What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Kurt_S
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: 02 Jun 2022, 11:22
Location: Freiburg

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#16

Post by Kurt_S » 17 May 2023, 07:57

Von Bock wrote:
16 May 2023, 12:03
(quoting Citino)

"Be sure to erupt into your opponent’s rear"
:wink:
Von Bock wrote: (quoting Citino)
Pause? Halt? Wait? Anyone who expected Rommel to ease up on the throttle clearly hadn’t been paying attention.
This is a mode of WW2 analysis that I found annoying/stupid. Citino opens an inquiry at the strategic/operational level but then pivots to a discussion of whether strategic/operational alternatives were feasible, given Rommel's personality. That's a different topic.

A lot of WW2 commentators do this: make basic intellectual errors that are assumed to be excused - and usually are - in service of debunking some notion of German superiority put to rest in the '70's/'80's (when Citino and many of his ilk were forming their basic gut feelings about WW2).
Von Bock wrote:While it would be easy to view all these illnesses as simple bad luck, they were, in fact, the price Rommel and all the rest of them were paying for fighting an overseas expeditionary campaign with inadequate resources.
This is another platitudinous Citinoism that, in the Anglosphere at least, receives little pushback. An "overseas campaign" across a ~500km LoC is being compared to an actual overseas campaign that, for the British, extended on a ~20,000km LoC (google "beef or Bardia").

Rommel and a few Italians held off the 500mil-strong British Empire for 2 years in the desert. Not because Rommel was a genius (he was meh, flawed) but because the logistical handicap of fighting 20k km from home is at least as great as fighting with Malta astride one's much shorter LoC.

Von Bock
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 24 Oct 2022, 18:20
Location: South of Holland

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#17

Post by Von Bock » 17 May 2023, 08:52

Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 07:57
Von Bock wrote:
16 May 2023, 12:03
(quoting Citino)

"Be sure to erupt into your opponent’s rear"
:wink:
Von Bock wrote: (quoting Citino)
Pause? Halt? Wait? Anyone who expected Rommel to ease up on the throttle clearly hadn’t been paying attention.
This is a mode of WW2 analysis that I found annoying/stupid. Citino opens an inquiry at the strategic/operational level but then pivots to a discussion of whether strategic/operational alternatives were feasible, given Rommel's personality. That's a different topic.

A lot of WW2 commentators do this: make basic intellectual errors that are assumed to be excused - and usually are - in service of debunking some notion of German superiority put to rest in the '70's/'80's (when Citino and many of his ilk were forming their basic gut feelings about WW2).
Von Bock wrote:While it would be easy to view all these illnesses as simple bad luck, they were, in fact, the price Rommel and all the rest of them were paying for fighting an overseas expeditionary campaign with inadequate resources.
This is another platitudinous Citinoism that, in the Anglosphere at least, receives little pushback. An "overseas campaign" across a ~500km LoC is being compared to an actual overseas campaign that, for the British, extended on a ~20,000km LoC (google "beef or Bardia").

Rommel and a few Italians held off the 500mil-strong British Empire for 2 years in the desert. Not because Rommel was a genius (he was meh, flawed) but because the logistical handicap of fighting 20k km from home is at least as great as fighting with Malta astride one's much shorter LoC.
Well, about the last part: What you are basically saying is that the British supply lines were just as bad as the Axis supply lines. And that this is the best explanation for the fact that the Germans were able to hold off the British for so long.

I am not really an expert on this, but it seems to me that the British were still controlling the seas, had a much bigger supply base in the form of a huge empire (they controlled Palestina, Iraq and Sudan at the time) and could therefore safely transport their troops and supplies.


Kurt_S
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: 02 Jun 2022, 11:22
Location: Freiburg

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#18

Post by Kurt_S » 17 May 2023, 09:32

Von Bock wrote:
17 May 2023, 08:52
the British were still controlling the seas, had a much bigger supply base in the form of a huge empire (they controlled Palestina, Iraq and Sudan at the time) and could therefore safely transport their troops and supplies.
That's the typical analysis that you will see on the History Channel and in virtually every book that should know better. It's just dumb. The British Empire was spending virtually all of its discretionary shipping capacity (i.e. that which remained after sustaining economics needs)*** on supplying 8th Army and (not to be forgotten) the Northern Front against Turkey.

Why else did 2-3 German divisions create a geopolitical crisis against the world's second largest economy? Because the Germans were supermen? No, of course not. Because British logistics to the Western Desert were worse (occupied more national resources) than Axis logistics. This was, in fact, so obvious to contemporaries that Hitler felt free to point it out to Life magazine in an interview in 1941. Hindsight usually makes us dumber, not smarter.

***Again, google "beef or Bardia"

Von Bock
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 24 Oct 2022, 18:20
Location: South of Holland

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#19

Post by Von Bock » 17 May 2023, 10:51

Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 09:32
Von Bock wrote:
17 May 2023, 08:52
the British were still controlling the seas, had a much bigger supply base in the form of a huge empire (they controlled Palestina, Iraq and Sudan at the time) and could therefore safely transport their troops and supplies.
That's the typical analysis that you will see on the History Channel and in virtually every book that should know better. It's just dumb. The British Empire was spending virtually all of its discretionary shipping capacity (i.e. that which remained after sustaining economics needs)*** on supplying 8th Army and (not to be forgotten) the Northern Front against Turkey.

Why else did 2-3 German divisions create a geopolitical crisis against the world's second largest economy? Because the Germans were supermen? No, of course not. Because British logistics to the Western Desert were worse (occupied more national resources) than Axis logistics. This was, in fact, so obvious to contemporaries that Hitler felt free to point it out to Life magazine in an interview in 1941. Hindsight usually makes us dumber, not smarter.

***Again, google "beef or Bardia"
I don't know. Although I would agree that the British situation was far from great in 1941, by the time of the capture of Tobruk the Americans were ready to enter the war in Europe. (which would definitely change the balance in their favour)

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

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#20

Post by Urmel » 17 May 2023, 11:01

Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 09:32
Von Bock wrote:
17 May 2023, 08:52
the British were still controlling the seas, had a much bigger supply base in the form of a huge empire (they controlled Palestina, Iraq and Sudan at the time) and could therefore safely transport their troops and supplies.
That's the typical analysis that you will see on the History Channel and in virtually every book that should know better. It's just dumb. The British Empire was spending virtually all of its discretionary shipping capacity (i.e. that which remained after sustaining economics needs)*** on supplying 8th Army and (not to be forgotten) the Northern Front against Turkey.

Why else did 2-3 German divisions create a geopolitical crisis against the world's second largest economy? Because the Germans were supermen? No, of course not. Because British logistics to the Western Desert were worse (occupied more national resources) than Axis logistics. This was, in fact, so obvious to contemporaries that Hitler felt free to point it out to Life magazine in an interview in 1941. Hindsight usually makes us dumber, not smarter.

***Again, google "beef or Bardia"
I think that's trying to find a single answer to a multi-facetted question, and as such it is wrong as it is too simplistic. Round-the-Cape logistics played a role, but they weren't the ultimate issue here. There is pretty little evidence from what I can see that e.g. the British side failed in having sufficient of whatever they needed to beat the Axis in CRUSADER. But they still failed, and the reasons for that are a mix of command failure, technology, doctrine, and in-theatre logistics.
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

Von Bock
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 24 Oct 2022, 18:20
Location: South of Holland

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#21

Post by Von Bock » 17 May 2023, 11:09

Urmel wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:01
Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 09:32
Von Bock wrote:
17 May 2023, 08:52
the British were still controlling the seas, had a much bigger supply base in the form of a huge empire (they controlled Palestina, Iraq and Sudan at the time) and could therefore safely transport their troops and supplies.
That's the typical analysis that you will see on the History Channel and in virtually every book that should know better. It's just dumb. The British Empire was spending virtually all of its discretionary shipping capacity (i.e. that which remained after sustaining economics needs)*** on supplying 8th Army and (not to be forgotten) the Northern Front against Turkey.

Why else did 2-3 German divisions create a geopolitical crisis against the world's second largest economy? Because the Germans were supermen? No, of course not. Because British logistics to the Western Desert were worse (occupied more national resources) than Axis logistics. This was, in fact, so obvious to contemporaries that Hitler felt free to point it out to Life magazine in an interview in 1941. Hindsight usually makes us dumber, not smarter.

***Again, google "beef or Bardia"
I think that's trying to find a single answer to a multi-facetted question, and as such it is wrong as it is too simplistic. Round-the-Cape logistics played a role, but they weren't the ultimate issue here. There is pretty little evidence from what I can see that e.g. the British side failed in having sufficient of whatever they needed to beat the Axis in CRUSADER. But they still failed, and the reasons for that are a mix of command failure, technology, doctrine, and in-theatre logistics.
Well, 'failed'? Axis losses were far bigger during Crusader.

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

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#22

Post by Urmel » 17 May 2023, 11:26

The objective was to destroy the Axis tank force. They failed to do so.

The intent was to enable the occupation of Tripolitania. They failed in that as well.
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

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#23

Post by Peter89 » 17 May 2023, 11:44

Urmel wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:01
Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 09:32
Von Bock wrote:
17 May 2023, 08:52
the British were still controlling the seas, had a much bigger supply base in the form of a huge empire (they controlled Palestina, Iraq and Sudan at the time) and could therefore safely transport their troops and supplies.
That's the typical analysis that you will see on the History Channel and in virtually every book that should know better. It's just dumb. The British Empire was spending virtually all of its discretionary shipping capacity (i.e. that which remained after sustaining economics needs)*** on supplying 8th Army and (not to be forgotten) the Northern Front against Turkey.

Why else did 2-3 German divisions create a geopolitical crisis against the world's second largest economy? Because the Germans were supermen? No, of course not. Because British logistics to the Western Desert were worse (occupied more national resources) than Axis logistics. This was, in fact, so obvious to contemporaries that Hitler felt free to point it out to Life magazine in an interview in 1941. Hindsight usually makes us dumber, not smarter.

***Again, google "beef or Bardia"
I think that's trying to find a single answer to a multi-facetted question, and as such it is wrong as it is too simplistic. Round-the-Cape logistics played a role, but they weren't the ultimate issue here. There is pretty little evidence from what I can see that e.g. the British side failed in having sufficient of whatever they needed to beat the Axis in CRUSADER. But they still failed, and the reasons for that are a mix of command failure, technology, doctrine, and in-theatre logistics.
I am not even sure that most of the supply buildup - I mean tonnage-wise - for Crusader came from Round-the-Cape logistics. I read it in Playfair's early volumes (II. or III. IIRC) that most of the supplies actually came from the Indian Ocean, a large portion of that from India. There was also the MESC which gradually established control on the local supplies, which by March 1943 replaced the shipping equivalent of 100 Liberty ships. Not to mention Abadan, Haifa and later on Tripoli, which, thanks to the bulk nature of fuel, were probably taking up a huge chunk of the supplies. (British Egypt also had some production.) I also do not believe that the countries which produced a surplus of food - Iran and Iraq, for example - were not utilized. Of course, vehicles, specific equipment and ammunition had to come round-the Cape, but according to the allied logistical handbooks of the era, about 50% of the supply requirements were fuel, and another big portion, over 10% was food.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

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

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#24

Post by Urmel » 17 May 2023, 11:52

Yes, I agree on that. The crucial items in terms of build-up were tanks, planes and guns, and all of those came from either the US or the UK though. I'm not aware that there ever was an issue of other supply items not being in theatre when needed.
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

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

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#25

Post by Gooner1 » 17 May 2023, 15:09

Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 09:32

That's the typical analysis that you will see on the History Channel and in virtually every book that should know better. It's just dumb. The British Empire was spending virtually all of its discretionary shipping capacity (i.e. that which remained after sustaining economics needs)*** on supplying 8th Army and (not to be forgotten) the Northern Front against Turkey.
Indeed. One could also say the Axis was operating a more efficient 'Just-in -Time' supply chain whilst the British were condemned to building up huge inventories of everything.

Kurt_S
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: 02 Jun 2022, 11:22
Location: Freiburg

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#26

Post by Kurt_S » 17 May 2023, 17:07

Urmel wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:01
I think that's trying to find a single answer to a multi-facetted question, and as such it is wrong as it is too simplistic. Round-the-Cape logistics played a role, but they weren't the ultimate issue here. There is pretty little evidence from what I can see that e.g. the British side failed in having sufficient of whatever they needed to beat the Axis in CRUSADER. But they still failed, and the reasons for that are a mix of command failure, technology, doctrine, and in-theatre logistics.
It isn't at all simplistic to say that the Empire would have crushed Rommel, or forced the diversion of far more resources, had the sea LoC to the Western Desert been ~500km (as was the Axis sea LoC).

It would be simplistic to say that logistics was the only thing that restricted British performance - I agree that other things went wrong (on both sides) during CRUSADER.

Describing the simple doesn't imply endorsement of the simplistic. It's simply true that I enjoyed yesterday because I wasn't hit by a bus; it's simplistic to say that my my concept of the good life consists entirely of bus avoidance.
Peter89 wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:44
I am not even sure that most of the supply buildup - I mean tonnage-wise - for Crusader came from Round-the-Cape logistics. I read it in Playfair's early volumes (II. or III. IIRC) that most of the supplies actually came from the Indian Ocean, a large portion of that from India. There was also the MESC which gradually established control on the local supplies, which by March 1943 replaced the shipping equivalent of 100 Liberty ships.
That's exactly the point. The British smartly and effectively (albeit delayedly) created a massive apparatus - MESC - precisely because the alternative - shipping those good 20,000km - was so enormously difficult. That most other supplies came from the Indian Ocean rim, not the UK, makes the same point.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#27

Post by Peter89 » 17 May 2023, 18:02

Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 17:07
Urmel wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:01
I think that's trying to find a single answer to a multi-facetted question, and as such it is wrong as it is too simplistic. Round-the-Cape logistics played a role, but they weren't the ultimate issue here. There is pretty little evidence from what I can see that e.g. the British side failed in having sufficient of whatever they needed to beat the Axis in CRUSADER. But they still failed, and the reasons for that are a mix of command failure, technology, doctrine, and in-theatre logistics.
It isn't at all simplistic to say that the Empire would have crushed Rommel, or forced the diversion of far more resources, had the sea LoC to the Western Desert been ~500km (as was the Axis sea LoC).

It would be simplistic to say that logistics was the only thing that restricted British performance - I agree that other things went wrong (on both sides) during CRUSADER.

Describing the simple doesn't imply endorsement of the simplistic. It's simply true that I enjoyed yesterday because I wasn't hit by a bus; it's simplistic to say that my my concept of the good life consists entirely of bus avoidance.
Peter89 wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:44
I am not even sure that most of the supply buildup - I mean tonnage-wise - for Crusader came from Round-the-Cape logistics. I read it in Playfair's early volumes (II. or III. IIRC) that most of the supplies actually came from the Indian Ocean, a large portion of that from India. There was also the MESC which gradually established control on the local supplies, which by March 1943 replaced the shipping equivalent of 100 Liberty ships.
That's exactly the point. The British smartly and effectively (albeit delayedly) created a massive apparatus - MESC - precisely because the alternative - shipping those good 20,000km - was so enormously difficult. That most other supplies came from the Indian Ocean rim, not the UK, makes the same point.
Yes, but your point was that the Allied logistics was actually worse than that of the Germans. The Axis had practically nothing in Lybia while the British had secure sea lanes, local production in meaningful quantities, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual ratio of the supplies' economic burden would not be 500 : 20 000 (1:40) but much, much lower than that. And if the actual ratio falls below the ratio of the shipping pool of the Axis and the Allies, then the relative logistical burden begins to favor the Allies.

Also we need to factor in that German manufactured goods like tanks, vehicles, ammunition and weapons had to be produced in Germany, put on trains and carried down to the Mediterranean sea, then put on ships and hauled over to Africa, where they began their journey to the front. I'm not even sure that food was procured locally around the Mediterranean coast; POL was certainly not. Railway transport is much more expensive than naval transport, and the Germans suffered a terrible lack of trains in 1941/1942, thus it is also questionable how do we count these factors.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

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

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#28

Post by Urmel » 17 May 2023, 18:36

Kurt_S wrote:
17 May 2023, 17:07
Urmel wrote:
17 May 2023, 11:01
I think that's trying to find a single answer to a multi-facetted question, and as such it is wrong as it is too simplistic. Round-the-Cape logistics played a role, but they weren't the ultimate issue here. There is pretty little evidence from what I can see that e.g. the British side failed in having sufficient of whatever they needed to beat the Axis in CRUSADER. But they still failed, and the reasons for that are a mix of command failure, technology, doctrine, and in-theatre logistics.
It isn't at all simplistic to say that the Empire would have crushed Rommel, or forced the diversion of far more resources, had the sea LoC to the Western Desert been ~500km (as was the Axis sea LoC).
Why? How? It appears you assume that there was some constraint imposed by the long logistics chain? What's your evidence for that? What materials were piling up in British ports that couldn't be delivered due to this distance? What supplies?
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

Kurt_S
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: 02 Jun 2022, 11:22
Location: Freiburg

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#29

Post by Kurt_S » 17 May 2023, 23:02

Urmel wrote:
17 May 2023, 18:36
Kurt_S wrote: It isn't at all simplistic to say that the Empire would have crushed Rommel, or forced the diversion of far more resources, had the sea LoC to the Western Desert been ~500km (as was the Axis sea LoC).
Why? How? It appears you assume that there was some constraint imposed by the long logistics chain? What's your evidence for that? What materials were piling up in British ports that couldn't be delivered due to this distance? What supplies?
First, it's simplistic to claim that logistical constraints must show up in cargo clogging ports, awaiting shipments. Any remotely competent polity, such as the 1940's UK, would not schedule dispatches to ports except with rough congruence to expected shipping lift. Instead, the US and UK scheduled even their production horizons in light of expected shipping lift. Part of the reason for the relatively small US AGF, for example, was a realization that the Allies lacked sufficient shipping to deploy/maintain the originally-projected 215-div army. The logistical constraint appears far upstream of actual logistical practice.

So while material piling up in ports isn't necessary to demonstrate a logistical constraint, it is sufficient and Playfair answers your question:
The convoys sailing from the United Kingdom since the beginning of the war had never been big enough to take all the men and equipment awaiting despatch. These numbers became greater than ever in the summer and autumn of 1941, in consequence of the decision to build up the forces in the Middle East for the projected offensive. The Chiefs of Staff recommended that 35,000 airmen should take precedence over all the army's large number of wafting drafts and reinforcements. These 35,000 were to cover the various requirements of Royal Air Force ground duties involved in the expansion to the 62½ squadrons, to which it was now proposed to add a further seventeen fighter squadrons. With this estimate Mr. Churchill did not agree, and insisted on reducing it to 20,000.
Playfair is stating that shipping constrained the Empire to choose between army and RAF personnel, both of which were wanted in theater.

You'll find this kind of discussion throughout Playfair and any competent history of the Med campaigns.
Last edited by Kurt_S on 17 May 2023, 23:09, edited 1 time in total.

Kurt_S
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: 02 Jun 2022, 11:22
Location: Freiburg

Re: What if Rommel digs in (or even evacuates) after the capture of Tobruk?

#30

Post by Kurt_S » 17 May 2023, 23:07

Peter89 wrote:your point was that the Allied logistics was actually worse than that of the Germans.
My point was:
Kurt_S wrote:the logistical handicap of fighting 20k km from home is at least as great as fighting with Malta astride one's much shorter LoC.

Locked

Return to “What if”