Rommel as Strategist.

J

Jamoni

Active member
I've been reading "Rommel as Military Commander" by Ronald Lewin, which is an okay book. However, I've noticed that although Rommel displays tremendous skill in attack, and wonderful tactical inventiveness, he CONSTANTLY seems to disregard his lines of communication. Almost every battle can be summed up as:
1. Rommel attacks and beats the British like stepchildren.
2. The Brits retreat quite hastill and in bad order, losing much material and POWs.
3. Rommel pushes his attack as far as possible.
4. Rommel's supply lines are stretched to the breaking point, he has no defensive line to speak of, and is forced to retreat by a weak british counterattack.
I wonder, how different would the war in Africa have gone if Rommel had simply paused occasionally to solidify his position and see to his supplies?
 
Rommel understood that the war in africa was not one were you could stop and pause your attack to attempt and build defense's, any position in North Africa could be turned on the southern flank except for El Alamein with the Qattara Depression on it southern flank. The war in North Africa both armies were mostly mechanized which made the battles and the entire theater very fluid.........except for the Italians.


For more on rommel I recommend the Rommel Papers....... :D
 
well

Its an intresting Q, jamoni. He might have thought that if he could only breake the brits once, he could oush them all the way.so, maybe its just that monty and his boys fought so hard..?
 
Panzer, I can see how the desert distances magnified the back and forth, and the exposed flank does explain alot. I can see how that would lead to a back and forth as each side progressively outflanked the other. I'm not familiar with the terrain, but didn't he start fortifications at the Gazala line during his first drive? My understanding is that these were only half completed, and his plan had been to fall back to them if necessary, but in the event he retreated completely out of cyrenaica. Was this line not defensible enough, or was it inadequately prepared? I actually plan to read the Rommel Papers next, as soon as I can find a copy.
Sherman, there is no doubt the brits were tough, but I'm discussing the period before Montgomery took control, when the Brits were mostly green, unused to desert warfare, and when their supply situation was roughly equal to the Germans (mainly cause that's as far as I've read :) ). In fact, I believe it was the Brit's superior supply lines via Malta which led directly to their victory in the desert war.
 
The line was not defensible enough to hold, the British 8th Army was almost entirely mechanized and rommel knew that any attack on this line which was manned by Italian Infantry which were not mobile would only be a holding attack, while the british armour and mech. units would pull a flanking movement on the southern flank......Rommel would have to counter with his German Panzer units and taking away from the Italians holding the line......ending in either a route like at El Alamein or a withdraw saving his mobile units while sacrificing his Infantry which was the bulk of his force......
 
I see. It was either organized retreat now, or a rout later. Makes sense, especially in light of the slower moving infantry, which could be screened by the armor during an orderly retreat.
Upon further reading, it's clear that Rommel's seeming overagressiveness was actually BECAUSE of the british advantage in supply. He felt the necessity to keep up pressure, rather than let them stockpile tanks and material. Also seems he was aware of the British commands lack of nerve (before Auchinlek relieved Richie) and their natural desire to plan things out in advance.
 
2 points if I may:

Firstly the nature of desert warfare at that time meant that both sides had stretched lines of communication. The futher each side advanced stretched thier lines of communication whilst compacting that of the enemy. This led to a situation where by pushing the enemy back you were almost handing him the advantage by shorting his lines of supply.

Secondly, there is a maxim that goes, never try and outmanouvre someone who is better at the manouvrist approach than you. Rommel was one of the only true masters of manouvre warfare, both in France and in the desert (although he was never tested in the ultimate theatre - Russia). Montgomery was the first allied commander to realise that Rommel would only be beaten in a pitched attritional battle, previous commanders having tried to outmanouvre Rommel in the desert, hence the situation at El Alamien. Montgomery is a good example of an attritional commander, having learned his trade as a staff officer on the Western Front in World War One. He was also the first allied commander to realise that suuply was as important as combat power.
 
Tobruk

I am just confused as to how Rommel was unable to capture Tobruk when he had the chance. He allowed a much smaller British force to get the best of him. any insights?
 
Re: Tobruk

rpgincoming said:
I am just confused as to how Rommel was unable to capture Tobruk when he had the chance. He allowed a much smaller British force to get the best of him. any insights?
Click to expand...

He also faced Australians at Tobruk. They were well supplied from the sea (but ships faced plenty of fire) and had excellent defensive methods.

Have you heard of the Rats of Tobruk?
 
Rommel was so good Hitler wante him dead


Hitler wanted rommel dead because he was implicated in a plot to kill hitler! I cant remember if this was true as i think there were 2 occasions 1 where rommel said def no, another where he was caught up in the plot!
-I may be wrong, please correct me if i am!
Rommel commited suicide because of this and germany lost its greatest commander who could of caused the allies far more problems then actually occured!
 
I don't want to keep going over the Desert campaign but even though he was a great General he did outrun his supply line frequently.

He was outgunned and outnumbered in North Africa and so had to make up the difference with dash and daring. Hitler kept him on a shoestring.

I think he would have made a great strategist if given the chance to carry out all his ideas.

If he had more time and materials/equipment to implement his plans for the "Atlantic Wall" before D-Day we would have been in big trouble.

eg More Panzer Divisions would have been at the beaches on D-Day. Of course, he was still kept guessing by the Allies on where and when the attack was going to happen.
 
He basically lost in africa because he couldnt get the supplies, the british by stopping malta from falling ensured his supply routes ran out!
I do agree he was a great strategist and from what ive read he was just a soldier not a nazi! He did not deserve to be forced to commit suicide!

He could of made the final push towards germany so much more difficult!
 
skywalker said:
Rommel was so good Hitler wante him dead


Hitler wanted rommel dead because he was implicated in a plot to kill hitler! I cant remember if this was true as i think there were 2 occasions 1 where rommel said def no, another where he was caught up in the plot!
-I may be wrong, please correct me if i am!
Rommel commited suicide because of this and germany lost its greatest commander who could of caused the allies far more problems then actually occured!
Click to expand...

Yes. He was forced into suicide because of his implication in the plotting to kill Hitler. There are many books on the subject. Read "The Devils Virtuosos" by David Downing

see you Skywalker
 
Yes...Rommel was given the choice of suicide, and the nation was told of his dying of his wounds received when his staff car was strafed. Hitler did not want the nation to know he was involved with the plot to kill him, out of fear that the people would object to his trial and definite execution, as his popularity with the german people matched hitlers own popularity.

In a way, I'm sort of glad that hitler gave him this option: It allowed his family to retain their lands and honor, and it prevented one of germanys greatest heros from being hung on a piano wire noose from a meathook, as with most of the rest of the conspirators.

requiem.


:(
 
Rommel was more a great tactician than a great strategist. What I mean is that Rommel could do the best manoeuvering his forces, but failed to think of them as part of a greater worldwide strategy.
Some other things which prevented him to win on Africa were:
1) Something called in my country as "dying of success". Rommel was so successful beating British that OKW overstimated his capacity at battlefield, and thought that "once a miracleman, always a miracleman", so they used to dismiss his requests of reinforcements (not to mention that Germany were overstretched on Russian front and thought always of the African one as a secondary theater)
2) The refusal of Rommel to stop and hold his ground while Italy/Germany made the combined amphibious assault against Malta (where most of Allied attacks against Axis supply fleet came from). He convinced Hitler (who was not happy with that kind of combined assault after the great losses of Crete) not to carry on the operation, but to use the soldiers and supplies as reinforcements on desert. That's why the Airborne Italian Division "Folgore" ended as a regular infantry division on The Alamein.

About the death of Rommel, Hitler made him choose between the suicide (publicly explained as a result of injuries sustained in France) or the public humiliation and dishonour of a fake process in front of the "People's Court" with the charge of treason (also it implied the expropriation, imprisonment on concentration camps and even execution of most of the relatives of the guilty people). He chose to suicide.
 
thanks for clearing that up! If he had been hung, or exectuted i guess we would probably not know of him as well as we do today!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top