RE: Rommel - A great general?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Rommel - A great general?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: Rommel - A great general?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/6/2006 5:52:39 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarkus
Since his family also insisted he had nothing to do with the plot to kill Hitler in 1944, he's hardly exonerrated.

My understanding is that he knew about it- but that's all. Of course, senior army officers were always talking about this sort of thing, so he may well not have believed it would happen.

I've heard that he discussed with some subordinates what they would do if he ordered them to ceasefire with the Western Allies. That suggests he may have been in on the plot after all. It's irrelevant to how skillful a commander he was, of course.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 31

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/6/2006 7:47:05 PM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

On Rommel vs. Adolf: Rommel was certainly aware of the plot. He advocated the removal from power of Hitler, followed by a trial (perhaps by a peoples court?

). Actually a military trial. Rommel was realistic enough to see where Germany was headed, but unrealistic enough to want a peace with the Western Allies, and continuation with the war with Russia. He had a curoius dualism, common to many who serve their country. Loyal to a fault (obeying the El Alimen stop order). But not blindly loyal. Perhaps Wolf Heckman (who served in North Afrika under Rommel) put it best. "...his last act was both the most characteristic, and most typical act of his life. He gave his life to protect his family, indirectly aid the regieme he loathed. Heckman is a major Rommel critic, but isn't blind to his virtues either. If you find a copy of Rommel's North African War, it's a great read.

Tom OC

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 32

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/8/2006 4:28:51 PM

hank

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline

IMHO Rommel was one of Germany's best divisional commanders. They had many excellent division commanders like Balck and Rauss that got little press time. As an army or corp level commander Rommel was good but not the best. Correct me if I'm wrong but his command of the Normandy defenses was his highest level of command.

From what I've read, Manstein was the man. As an army group or corp commander, Manstein's record stands as one of the best if not the best.

later

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 33

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/9/2006 5:50:42 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I agree. But Manstein had a general staff background, and came from "Military Aristocracy" (e.g. Prussian Military family). He was exposed to training and situations that Rommel had to lear on the fly. Also, commanding larger groups of men, and present at more high level breifings, Manstein probably had a better overview of the overall military situation. He certaihnly had a better overall grasp of grand strategy than Rommel. Both however commanded Army Groups: Rommel Army Group Africa, and Army Group B (France), and Manstein Army Group Don, later Army Group South in Russia. Rommel, however, was smart enough to figure out that Germany had lost WW2 before Manstein. Rommel seemed to be more intuitative, where Manstein was analytical.

Tom OC

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

(in reply to hank)

Post #: 34

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/9/2006 5:24:23 PM

hank

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline

I'm reading a book now called "Blitzkrieg Legend" (by Karl-heinz Frieser). So far a good book. It pointed out before 1940 there was much planning by Halder and Manstein. Halder was considered an excellent stragegist but his strength was also his weakness. Halder was extrememly analytical to the point were he actually relaxed by doing higher mathematics and logic problems. (yea, I do math problems for fun too. Not!! I have to get paid before I'll do math for "fun".)

Manstein on the other hand had a more unpredictable style of planning. He intuitively knew of maneuver, logistics, etc. but his planning was more toward actions that were not predictable through analytical calculations such as Halder would do. I think Manstein had many traits that Rommell had in those regards. Manstein and Rommel were risk takers. Many other generals were not.

I agree with what you're saying about Rommel. He did not have the position or help Manstein did. Plus, as you said Rommel was more realistic about how the war was progressing (or lack of). Even though Manstein and Hitler bumped heads on many occasions he was still dedicated to the Axis cause. Rommel saw the writing on the wall long before he died.

regards

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 35

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/12/2006 1:57:15 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Clearly, there would be some force level, below which the CW can't stop him regardless of the logistical difficulties.

Right- but the British already had enough force even as they were retreating from the Gazala Battles and the loss of Tobruk. Given a short, prepared and unflankable line, excellent supplies and replacements for the tanks which had been lost in the previous few months, it wasn't necessary to have a particularly large force.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 36

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/12/2006 1:59:05 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I've heard that he discussed with some subordinates what they would do if he ordered them to ceasefire with the Western Allies. That suggests he may have been in on the plot after all. It's irrelevant to how skillful a commander he was, of course.

Indeed. Just an interesting tangent. Your point is well taken- however it only indicates he knew of the plot and was prepared to go along with it, not that he was actually involved in the planning or execution. Of course, merely not reporting the plot is a pretty serious action.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 37

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/12/2006 2:01:02 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

On Rommel vs. Adolf:�� Rommel was certainly aware of the plot. He advocated the removal from power of Hitler, followed by a trial (perhaps by a peoples court? ). Actually a military trial. Rommel was realistic enough to see where Germany was headed, but unrealistic enough to want a peace with the Western Allies, and continuation with the war with Russia.

He doesn't seem to have been much of a politician. Supposedly he advocated putting a token Jew in high office to improve the image of the Third Reich. Clearly, he didn't get it.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 10/12/2006 2:06:26 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 38

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/12/2006 2:05:05 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

I agree with what you're saying about Rommel.� He did not have the position or help Manstein did.� Plus, as you said Rommel was more realistic about how the war was progressing (or lack of). Even though Manstein and Hitler bumped heads on many occasions he was still dedicated to the Axis cause.� Rommel saw the writing on the wall long before he died.

Mm. It's a matter of how far you believe Manstein in his memoirs: according to that he (quite reasonably) felt that Russia could be fought to a standstill in 1943, but after that just seems to have been fulfilling his duty as an officer.

The author's self-publicism and curious double-standards notwithstanding, Lost Victories would be my number one recommended read for a TOAW player. Definitely makes one think in the right sort of way.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to hank)

Post #: 39

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/12/2006 5:02:14 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Clearly, there would be some force level, below which the CW can't stop him regardless of the logistical difficulties.

Right- but the British already had enough force even as they were retreating from the Gazala Battles and the loss of Tobruk. Given a short, prepared and unflankable line, excellent supplies and replacements for the tanks which had been lost in the previous few months, it wasn't necessary to have a particularly large force.

But Rommel doesn't know that they've been so reinforced. My point was that one cannot look at the command decision after Tobruk and conclude that the logistics guarantee defeat and Rommel was a fool not to realize that, or that a General Staff School trained commander wouldn't have made the mistake. Rather, the chance of success depends upon the CW force level. With what Rommel knew of the magnitude of the Tobruk and Gazala victories, it was not an unreasonable decision to press on.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 40

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/12/2006 6:12:25 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But Rommel doesn't know that they've been so reinforced.

He knew there losses could be replaced, based on previous experience. Time and again British tank forces had been depleted in the field, and time and again they had been rebuilt.

quote:

With what Rommel knew of the magnitude of the Tobruk and Gazala victories, it was not an unreasonable decision to press on.

I think the victories at Gazala and Tobruk had a limited impact on the strength of the 8th Army. The main problem is that the army became disorganised and needed to have its armoured strength rebuilt- but neither of these problems was particularly serious, and both had been fixed before without much difficulty by a withdrawal similar to that made to Alamein.

Furthermore, that the 8th Army was then reinforced at Alamein had a lot to do with logistics in itself. Real life isn't like TOAW- one cannot put twelve divisions a thousand miles into the desert as easy as one can put two; the improved logistical situation meant that a larger force could be supplied in action.

For what it's worth, Rommel was certainly right to close up to the Alamein line. However at that point he should have immediately focused on his defensive preparations.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 10/12/2006 6:16:07 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 41

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/13/2006 6:36:16 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But Rommel doesn't know that they've been so reinforced.

He knew there losses could be replaced, based on previous experience. Time and again British tank forces had been depleted in the field, and time and again they had been rebuilt.

Those were the largest losses they ever suffered in the campaign. And it doesn't change my point, that the desision to press on is dependent upon the Axis assessment of the CW force level. One can't just look at the logistical difficulties and conclude from that alone that it can't be done.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 42

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/13/2006 9:14:21 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

One can't just look at the logistical difficulties and conclude from that alone that it can't be done.

Not necessarily in this context, but there comes a certain point at which logistical problems make the size, quality and moral of your force irrelevant.

This rather elegantly ties in with another debate ongoing over at TDG.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 43

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/14/2006 1:44:15 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

Golden: You make several elagant points. And I do agree with you- As a politician, Rommel was on a par with Dan Quale.

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 44

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/26/2006 6:28:23 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

I just read a book titled Tobruk, published in Australia this year. The author is a bit more willling to get into the nastier side of people than most historians I read, so he does talk about Rommel and Hitler. At least according to him Rommel had a very good relationship with Hitler which made him unpopular with many senior German officers.

Hitler wanted to promote him but most of the generals did not want him around so North Africa was perfect because it allowed Hitler to have his way and the other generals to have thier way at the same time. Plus it generated lots of good propaganda for Geobels.

I also agree with the group opinion, and I think Rommel has really been analysed to the point where anyone who is interested can easily discover his strengths and weakness.

What always amazes me is the bad opinion people have of Montgomery. He took an army which wanted to fight in an amatur way, wanted to fly to pieces across the desert and had done so repeatedly, and he won with it. He had his flaws as well, but all the generals before him had failed, and he succeeded. I would argue that is because he was able to find a way to make a deeply flawed army fight effectively and that deserves some credit.

Rommel on the other hand was a very effective commander of a superb army. Obviously a brilliant general, but can you imagine him doing as well if he had been in charge of the British?

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 45

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/26/2006 1:49:32 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I just read a book titled Tobruk, published in Australia this year. The author is a bit more willling to get into the nastier side of people than most historians I read, so he does talk about Rommel and Hitler. At least according to him Rommel had a very good relationship with Hitler which made him unpopular with many senior German officers.

Several times, Rommel went directly to Hitler in order to get his orders overriden. Though sometimes effective, this wasn't a very professional approach as it undermined the authority of his direct superiors.

quote:

What always amazes me is the bad opinion people have of Montgomery. He took an army which wanted to fight in an amatur way, wanted to fly to pieces across the desert and had done so repeatedly, and he won with it. He had his flaws as well, but all the generals before him had failed, and he succeeded. I would argue that is because he was able to find a way to make a deeply flawed army fight effectively and that deserves some credit.

The desert theatre maximised the strengths of the Germans in general and Rommel in particular, and until Autumn 1942 there hadn't really been a British reaction to that. The position at Alamein maximised the 8th Army's strengths. Though Montgomery didn't chose the position, he did plan a battle that fitted the way the British Army worked rather than trying to out-German the Germans, which was never going to work.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 46

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/27/2006 3:01:37 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
to out-German the Germans

LOL

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 47

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/28/2006 2:17:15 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
to out-German the Germans

LOL

Not my phrase. Definitely heard it somewhere before.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 48

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/29/2006 12:21:44 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

"Out German the Germans," is a stock phrase thatseems to appear in wore WW2 history books than, "Montgomery was the best WW1 General in WW2." I have even seen the darn cliche (but it does have a catchy ring to it

) in a history text or two! (American, of course). Just a guess, but probably coined by an English historian after the war. The seemed to be the first nationality to admid that there were Germans that did things other than shoot inocent civillians.

If anyone knows WHO said it first (Please not Stephen Ambrose), I would appreciate hearing it. It is never quoted or footnoted, but someone had to think of it first.

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 49

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/29/2006 3:28:18 AM

RedMike

Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: Alaska
Status: offline

One musn't forget Monty had a huge advantage...ULTRA. Which in a way may have led to Rommel's reputation as a great General, he rarely followed orders!

_____________________________

Hannibal ad portas

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 50

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/30/2006 12:50:55 AM

I�aki Harrizabalagatar

Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Well this is what I suggested earlier in the thread- that Rommel's effect should be much more localised. Of course this is difficult to do in TOAW.

I tried this in my scenario "Germany 1813", what I did was very simple in fact, I put in the equipment of the unit labelled "Napoleon" a good number of guns, range 1 hex, so that they could support any adjacent unit.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 51

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/30/2006 3:58:41 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

How did it work out, dude?

RE: Rommel: Up to El Alimen he had the "Good Source" (Fellers Reports) PLUS Alfred Seeboms 613th (or some number around thereabouts) Radio Intercept Company providing excellent tactical intelligence. Plus a couple of good agents in Cairo (No, no The Key To Rebecca, but along the same lines). And the small size of his Panzermee kept him in the "Operational Level" so that he was operating at his peak level of performance, able to "lead from the front". Also the Italian military code was unbroken.

A really excellent general at even corps level, particularly given a theater where he was far removed from interference from Berlin.

_____________________________

(in reply to I�aki Harrizabalagatar)

Post #: 52

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/30/2006 1:02:18 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: I�aki Harrizabalagatar

I tried this in my scenario "Germany 1813", what I did was very simple in fact, I put in the equipment of the unit labelled "Napoleon" a good number of guns, range 1 hex, so that they could support any adjacent unit.

The trouble is Napoleon then has a fixed effect- the 50,000 men of Wellington's (?) remark. It should be related to the size of the force he commands.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to I�aki Harrizabalagatar)

Post #: 53

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/30/2006 1:03:51 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

And the small size of his Panzermee kept him in the "Operational Level" so that he was operating at his peak level of performance, able to "lead from the front".

Even at this level it caused problems. See Mellenthin's Panzer Battles. He complains of Rommel's constant unavailability.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 54

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/30/2006 6:25:00 PM

I�aki Harrizabalagatar

Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

It is not exactly fixed, you know it is dependant on supply, losses, and as the unit is entirely consisteny�t of passive equipment it is easily overrun if not backed by friendly units, so it can be "killed" or evenb "Wounded" if you allow it to reconstitute. i know it is not perfect, but I think it is better than global shock

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 55

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/31/2006 4:13:19 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I HAVE read "Panzer Battles", as well as "Lost Victories", "The German Genarals Talk (and talk, and talk...)", Von Luck's Memoriors, and darn near every book written by an influental German WW2 Tank General that is available in english. "Leading from the front" (a la Rommel) certainly had its disadvantages, including being out of communications with Operations, making bad decisions based on incomplete information (from being out of communications with operations

), and just plain bad decisions with no one to advise you (see: Dash To The Wire). Certainly Rommels method was not perfect, but it worked well (in general). Nowdays, with improved comms, GPS, computers and the like, it would be outmoded. In WW2, I would use the analogy of an expert quarterback calling audibles. He is "on the field" and Rommel certainly had an intuitative feel for both the battlefield, his opponents, and their weaknesses.

Probably the best example is one of his worst decisions, the "Dash To The Wire". Rommel thought he was still facing Cunningham, who indeed wanted to retreat back into Eqypt. In fact, Cunningham was releived, and replaced by the THEATER Commander, "The Auk". This is the same General who stopped Rommel at First Alimen.
Had Cunningham remained in command (or Ritchie, later) things may have turned out differently. (I do NOT mean the Germans could have won, but the African Campaign might have lasted a hell of a lot longer.

Rommel had his weaknesses. He could be arrogant, delusional (capturing the oilfields), he passed the buck on many mistakes (firing officers for his mistakes), and tended to ignore logistics. However, he adopted a style of command that played to his strengths.

His elnisted men adored him, his troops were trained to a razor sharp edge, and he had an astonishingly quick, intuitative grasp of a very fluid situation. Particularly since he lacked General Staff training, and had to pick up armor tactics and command skills on the fly, I would certainly rate him at least #2 (behind Guderian) in command of an Armored Division, or (small) Corps. In love for his family, troops, and country (no matter how despicable the government he served), I would rate him way abover Guderian, who served on the "Court of Honor" which expelled men from the army so that they could be tried by the "Peoples Court" for their part in the "Bomb Plot" of July 20.

As a Panzer General, I would give Rommel 5 stars. AND he was smarter than Rundstedt on defending France against invasion.

_____________________________

(in reply to I�aki Harrizabalagatar)

Post #: 56

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 10/31/2006 3:40:26 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

Certainly Rommels method was not perfect, but it worked well (in general).

As I've said, it worked better when he had a smaller command. By 1942 it was making life difficult for his staff.

quote:

Nowdays, with improved comms, GPS, computers and the like, it would be outmoded.

I'm not so sure- couldn't one say the same thing about the Second World War, with the wide availability of radio communications? I wouldn't be too surprised to see leading from the front next time we have a proper conventional war.

quote:

AND he was smarter than Rundstedt on defending France against invasion.

Perhaps. Bear in mind that most of those tanks which were to be concentrated on the beaches would be concentrated on the wrong beaches.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 10/31/2006 3:44:22 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 57

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 11/14/2006 6:27:24 PM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I am a Rommel fan, but I think it's fair to say that he pretty much made life difficult for everybody (on both sides).

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 58

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 11/14/2006 7:04:41 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

...Rommel on the other hand was a very effective commander of a superb army. Obviously a brilliant general, but can you imagine him doing as well if he had been in charge of the British?

As opposed to Italians? You do have a point, but the Afrika Korps didn't just come to Rommel as a great formation ready-made. He fired division commanders, ignored superiors, and led his units to become the great fighting instruments they were.

Conversely, the British under O'Conner had displayed lots of dash, elan, and all that stuff. They weren't utterly impervious to good leadership. One suspects that if Rommel had commanded them they would have been in Tripoli by Christmas 1941.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 59

RE: Rommel - A great general? - 11/14/2006 7:08:42 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

I am a Rommel fan, but I think it's fair to say that he pretty much made life difficult for everybody (on both sides).

Yeah. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but as far as I'm concerned, one of the more comic episodes of World War Two was what happened when Rommel first appeared in Africa.

One reason the British were caught napping and hustled so easily out of Cyrenaica is that they knew exactly what Rommel's orders were: he was to remain on the defensive.

Never occurred to them that Rommel would simply ignore his orders. One of Ultra's less ballyhooed successes.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> RE: Rommel - A great general?