Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Rommel's reputation - deserved or political ploy?

Discussion in 'North Africa: Western Desert Campaigns 1940 to Ope' started by brkeseel, Jul 27, 2014.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Truth lies midway:Rommel was not a genious,he also was not an imbecile.

    He lost in NA,but an other general also would have lost in NA.

    He lost in Normandy,but an other general also would have lost in Normandy :about the panzer controverse:Rommel and the others (Rundstedt,Guderian,...) were right and wrong : the strategy of the "others" would fail,but also the strategy of Rommel .
     
    belasar and von_noobie like this.
  2. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    I have to believe Rommel would of had more success in Normandy, had the higher ups did not withhold the release of certain units and the communications had not broken down. You can thank the Allies and resistance for the latter. It's a good thing there were tremendous failures on the Atlantic Wall by the Germans.
     
  3. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    Sheldrake,

    I have to second what von_noobie and others have said here. One thing they didn't mention was re. your comment that Rommel was self-promoting. Yes, to an extent he was, but Montgomery was at least equally self-promoting and arrogant beyond belief. His statements to the press during Goodwood and the Ardennes are excellent examples. There are many others. His slow progress forward during the first part of the Italian campaign was a disgrace. Some of the 8th Army press corps beat him to the link-up with American forces for heavens sake! Certainly Rommel had a big ego, but what major commanding officer didn't? Montgomery? Patton? Alexander? Mark Clark? MacArthur? If the last five named were as physically large as their egos, then you couldn't have fit them all in a large sports stadium!
     
  4. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    We are talking about Rommel , not Montgomery, Patton Mark Clark McArthur or even Eisenhower; all of whom presented themselves via the media. .

    Rommel's deployment to North Africa nwas not his decision. However having been given a mission to fight a defensive battle or support Germany's Italian ally. Rommel ignored orders, pressed on and used his scussed to foirce the Germans to waste nresources on a sideshow.
     
  5. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    True, He was told to fight a defensive battle but let me ask you this, If he stays in a defensive posture how long would it have been before the Allies built up enough troops and resources to bypass Rommel? A static front there would be less of an issue hence less invsted into it (What was invested was minimul). Sooner or later the allies would have had the strength built up and would have bypassed Rommel then the NA campaign would have been over far sooner the occured historically. With the make up of the land in NA static defences did not work, Not unless you had a natural land formation beside you that prevented the oppositions armor and vehicles travelling around you. This may nt have come into Rommels thinking but with benefit of hindsight it was either sit still and get defeated sooner or attack when ou had the chance, May not win but would prevent the other from building up enough to take you out completely.

    Should also note Rommel only went on the offensive when he found out the allied forces facing him where shifting troops to Greece, So he had a chance for a good victory that while historically maybe not the best option (He should hav stopped sooner) could also had been marked down as one of his great theats had it succeeded, It was at this time that he probably had the best chance of kicking the British out of North Africa.
     
  6. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    There is a difference between waging an aggressive defence of Libya, which might invovled kicking the british everytime they over extended their supply lines and attempting to conquer Egpt and the Middle east.

    The really bad decisions made by Rommel were to
    1) Press for an offensive in North Africa in 1942 before the the capture of of Malta, which would have alleviated the logistic problems and freed up naval and air units for other tasks.
    2) invade Egypt.in July 1942 without capturing Malta.

    These are the two big criticisms that Albert Kesselring made. He was a much better strategist than Rommel.

    The scale of Rommel;s victory in June 1942 and the capture of Tobruk in retrospect came back to bite him. Churchill was in Washington when Tobruk fell. This had more impact on US plans for the ETO than any amount of arguing. FDR's sympathy led to hundreds of tanks and SP guns being diverted to Egypt. Had Rommel been on the Lybia border then maybe the Americans would have never become involved in an obvious side show. Lots of pressure for early Op Overlord- and the Kasserine pass takes place on the French coast....

    |n
     
  7. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    These decisions were approved by Rome and Berlin,and,IMHO,they were justified,as time was running against Germany .Besides,it is not so that the capture of Malta would have alleviated the Axis logistic problems,because

    a) only a small part of the Axis supplies were lost duting the transport to NA

    only a part of them were lost be British forces operating from Malta

    c) if no supplies had been lost,this would not alleviate the logistic problems which were caused by the transport of the supplies from the ports to NA

    d)it is not proved that with more supplies the Axis forces could defeat the British once and for all
     
  8. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Bronk the game I refer to is the British spent two years, until Monty, sending heir tanks with out any support straight into the German anti tank defenses. Iys not entirely true that what the Germans lost en transit was minimal. Due to the amount of fuel the Germans needed to get the supplies to the front, every loss meant less got to the Front. I don't know the exact amount, but I wouldn't be surprised if at the time of El Alamain the Germans used as fuel transporting the items as they used in combat
     
  9. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    The question I just thought is if the British had not been so idiotic in how they handled their tanks and continually handed Rommel victory would Rommel have been considered such a great general?
     
  10. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    Let's not also forget that the WW2 Heer was totally offensive oriented. Passive defense was not in their "playbook", at least not until a few years later. Rommel was known to be aggressive even by the Heer's standard. So, why would anyone think he would not attack at the first opportunity? As von_noobie pointed out, a defensive strategy, even an "aggressive defense" was bound to fail. Battle is an all-or-nothing activity. Waging war so as just not lose is what my country did in Vietnam. Didn't work there, wouldn't have worked in N. Africa either.

    Rommel also had lot's of ambition. He wanted to win battles! My previous post was to illustrate that most successful generals, and some not so successful, had lots of ego and ambition. This can be a very positive thing if managed correctly.
     
    KJ Jr likes this.
  11. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    Good Point!
     
  12. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    As for pushing the envelope, Gurderian and other Panzer commanders did so as well, at least until Hitler took total control of troop deployments. In his aggressive strategy in North Africa we must consider what he knew rather than we we know about Anglo-American production, the course of the war in the Atlantic and operations on the Eastern Front.

    His battle experience in France would naturally leave him with the impression that fast, mobile tactic's would discombobulate British deployments (which it did), British equipment was flawed (could not know about the quality of American and improving British kit) or how quickly it could appear in Egypt. Nor could he know in great detail how the Russian front was progressing (seemingly to nearly capture Moscow, then great tract's in the south)

    Certainly his reputation was inflated to some degree, but then do not the British have some responsibility for this as well? Who gave him the moniker "Desert Fox" after all? Did they not need a way to explain why he had the success he did in North Africa when they invest so much blood and treasure there?

    We must also consider the intangibles that surround him and his reputation. He fought a 'clean war' in North Africa and France, but that has to do with timing and opponent as much as to personal choice. Had he commanded a Panzer Corps and then a Army in Russia, his hands would be as stained as any other Panzer commander. Then there is his suicide/execution after the July 20 plot. He was implicated, though he did no more than many other senior German commanders did, but he lost his life over it and in doing so became linked with the 'Good German's" who set the plot in motion. I have never been convinced by Gurderian's non denial-denial of his knowledge of the plot or his position whether he was in favor of it's success.

    I have said before in another thread, in my estimation he was a excellent Panzer Division commander in France, a great Corps commander in North Africa and a good Army commander in Normandy. The problem however was that he commanded a integrated army in North Africa and a Army Group in Normandy which goes far I think in understanding his weaknesses balanced against his abilities.
     
  13. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    Yes. It is easier to gain a reputation against a weak opponent.

    General Richard O'Connor obtained a high reputation from his very one sided campaign against far superior numbers of Italians in 1940. But for this he would be an anonymous corps commander of 1944 who failed to capture Caen or break out. .
    Rommel's reputation is based on his success against the French army of 1940, the British in North Africa and the Americans at Kasserine Pass.

    He failed consistently against Montgomery, who is generally regarded as "competent" rather than a "great captain."
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't think that's entirely fair to the British. Just how to use tanks was a rather open question prior to the war and the British were still learning. They weren't organised nor did they have the proper doctrine when the war started and it took time to change both of these.

    There were a couple of periods when losses were substantial. At other points however supplies were pileing up around the docks in NA. At those times the loss of some fuel or ammo at sea may have had no impact at all on what was reaching the front. On the other hand the loss of trucks or parts for the same could have had considerable impact. If you look at the timing of their offenses and compare it to the length of their supply lines it is pretty clear that it was having a huge impact and that they could barely support the froces in front of El Alamain even if they weren't heavily engaged.

    Well given that the Italians had done the same for the British and that the British were and by many still are regarded as competent at the time I'm not sure the "idiotic" is deserved or that Rommel didn't also deserve a reputation for being a good tacticialn. My impression is that he was fairly inovative especially in most (but certainly not all) of his offensive operations. The risks he took in recon alone may have given him a significant edge and was to his credit.
     
  15. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    The British Army under performed in North Africa. The commanders of the Western Desert Force and then the 8th Army had some problems.

    One of these is doctrine.
    It is undoubtedly true that the British all arms co-operation was poor at times in North Africa. There was no "combined arms doctrine" in the British army in 1941 or 1942 .There were pamphlets produced for commanding infantry battalions or armoured regiments but not together. There is a splendid training film produced by the war office in 1941 in which a tank regiment defeats a a German attack from the south coast without showing an infantryman or artilleryman at all. That wasn't the only doctrinal problem. After Dunkirk, a committee was tasked with drawing lessons from the 1940 campaign. One of the comments of the Bartholomew Report was to question whether the Division was a flexible enough organisation to be used in a mechanised battle. For much of the desert war the british tended to fight as brigades with limited command and control at divisional level. -During the course of the campaign the 8th army tried to adapt and during 1942 the Commander Middle east Auchinleck sponsored all arms battlegroups. There are dangers with trying to change tactics in the middle of a campaign and the result tended to be confusion rather than flexibility.

    Material.
    The Eighth army was for much of the campaign out gunned, British tanks were mechanically unreliable and lacked a gun with an HE round. The 2 Pounder anti tank gun was inadequate and the British did not use their heavy AA guns to fill the gap as a long range anti tank gun until june 1942. There was little medium artillery until 1942.The field artillery 25 pdrs were parcelled out to brigades and fire was too rarely concentrated.

    Leadership
    The 8th army was not well served by some of its commanders and un lucky with others. O'Connor could clearly command a mechanised battle, but was captured along with Neame in 1941. Campbell an inspirational leader a la Rommel died in a road accident. Wavell did not get on with Churchill, and was faced with some impossible situations - and Churchillian demands. Auchinlek was flawed. He was not a good picker of subordinates. Cunningham had done well in Abyssinia but went to pieces under stress. (commanding a battle is not the bets time to give up smoking) Neil Ritchie was a poor choice, and poorly managed. By the time Montgomery arrive there was a lot of bickering and orders were seen as the basis for discussion..
     
  16. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    This is much exaggerated : it is the usual attitude (flourishing in all armies) to explain defeats by looking for scape-goats and hiding the merites of the enemy .

    In the spring of 1941,Rommel attacked and an exhausted British army (which had no superiority) had to retreat .

    In the summer of 1941 Rommel was stopped.

    In the winter of 1941/1942 he had to retreat .

    This was repeated in 1942.

    If the British doctrine,material and leadership were that bad,why was Rommel defeated at the end of 1941 ?
     
  17. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    No : everything that was available was going to Normandy .The allied superiority was that high that except a miracle,the Germans had no chance .
     
  18. KJ Jr

    KJ Jr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    359
    Location:
    New England
    What if...yes the classic what if statement...that if some Panzer Divisions were not delayed, as they were, it wouldn't have played out differently? I am not saying the Allies would have been pushed back into the Channel, but the plan may have been altered.
     
  19. von_noobie

    von_noobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    73
    Both sides had their victories and losses, What really comes down to was if you had the supplies to go all the way. It very well could have kept going on like that longer and longer had Operation Torch not been launched.

    No, Not everything was available, Much of the armor was stuck unable to move because of order's from Hitler, Other assets that Rommel wanted in place were denied to him. While being on the beach or holding back far inland were both bad options I think the beach would have been the better of both, At least on the beach even if suffering high losses they had chance of pushing them back into the sea (marginal as it was), Once established the Germans would not have been able as they did not historically be able to defeat them.
     
  20. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    LJAd old chap,

    Its the frictions of war. "Everything in war is very simple," Clausewitz notes, "but the simplest thing is difficult."
    Chaos, confusion, and lots of misdirected activity is normality SNAFU is an accurate description.. If you want to know why Rommel was beaten in Dec 1941, it was because Rommel wasn't THAT good. Op Crusader wore down both armies. The dash to the wire intended to panic the British into withdrawing, but instead removed the DAK from the battlefield while the remaining British formations ignored him.
     

Share This Page