Leaders, What is Your Opinion on the Portrayal of CPT Sobel in Band of Brothers?

The series really does gloss over the troops distrust of their first CO. I think it's safe to make a few assumptions about this subject. 1. When every junior officer, and NCO not only has concerns, but is willing to jump the chain of command to avoid serving in combat with their company CO there has to be a serious issue. 2. Later in the series we see the same men willing to serve under what at best could be called an ineffective captain simply because the 1sgt was a good leader I think that speaks volumes. I think the only reasonable conclusion is these men truly believed that Capt Sobel was going to get them killed needlessly. In the end it really doesn't matter if he truly was that incompetent or not. The fact is his men believed him to be a threat and that alone made him a threat.

After the war, many of the troops gave him credit for his training that enabled them to endure and survive combat. Being a hardass as a trainer is not the same thing as being a leader. From all I've read about him, he was a grade A prick as a training officer, but an utter and complete failure as a leader. The mini-series in no way "tarnished" his reputation. He did that all by himself.

To put it in the vernacular, Sobel was too much unnecessary chickenshit. Hard training pays off. But simple harassment does not a respected leader make. I experienced too much of it in the Marine Corps which is one of the reasons I switched to the Army.

Oh Lordy! I'd honestly have to re-watch the series to give a better assessment of his character. It's been, what, 20+ years since I watched it? Hmmm... might be time to give it another watch since many of the modern shows are beyond horrible!

AR 600 -100 has redefined what it means to be a destructive leader. There are two different traits that he has exemplified. I believe that he is not ideal for what we need but he was only in an environment that enabled him to function due to the desire of short-term success. You should actually read how he died. It's pretty sad.

-Insensitive driven achiever. These leaders are usually bright and energetic and consumed by need for unit accomplishment and its attendant recognition. They often provide impressive short term results, but create a frenzied, micromanaged climate. They are frequently inattentive to the morale of their organization.
-Toxic self-centered abuser. These leaders are also usually bright and energetic, as well as goal-oriented and bossfocused. Capable of producing spectacular short term results, but are arrogant, abusive, intemperate, distrusting, and irascible. They are typically distrusting micro-managers never burdened by introspection.

It is really hard to come to a real conclusion on this matter for many reasons, hollywood takes license to make things interesting, whether they are true or not, I am not of that generation, and haven't read any books on this issues. So from my stand point as a former leader in the NCO Corps, I would rate him as maybe a 1 or 2 in leadership. Now we all know leadership comes in all forms and can be effective in many of them. It seems to me that he was just an A hole in general and did not like his men, his job, or much of anything. Given that it would lend to his behavior as a "leader", which I would not classify him as such. To me, a leader not only leads their troops but more importantly inspires them to be more than they think they can be.

I do not disagree with what you say but I believe it was his style of leadership was borderline psycho on control. He was very distant and never respected the men or his officers. his attitude was more like I am in charge and you will do as I say not as I do.

Honestly, his training was spot on. I would actually want this guy as a drill sergeant.

But as a leader - he was well below par. His leadership reminded me of a lieutenant I knew.
When all of the NCO's voluntarily turned in their rank, that spoke to me and my experiences and refusing to commit to some "requests" (because he was too afraid to make it an order because he knew it was unlawful) and being passed up for promotion because of it - the request was to haze a soldier who was struggling with finances and a failed marriage. I couldn't help but to cheer these guys on and think "You're doing the right thing".

Before any of you think this is just "officer hating", I remind you that this was in opposition to this officer treating another well-performing officer with disdain because he saw him as a threat - an enemy rather than an ally.

That's where this resonates. I felt in my last unit that a particular officer treated enlisted as if they were enemies rather than allies and on the same team. It wasn't just me it was the 1SG also. Even the SGM took notice and tried rattling chains at battalion over it.

It happens though - these kinds of officers do exist and I think it's important that the US Army recognize this and either correct it or accept it as normal life in the Army.

I couldn't get past the horrible actor that they used to portray him. David Schwimmer is a joke. If CPT Herbert Sobel was as much of a wimp as Schwimmer, no wonder his NCOs hated him.

Granted we have a new way of leading, and sometimes it for the better and sometimes it's not. You'd also have to take into account that during that time companies/battalions/regiments and so on were stood up together. A company commander had to generate his force from nothing, and although his way was cruel at times, it sharpened the men of that company into what they needed to be. Today he's be relieved of command, but like I said, times were different.