When weighing up the actions of the Western-Desert Campaign, and the merits and de-merits of the opposing forces, I began to consider whether Rommel was over-rated. Is it not true to say that it is not the amount of fights a great fighter wins, but the quality of his opponents that makes him great?
Were the British under-rated, when one considers the quality of their training, equipment and tactical ethos, as compared with the quality of recourses available to Rommel?
Rommel is overrated and his subordinates like General Cruewell and Colonel Von Schwerin are underrated, and forgotten in some way, Cruewell acted by itself several times saving the day at list two times in 1942.
I totally agree: Rommel was over-rated. But he knew how to use the nazi propaganda machine to create a legend: (always) talking about this momentary victories and forgetting the countless losses.
IMO, Rommel was a great captain, but poor General/Field Marshal.
_
Just about all of the mythical generals were overrated, often especially by themselves…
I saw a history documentary on the Afrika Corp, and several interviews with his ex-aids seemed to paint the portrait of a bit of a prick (he had little concern when members of his entourage were hit and thought nothing of leaving them behind in a quick exit)…
What was the saying by the Germans? The British Army were often “wolves led by lambs?”
“Lions led by Donkeys!”
Supposedly said by the Kaisar in WW1, but I think that it might be a fabel?
Rommel complained bitterly of the failure to capture Tobruk in april 1941, but in his memoirs he also reveled that there was little or none training for his formations about the assault to a modern Fortress… and he did not wait to see the plans provided by the italians. :rolleyes:
Some basic mistakes I believe.
That would make sense. The flanking, enveloping tactics as used in Europe would not necessitate storming a fortress. As I recall, when they did storm certain fortifications on the belgian front, they used airborne forces to take out key strong-points. Siege and storm tactics would have led to a protracted campaign which would have been contrary to the tenets of Blitzkrieg. Stalingrad comes to mind.
Nine of the 11 gliders reached their objective. Even though they had trained for months for this attack, none of the glidermen knew their objective by name until they loaded their gliders that morning. In the morning nautical twilight, nine Luftwaffe gliders silently descended upon the Belgian fortress of Fort Eben Emael. Within 20 minutes of landing, the 70 German glidermen rendered Belgium’s most modern fortress, garrisoned by more than 800 soldiers, useless. The breach in Belgium’s line of defense opened by these glidermen paved an open road for the German panzers to Blitzkrieg into the heart of Belgium.
Agreed.
Of course, there was something that the guy did have, it was tremendous “vorstoss” wich translated freely means something like forward push.
For example he took the Italian Army of Africa ( or the remains of it) and converted a bunch of armed people with zero will fighting in a decent combat formation after sevral kicking on their bottoms.
And that was part of the personality, not only he made believe the other that he was the best. He believe that also, so in that way he can inspire even a rock, The moral thing was always his strong point.
There were people with ‘drive’ on both sides, but Rommel was in a position to influence events. Unfortunately, for the British, the British commanders that might have had an impact on matters were either not there or not senior enough. Also, the Brits had to un-learn and re-learn a lot, and while doing so make do with inferior intelligence, equipment, training and experience - which, in the meantime, made Rommel seem like a God.
For example:
In the lull between battles, Brigadier ‘Jock’ Campbell was leading his ‘Jock’ columns of combined arms (armoured cars, artillery and infantry) behind German lines and shooting up the rear echelons and supply columns, taking the fight to the enmey. However, in the big picture, as senior officers go, he was only a Brigadier and could only effect the battlefield within his small sphere of influence.
Rommel Was Probably Overrated But Can That Also Be Said Of Monty And Patton
I was always of the opinion that Monty was over-rated, but more recent readngs have led me to believe that he was better than I had previously considered him to be.
Nice picture of Rommel, incidently, P.K. but it’s not always the ‘Lookers’ who are the better soldiers - except, of course, in my case. 
Are we indulging in a little Aryan admiration?
Monty, well, what can you say about a person who wouldn’t start an attack vs a small sick boy armed with a stick unless he had 200,000 fully trained soldiers and 700 years supply of material and 8 years of aerial supremacy and 20 times more artillery and at least 2000 sticks ;-D
It would have been interesting to see how Monty would have managed had he been on the German side (less men, less supply, less airpower, less everything).
_
Sour-grapes, methinks. :mrgreen:
interesting thought from adephh, what would of happened if monty was German. I wondered what would of happened if patton was German. He would of probably shot hitler and tried to win win the war single handed:roll:
Rommel had had everything going for him until Monty came along.
Monty required quantity as he did not have the quality.
uh no he wasnt
Informative.
gotta love that humor
Rommel,. likes Patton,. either you hate him,. you love him,…
I do love him,. but am not a gay,. perhaps i just one of those Dr Goebbels victims,…
I do read some books about him,. some says he is an ego centric,. some says,. he concern alot about his men
Fraser seems to like him,.
Cheers