dennis420b
Airman
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Strange thing to see Rommel as best voted here. A place I don't think he deserves.
So you would take Montgomery over Rommel in an equal fight? Come on, the guy was Mcguyver of this bunch, look at what he did with what was given. Was he a gambler? Absolutely. That's Why I said I wouldn't make him any more than a corps commander. Although I went with Manstein, Rommel belongs on this list.
So you would take Montgomery over Rommel in an equal fight? Come on, the guy was Mcguyver of this bunch, look at what he did with what was given. Was he a gambler? Absolutely. That's Why I said I wouldn't make him any more than a corps commander. Although I went with Manstein, Rommel belongs on this list.
Hmmm, you have a strange way of discussing. You wouldn't make him more than a corps-commander and still he deserves to be on the 'Best General' list. And who said anything about Montgomery?
Fact is, when the British organization was straightened up, Rommel lost. It's as simple as that. Of course, he had bad supplies, but the stretching of the lines was his own doing. He also never appreciated that Malta should have been defeated before rushing from Tobruk to Cairo.
I thought I was discussing that. Fine, Rommel was a good man, but does that make him a good general? What would you think is the definition of the best General? The whole of Rommel's campagin was notorious by having streched supply lines and bad communication, all caused by his own doing by gambling big time and disregarding logistics. That doesn't make him a candidate for the title best German General in my book. He lost that gamble finally at El Alamein. He simple stuck his neck out too far. Being a general is not just fighting and being nice to the men.By the way the poll is "The Best GERMAN General of WWII." and not "A Poll For Super-Critical People Discussing Who Is The Best Strategist Of WWII."
Rommel was already pushed into the defense before the US landed in Morocco. I'm not just talking about one battle, but about the whole campaign.Also I think you don't realize that At the same time "The British organization was straightened up", America was starting to:
1. Use its industry to help support the British.
2. Land Troops in Morocco and put a two-front pressure on Rommel ( Where he was at his Weakest, too.)
He was a General who always got himself in trouble. He was a big gambler, only getting away with it, because the British generals at the time were blundering big time.
But it is a bold statement to say Rommel does not belong on the list of best German ww2 general's. Its gonna raise some eyebrows.
If you want some-one thinking out-of-the-box, you should pick Guderian. He was gambling as well, but his were usually better weighted..The same could be said of Patton. In my army I would want a General who thinks outside the box, is aggressive and trusts his abilities than blindly following orders - like von Paulus.
The reason why I think is not because he lost, it's the way he did his gambles, I'll explain later.But the Allies did have the resources to stick out there necks and the Germans did not. El Alamein proved that, but I don't think it proved Rommel was a bad general but rather how limited the Axis were at that point.
You can also think of attacking, but still keep an eye on your valuable resources. Blindly attacking, loosing 2/3 of your tanks and all of your fuel while your situation is dire is suicide instead of brilliant strategy in my eyes. I also wouldn't call Kamikaze a good tactic and that's precisely what Rommel did with his whole army.If you have in abundance material, men, and a good reserve, you can be more conservative. But if you are understrength, with no hope of reinforcement you have 3 choices. 1- Defend what you got and hope for the best. That outcome is bad and we all know it. 2- Leave the theater. Not an option given by superiors. 3- Throw the "Hail Mary". Rest it all on the experience and courage of you and your men, and a whole lot of luck and bravado to beat or scare the enemy into retreating. He had few options. Sure the man was a gambler, but that's what you do when you don't have luxuries of replacements and reserves.
I think the Axis situation in 1941 was winnable if they had been wanting to. Doesn't matter either Rommel or any other general could have brought home the victory over the British forces if only the Germans had taken the Norht African theater seriously. British at that time were totally in disarray, not grasping modern warfare and had many un-imaginative commanders. They were occupied by the events in the Balkan and did not use their full potential in the dessert. They were also lacking on the technological level, so the balance at that time was not unfavorable for the Germans. If the Germans had taken measurements to ensure their supply lines and had someone to keep Rommel in line, they could have won.Ok Marcel let me ask you this. Do you think the axis situation in North Africa not winnable? And who would you have appointed over the same troops? Keep in mind, who you decide on would not be at his historical post. Hitler would not have sent Guderian, or Von Rundstedt, to command this size of a force.
Marcel, I guess you've convinced me that I should have not picked Rommel, But he DOES belong on the list in my book. The question is now who should I have picked? Any Suggestions?
Ok we all agree with more of a commitment they could have won, but what units were available? The eastern front required the bulk of available mobile forces, the Luftwaffe was already stretched thin, and with very little German naval units they were reliant on the Italian navy. So where would the needed resources to come from?