Rommel

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by MAGNA

Rommel is somehow credited with using the 88's as an innovation as well when it was already standard training.

I will give him credit for this although it was during the Meuse crossing. I'm not completely "anti-Rommel" but I tire of the fan boys.

[MAGNA]

I don't dislike Rommel as a commander nor will I deride his abilities where they were superior but I do admit I get tired of the credit given that isn't due, or may well be due to someone else. My earlier exposure to information lead me to believe Rommel, Patton, and Montgomery were the best and only really important commanders of the war. As I have found out more over the years my view has changed considerably. Still, that's what this is all about - finding out more.

Perhaps I have just seen too much about three individual commanders (no prizes for guessing the three) and not enough about others.

[warsdead]

was Rommel that good a general ? would he have been better off leading just a division ? He seems too have taken a lot of chances in his advances any1 wish too help me here with more information regarding his tactical ability

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by warsdead

was Rommel that good a general ? would he have been better off leading just a division ? He seems too have taken a lot of chances in his advances any1 wish too help me here with more information regarding his tactical ability

Rommel was an excellent divisional commander. As for his victories in the desert, IMO, it's not that he was so good but that the British were so bad. It would've been interesting to see his performance in Russia.

[warsdead]

well im not fully sure of his abilities as a corps commander he never would have made it in Russia in my opinion . In the north africa campaign he constantly out ran his supply lines ,he was too much of a gambler , the africa corps sole purpose was not the capture of Northern africa but too tie down British troops for the duration of the war

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by warsdead

well im not fully sure of his abilities as a corps commander he never would have made it in Russia in my opinion . In the north africa campaign he constantly out ran his supply lines ,he was too much of a gambler , the africa corps sole purpose was not the capture of Northern africa but too tie down British troops for the duration of the war

Combat is about "aggression". Rommel understood that and he controlled the battlefield by forcing his enemies to "react" rather then act.

Rommel actually DIDN'T run out of supplies in N. Afrika. If he did, he would have been destroyed immediately. He just pushed it to the limit and spared little in reserve. This is how you squeeze every last drop out of your forces. Few commanders are skilled enough to do this consistently.

Why would Rommel fail in Russia when he did such a spectacular job in WWI, France, and Afrika? It's not a logical conclusion given the obvious facts.

[warsdead]

sorry i disagree , Rommal advanced beyond a reasonable distance from his main supply depots in doing so he basically crippled his force. His aggressive style of command was also his undoing in the sense that the necessary logistical support was lacking. Rommal himself admitted later that his supply problems were not the fault of the italians slacking off but of his over aggressive actions overextending his own lines of supply and communication . The British were fighting from well established bases where supply was not so much of a problem .
Rommal's command structure also comes into question . He was constantly away from his h.q. leaving his subordinates ill informed of his intentions , thus by doing so created confusion in his own h.q. which at times of importance.
In my humble opinion Rommal's over aggressive command would have been brilliant at division level in russia but when in regards too commanding anything larger in such a fluid theater of war with so much depending on the logistical situation it would have been a disaster

[warsdead]

sorry its 3 30 here in the morning i need sleep . I will try too explain myself better tomorrow what i posted is a bit muddled . Sorry man

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by warsdead

sorry i disagree , Rommal advanced beyond a reasonable distance from his main supply depots in doing so he basically crippled his force.

If his force was so crippled, then how could he consistently win against a superior enemy force?

This argument doesn't make any sense to me because it is completely illogical.

You don't win battles with a crippled army unless you are really really really good. I don't think he was that good. He knew his limits or he would have failed early on.

Read about the WWI battle where Rommel got the Pour Le Merit and you will see what he could do when properly supported. In N. Afrika, Hitler had Rommel fighting with one hand tied behind his back, and he still managed to make do.

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by warsdead

sorry its 3 30 here in the morning i need sleep . I will try too explain myself better tomorrow what i posted is a bit muddled . Sorry man

No prob, we all have our limits!


More coffee...more coffee!


Warsdead, please consider your points carefully and provide specific examples to substantiate them if you would.

I don't want to hear regurgitated opinions (already heard them) but some actual facts and a coherent argument to support the warped notion that Rommel was a bad general.

Regards