Erwin Rommel(Desert Fox)
-
Man...I really respect this fella. A real modern day knight. An anti-Nazi too. Too bad fightin for the Nazis. Haiz~
-
Actually, if you read into his campaigns, he was a really rash general. Nearly got whacked even before he tok Tobruk. Only the poorer tank tactics of the British general managed to prevent his army from being destroyed.
-
In a classic blitzkrieg, Rommel outflanked the British at Gazala, surrounded and reduced the strongpoint at Bir Hakeim and forced the British to quickly retreat, in the so-called "Gazala Gallop", to avoid being completely cut off. Tobruk, isolated and alone, was now all that stood between the Afrika Korps and Egypt. On 21 June 1942, after a swift, coordinated and fierce combined arms assault, the city surrendered along with its 33,000 defenders. Only at the fall of Singapore, earlier that year, had more British and Commonwealth troops been captured. Allied forces were comprehensively beaten. Within weeks they had been pushed back far into Egypt.
Quotations of Erwin Rommel
"Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, and brains saves both."
"Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas."
"The best form of welfare for the troops is first-rate training."
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -
Well considering the 5th and 15th panzers he had werent all that up to date on equipment wise and also the Italians werent all that good. I guess he did a pretty good job. Especially in the African threater. However In France with the 7th panzer he was rather rash and if it wasnt for luck and overall poor french communication he would have been cut off a few times i believe.
Then again the Germans really had to many good generals to say who was the best or whatever. Personally i prefer Manstein or Model. -
Rommel was the kind that believes that the logistics has to catch up with the tactics. That tactics shouldnt be urealistically limited by one's logistics. Most conservative warfighting concepts believe that logistics dictates the tactics.
One of the more famous things he did was convert the Flak-88 into anti armor weapons. This eventually lead to 88mm guns that sat on the turret of the Tigers and KoenigsTigers. One of the most fiercesome tanks in the war.
Rommel was also charged with the defence of Normandy. It would have been successful if he was allowed to retain his armor to counter-attack the allies on the beaches. However, Hitler and another guy... Rommel's "mentor," did not believe the allies would land on normandy, and did not place the armor where Rommel wanted.
Had the allies saw the German Armored counter attack on the first wave, they might have called off the assault immediately.
Rommel is my fav WW2 general too! =) -
Hi,
Which of his millitary achievements stand out more--
1) Invasion of France?
2) Taking of Tobruk?
3) Retreat to Tunisia? -
He wasn't rash, he took calculated risks. He continually used weaker forces to inflict greater losses in his desert campaign by regularly employinng pincer movements to encircle escaping columns.Originally posted by Cens:Actually, if you read into his campaigns, he was a really rash general. Nearly got whacked even before he tok Tobruk. Only the poorer tank tactics of the British general managed to prevent his army from being destroyed.
When faced with superior forces, he abandoned several positions, trading land for time. This is reminicient of Israeli tactics during the Yom Kipper War. -
Few speak of Heinz Gunderian and Albert Kessering, the former one of the founders of the blitzkrieg concept.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well considering the 5th and 15th panzers he had werent all that up to date on equipment wise and also the Italians werent all that good. I guess he did a pretty good job. Especially in the African threater. However In France with the 7th panzer he was rather rash and if it wasnt for luck and overall poor french communication he would have been cut off a few times i believe.
Then again the Germans really had to many good generals to say who was the best or whatever. Personally i prefer Manstein or Model.
It was his book abt mechanised tactics and speedy combined arms that inspired Hitler. -
He had asked Hitler to give him four armoured divisions to take North Africa. However, the sheer foolishness of Hitler in wanting to conquer Russia meant that the Afrika Korps was smaller than what Rommel wanted (just over one division++), if I'm not wrong.
Even so, he still came pretty close to winning. I wonder what would have happened if Rommel had really been able to conquer North Africa, with the Suez Canal captured at one end and Gibraltar captured at the other. -
Ahh yes Heinz Gunderian, Inspector General of the panzer armies. The founder of the practical use of the tanks. However he was rendered very much ineffective by von Kluge's dislike for him. Honestly the german's have a lot of great panzer leaders. Which is the one huge advantage they have over the rest of the world.Originally posted by BillyBong:Few speak of Heinz Gunderian and Albert Kessering, the former one of the founders of the blitzkrieg concept.
It was his book abt mechanised tactics and speedy combined arms that inspired Hitler.
The likes of:
Albert Kesselring
von Kleist
List
Balck
Hoth
Kurt Meyer
Reinhardt
The list could go on almost forever!!He had asked Hitler to give him four armoured divisions to take North Africa. However, the sheer foolishness of Hitler in wanting to conquer Russia meant that the Afrika Korps was smaller than what Rommel wanted (just over one division++), if I'm not wrong.
I believe he had 3.The 5th light panzer(later to become the 21 panzer) and the 15th panzer and finally rather alter on the 168th division. The rest were italians.
Even so, he still came pretty close to winning. I wonder what would have happened if Rommel had really been able to conquer North Africa, with the Suez Canal captured at one end and Gibraltar captured at the other.
Note: i believe that the 88's were already being used as AT guns....i'm not sure about that though. -
nay. It was rommel that started using the 88s as AT guns, camouflaging them in the desert.
Rommel wasn't really known for his blitzkrieg since the DAK recieved little or no air support. No dive bombers, nothing. Contrary to blitzkrieg doctrines.
The African campaign was always see-sawing back n forth. One side would attack, try to sieze if not retreat. Or the otherside would retreat. There was no classic breakthrough. -
Not much of a front either i think hah just alot of cutting and thrusting.Originally posted by Shotgun:nay. It was rommel that started using the 88s as AT guns, camouflaging them in the desert.
Rommel wasn't really known for his blitzkrieg since the DAK recieved little or no air support. No dive bombers, nothing. Contrary to blitzkrieg doctrines.
The African campaign was always see-sawing back n forth. One side would attack, try to sieze if not retreat. Or the otherside would retreat. There was no classic breakthrough. -
However, the blitzkrieg was "successfully" carried out by Hitler himself towards the end of the war. It was successful that it actually broke through. Unsuccessful that it served no strategic purpose wadsoever, instead dooming the Germany army.
-
Cant believe you didnt even mention von Manstein........Originally posted by |-|05|:Ahh yes Heinz Gunderian, Inspector General of the panzer armies. The founder of the practical use of the tanks. However he was rendered very much ineffective by von Kluge's dislike for him. Honestly the german's have a lot of great panzer leaders. Which is the one huge advantage they have over the rest of the world.
The likes of:
Albert Kesselring
von Kleist
List
Balck
Hoth
Kurt Meyer
Reinhardt
The list could go on almost forever!!
-
Just read Heinz Guderian's "Achtung Panzer!",quite good read with lots of WW1 history,though it seems that while Heinz Guderian is father of German Armoured Warfare his doctrine in his book differed a little bit from the renowned blitzkrieg concept.Originally posted by BillyBong:Few speak of Heinz Gunderian and Albert Kessering, the former one of the founders of the blitzkrieg concept.
It was his book abt mechanised tactics and speedy combined arms that inspired Hitler. -
Yes, it was more "broad" front rather than amassing forces at critical point for break through right? Still, despite not adhering strictly the blitzkrieg doctrines. However, the "over" emphasis on blitzkrieg lead the allied forces down the wrong track, causing them to come up with under-gunned tank designs like the sherman.
The allies were so decieved and self deluded by blitzkrieg that they believed that the Shermans didn have to outgun the enemy tanks, since airpower would neutralise enemy tanks. Their tanks just had to be fast.
The entire blitzkrieg thing might have been more disastrous for the allies than the germans. -
.Originally posted by liuzg150181:Cant believe you didnt even mention von Manstein........
Lol i did.....earlier in my post....hah -
Actually i think in the west, the Allies just pounded the germans to death.Originally posted by Shotgun:Yes, it was more "broad" front rather than amassing forces at critical point for break through right? Still, despite not adhering strictly the blitzkrieg doctrines. However, the "over" emphasis on blitzkrieg lead the allied forces down the wrong track, causing them to come up with under-gunned tank designs like the sherman.
The allies were so decieved and self deluded by blitzkrieg that they believed that the Shermans didn have to outgun the enemy tanks, since airpower would neutralise enemy tanks. Their tanks just had to be fast.
The entire blitzkrieg thing might have been more disastrous for the allies than the germans. -
Pretty much.Originally posted by |-|05|:Actually i think in the west, the Allies just pounded the germans to death.
For confusing battles of WWII, operation crusader takes the cake....imagine this: no frontline!
By the time monty came along, the desert rats vastly outnumbered the Africa Korps. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Uh no,Guderian still advocates the mass concentration of tanks used upon the weak points of enemy frontline to breakthrough it and harass the rear of the enemy.
[b]Yes, it was more "broad" front rather than amassing forces at critical point for break through right?Still, despite not adhering strictly the blitzkrieg doctrines. However, the "over" emphasis on blitzkrieg lead the allied forces down the wrong track, causing them to come up with under-gunned tank designs like the sherman.
What differs btw Guderian's concept in the book i mentioned before and blitzkrieg doctrine used by Germans in WW2 is that the latter also does the cutting of the enemy units and encircling them,and eventually the destruction comes,whereas Guderian's concept,it seems to me,is more aligned with "Deep Battle" doctrine by the Soviets.
And not to forget that the book by Guderian was written and printed in 1937,2 years before the onset of WW2,thus not surprising if there is any amendment to their doctrine.
It seems that this concept is akin to the British's "cruiser tank" concept,as in the infantry tanks which have stronger armour and firepower stick together with the infantry units whilst fighting,and when a weak point of the enemy line had been found the cruiser tanks,which are lightly armour and have weaker firepower but fast, are supposed to break through it and harass the rear.
The allies were so decieved and self deluded by blitzkrieg that they believed that the Shermans didn have to outgun the enemy tanks, since airpower would neutralise enemy tanks. Their tanks just had to be fast.
Interesting point,and i know which book you are referring to,but i reserve my opinion.
The entire blitzkrieg thing might have been more disastrous for the allies than the germans.
However the author of the book is a Literature professor rather than a history one,and much less of military history.Moreover his points are really controversial and suspected of sensationalism,thus i would take it with a pitch of salt. Nevertheless shall read his book instead of jumping to conclusion. -
LoL,sorry my oversight~~~Originally posted by |-|05|:.
Lol i did.....earlier in my post....hah
Though for such a general it is worth mentioning his name twice.
-
I wouldn't disagree to the fact that the Americans were really very mislead in their doctrine, and their stubborness in not upgrading their sherman's guns. I watched this discovery documentary about the tanks of world war 2. 4 shermans against a Tiger. 3 will be destroyed by the tiger before the last sherman can dash around to the rear of the tiger to kill it.
-
Directive by General Patton:When a tiger tank appears there should be ten sherman tanks to deal with it.........Originally posted by Shotgun:I wouldn't disagree to the fact that the Americans were really very mislead in their doctrine, and their stubborness in not upgrading their sherman's guns. I watched this discovery documentary about the tanks of world war 2. 4 shermans against a Tiger. 3 will be destroyed by the tiger before the last sherman can dash around to the rear of the tiger to kill it.
Though i browse through some books regarding the issue,one of which got to do with US military complex meddling with the decision of production of the USAF. Cant remember the title but would like to get it one day. -
I think Tobruk. That's atleast my favourite battle.Originally posted by Erwin_Rommel:Hi,
Which of his millitary achievements stand out more--
1) Invasion of France?
2) Taking of Tobruk?
3) Retreat to Tunisia?
-
The USAF did not exist back then. It was still under the USAAF. Army Air Force.Originally posted by liuzg150181:Directive by General Patton:When a tiger tank appears there should be ten sherman tanks to deal with it.........
Though i browse through some books regarding the issue,one of which got to do with US military complex meddling with the decision of production of the USAF. Cant remember the title but would like to get it one day.
In anycase, the Americans only adopted "dive" bombers much too late. Prior to that, the allies also believed the Strategic bombers to be unstoppable. That en mass, they could defend themselves against attacks. Of course, we now know it wasn't true, and that the only reason allied bomber losses were reduced was cos of the introduction of the Mustang.
And the P-51 mustang was not really a late war invention. The first model of the mustang was already in service in 1941. The RAF used it as a recon plane, and the US as dive bombers. It was only much later that they replaced the allison engine with the famous merlin that they realised their solution for long range figther escorts was actually staring at their faces all this while.
Back to the sherman thing. Now, why did the British became smart enough to re-arm their shermans with 17 pounders. Why not the Americans? Somehow, I feel it had to do with Montgomery's experience in the Desert with Rommel. He was a cautious commander that didn't really apprieciate the "Blitzkrieg." Of course, that was why a lot of ppl felt that he wasn't really suitable to be an armored commander.