Should Hitler have chosen Manstein rather than Rommel for the North African campaign

According to Keegan, Hitler had intended to send Manstein to North Africa but on 3rd Feb 1941 changed his mind and replaced him with Rommel - the reason - Hitler thought Rommel would be more inspirational.

My question is would Manstein have been more effective in this theatre than Rommel?

 

MAnsteins talentswould have been wasted in such a small theateer. Rommell was best until the end

 

A factor to consider is, would Manstein have followed Hitler's original mandate, not to allow the Italians to be overwhelmed above all other concerns. Rommel "stretched" his orders to attack as deeply and as often as he could. A more conservative approach may have had better long term prospects without the periodic emergency resupply/reinforcements.

 

This treads dangerously close to a "What If ?"

 

What If, Manstein had done as you say? What difference do you see kind sir?

 

Symantics be damned.....thread moved....mind your manners and cite your sources.

 

:stickpoke:

 

No need to warn us sir, it is all my fault. As a former adrenaline junky when Brad used the term "dangerously";

, I couldn't resist pushing the envelope. Then when I did push, I couldn't resist poking him with a stick. I'll mind my manners. Sorry Brad, collateral damage you know.

 

Hey babe, I like a good train wreck as much as the next guy...I just have never seen a locamotive with a bayonet lug that I wasn't driving.....have fun my friend...have fun

 

If the original mandate was just to help the Italians hold their postion as it existing when German forces were sent to Libya, then I think it was unrealistic. The position was untenable if the British were allowed to hold Cyrenaica and build up forces, especially air forces, there. They could threaten Axis sea lines of communication, cover their own naval forces and convoys to Malta, and fly air reinforcements to the island; it might even be within ferry range for single-engine fighters. In time they would build up to the point of resuming the ground offensive.

Rommel created a much more defensible position by securing Cyrenaica, including having some depth to fall back and recover if a battle like Crusader went against him. With Greece and Crete in Germans hands, the positions were mutually supporting. His mistake was pressing further east into Egypt.

 

Please get that image outta my head!

 

Wow.....way to man it down...thanks buddy

 

Mmm - I seem to excited some passions. For the record, I plead guilty to introducing a WHAT IF (or maybe that should be a "might have been").

Thanks to Cannonade for his post which has crystallized my own thoughts.

Al Algeila was not a viable stop line for either protagonists and the benefits of holding Cyrenaica in Axis hands are overwhelming. I don't think Defence however ever entered Rommel's brain.

Any German contingent would have overwhelmed the British at Al Algeila after Compass and Churchill had denuded an already exhausted and worn out Army. Manstein would have at least reached Tobruk.

And I can't see Manstein making any attempt on Egypt without securing Malta and building up sufficient reserves.

Although it is difficult to believe he could have held once the Commonwealth had a tank (the Sherman) which was the equivalent of the Panzer IV, a decent AT Gun in the 6 Pounder and dominance of the Air, I think he might had made a more orderly retreat.

I know this is jumping to far but Manstein would IMO have likely got more co-operation from von Arnim and could well have converted Kasserine in a real strategic gain by forcing his way through to Bone.

He definitely would not have thrown away his Panzers attacking Monty's prepared Defence at Medenine.

 

Manstein would have been absolutely better choice but he couldn't change the outcome decisively. Rommel's myth has been created mainly by Göbbels and in part by Montgomery.

In this case we must take into consideration dependencies and shortages Germany was facing simultaneously during that period both in the North Africa and at the Eastern front. It was impossible to take something and relocate it without harming situation at the other side.

Well, if you consider swapping Manstein and Rommel, that castling would have shortened the war considerably. Manstein couldn't have changed anything in the North Africa while Rommel would have caused disaster at the Eastern front because he wasn't an adequate choice for solving difficult problems Manstein has faced at the east.

You might have noticed that in another thread I have pointed to Manstein's involvement in disaster of the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Army but it should also be noted that Manstein has minimized an overall damage by making certain selfish sacrifices.

My 2c.

 

This isn't totally on or off topic, but a quite interesting video concerning Manstein and both his personality, and his military talents.


Manstein program in the Hulu collection called Hitler's warriors:

Goto:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/290977

 

Thanks Clint for the link but the video library can only be watched from within the United States. I'll get that video, this way or another.

EDIT: Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fprz1JoWDJE

 

Manstein or Rommel:it would be tweedledum or tweedledo