Hey i was wondering who here knows about Erwin J.E. Rommel? I just did a projest of him in class. If you do know about him i was wondering if he didnt "commite suiside" do you think the Natzies might of won?

__________________
i think that soon the draft will get so bad thatthey will take babys tie gernades to them then launch them off catupults at the enemies. Thats a real Baby Boomer

Rommel has been discussed on the forums many times.

You can find a reasonable overview of his life and career at ; -

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen1.htm

It's highly unlikely that Rommel's survival would have had any effect on the wars' ulimate outcome; possibly on a tactical level in France and NW Europe the ground battle would have fought slightly differently.

If you use the 'search' facility ( top right ) you'll find about a dozen previous threads discussing aspects of Rommel's career.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Indeed we have discussed the mentioned person a lot earlier.

And no, the Germans by then were already beaten back to defend the borders of the Germany itself. "Even" Rommel could not save Germany from losing.

__________________

As previously said, Rommel has been widely discussed in these boards many times.

I personally think that he is one of the most over-rated generals of WWII, a tactical genious, and a mediocre strategist.

In WWII there were very few individuals who could affect the outcome of the war, the few generals that did so were in command levels far over Rommel: Eisenhower, Marshall, Nimitz, MacArthur, Slim, Vasilievski and Zhúkov. No German is on the list, thanks to the caothical command system.

And, of course, a mediocre strategist with no actual capacity to effectively command large formations with an awkward command structure above him, fighting a battle lost before hand… doesn't have the slightiest posibility to affect the outcome of the war, and even less in Germany's favour.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Wll im sry i just joined a little while ago could you give me some slack?

__________________
i think that soon the draft will get so bad thatthey will take babys tie gernades to them then launch them off catupults at the enemies. Thats a real Baby Boomer

Are you Friedrich saying that Patton and Monty admired a General who was not good enough...



He must have been at least a bit good...

[img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]

__________________

He sure was. At division and army corps level, he was a fantastic frontline leader. His performance in France at the head of the 7th Panzer says it all, doesn't it?

His tactical skills and peculiar creative genious was outstanding in the first campaigns of the Afrika Korps. But his impressive successes often happened at the same time (and most likely because of) than British disasters or biggest failures.

What would have been the result of 1941 campaign if general O'Connor and all his staff weren't captured? What if general Wavell hadn't had to deploy his forces and supplies at Greece, Crete and Syria? What if marshal Kesselring hadn't neutralised Malta before Rommel's most succesfull offensives? What if the British hadn't had the awkward command system they had? What if the British hadn't had to divert many resources and units to fight the Japanese in 1942? What if the British had not been at the end of a 2.000 km supply line at the time of Rommel's offensives?

Rommel fought well, definately. He took his units to the maximum, and put much more weight on audacity and surprise rather than careful planning. He took advantage of the tactical skills and experience of his officers, as well as the supperiority in technicnology and tactics of his armoured units. But he didn't change his 'southern encirclement' tactic throughout the campaign. And this frustrated his offensives, because he miserably failed at frontal attacks at Tobrouk and El Alamein.

Then, in November 1942, a leader like Rommel, who was good at disgising old Italian Fiat cars as tanks and building deadly and effcient mine fields, simply was not the man to fight at El Alamein, a deffensive set-piece battle full with frontal attacks. Such battle recquired detailed and careful planning (tactical and strategic) and careful training and logistical build-up.

A frontline commander can't command an entire Army from the front. He must be at his HQ making decisions for the whole front, and leaving the front commanders to make their own decisions. Rommel made neither, and that's why he had El Alamein lost before hand.

At Normandy, he was the perfect man to inspect and reinforce costal defences: to plant mines, booby-traps, flood fields, plant 'asparragus', place artillery and machine guns. But he did not have the strategic vision to command the great battles like Falaise or Caën at Army Group level. He accurately found Von Rundstedt's strategy impossible under the circumstances, but he failed to see that his own strategy of immediate counterattack was impossible as well.

The North Africa campaign is weird, in fact… Patton never actually fought against Rommel, and Rommel was halted or defeated by true strategists like Wavell, Auchinleck and Montgomery…

He was the right man at the right moment at the right place. And he took advantage of it. But the rest was luck.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Rommel also had a temperamental problem in that he was euphoric when things went well, but would often become quickly disheartened when events went against him.

Natural enough, but the greatest Generals have to be at their best when the cards are stacked against them.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

"(A frontline commander can't command an entire Army from the front. He must be at his HQ making decisions for the whole front, and leaving the front commanders to make their own decisions. Rommel made neither, and that's why he had El Alamein lost before hand.)"

El alamein was lost due to overwhelming material advantage of allies. His commanding from the front put him in touch with reality from the front, not the back. I'm sure he spent time at rear Hq as well. Being up front gave him a better reality appraisal than the Generals that opposed him would have had. This was one of his strong points, not a weak one.

When he landed at In NA, the stagnant Brit thinking figured he would require one month before he could attack, he was on the attack in a week.He also split his fairly small force into 4, which was aginst conventional thinking. But it was exactly this that made him stand out. Imaginative, daring, clever, & most importantly, he won. Yes I know British hardware was not up to scratch against German, & flak 88's shredded Brit tanks. But to attribute his success as being down to luck is a bag of bs. No he wasn't perfect, but no general was. I dare say he was a cut above Monty who only attacked when in complete posession of superiority in all categories, men, tanks, aircraft, etc. zzzzzzzzz.

[ 06. March 2005, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: chromeboomerang ]

Not quite. Rommel could not win that battle not only because he had the numbers against him. He also, and more importantly, had to fight an attrition battle, not in open ground and without much manœuvre posibilities, and full with frontal attacks. Rommel was not very adaptable and was not particularly skilled in situations like that of El Alamein.

Besides, your statement under-estimates the VIII Army's efforts and the fact that they played their cards far better.

And that's why precisely he won so many battles at low costs. He didn't take unnecessary risks. He knew his own side's flaws and advantages and he played his cards accordingly.

Monty decided to fight a set-piece battle and played his cards with the aim of forcing Rommel to fight it. He achieved it. Monty forced Rommel to fight a battle in the battlefield he had chosen, at the time he chose, and the way he wanted. Monty worked hardly to improve the VIII Army's chances and advantages. He set the time table, the strategy and the tactics. It was Montgomery the one who was going to force Rommel to move his reserves and fight wherever he wanted, not the other way around.

Monty put his money on the build-up, to ensure the constant flow of supplies, so his troops had to focus only in fighting the enemy. By example, before El Alamein stood incredible mine fields designed by the mine-laying master Rommel, and Monty made careful plans to overcome these mine fields.

He didn't launch a precipitate attack, even if the Prime Minister urged him to do so. Instead, he waited for better tanks to reach him, to train his men and armour crews, to improve his tactics and general co-operation. He bought time, because he knew time could only favour his army and affect Rommel's. He then worked in weakening the enemy with air and naval attacks against his supply lines.

The result was that at El Alamein the Germans were facing a fresh, larger, better equipped and better trained enemy in a set-piece battle, in a field and time chosen by the attacker.

When you're commanding a force 100.000 men strong, front-line command is not quite good. Rommel could see through his binoculars the situation just in front a battailon or a regiment of one of his divisions, but he failed to see how the Italian Corps or the 90th light division in the north were doing. Rommel had to controll all his Panzer Group, not just a division. How could he know the neighbouring corps' situation if he was in the other corps' front?

He had to be at his HQ, evaliating the entire battle, and commit his limited forces to worth actions. In this he failed miserably at El Alamein, because he bought Monty's divertion attacks.

He was all of that, indeed. But he didn't win. Wavell stopped him in 1941. Auchinleck stopped him in 1942. And Monty destroyed him in 1942-1943.

The right man at the right place at the right moment. Perhaps a bit exaggerated, but true.

A good general who takes advantages of the enemy's precarious strategic situation and tactical flaws, but not a military genious who wins many battles against all odds. On the contrary, he had many advantages on his side. And he performed accordingly.

What about O'Connor then? He advanced 1.000 km into Libya and destroyed an Italian Army 100.000 men-strong with a force of only 30.000.

If Rommel was such a military genious, I then think he could have defeated the British had they not had a besieged Malta, and an huge battles in Crete, Greece, Sirya, Ethiopia, the Far East and the Atlantic, right?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

I strongly disagree with you. Your statement about how all his success was due to British huge disaster is completely bogus. You could say that about all the German losses too - Atlantic Wall fell because the Ost Division was defending it (Poles, Russians, Japs who really didnt want to fight and old men and young boys, but the Allies sure came close to loosing). Rommel, throughout his entire campaign in North Africa, was out-manned, outgunned, and undersupplied. He exploited weaknesses, took risks (who was wounded by shrapnel on one occasion when his tank was hit) and brought the fight to the British. He had to use Italian Troops - who for the most part were rubbish except for the Trieste and Arieste Divisions if i am correct - and he managed to lay seige to and conquer Tobruk - theres no outmaneuvering a City like that!

Al Alamein played into the Defenders hand - had Rommel and Monty switched positions, Monty would have lost. It was an ideal location for a defense - and was a last line of defense in North Africa. It was impossible to outflank and Rommels supplies (which were already at their limits) ran out - tanks ran out of gas (and are no good as sitting ducks) and the Allies could through more back at him then he could at them.

Even on full retreat, Rommel was witty enough to attack. Look at Kesserine Pass - he almost got to that American Supply dump! You cant say that he only one because of Allied Failings, otherwise you could say that about every loss: Rommel's eventual down fall was caused because Hitler and Mussolini saw Africa as a side show and didnt give him the supplies he needed (which Malta was destroying en-route to Africa), Barbarossa was a failure because the Germans werent insightful enough to equip their troops with winter gear, the West Front fell because Hitler held back the Panzers until it was too late...etc

Some of those statements are true, but in war, decisions have to be made, so sending supplies and men to Greece in the attempt to hold it only stalled the Allies advance, and they assumed a defensive position - they didnt continue to attack.

__________________

It also seems that Monty was about to give up the Alamein attack but received information through Churchill to keep on going a couple more days as Ultra gave news that Rommel was about to retreat.

So it was not as easy as it seems nowadays.

__________________

No, my statement is that his successes were due to the simple fact that he used the enemy's mistakes and flaws for his own benefit. He correctly saw this and acted to exploit his own advantages. That's what any good general would have made. It doesn't take a military genious to do that. And Rommel was certainly NOT a military genious.

An important factor, without a doubt. But the Allies had the battle won before-hand. They had won the buildup and strategic campaigns. Only the Channel could make them fail. But that's another discussion.

Even if his forces were not large and his supplies always were limited, there were many times in which he was in a far better position that the British. And it was precisely in these occassions when he overcame his shortcomings and 'exploited [the enemy's] weaknesses', you said it yourself.

He did well against the British when they had over-extended supply lines, when units from the VIII Army were withdrawn to other theatres, when full supplies and reinforcements came from Italy, thanks to the temporary neutralisation of Malta and the increase of air support, when he had better tanks, guns and tactics than the enemy…

But there was a limit to what Rommel could do with his resources, and he failed to see or understand that more than once. He never realised about how important Malta was for him and that doomed him.

This happened during the Battle of France, not in North Africa.

And he did NOT managed to understand the simple fact that with his 1 and a half Panzer divisions in 1941 it was impossible to take a fortified port with 2 Australian divisions in it. Only the next year, when these divisions were fighting the Japanese and when he had more forces, he took it.

Why? Sun Tzu's main principles for victory were the British's, not Rommel's. Auchinleck chosed the battlefield and Monty chose the time and tune of the battle, not Rommel. Besides, if I do remember correctly, it was the British VIII Army the one that ATTACKED in November 1942.

Rommel was not good in the deffensive and didn't perform as well as always at El Alamein. He fell in all Monty's traps and let himself be dragged to the former's game.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

He was all of that, indeed. But he didn't win. Wavell stopped him in 1941. Auchinleck stopped him in 1942. And Monty destroyed him in 1942-1943.

He won frequently. He pushed British backwards 1500 miles. To say he didn't win is absurd. Tobruk etc.

Rommel was not good in the deffensive and didn't perform as well as always at El Alamein. He fell in all Monty's traps and let himself be dragged to the former's game.

Actually , he was great defensively as well. He kept his battered forces somehow in some form of fighting shape all th way back to Tunisia. He escaped the Jaws of the more powerful brit forces time & time again.

He won many tactical victories which didn't favour much the Axis' strategic position in the Mediterranean… but in 1943 it were 100.000 Germans and 200.000 Italians the ones who surrendered in Tunisia, right?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

but in 1943 it were 100.000 Germans and 200.000 Italians the ones who surrendered in Tunisia, right?

--------------------
By golly, I think you're right. But that wasn't the theme of the thread.

Rommel's tactical victories & performance was the theme.

Discounting the fact he left half his army behind at El Alamein, he escaped by running away faster than the British were chasing.

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Yes, well given the fact that his original force was far smaller then the Allies, not to mention being underequipped and undersupplied (whereas the Allies had plenty of supplies and Air Superioty) Rommel was at a huge disadvantage when it came to defending. And dont forget that Italian Troops were pretty rubbish - as was their equipment, some of which could be dated back to the First World War.

I was reading a book (the name escapes me right now) about the American invasion of NorthAfrica, and at one point the Americans were attacking a ridge/hill somewhere. The Germans were subjugated to a lengthy barrage, only returning fire when they were sure of a kill - their supplies were extremely limited while the Americans could fire anything and everything at them, whether or not it would result in a kill. Not a good situation for a defender.

__________________

Yes, we were. Rommel's tactical genious was great, but his strategic view was poor or inexistant… that's why in the end he lost. And that's why the British, in tactical inferiority and with a precarious strategical situations, were beaten some times.

What makes you think the Allies had supperiority in e