What is a sucessful scenario?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Personally, I've never understood these criticisms of Rommel. They just don't seem to have any substantial basis. He performed brilliantly as a commander at all levels: from company to army. Consider, for example, his victory at Gazala in mid-1942: what limitation? About the only serious criticism of him as a general I can see is that he had serious health problems.

You've read Mellenthin- the guy's pretty clear about Rommel's problems with commanding above the level of division.

I'm also not aware of any unique flare in his 1944 campaign. I would think there were a dozen other officers in the Wehrmacht who could have done the same or better. Certainly Manstein could have. Naturally, the standard in the Wehrmacht was high. I'm just not convinced that Rommel exceeded this standard at the army level.

You make two statements here.

'Mellenthin points out the problems with Rommel's leadership style.' I haven't denied it caused problems -- I'm just insisting that it profited the troops under his command more than it hurt them. For example, it was 'lead from the front Rommel' who saved the Afrika Korps' bacon in the Gazala battle by personally leading a fuel convoy through the minefields when all the German tanks were stranded for lack of petrol.

'Rommel didn't win in Normandy.' Who could have? This is like saying 'Sebastian Coe never ran a thirty second mile -- so he wasn't a great athlete.'

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Grant, Foch, Montgomery, Patton, Eisenhower, Schwartzkoff -- I see little reason to concede that any of them were great generals.

At least we can compare Grant, Monty, & Patton to, say, McClellan, Cunningham, & Fredendall. They fare well in that comparison. Plenty of commanders on their sides were dealt the same hand that they were and didn't compare.

Sure. It's not that I feel GFMPES were incompetent -- merely that I see no reason to endow them with a halo of greatness. They may even have been great -- but they never had the opportunity to demonstrate it. They always had a winning hand. If you stake me a rook in every chess match I play, nothing I can do will demonstrate I'm more than a competent chess player.

[ColinWright]

...

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If he hadn't been there the Afrika Korps would have been less successful.

I dunno. I think Rommel wins a lot of fame for having been the one commander the Allies were fighting between June 1940 and sometime in 1943. Obviously, this was the heyday of the Wehrmacht- and he basically personifies that period in the minds of the west.

Technically, this is untrue. There was Arnim in Tunisia, List(?) in Greece, and Student in Crete.

More substantially, one can point out that when Rommel was running neck-and-neck with other German commanders, he outperformed them. In France, for example. Of course, you can say 'aha: he was only a division commander then.' But what do you want? Two armies side by side -- with the British obligingly opposing each with equal forces?

Rommel consistently pulled the rabbit out of the hat. I don't see what more you could reasonably want.

He was outstanding, and if his lead from the front style imposed its costs, it yielded still greater rewards. That was true from Avesnes through Gazala.

It would have been a disaster if his staff was not capable of commanding a corps without him.

Sure -- but what's your point? He had a staff capable of commanding a corps without him -- and took advantage of the fact. He would have been a lesser commander if he hadn't exploited this resource.
[/quote]

[ColinWright]

.

[ColinWright]

I think the impulse to criticize Rommel comes from a number of sources.

First, there's the desire to say something original. To do something other than just join the chorus of admiration. Well, I can sympathize with that -- but it is not in and of itself a valid criticism.

Second, Rommel did almost customarily violate accepted military canon. These canons are there for good reason, and violating them automatically creates valid criticisms. Rommel's greatness lies partly in knowing when he could do this and reap rewards greater than the penalties, though. See, for example, periodically disappearing from headquarters. Given what he did while he was gone, this helped the Germans more than it hurt them.

Third, granting that Rommel was without qualification a great general necessarily casts his opponents in the shade. If one can make criticisms of Rommel, then one can leave it at 'Rommel was a good -- but flawed -- general. Montgomery was a good -- but flawed -- general.' Semantically at least, they become equal. This doesn't work if one calls Rommel a military genius. Then one has to either make the same case for Montgomery -- not really a tenable view -- or concede that in this case at least, the Germans were better than the British.

Finally, there's the aversion to glorifying any aspect of the Third Reich. Manstein, Guderian -- these are relatively faceless entities. The English-speaking world knows exactly who Rommel was. This leads to an impulse to somehow qualify one's praise. Else one is -- however obliquely -- singing hosannas to Hitler. That this is an element in the equation can be seen in the need to play up Rommel's anti-Naziism simultaneously with praise of his generalship. He cannot just be a great general. He must either be a great general with major limitations or he must be a great general who was also a fervent anti-Nazi.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Technically, this is untrue. There was Arnim in Tunisia, List(?) in Greece, and Student in Crete.

Arnim is later- when we were ascending. The other two we were fighting for about one week each.

Sure -- but what's your point? He had a staff capable of commanding a corps without him -- and took advantage of the fact. He would have been a lesser commander if he hadn't exploited this resource.

I would say Rommel would have acted the way he did regardless of his staff. Can you really see him reluctantly sitting at his operational maps while the 4th Borsetshire Yeomanry is on the brink of collapse against the nth Panzer Regiment?

Rommel is also helped by being in his element. This may surprise you- but not every situation calls for daring thrusts made without concern for one's flanks. Rommel was probably the best general of the period at carrying out that kind of campaign at that kind of level. Fortunately for him, this kind of campaign happened to dominate the years of his late career.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Rommel is also helped by being in his element. This may surprise you- but not every situation calls for daring thrusts made without concern for one's flanks. Rommel was probably the best general of the period at carrying out that kind of campaign at that kind of level. Fortunately for him, this kind of campaign happened to dominate the years of his late career.

Well, that raises an interesting point that's often occurred to me. It's not a hard and fast rule, but generally, daring seems to pay off a lot better in military matters than caution. That applies across military history -- not just to World War Two. Ewell would have done well to have pressed on in the twilight to secure Cemetery Ridge on the first day of Gettysburg, etc.

Caution is a natural human response, but -- at least in military matters -- it generally doesn't seem to be the right one. You can cite counterexamples at me -- some of them from Rommel's own career -- but I'm convinced the bottom line is that daring works out to be the better bet.

To return to the immediate point, we've yet to hear any basis for this notion that Rommel's greatness should be qualified. 'His style of command wouldn't have worked if he hadn't had such a good staff.' Well, he had it. What he would have done if he hadn't had it remains an unknown. 'Early and mid-World War Two was an environment that favored Rommel's tactics.' So he employed the right tactics for his era. Just about any successful general could be 'criticized' along these lines. By definition, successful generals take full advantage of their army's strengths, and by definition, successful generals use tactics appropriate to the era they are in.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, that raises an interesting point that's often occurred to me. It's not a hard and fast rule, but generally, daring seems to pay off a lot better in military matters than caution. That applies across military history -- not just to World War Two. Ewell would have done well to have pressed on in the twilight to secure Cemetery Ridge on the first day of Gettysburg, etc.

What about the Crusaders at Horns of Hattin? They really should have just stayed at home. The ill-fated Japanese offensives in Burma of 1944. The Romans in 216 BC. There are plenty of counterexamples.

To return to the immediate point, we've yet to hear any basis for this notion that Rommel's greatness should be qualified. 'His style of command wouldn't have worked if he hadn't had such a good staff.' Well, he had it. What he would have done if he hadn't had it remains an unknown. 'Early and mid-World War Two was an environment that favored Rommel's tactics.' So he employed the right tactics for his era.

I think it's a defensible position that commanders opt for tactics which suit their personality- not those which suit the situation. There are plenty of examples from TOAW matches which bear out this theory. If the situation had been different, Rommel probably would never have risen to prominence.

Just about any successful general could be 'criticized' along these lines.

I'm not so sure. There are other generals who are more flexible- Manstein, for example. I see Rommel's area of expertise as a fairly limited (if impressive) one. Other officers- Napoleon, Lee, Manstein- have had more comprehensive portfolios.

I suppose I see your position as claiming that Michaelangelo was the greatest human being of all time. Well, he may be the greatest artist of all time in a period which was fond of great artists- but there are other fields of human endeavour.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, that raises an interesting point that's often occurred to me. It's not a hard and fast rule, but generally, daring seems to pay off a lot better in military matters than caution. That applies across military history -- not just to World War Two. Ewell would have done well to have pressed on in the twilight to secure Cemetery Ridge on the first day of Gettysburg, etc.

What about the Crusaders at Horns of Hattin? They really should have just stayed at home. The ill-fated Japanese offensives in Burma of 1944. The Romans in 216 BC. There are plenty of counterexamples.

I did say it wasn't a hard and fast rule: I could add more counter-examples to your list.

However and in general, in military matters -- maybe in all matters -- disaster seems to come more to those who wait than to those who take the plunge.

Anyway, it would be a red herring. Even if we accept your argument that Rommel was fighting in an era when boldness was the winning strategy, what was he supposed to do? Not take advantage of this fact? You're constructing an argument by which you can diminish the greatness of any commander.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious



I'm not so sure. There are other generals who are more flexible- Manstein, for example. I see Rommel's area of expertise as a fairly limited (if impressive) one. Other officers- Napoleon, Lee, Manstein- have had more comprehensive portfolios.

I suppose I see your position as claiming that Michaelangelo was the greatest human being of all time. Well, he may be the greatest artist of all time in a period which was fond of great artists- but there are other fields of human endeavour.

I seem to be getting hooked into arguing that Rommel was the greatest general of all time. Not sure I want to do that.

My point is that I haven't heard any convincing justifications for the various criticisms leveled at Rommel. 'He was away from headquarters too much' -- he gained more than he lost by it. 'He was only a great division commander' -- at Gazala he was commanding an army. 'He just succeeded by being aggressive in an era that favored aggressiveness' -- so? 'Manstein was more flexible' -- how?

The criticisms all seem to be platitudes. Formulated to bolster a pre-conceived desideratum but lacking any justification in fact.

Rommel in fact performed brilliantly in a variety of environments -- from commanding infantry in the Rumanian Carpathians in 1916 to leading panzers in North Africa in 1942. He did this at all levels up to and including army command. He could be unbelievably daring when the situation called for it. He could also realize when it was time to retreat -- as in Crusader and at El Alamein. He could even dig in and hunker down -- as at Normandy. He was personally brave and an inspiring leader of men. He even seems to have been a good husband and father. What's not to like?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Anyway, it would be a red herring. Even if we accept your argument that Rommel was fighting in an era when boldness was the winning strategy, what was he supposed to do? Not take advantage of this fact?

No. I'm not commenting on his achievements- I commenting on his talents.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

My point is that I haven't heard any convincing justifications for the various criticisms leveled at Rommel. 'He was away from headquarters too much' -- he gained more than he lost by it. 'He was only a great division commander' -- at Gazala he was commanding an army.

Well sort of. The Italians didn't really do a great deal, and Rommel's Afrika Korps was notorious for being understrength all the time.

'Manstein was more flexible' -- how?

Well I hesitate to start shouting the man's praises based on his own memoirs; but he did plan the 1940 campaign, carry out a fast pursuit with a corps of infantry, assault the fortress at Sevastopol, reduce various pockets, patch together the broken southern wing after Stalingrad, and then hold that wing together until his dismissal against ever-worsening odds. He seems to have been a highly competent commander in more or less every situation that the Wehrmacht was capable of putting him in. Rommel I think would have struggled in some of the above.

Rommel in fact performed brilliantly in a variety of environments -- from commanding infantry in the Rumanian Carpathians in 1916 to leading panzers in North Africa in 1942. He did this at all levels up to and including army command. He could be unbelievably daring when the situation called for it. He could also realize when it was time to retreat -- as in Crusader and at El Alamein. He could even dig in and hunker down -- as at Normandy.

I don't think his command in Normandy represents the best that could have been done, though.

There's another factor which you won't approve of- Rommel was shockingly politically naive compared to a lot of his contemporaries, and he was fortunate that Hitler was sufficiently fond of the man for it not to wreck his career.

There's also the question of his logistical problems, though I think this is overplayed as there is not much more he could have done. But perhaps an instance by Rommel that Malta had to be dealt with (as he had insisted on dealing with Tobruk) may have made a difference.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


Well I hesitate to start shouting the man's praises based on his own memoirs; but he did plan the 1940 campaign, carry out a fast pursuit with a corps of infantry, assault the fortress at Sevastopol, reduce various pockets, patch together the broken southern wing after Stalingrad, and then hold that wing together until his dismissal against ever-worsening odds. He seems to have been a highly competent commander in more or less every situation that the Wehrmacht was capable of putting him in. Rommel I think would have struggled in some of the above.

But that's pure speculation. Can I criticize Wellington on the grounds that I think he would have fallen down if he'd had to handle armor?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

There's another factor which you won't approve of- Rommel was shockingly politically naive compared to a lot of his contemporaries, and he was fortunate that Hitler was sufficiently fond of the man for it not to wreck his career.

Perhaps -- but now we're moving outside the range of qualities that decide who is or isn't a great general. After all, if political acumen is to be part of the test, we need to take another look at Badoglio, et al.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Anyway, it would be a red herring. Even if we accept your argument that Rommel was fighting in an era when boldness was the winning strategy, what was he supposed to do? Not take advantage of this fact?

No. I'm not commenting on his achievements- I commenting on his talents.

Yeah -- but you're framing your comments in such a way as to create the illusion that somehow a limitation is implied. That's rhetorically interesting -- but it's not very convincing.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Perhaps -- but now we're moving outside the range of qualities that decide who is or isn't a great general.

Are we? Since Rommel was working with large numbers of allied troops, I would argue that political sensitivity was highly important. In a similar way, his habit of ignoring his superiors wouldn't have gone down so well had he not been in Hitler's good books.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Yeah -- but you're framing your comments in such a way as to create the illusion that somehow a limitation is implied. That's rhetorically interesting -- but it's not very convincing.

Well, Rommel's achievements 1939 to 1942 speak for themselves. About the only criticism that can be made would be that he should have shown more interest in Malta- which is arguably outside his authority. Then again, he never showed much interest in the limits of his authority in other areas.

He was certainly the man of the hour.

[ThorwaldMatrix]

I have enjoyed scenarios which have good news and events. It can get boring to destroy endless number of divisions when playing against the PO if there is no response as news.

So please put effort to write news, events and a good debriefing!