Was Rommel a bad general/field marshal?

My answer would be yes. Rommel had a poor understanding of military strategy, something which even he apparently admitted. To make up for this Rommel worked tirelessly during battle by running around the frontline and giving very tactical orders to those under his command.

Doesn't sound so bad, does it? The problem was that German officers were trained to think for themselves. They were trained to receive "vague" orders and then to come up with the plan on how to carry it out themselves. Under Rommel though this didn't usually happen as Rommel would turn up to give tactical orders to make up for his strategic shortfalls. This in turn meant that many of the officers who worked under Rommel detested him. The rank and file loved Rommel for this as they got to see him all the time, but as mentioned the officers, whose jobs Rommel was doing for them, hated him.

The other problem was that this worked, for a time, for Rommel. He'd give stupid strategic orders, make contact with the enemy, drive like a bat out of hell to the front and run the show. How was this a problem? It was a problem when this didn't work and Rommel would be stumped. It could take him quite a long time to change his strategic focus and when losing would keep making the same strategic mistake over and over again, even when told by the officers under him that he should do something else.

Basically if Rommel had shot the Jewish prisoners in North Africa and executed the commandos no one would consider him a great general today. These actions gave Rommel a pass for those who don't like to consider Nazi generals to be great so they have Rommel to put all the military greatness on.

 

I've heard it said by military experts on several occasions that Rommel was in essence a brilliant company commander operating in the body of a Division/Corps commander.

 

Yeah, I've heard that too. He was promoted beyond his abilities because he was basically bestest buds with Hitler. He was never given a command that was considered important by the German high command. Even in North Africa he was placed under the command of the Italians.

 

I think he was a highly competent tactical leader, probably one the greatest of WWII; I just don't think he was nearly as effective at larger levels of command (Army).

 

Yeah, but that was the big problem, because German generals were supposed to stick to strategy and logistics. Tactics was supposed to be left to the lower ranking officers.

 

Rommel? ROMMEL? Rommel had great strategy, he correctly deduced the ally landing point in normandy, he had great wisdom by showing how he spared the troops and prisioners, his troops were never convicted of war crimes. He didnt even like Hitler, he just wanted to save his country.

 

Yes, Rommel. See how you mentioned the war crimes bit, that's why people think he was a great General. He gets a pass at sucking because he didn't commit any war crimes. The whole sucking at his job thing though doesn't count because he didn't commit war crimes.

Read up on the Siege of Tobruk to see how much he sucked. It's believed that pretty much any other German general could have taken Tobruk from the Australians. The Australians won though, not just because we're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing awesome, but because Morshead, the Australian commander at Tobruk, realised how much Rommel sucked and used that against him.

 

I dont want to, it was one seige, did you not read the part about him correctly dedusing the correct invasion point for d-day when almost no other general did?

 

That doesn't make him great at strategy.

But the question remains, if he was so great why was he never given a posting that was considered important?

 

Feild marshel was important, i believe you asked me a question in another thread that was, " why did hitler give this one dude the rank of F.M." so he wouldnt surrender, so its obviosly important rank, Hitler didnt trust him, and it does make him great at strategy, he deduced the ally plan, how many times should i repeat this.

 

No, Paulus was promoted to FM so he'd commit suicide.


Look at North Africa. Rommel was placed under the command of the Italians and ordered to just hold the line because the Axis didn't have the logistics to handle a campaign in North Africa. Rommel disagreed, disobeyed orders and attacked. The only reason he did so well at the start was because he was up against Wavell, a not so great Allied general, who read Rommel's orders and knew that Rommel was ordered to just defend and so didn't do anything to stop Rommel from attacking, depleted his forces by sending them off to places such as Greece, etc. In the end Rommel's attack became stuck because the Germans didn't have the logistics to support a campaign in North Africa.

What's the question about professionals and logists and something about tactics and strategy? Exactly.

 

It was a wonderful strategy, but like you said, the nazis didnt want to/couldnt supply Rommels forces.

 

And that's why he sucked because the first consideration of a military genius, which is what people think Rommel was, is logistics. Rommel didn't consider that. And he didn't win battles on strategy, he won it by going to the site of the battle and giving tactical orders. German generals were not supposed to do that.

 

Wrong again, where does it say anywhere that he relied on tactics instead of strategy, and he couldnt get supplys because Hitler refused to supply him, so he did the best he could, trapped in the desert, with no supplys and surrounded by enemies.

 

Which is why he shouldn't have attacked, because he was told there wasn't the supplies for it. He didn't listen. He wanted glory.

And everything says he relied on tactics. Everything on Rommel talks about him going to the scene of the fighting and directing the battle personally. That tended to be his style and it was why he was hated by the officers who worked under him because they found him glory seeking and interfering.

 

He was loved by his men, and so what if your on the scene, he was just making sure that everything went right. What else could he have done besides attack?

 

Followed orders?

He was loved by his men and hated by his officers.

And so what about being on the scene? German officers were trained to think for themselves. That's why they hated Rommel because he'd arrive and tell them exactly what to do making their years of training useless.

 

He saw the collapse of Italy, he saw what mussolini was doing to his people and he probally didnt like, he didnt want them to fail.

 

I highly doubt Rommel was placed under the command of the Italians.

 

After Benghazi had been secured following the British withdrawal, Cyrenaica as far as Gazala was captured by 8 April. This was despite fervent protests from Italian GHQ, which felt Rommel was going beyond his orders, especially since he was supposedly under Italian command.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

 

Here, I can wiki too.

"During the summer of 1941, the OKW and OKH invested more command structure in Africa by creating a new headquarters called Panzer Group Africa (Panzergruppe Afrika). On 15 August, Panzer Group Africa was activated with Rommel in command, and command of the Afrikakorps was turned over to Ludwig Crüwell. The Panzer Group controlled the Afrikakorps plus some additional German units that were sent to Africa, as well as two corps of Italian units. (A German "group" was approximately the equivalent of an army in other militaries, and in fact, Panzer Group Africa was redesignated as Panzer Army Africa (Panzerarmee Afrika) on 30 January 1942.)
After the defeat at El Alamein and the Allied invasion in Morocco and Algeria Operation Torch, the OKW once more upgraded its presence in Africa by creating the XC Army Corps in Tunisia on 19 November 1942, and then creating a new 5th Panzer Army headquarters there as well on 8 December, under the command of Colonel-General Hans-Jürgen von Arnim.
On 23 February 1943, Panzer Army Africa—now called the German-Italian Panzer Army—was redesignated as the Italian 1st Army and put under the command of Italian general Giovanni Messe, while Rommel was placed in command of a new Army Group Africa (Heeresgruppe Afrika), created to control both the Italian 1st Army and the 5th Panzer Army. The remnants of the Afrikakorps and other surviving units of the 1st Italian Army retreated into Tunisia. Command of the Army Group was turned over to von Arnim in March. On 13 May, remnants of the Afrikakorps surrendered, along with all other remaining Axis forces in North Africa."

 

I have to give Rommel a pass on the Field marshall thing. I know he spent too much time micro-managing the front but there was a good reason. We think of tank warfare as a science all armor officers in the German army knew but it was not fully worked out. Gudarian had made great strides in armor tactics but in Africa the terrain was practically 3-D and integrating armor with infantry and artillery in such a battlefield is wholly different. I have played the board version in strategy and tactics and avalon hill during ROTC and the problem was your flanks were always in the wind. To be sure logistics for the Germans were the main problem but keeping an eye on unit commanders was crucial, any breakthrough was game ending. For instance, all the Mark III's and Mark IV's had a better gun and mobility than the British Matilda's and the Sheridans' and Grants we sent them. But the Grant had a comparable big gun that only swiveled to the right, useless unless a breakthrough occurred and the Germans could be flanked. The Matilda could sink a battleship but only at close range. Monty knew these things and used superior numbers and supplies (along with deception) to pust Rommel back. I think air power was about equal for most of the campaign until after the Casserine Pass and operation Torch.
Later, in the defense of Normandy the Allies got a little luck in that Hitler kept control of much of the armor and it was unable to get to the landings in time to effect the outcome. Rommel rightly felt that the armor should have been closer to the beaches.
Just as an excersise, if I had to rate German generals it would be as follows:

1. Von Manstein
2. Von Runstadt
3. Donitz (admiral)
4. Rommel
5. Keitel (sp)

the rest were pretty much average (not including tactical generals in which many were brilliant)

 

#5 I said Keitel, I meant Kesselring, Keitel was suck-butt

 

Manstein I guess was kind of cool. The invasion of France was basically planned as going down swinging (the Germans seriously thought that they would probably lose and have the French in Berlin before too long) but they ended up kicking the French's arse instead.

 

Rommel was probably at his best as a division commander as he was in France.

His 7th Panzer division efficiently ripped up the French and British.

Rommel was a brilliant tactician.

The Germans themselves knew he was not much of a logistician. That's why they kept him in a sideshow.

If they has fought in the Pacific his men would have starved...just as a lot of the Japanese did.