Undoubtedly they are regarded as some of the greatest armored division commanders in WWII, but which of them do you think was better? I myself have often pondered on this question, but have yet to arrive at a concrete answer. It can be said that Rommels surprise tactics worked because he ignored the High Commands orders, which the Allies were intercepting. On the other hand at the end of the campaign the Germans were undersupplied compared to the Allies not to mention Rommel was on sick leave.
Rommel went to the same well too many times. His strategy became predictable and as such easy to defeat. Monty was smart enough to see that defence provided it is conducted with greater strength that the attacker is going to win most of the time. The commanders were as diffrent as night and day. Monty was out of his element conductiong an offensive with large formations. But he was a very good organizer and had the gift of being able to inspire confidence. Rommel was better at offensive operations but IMO was not ruthless enough with his own troops to be in the class of Zukov or Patton. Who were masters of offensive operations.
You cannot compare Rommel with Montgomery. Both of them were great tacticians. But I have to point out one thing. Montgomery had plenty of troops and supplies with him during the Battle of El Alamein. On the other hand for Rommel's troops were exhausted and their tanks were running out of fuel.
I don't think it was necessarily the fact that his strategy was predictable, at the second battle of El Almein, he arrived late and was forced int a defensive position. As far as being out of their element, you have to consider the fact that tanks were a relatively new invention so it's not like there was a precedent for how to use them to their maximum potential.
Some generals were famous because they were winning. And they were winning because their countries had upper hand, and their troops had upper hand. Many of the great generals might not be so great if they had the limited resources Rommel had. Rommel was facing an enemy more than twice his size, and only 1/3 of his supply ships got through. The allied forces had complete air superiority, and they were well supplied. Rommel wasn't getting enough supplies, and he wasn't getting any replacement tanks or even parts, he had to take some tanks apart in order to fix some other tanks. His enemy was getting more and more tanks and unlimited amount of fuel and ammunition. If you switch the generals, very few general would do half as good as Rommel in his position.
I have read a few articles which stated that Rommels prowess was largely exaggerated, by the Allies to cover up their incompetence. I dismissed it at the time, but WW2 was also a propaganda war so I never excluded that possibility entirely.
I have heard that one too, and I agree with it to some extend. Consider Rommel had only 100,000 under supplied men, and he was up against 230,000 well supplied enemies who had air superiority over him. He lasted longer than most other generals would have in similar situation. In some people's view, he did great with what he had. However, many other German generals never thought too highly of Rommel from what I have heard, because he was fighting a much smaller scale battle than many other German generals who were commanding much larger forces but also fighting against even worse odds.
The disdain that most of the other German generals felt for Rommel was in no small part due to the fact that they believed he was promoted up to fast because he was one of Hitlers favorites. Another thing they didn't like about him was the fact that he regularly ignored orders from High Command, yet he got away with it because he was mostly successful.
I worked with a man once who had served as an officer under Monty during the Allied breakout from Normandy in Operation Goodwood, and his opinion of him was that he could have done things a lot better. What few people realise is that the success of both Rommel and Montgomery in North Africa was largely brought about by intelligence diamonds provided by their spy services. Rommel was using a British major who was the unwitting victim of a honey trap in Cairo. The British officer worked in a department which gave him access to secret documents, and the idiot took them home with him, via a visit to a young lady who, unknown to him, was part of an Abwehr unit. While the Major was attending to his lady friend upstairs her accomplice was opening the briefcase and photographing each and every document before putting them back in perfect order. The Abwehr team then transmitted the details to Rommel using a one-off pad based on the book Rebecca. So, no supernatural gifts of mind reading there! Monty on the other hand had access to Ultra, the information streaming from the secret computer in Bletchley Park that was regularly decoding the Nazi Enigma codes. One key gem revealed that the Germans had mistakenly believed one area of sand around El-Alamein was unpassable for armour, and therefore didn't need to be defended. This was precisely where the Allies dealt their surprise blow to break the German lines. To be honest, I much prefer Rommel. He was a gentleman in every aspect. When a British commando squad atttacked his base and tried to kill him (he wasn't there at the time) he made sure that the dead commandos were given a burial with military honours. This was contrary to the Fuhrer's instructions.
Rommel is a stroke of genius, no matter how you put it. especially because he was only interested in being a soldier, he didnt believe in the nazi party, he believed in germany. period.
Absolutely. And this cost him his life. After the Stauffenberg bomb exploded under Hitler's backside in his HQ in Prussia, many good German officers were executed. Rommel, who wasn't in on the conspiracy anyway, was invited to commit suicide instead of the usual execution because the blow to German morale of an execution would have been too much. Rommel was a much loved leader among his troops and in the German population. Rommel didn't flinch, he took his own life willingly to save the honour of his country. I just thank God the Germans didn't have more leaders like him.
At that point in time it wasn't really his country he was thinking about, more or less his wife and child. As the relatives of a "usurper" they would have faced severe consequences, even death.
If Rommel have had his full logistics,Churchill must had to replace[3rd time] Monty for Africa Front....(considering logistics are one of the most prior target in modern warfare)the WW ii History for Africa then have written another way. Equipments,military-engineering,armaments,strategy, discipline......almost in every aspects,'Afrika Korps' were superior to Allied.Still I've not found any comparison of the then 3rd Panzer Division to the Allied. Rommel never ev'r surrendered at Africa,his absence been choose to strike 'Afrika Korps' by Monty,earlier who had no battle-winning experience . Rommel to POW-Africa........'' gentlemen,you fought bravely,but led by donkey''.
Yea....yea....the General,the Field marshal,the gentleman,the human with a military uniform.......Erwin J E Rommel was the only general of Germany,who ordered subordinates to share ration with the POW,when his troupe devastatingly scared of WATER and food..which also be the then battle winning factor. Not only this,a good numbers of Africa-returned personnel of both the Axis & Allied veteran recalled in their memoir 'bout this German soldier ... "as a perfect gentleman in a military-armour''
To me,as far as my knowledge goes,he was much more superior than Monty(though I 've a full respect to this British general) whene'er I go for a parallel study of the both,I found that the then Africa-front scenario was totally negative to Rommel(Axis). Rommel fought 2 eminent enemies entire his service life of ww2, ie., His Head-quarter(again there were at least three Personnel excluding the Fuhrer) considering Home-front and at Battle-front there the Allied. Considering all the generals of the world have 24hrs only to utilize ,out of which Rommel spent a lot of time to fight against his Head-quarter.Monty spent nothing except gaining backups and setting strategy,without loosing any precious moments. 'Afriks Korps' was newer than the British-Indian-Australian-New Zealanders at Africa-front and primarily occupied almost all of the strategic holds,where Monty just served the meal. Here Rommel had to modify and unify the whole Italians(almost all of them were so backwarded comparing German military professionalism).Here also Monty just served the meal,since the primarily posted Allied were more updated and trained,equipped. Rommel was a pure breed German soldier,fought for his fatherland and not for the Nazy Germany,where Monty was British,purely served for Britain,without any contradiction.......
Don't get me wrong, Diptangshu, I am not Nazi!!! The fact that I said "Thank God the Germans didn't have more leaders like him," clarifies which side I'm on here, surely. Rommel was responsible for many Allied casualties and was a key general defending an obnoxious regime. Not a shred of doubt about that. What we're talking about here is his skill as a commander (the question of the OP) and his professional attitude to death in the wake of the conspiracy against Hitler, which show him as an enemy to be taken into account very seriously.
........getting you in no wrong side,actually,I unable to make you understand my feelings right there.... To me, when Rommel understood the fighting was going to a wrong direction,he started to convince his Head quarter against war.I think this attitude of Rommel added an extra negative point to Fuhrer towards Rommel's death(not forgetting Stulpnagel). He wanted to save Germans as well the Allied to close the war as soon as possible...if I'm not telling wrong. Finally his bravery recalled another German...really I mean German, was Hanna(to me),been a true German patriot...
It's too bad Rommel was killed off by his own leader, Rommel was a good soul and a good German. There was no direct prove that Rommel had any part in the bomb plot to kill Hitler, but still, Hitler had his best General(s) commit suicide. Hitler wanted someone to pay 'right then and right now' so Hitler picked out his best generals and had them killed...no wonder Hitler lost the war! Rommel IMO out skilled Monty and Rommel did have some type of genius in him. Still, I respect Monty he did a good job. I believe Monty lived until he's 80's? Maybe there's YouTube films of elderly Monty talking about the battles between him and Rommel?
Churchill had to change for third time at North Africa finding no better than Monty,intending to overcome Afrika korps.He was furious. Monty was under immense pressure from two sides,ie.,the press and the government.He had to stop Rommel by any means, since 3rd Panzer Division was superior enough. History tells us that North Africa Campaign seized by Monty...Monty own. 3rd Panzer Division collapsed during the absence of Rommel;Dunkirk overcome during His absence too. Rommel died because he was German,not Nazi.The process became inevitable and much earlier due to Stulpnagel....and I think so.
