Rommel and the logistics in North Africa

[mellenthin]

Detractors of Rommel on internetforums will consistently come up with the allegation that he was insensitive to logistical issues and went beyond his brief advancing to places in North Africa where he alledgedly could not be supplied.
There is a lot wrong with that.
Rommel was not in charge of supplying the Axis' forces in North Africa. The Italians where. Rommel could formulate his requirements and make suggestions but had no authority in the matter.
From his writings one could get the impression that Rommel was very aware of logistical issues. He considered it as potentially decisive in warfare.
That Rommel could alledgedly not be sustained where he advanced to in 1941 and even less where he advanced to in 1942 was certainly not a conviction held by the Axis high commands at the time as Rommel was never ordered to retreat for this particular reason after his successfull advances.When he did want to retreat,for example after Crusader ,it was certainly not well received as the Italians did not really want to lose the Cyrenaica.
That Rommel had to remain on the defensive ,let alone for suddenly discovered logistical reasons is factually incorrect, . Rommel was supposed to attack after having received all his forces and then could take Benghasi. Rommel judged that he could attack earlier and needed to advance further as a position at Benghasi would be indefensible.

[lwd]

Detractors of Rommel on internetforums will consistently come up with the allegation that he was insensitive to logistical issues and went beyond his brief advancing to places in North Africa where he alledgedly could not be supplied.
There is a lot wrong with that.

That seems to be your opinion but you've got a long way to go to support it.

Rommel was not in charge of supplying the Axis' forces in North Africa. The Italians where. Rommel could formulate his requirements and make suggestions but had no authority in the matter.

If one is given a budget one is expected to live within it. If you don't complaining that you didn't set the budget is irrelevant.

From his writings one could get the impression that Rommel was very aware of logistical issues. He considered it as potentially decisive in warfare.
That Rommel could alledgedly not be sustained where he advanced to in 1941 and even less where he advanced to in 1942 was certainly not a conviction held by the Axis high commands at the time as Rommel was never ordered to retreat for this particular reason after his successfull advances.When he did want to retreat,for example after Crusader ,it was certainly not well received as the Italians did not really want to lose the Cyrenaica.

Lack of an order from the Axis high command and the abilty to adequately supply him are not necesserily strongly correlated.
The Germans didn't want to give up the Ukraine either did they?

That Rommel had to remain on the defensive ,let alone for suddenly discovered logistical reasons is factually incorrect, .

This is a rather classic example of a strawman.

Perhaps one of these days you will learn how to construct a well supported logical argument. It's not as easy as thread necromancy and pasting your opinion in every thread that is potentially relevant but it is more satisfying and useful in the long run.

[mellenthin]

The general rule is that logistics serve the
Operations and not the inverse. Rommel alledgedly being given a logistical budget within he supposedly had to act is a good one but obviously has nothing to do with reality as that is not the way things were done.
The high commands could have reasoned that there were limitations to what could be done in North Africa but that did not happen.
No limitations were imposed on operations for logistical reasons in the sense that Rommel could not advance because he could not be su.pported.
His brief was to attack into the Cyrenaica. He simply started early because the opportunity was there.

[ljadw]

The general rule is that logistics are determining operations , that operations are dictated by logistics, after all, 500 tanks without fuel are not very usefull.

[mellenthin]

This is a rather classic example of a strawman.

Perhaps one of these days you will learn how to construct a well supported logical argument. It's not as easy as thread necromancy and pasting your opinion in every thread that is potentially relevant but it is more satisfying and useful in the long run.

I love the condescending schoolmasterly attitude typical for academic types.
Obviously, I am not impressed. I do not ever intend to satisfy your lofty ideas about a logical argument because probably that would mean that nobody would understand a word of it.

[mellenthin]

The general rule is that logistics are determining operations , that operations are dictated by logistics, after all, 500 tanks without fuel are not very usefull.

No,the rule is that logistics serve the operations. A plan is made and then the logisticians have to try to deliver what is needed to make it happen. A commander is not given a logistical envelope with which he can play. Things do not happen that way.
So,Rommel was not in a onemanshow where he was given some toys to play with.

[lwd]

No,the rule is that logistics serve the operations. A plan is made and then the logisticians have to try to deliver what is needed to make it happen. A commander is not given a logistical envelope with which he can play. Things do not happen that way.
So,Rommel was not in a onemanshow where he was given some toys to play with.

I don't know if you are really that ignorant or just a troll. Given your history the later is very likely. Further replies will be restricted to pointing out the fallacies of your position and no further attempt will be made to educate you.

[mellenthin]

No,the rule is that logistics serve the operations. A plan is made and then the logisticians have to try to deliver what is needed to make it happen. A commander is not given a logistical envelope with which he can play. Things do not happen that way.
So,Rommel was not in a onemanshow where he was given some toys to play with.

I don't know if you are really that ignorant or just a troll. Given your history the later is very likely. Further replies will be restricted to pointing out the fallacies of your position and no further attempt will be made to educate you.

I think that it is you who shows ignorance here as my statement has 0 degree of originality. As somebody like you probably loves quotes I will refer you to an article by Enno von Rintelen on the logistical support of the operations in NA published in Wehrwissentschaftliche Rundschau 1.Jahrgang 9/10 p46 where he quotes the principle I mentioned. Von Rintelen was reacting to the reproach by another officer that the operations in NA were insufficiently supported. He disagrees with that.
I do not agree with some of the things von Rintelen says in the article but the mentioning of the principle is usefull to me.
The idea of you educating me is really funny. You may like to play schoolmaster but I am suitably unimpressed. You belong to the category that thinks that when somebody disagrees , he lmust be ill educated.

[michael kenny]

The idea of you educating me is really funny.

Marc, given your sole aim is troll WW2 Forums under a mountain of aliases I agree the idea of you being 'educated' is really funny.

Here are just a few of your banned names:
tigerivan, OLRIK, decepticon, maarten tromp, ledom , Westerhagen, General G, butgen, berek, Jurgensen, JBH1, Lossov, Golz, Guss, Spur, hvefsjbm

[Tom Houlihan]

Gentlemen, if we can't disagree in a civil manner, the thread will be closed.

[mellenthin]

The idea of you educating me is really funny.

Marc, given your sole aim is troll WW2 Forums under a mountain of aliases I agree the idea of you being 'educated' is really funny.

Here are just a few of your banned names:
tigerivan, OLRIK, decepticon, maarten tromp, ledom , Westerhagen, General G, butgen, berek, Jurgensen, JBH1, Lossov, Golz, Guss, Spur, hvefsjbm

It is very funny that you seem to think that you know my real name. I do not know who the marc you allude to is.
Anyway,you will not be surprised to hear that the troll gimmick does not intimidate me.
I know that certainly opinions are not the done

thing but I will still continue to defend them.
I say what I think whatever other think about it and I have a serious amount of knowledge to support my opinions.

[lwd]

I didn't take it as an attempt to intimidate. More as an indcator of we know what we are dealing with and to provide evidence to any that may have questioned it just what kind of infestation is involved.

[mellenthin]

I didn't take it as an attempt to intimidate. More as an indcator of we know what we are dealing with and to provide evidence to any that may have questioned it just what kind of infestation is involved.

Using the word infestation is another exhibition of the inability to deal with the notion of disagreement. Particularly 'academic' types active on intinternetforums seem to have this problem.
In the real world being in admiration of Rommel is a very common thing. Nobody will consider you as a troll or an infestation.
Internetforums are indeed a strange world

[lwd]

I didn't take it as an attempt to intimidate. More as an indcator of we know what we are dealing with and to provide evidence to any that may have questioned it just what kind of infestation is involved.

Using the word infestation is another exhibition of the inability to deal with the notion of disagreement.

Not really. It's more a indicator of how I view your repeated attempts to get around bannings.

... In the real world being in admiration of Rommel is a very common thing. Nobody will consider you as a troll or an infestation.

For simply admiring him? No they won't. Indeed I admire him. That has nothing to do with why you carry the labels you do.

[mellenthin]

I didn't take it as an attempt to intimidate. More as an indcator of we know what we are dealing with and to provide evidence to any that may have questioned it just what kind of infestation is involved.

Using the word infestation is another exhibition of the inability to deal with the notion of disagreement.

Not really. It's more a indicator of how I view your repeated attempts to get around bannings.

... In the real world being in admiration of Rommel is a very common thing. Nobody will consider you as a troll or an infestation.

For simply admiring him? No they won't. Indeed I admire him. That has nothing to do with why you carry the labels you do.

If you admire Rommel then I am worried what his real enemies must think.
Anyway, I simply have an agressive mindset which is a healthy attribute for individuals with a practical interest in the military subject. The labels are essentially compliments.