Rommel? Gunner Who?

MontyB

All-Blacks Supporter
Yes it is the title of Spike Milligans second book and one of my favourites but I figured I would use it as an introduction to a thread on Erwin Rommel someone who I believe has achieved a level of notoriety that I am not sure he deserved.

Here is the conclusion from a 1997 paper by Robert N. Wiegert...

Within Rommel's first year in North Africa, the Afrika Korps had some terrific successes pushing the Allied forces back. These successes were in large part due to Rommel's tactical leadership at the unnecessary expense of forces and equipment.
Although Rommel possessed and displayed extraordinary operational leadership qualities, he failed as an operational leader because he did not grasp the importance of operational logistics and because he failed to understand the primacy of policy and strategy.

Rommel possessed the needed character traits to be a great operational leader; however, he continuously thought like a tactical leader. His lack of unity of effort with his Italian allies and his desire to lead from the front seriously effected his ability to coordinate and direct all his forces more efficiently.

Since he acted more like a tactical leader than an operational leader he was unable to grasp the big picture. Had he been a better operational leader, his successes would not have been so costly in lives and resources, and it could possibly have saved Germany from losing North Africa, and would have assisted Germany in attaining her strategic objective in Russia.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a325048.pdf
 
Rommel idea was to over run Allied bases and live of them till his own supplies caught up with him. He hit the jack pot when he took Tobrouk.
 
I have only objections to the article,which is giving Rommel more than he derserves:his spectaculair successes in 1941 were only appearance= a reconquest of worthless desert .

The article is also to harsh and unfair to Rommel,repeating the old myth of Rommel the bad logistician .If Rommel was a bad logistician (what has to be proved),this is irrelevant,because Rommel was carrying the logistic problems with him,when he arrived :the logistic problems were not created by Rommel,but by the nature of the NA theater of Operations :if one is planning to operate in a desert,logistical problems will arise,and,they will be insoluble .

And,about the big picture: there was no such thing as a big picture that Rommel was unable to grasp .
Every one (from the OKW to Rommrl) knew that the NA campaign was a defensive one :to try (for political reasons) to hold NA as long as possible .
 
The article is also to harsh and unfair to Rommel,repeating the old myth of Rommel the bad logistician .If Rommel was a bad logistician (what has to be proved),this is irrelevant,because Rommel was carrying the logistic problems with him,when he arrived :the logistic problems were not created by Rommel,but by the nature of the NA theater of Operations :if one is planning to operate in a desert,logistical problems will arise,and,they will be insoluble .

I disagree, Rommel was a bad logistician both sides suffered the same logistical problems in NA the difference is that Rommel handled them far worse than the British did.

The general impression from reading both post war Allied research and war time German information is that Rommel never came to grips with logistics and certainly never concerned himself with logistics until things were collapsing around him.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Rommel under supplied of men and under tanked but still manage to win, then lost Turbuk with the next battle? I actually thought it was Hitler that control logistics etc... not the German generals?
 
No:
1)Rommel got enough(some would claim:to much)
2)The logistics were not the business of Adolf/Rommel,but of the Italians,and,these did reasonably well.

But:the problems started at the arrival of each ton of supplies in Tripolis,and,they were insoluble,that's why I repeat :an other general would not have done better.
 
Back
Top