What does /his/ think of this guy?

promoted beyond his level of competence

>>542326
Based, didn't deserve the death and funeral he got

A tragic hero.

>>542329
>If only he placed flak along his supply lines!

>>542350
more like

>if only he cared about supply lines

turns out tanks run and shoot on stuff

>>542329
>generally accepted by society as one of the best generals of modern warfare
>he m-must be overrated

>>542353
what supply lines? The allies cut everything off, he did everything and more what was possible for him

>>542326

Should I know who that guy is?

>>542365

Yes. Also, you should learn how to hover your mouse over the filename so you can read it.

File: image.jpg (11KB, 178x114px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 178x114px

>>542365
Get the fuck out

>>542365
yes you defenitly should
I suggest u to stay awake in your history class ;)

>>542357
>I know literally nothing about Rommel except that he was the best!

>>542366

I thougth that his name was Federal Archive.

>>542357

He's honestly got a fair point. Rommel was a fantastic tactical and operational leader, but he wasn't a grand strategist. Giving him a whole theater to manage was one of Hitler's biggest military mis-managements.

>>542375
it is lastname firstname
it's Bild Bundesarchiv, a German war hero

>>542363

The supply lines that delivered roughly 1.2 million tons of supplies to him in 1941-42

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf

>>542357

No, he was a pretty seriously overrated general; look at how military historians take Rommel as opposed to the man on the street.

>>542326
He was a good general, he did all that he could in Africa, considering his supply lines were horrible compared to the British. He also had his little moment during Fall Gelb

IMO Guderian was the best Wehrmacht commander and organizer yet he is horribly underrated, i can't immagine why since he basically created the whole combined arms doctrine all by himself (protip - the term Blitzkrieg was never used by Germans)

Also he always stood up to Hitler's stupid decisions, that's why he was never promoted to Generalfeldmarschal

>>542416
Guderian is very comfortable in his spot in history. Not under or overrated.

Manstein on the other hand...

>>542416

>He was a good general, he did all that he could in Africa, considering his supply lines were horrible compared to the British.

He could have stuck to his actual mission objective and actually attempted to preserve a force in Cyrenica as long as possible, not wasting all that food, fuel, ammo, etc on fruitless attempts to conquer Egypt, and held out longer and with less expenditure.


> i can't immagine why since he basically created the whole combined arms doctrine all by himself

Because

A) He didn't come up with it all by himself

B) He lies, a lot in his memoirs.

C) As a field commander, he had moments of brilliance, but he was very erratic, and slipped up a fair amount too.

>>542439

Manstein was a genius; he's probably underrated given the less attention in the west you get to people whose careers were mostly on the Eastern Front.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-786-0327-19,_Nordafrika,_Erwin_Rommel_mit_Offizieren.jpg (68KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x528px

>>542514
>He could have stuck to his actual mission objective

No, I don't think he could have. This is why sending Rommel to Africa was such a big fuck-up on Hitler's part. Rommel was not a defensive guy. His whole mindset was about pressing forward and achieving operational superiority. He's the guy you'd want at the spear-tip, not building defenses or trying to out-attrition the enemy. Rommel learned from WWI not to do that shit, because he was one of the guys who fucked up those who held to that philosophy. It simply was not in his character to wage war in that manner.

>>542618


You have plenty of room to engage in aggressive, maneuvering warfare in Cyrenica itself. Somnenblume (sp?) and the initial push in 1942 were quite remarkable victories. If he could be impressed as to what his actual objectives were, instead of being allowed to dictate the campaign objectives (i.e. having someone to hold his leash, really), it wouldn't have been a static, build forts and attrition, it would be Gazalas, but closer to Tripoli instead of chasing the British all the way to Tobruk.

>>542673
>If he could be impressed as to what his actual objectives were

Exactly my point. That wasn't in Rommel's character. He'd have always moved the battle lines forward, because that was his idea of achieving victory. Not even Kesselring could change that.

>>542735

I'm not so sure. As long as he was getting regular praise and attention for his heroic conduct, I think he'd have been all right. If he was "The guy who effortlessly parries every British thrust west" and had a long string of battles where he inflicted enormously disproportionate damage on the British, I think that'd be enough for him.

>>542748

Not sure I'd agree with the wording of that analysis, given it makes him out as some sort of glory-hound, but I do agree that he'd have been quite happy to simply fuck shit up for his opponents, since that's exactly what he did.

I make want do sexuality actions upon masculine noun.

>>542789

He really kind of was a glory-hound, at least by WW2. Lemme pull up what Douglas Porch has to say.

>Rommel, the infantryman, appeared everywhere in jodhpurs, riding boots, and crop. He spent much of August 1940 reenacting events for Victory in the West, a German propaganda film about the fall of France. French Senegalese troops, furloughed from their POW camp, were coached by Rommel on the proper way to surrender for the cameras. This media adulation merely whetted Rommel's Appetite for medals and promotion. (Citations to Irving, Trail of the Fox, pp 54-62 omitted)

And as for the conclusions, that's not really what he did. He wanted more than to just "fuck shit up" for his opponents, he wanted to conquer Egypt, and decided that would be his mission in North Africa. A more defensive/realistic operational stance, assuming he can be convinced of it, would get him a lot farther.

>>542416
>(protip - the term Blitzkrieg was never used by Germans)
You sure about that?
I mean it never was official doctrine (especially considering that it doesn't even have a real definition) but I'm fairly sure the NS-Propaganda created it (as it does sound very 'nazi' if you will) and used it extensivly.

>>542357
>generally accepted by society as one of the best generals of modern warfare

How about military historians?