FM Erwin E. J. Rommel (1891-1944)

Discussion in 'General' started by Field Marshal Rommel, Jun 27, 2005.

  1. MikB

    MikB Senior Member

    (Kiwiwriter @ Jun 29 2005, 07:59 PM) [post=36006]
    ...he also had major weaknesses -- he was not good at logistics...

    [/b]

    Was that what Patton meant when he said of Rommel: "You haven't read your Caesar!"? Because Caesar began every expedition by "arranging a corn supply"; reads almost like a mantra through the Gallic wars at any rate.

    Regards,
    MikB
     
  2. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    I'm finding this debate interesting. My grandfather always had the utmost repsect for Rommel as a soldier. As a german was another matter. (Sorry friedrich. He was a little germanphobe). As a soldier i think he was a good man, if a little egotistical at times. But weren't most wartime leaders of all levels? Many people hated Monty as he was selfcentred a lot of the time, but he was a bloody good tactician in the desert. I think if he had stopped playing at Hitler's favourite and politics in Europe by 1944 D-Day could have gone either way. But there we are, what if's are for another debate.
    As to supply lines in Africa, didn't the RAF have a hellhole of a station there? I can never remember it's name, but it was filled with fighters and some bombers who had a whale of a time destroying things.
    And the ships in harbour came under several attacks from SOE. I'm sure i saw a programme a year or two ago which decribed an entire merchant convoy destroyed in harbour whilst the captains and crews were at a shore party. The descritpion was very funny.
    Then we have to bring the Allied bombing raids into the equation. Turin and many other cities, particulary ports, were hit a lot. I'm afraid they were cosnidered 'Milk runs' amongst RAF crews.
    But wasn't there some kind of 6/8 engine German transport plane operating in the area? i know if the fighters found them it could take half an hour to shoot them down because they were so damn big!
    But i think the eventual German failure in Africa was down to supplies. We had a better supply line than the Afrika corps. 'nuff said. But Normandy? It could have been so much different with just a few minor changes.
    And Jimbo? I actually agree with some of your comments. Don't worry, it won't happen again. But I'm afraid i got a bit lost on some of what you said. Can you please use Beano language from now on?

    o_O
     
  3. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    (MikB @ Jan 13 2006, 05:18 PM) [post=44364](Kiwiwriter @ Jun 29 2005, 07:59 PM) [post=36006]
    ...he also had major weaknesses -- he was not good at logistics...

    [/b]

    Was that what Patton meant when he said of Rommel: "You haven't read your Caesar!"? Because Caesar began every expedition by "arranging a corn supply"; reads almost like a mantra through the Gallic wars at any rate.

    Regards,
    MikB
    [/b]

    Patton was more of an intellectual than people perceive him...he read many books on history and war, and made many annotations, and his understanding of the ancients was one of the keys to his success...he understood that many aspects of war never change.

    Oddly enough, Patton was not good at logistics, either. He constantly outran his supply lines, and did a very poor job of routing and organizing them, preferring to blame Ike. However, his improvisations -- such as building his own workshops to convert captured German ordnance -- worked well.

    But here, Patton was absolutely right...Caesar understood the importance of arranging the corn supply in advance. The modern version of that is how the US and its allies, confronted by an overseas deployment, send in the logistics units first, to set up the bedding and feeding arrangements...then the combat troops. That ensures the fighters can get hot meals and fresh bunks when they arrive, and are ready to fight.

    The more I study military history, the more I realize that it's about logistics and training.

    (mosquito617 @ Jan 17 2006, 04:28 AM) [post=44449]I'm finding this debate interesting. My grandfather always had the utmost repsect for Rommel as a soldier. As a german was another matter. (Sorry friedrich. He was a little germanphobe). As a soldier i think he was a good man, if a little egotistical at times. But weren't most wartime leaders of all levels? Many people hated Monty as he was selfcentred a lot of the time, but he was a bloody good tactician in the desert. I think if he had stopped playing at Hitler's favourite and politics in Europe by 1944 D-Day could have gone either way. But there we are, what if's are for another debate.
    As to supply lines in Africa, didn't the RAF have a hellhole of a station there? I can never remember it's name, but it was filled with fighters and some bombers who had a whale of a time destroying things.
    And the ships in harbour came under several attacks from SOE. I'm sure i saw a programme a year or two ago which decribed an entire merchant convoy destroyed in harbour whilst the captains and crews were at a shore party. The descritpion was very funny.
    Then we have to bring the Allied bombing raids into the equation. Turin and many other cities, particulary ports, were hit a lot. I'm afraid they were cosnidered 'Milk runs' amongst RAF crews.
    But wasn't there some kind of 6/8 engine German transport plane operating in the area? i know if the fighters found them it could take half an hour to shoot them down because they were so damn big!
    But i think the eventual German failure in Africa was down to supplies. We had a better supply line than the Afrika corps. 'nuff said. But Normandy? It could have been so much different with just a few minor changes.
    And Jimbo? I actually agree with some of your comments. Don't worry, it won't happen again. But I'm afraid i got a bit lost on some of what you said. Can you please use Beano language from now on?

    o_O
    [/b]

    Let's see if I can help on this...the RAF's ugly station would likely be Takoradi...that awful but successful route for ferrying planes.

    Ships in harbor got pounded by the RAF and the famous LRDG/SAS raid on Tobruk, which became a movie with George Peppard. The RAF did pound Turin and Milan, with more success than Germany, for the usual reasons.

    The Luftwaffe did have a six-engine transport, the Me 323 Gigant, which was a massive machine. The "Massacre of the Gigants" came in 1943, when the RAF and USAAF pulverized them. They delivered supplies to Tunisia, including the rush of reinforcements that enabled the Germans to keep the Allies out of Tunis in late 1942.
     
  4. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Sorry if I am going slightly off the thread gents, but do you think Rommel was framed by staff who were jealous of his standing with the German people or do you believe that there was genuine evidence to implicate him in the assassination attempt on Hitler. Does anyone accept that he was approached by the would be assassins but wanted no part of it or by being mentioned as being observed being approached by the conspirators he was one of them. Some sources say one thing some another. What are you're opinions on this. If this has been addressed on another part of the forum previously my apologies.
     
  5. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (lancesergeant @ Feb 8 2006, 07:04 PM) [post=45438]Sorry if I am going slightly off the thread gents, but do you think Rommel was framed by staff who were jealous of his standing with the German people or do you believe that there was genuine evidence to implicate him in the assassination attempt on Hitler. Does anyone accept that he was approached by the would be assassins but wanted no part of it or by being mentioned as being observed being approached by the conspirators he was one of them. Some sources say one thing some another. What are you're opinions on this. If this has been addressed on another part of the forum previously my apologies.
    [/b]
    Rommel had nothing to do with the assassination of Hitler. He knew of it but did not participate in it. That’s according to him and his son. Rommel was killed because he told Hitler about a year before the Normandy invasion that Germany’s position was hopeless because of Allied air power. Hitler implicated Rommel because the assassination attempt was motivated by the pessimism (realism?) of Germany’s position and since Rommel was outspoken about this he was naturally assumed by Hitler to be in support of the coup. Rommel seemed to be to have great character. He was in my opinion Germany’s best.
     
  6. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    I think Rommel was a competent General, but I think Manstein was much better at maximizing his minimal resources conquering the Crimea.
     
  7. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (lancesergeant @ Feb 9 2006, 01:04 AM) [post=45438]Sorry if I am going slightly off the thread gents, but do you think Rommel was framed by staff who were jealous of his standing with the German people or do you believe that there was genuine evidence to implicate him in the assassination attempt on Hitler. Does anyone accept that he was approached by the would be assassins but wanted no part of it or by being mentioned as being observed being approached by the conspirators he was one of them. Some sources say one thing some another. What are you're opinions on this. If this has been addressed on another part of the forum previously my apologies.
    [/b]


    Well I would say that the most reasonable assumption was that Rommel had indeed been approached by the Resistance Circle, but that he never permitted his name to appear on any of the Resistance lists (for future governments) and that he disapproved of killing Hitler.
    Seems his name appeared during the interrogatory (torture) of one of the Stulpnagel.
     
  8. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    I'm with Oberst on this one. Yes Rommel was an extremely gifted Commander but not at the Strategic Level. Manstein was IMHO a much better Strategic Commander, indeed as was Kesselring. I could also mention Balck and that comes across in the Memoirs of Von Mellenthin, who had the pleasure of serving both Rommel and Balck.
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Herr Oberst @ Feb 8 2006, 11:44 PM) [post=45450]I think Rommel was a competent General, but I think Manstein was much better at maximizing his minimal resources conquering the Crimea.
    [/b]
    From a strictly philosophical, Rommel trumps them all because a good general knows when fighting is futile and preserves his men by disobeying orders. Maybe Paulus would give him a run for his money based on that.
     
  10. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 9 2006, 04:02 PM) [post=45489](Herr Oberst @ Feb 8 2006, 11:44 PM) [post=45450]I think Rommel was a competent General, but I think Manstein was much better at maximizing his minimal resources conquering the Crimea.
    [/b]
    From a strictly philosophical, Rommel trumps them all because a good general knows when fighting is futile and preserves his men by disobeying orders. Maybe Paulus would give him a run for his money based on that.
    [/b]
    A good general would have known when his lines of supplies are overextended and would have not let himself drag in front of El Alamein while Monty was able to build up his forces.

    And last time I checked, Paulus did disobey an order as well.
     

Share This Page