Yes he got the entire Africa Corps captured but he also saved all there lives. He asked Hitler if he could retreat and Hitler said, there is only victory ore death, 2 days later rommel disobeyed Hitlers orders and retreated back to tunesia. Hitler did not allow retreat back to sicily so thats why they got captured, only rommel made it back.

In 1944 he was in France and looked at defensive divisions and their equipment and knew that there was no way Germany could hold the Western Front, he asked Hitler several times to surrender. As Hitler refused he carried on with his duties in Normandy, and predicted a landing at the beaches by Cean and Cherbourg and commanded to build defences along the beaches.

His way of attacking is what made him famous, because Hitler loved him for it that was Hitlers idea of War.

He may be not as good as other Army leaders but not overrated.

Originally posted by Enlowe:

Yes he got the entire Africa Corps captured but he also saved all there lives. He asked Hitler if he could retreat and Hitler said, there is only victory ore death, 2 days later rommel disobeyed Hitlers orders and retreated back to tunesia. Hitler did not allow retreat back to sicily so thats why they got captured, only rommel made it back.

In 1944 he was in France and looked at defensive divisions and their equipment and knew that there was no way Germany could hold the Western Front, he asked Hitler several times to surrender. As Hitler refused he carried on with his duties in Normandy, and predicted a landing at the beaches by Cean and Cherbourg and commanded to build defences along the beaches.

His way of attacking is what made him famous, because Hitler loved him for it that was Hitlers idea of War.

He may be not as good as other Army leaders but not overrated.

That last sentence is exactly what I mean!
Brilliant divisional commander, mediocre on an army level and above. The problem is that both German and British propaganda hyped him to genius level and popular history simply adopted that stance.
You said that "he may not be as good as other army leaders, but not overrated". He is usually portrayed to be amongst the very best. If he's solid but not as good as others, then by definition he's overrated.
His qualitities are foremost in the field, leading a division head on Alexander the Great-style. Great tactician, solid strategist, poor logistician. I find it utterly laughable that Kesselring isn't regarded to be a genius. He wasn't even an army commander initially, but came from the Luftwaffe. His comprehension of logistics and general strength ratios lead him to proper conclusions. That's one hell of an army level commander.

Can't help but partly disagree with your opinion. While I do agree that Rommel's "military genius" and the whole rommel myth is absolute nonsense whipped up by nazi apologists and the British, I think your critcisms about his incomptence of his command over the DAK is simply going into the opposite spectrum of the extreme. Sure, he lost Africa in two years, but part of the problem for his failure was almost the complete absense of support from OKW. Throughout the entire north african campaign, the DAK was constantly running short on food, clean water, and oil not because of Rommel's own lack of logistical skills necessarily, but because of the OKW's preoccupation with preparations for Operation Barbarossa and lack of interest overall to see things through in the african campaign. I mean Rommel was completely reliant on oil tankers from across the mediterranean for his petrol, because local availbility was practically nonexistent. Compare that to the greater commitment the british had with their resupply efforts, as Rommel was always outnumbered and outgunned by the well-supplied British forces.Also, another major issue with his failure in North Africa was the success of the British Ultra code-breaking intelligence. Yet even with the huge British advantage in this regard, (among others), Rommel still managed to hold his own. In a way, Rommel's great initial successes before Montgomery's transfer to the Eigth Army and the Battle of El Alamein is what ruined his chances in driving out the british from North Africa- for after his victory at Gazala and Tobruk, Hitler denied Rommel's requests for more supplies and reinforcements to continue his march towards Alexandria and the Suez Canal, as hitler believed that Rommel had already accomplished enough.

Also, there's a bit of irony in your comparison between Kesselring and Rommel: Rommel discussed Hitler's order with Kesselring, and Kesselring actually supported Rommel's decision to disobey the order and get the men of the DAK out of harm's way.

And with regards to the comparison of Kesselrings performance in Italy versus that of the DAK under Rommel, there wasn't even the slightest possibility for Kesselring to fight an offensive war against the Allied incursion into Italy; the circumstances of the war by then necessitated Kesselring's defensive approach to the italian theater, had Rommel decided to simply assist the Italians and defend against British advances in the region, I'm sure he would have done almost as well as Kesselring. At least in Africa, the Germans had a chance, and ultimately, Hitler's preoccupation with preparations to invade russia is what ♥♥♥♥♥♥ the DAK, not Rommel's lack of logistical knowledge and whatnot.

Rommel wasn't a brilliant commander, but to argue that he was incompetent "at the army level" is just excessive. He was one of the most able commanders in the war, and that's all.

Brack at last somebody that actually studies Commanders and an actual aptitude for accurate historical facts. Im an old Grunt, that has led men into battle, Wow guess I did it right because I survived the war and so did most of my guys, The other guy on this thread no offense other guy, was waaaay off. I was a leader and recognize brillance when I see it one of the most compelling is the fact that he regarded his men as his own and made the best move to ensure them that they will see their families again. Only warrior leaders with supreme intellect in the craft of war can make judicious moves like that and sleep soundly that you chose the best possible outcome. You are damn straight he deserves all the hype. Enemy or not brillance has no national borders.

To properly assess a historical general, the opinions of other generals in the same age is of more value than those after. No matter how Rommel was short in strategy, he fought just as brilliant as other outstanding Germany commanders did such as Manstain and Guderian. Of course the western medium is better at their job than Soviet Union, thus a lot of German marshals in eastern front were underestimated. But that is part of history, isn't it?

Because africa was nearly hopless. Germany had nowhere near the resources to hold it. Their only hope wouldev been to somehow take gibilar to prevent allied navel reinforcements and than make full use of Itatly's navy. Also Rommel was a geinus of the armored spearhead. Commanding large fronts or defending was not his strong suit.

There are plently of generals that are great in pin point attacks but lacking at large front operations.

Rommel seemed to always be “at the right place at the right time.” Rommel frequently received detailed and accurate information on Allied troop dispositions, tactical innovations, logistical concerns, and future plans from what he called “die gute Quelle”—“the Good Source.” The “Good Source” of Erwin Rommel’s high-grade intelligence was, ironically and surprisingly, the U.S.
Military Attaché to Egypt, Major (later Colonel) Bonner Fellers, U.S. Army.
It took the Germans about two hours to identify Fellers’ messages, decode them, and translate them into German. After being encrypted in a German code, these messages were then transmitted directly to North Africa. As a result, by the beginning of 1942, every morning at breakfast, Erwin Rommel was said to have received “a concise appreciation of his opponent’s plans, location of units, strength, and morale.” Such a daily diet of detailed and accurate enemy intelligence was veritably unprecedented.

So I stumbled upon this thread, and I'm one year late, soooo.

While I'll say his logistical failures were his eventual downfall, I will say this.

Erwin Rommel is one of the more honorable and inspiring military leaders. During the North African campaign, he was regarded as never shying away from the frontline, always with his troops, and showing his face.

Granted, while he eventually lost to his surmounting logistical failing, one could argue that there was nothing that COULD be done, considering the Axis had lost naval superiority of the Med.

To sum up my splee, Rommel was a compentent commander overall, despite his failing, being able to accurately predict events of the war and utilize what he had availible to varying degrees of success.

// And before you ask, I've sat down and read everything I could on World War 2, enough to formulate my OWN opinion.

Originally posted by Jedi Master Vivian Vantay:

So I stumbled upon this thread, and I'm one year late, soooo.

While I'll say his logistical failures were his eventual downfall, I will say this.

Erwin Rommel is one of the more honorable and inspiring military leaders. During the North African campaign, he was regarded as never shying away from the frontline, always with his troops, and showing his face.

Granted, while he eventually lost to his surmounting logistical failing, one could argue that there was nothing that COULD be done, considering the Axis had lost naval superiority of the Med.

To sum up my splee, Rommel was a compentent commander overall, despite his failing, being able to accurately predict events of the war and utilize what he had availible to varying degrees of success.

// And before you ask, I've sat down and read everything I could on World War 2, enough to formulate my OWN opinion.

Well, "nothing could be done" is almost never true.
If there was nothing to be done, then letting 150,000 German and 120,000 Italian troops getting captured in Tunisia was certainly something that could and should have been avoided. The Allies landed unopposed in Sicilly shortly thereafter.
Why not use these troops to fortify Italy instead?

The point is: The OKW was aware of the hopeless logistical situation and thus ordered Rommel to hold the ground instead of expanding what could not be supplied.
Even taking El Alamein and the whole of Egypt wouldn't have changed anything. If Rommel had comprehended that, he wouldn't even have tried. What if he takes Egypt? Supply gets even worse and the Allies still land in Morocca and open a second front. The entire Africa mission was pointless and simply digging in and delay the Allied advance was the only sensible thing to do (except for not sending troops in the first place).

Rommel on a personal level was wonderful. He was brave, bold, chivalrous. He was also a tactical genius on the battlefield, just not competent on an army level.

When I served on tanks in the US Army in the early 2000's a lot of our guys actually had a pitcture of Rommel in their tank. It goes to show how much of a pillar Rommel is in armor warfare.

Originally posted by Chains:

When I served on tanks in the US Army in the early 2000's a lot of our guys actually had a pitcture of Rommel in their tank. It goes to show how much of a pillar Rommel is in armor warfare.

Goes to show as well how powerful promo is: the Germans hyped him as their poster boy, the Brits hyped him to cover own faults.