclude Greece :

If the Italians had ceased to exist, one batallion could capture tripoli in january and Greece was possible without this batallion .

If the italians were not on the run, and a whole division was needed to capture Tripoli, this would not affect Greece, because the amount of troops going to Greece was not depending on the amount of troops that was available in Egypt , but on the shipping tonnage that was available .

in one month, 58000 men were transported to Greece :why only 58000 ,when more were available ? Because there was not enough shipping tonnage to transport and supply more men .
The words of a clown.

You are not here for serious discussion it seems. You are just trolling. Good bye.
Indeed, I feel your pain having had to deal with this nonsense for years here and elsewhere. His "arguments" are always one straw man built upon another.

"If the army of Graziani had ceased to exist" - no one argued it had ceased to exist. :roll:

"nothing could stop the British if they advanced to Tripoli" - no one argued nothing could stop the British. :roll:

"Besides, the cabinet was wrong" - no one argued the cabinet was right. :roll:

"If the Italians had ceased to exist, one batallion could capture tripoli in january and Greece was possible without this batallion" - no one argued the Italians had ceased to exist, no one argued that in the event of an Italian non-existance that a battalion could not capture Tripoli... :roll:

"If the italians were not on the run" - no one argued they were not. :roll:

"and a whole division was needed to capture Tripoli, this would not affect Greece, because the amount of troops going to Greece was not depending on the amount of troops that was available in Egypt , but on the shipping tonnage that was available" - no one argued the troops required to capture Tripoli, or if it would "affect Greece", or what the troop or tonnage availability were. :roll:

In reality, we do not really know if O'Connor or the Cabinet were correct...troops from the WDF and the reserves in the Delta were sent to Greece. No attempt was made to capture Tripoli. The decision was made by the Cabinet based on strategic requirements rather than a tactical assessment of whether or not Tripoli could be seized. Which all had zero, zip, nada, keine to do with "the Italians stopping the WDF".

Nevertheless this clownish idiocy will continue for at least a few more pages although the only things worth reading will by your's and John's posts.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Rommel dies in 1941, who replaces him?

#105

Post by MarkN » 27 Oct 2017, 17:34

I knew that if I looked I'd find something..... :lol:

This caught my eye: Kriegsgliederung for l(mot) Division Funck dated 14 January 1941.

Comes as Anlage 1 to the OKH order (Gen St d H Opt.Abt.(II) Nr.039/41 g.Kdos) to send a mountain corps to Albania to bail out the Italians against the Greeks and a light motorised division to Libya to help them put a stop to the British.

Image

Post Reply

Return to “What if”