I'm in the midst of re-watching "Band Of Brothers" and while looking for information on various members of Easy Company I ran across this blog entry that has a lot of information on Sobel that I'd never known before.



The unvarnished truth about Captain Herbert Sobel

I never met the man. But I will say that he and David Schwimmer do not bear a striking resemblance to each other of any kind. That is opinion on the part of the writer and a check of photographs of the two men readily identify it as only opinion. For an article which wants to provide 'unvarnished truth', to me, it begins to flavor the writing.

HBO portrayed the pushups as it did because that is how surviving members of Sobel's company remembered the events. In Ambrose's book and in Winters's book too, there are statements that were recorded decades after the events. But what is also true is that in Ambrose's book, the surviving members of Sobel's company all flatly state that Sobel was the reason that they were as good as they were. They freely give him credit, and yet despised him.

Praise from an enemy is probably sincere praise. Sobel could not be- and was not- all bad. The members of his company knew him only in this unique slice of life. In context however it seems likely that he was much as the members of his company recall him.

And David Schwimmer, whether his portrayal was historically flawed or not, was outstanding.

I've been in a unit that didn't have its S together at all because the leadership didn't have its S together (it had failed the previous 2 ARTEPs before I got there), then we got a commander and first sergeant who both had their S together. CPT Cardon Crawford set the standard, and 1SG Ezell Robinson was the absolute, complete, and total son-of-a-#%&*$# who enforced it to the most minute degree. He was such a MF that the gun-bunnies felt sorry for us. I wish they'd been the ones we'd gone to Desert Storm/Shield under. So I have something of an idea of how the guys in Easy Company felt about Sobel, because there were plenty of times I would have gladly run 1SG Robinson over with my track even though I knew what he was doing was for my own good and needed to be done.

After reading the link, it sounds like Sobel was a man who tried to do the absolute best that he could - regardless of his own shortcomings, for the men he trained, the wife he married and the children he raised.

Sadly it seems none of them appreciated that at the time.

HBO had to make something for TV too, so I'm sure there are all sorts of exaggerations, truth bending and things to keep the audience entertained and develop the relationship with the characters.

As far as I recall with Band ofBrothers (which was awesome)....Sobel's family/personal life was never featured. If everyone who served at that time recalls him as an an officer with a pedantic level of detail that would serve a purpose in the early stages of training, an incompetent leader and lousy map-reader then BoB and David Schwimmer reflected that perfectly.

If all anyone had to complain about was his ability to do press-ups they should be proud of the impact he had on the people that served under him. Everyone knows an officer in the military who they wouldn't want to go to war with .......but everyone has their purpose and the likes of Sobel is the perfect example of the type of leader you need in a training establishment when some recruits will attempt to challenge the discipline and rank structure. (maybe not leading the exercises and out in the field but you use the people with relevant and experience for that).

Agreed. In a series full of incredible talent and performances, I thought he really stood out. The man was complex and conflicted, which Schwimmer did justice to in his portrayal. I got the impression that he knew he had some shortcomings, which he wanted to overcome but just couldn't. That's frustrating. People aren't simple or easily classified. I do think the man's heart was ultimately in the right place.

From the show, I thought of him as the opposite of Buck. He was hard and impossible to please, but worked to prep the men even though he couldn't lead them. Buck could've lead the men anywhere, they loved him, but he cared so much about them that he couldn't do it, ultimately. Combine those men and you've got the perfect leader. Neal McDonough's portrayal stood out too.

^^^^ Yep, agree with everything there

I need to go and watch the whole series again now!

After recently reading of some of the rather controversial methods employed by Stephen Ambrose in the course of his career, including his work relating to the 506th and BoB, I can't help but suspect that BoB features a number of frankly vicious character assassinations based on the words of a very small click of people, whilst glorifying the same click of people mostly based on their own assertions and the desire to make out clear cut heroes, which is a recurring theme in anything produced by Ambrose.

It doesn't take much research to establish that he was by no means a serious (or honest) historian.

If that B&W image in the article in the link is
Sobel, then just comparing him to the image of
Schwimmer at the top of the page, they certainly
do greatly resemble each other.

First of all, I posted "strikingly". Nothing striking about it."Striking" in this context means "extremely or unusually great, easily noticed or attracting attention". I dated a strikingly attractive girl at one time. Guys gave me dirty looks because I was with her, and girls gave her dirty looks because she was more attractive than they were, and she didn't wear makeup at all. People noticeably looked up from their meals. Now, if in typical internet style, you tell me that I'm saying that she and I resembled each other, wake up, you didn't get the point. The point is that this is an example of the term 'striking'. Nobody would place David Schwimmer and Herbert Sobel side by side and comment on their extremely noticeable likeness to each other. Not even Stevie Wonder. They generally resemble each other. They share a general long facial shape.

Second of all, you're apparently looking at one black and white photo.

Look at a few more photos. Like the second one. In general, people exaggerate the hell out of opinions like "they look the same" and it seems you're doing that as well.

"They have a striking resemblance" is an opinion, nothing more, and it strains credibility for somebody to say "I have the truth and here's a huge dose of opinion to prove it".

I must conclude that it is a function of our disparate
experience of appearances. If you live in a place
where most of the people you encounter exist in
the appearance space near these two, then it makes
sense that you will discern more difference than
would someone like me, and perhaps the writer.
Note that in the article, he mentions not only the
facial appearance but also the height and build.

Where I live, the number of people I might encounter
who would fit in the space between those two would be
very small - I can't at the moment think of any.
I would guess the overall appearance is northeast
european jewish, which is already a very small fraction
of the population where I live, which is only about
50% white, and that mainly divided between british
french and southern european. So to me, they are much
more similar than different. And someone from China
would probably find the two difficult to distinguish
between.

Nothing will destroy a unit's motivation and cohesion faster than poor leadership...Experienced it myself.