he built a HQ 60 miles form the front line is a coward while Macarthur has a HQ over 2000 miles from the front line and not even on the same island during the battles for PNG and is a hero?
Thanks for the interesting recount! In perfect hindsight, would Rommel have been better off attacking the British or doing something else? The US group may have languished under poor command indefinitely, posing little threat. Why attack with so little gasoline supply?
"Attack" was in Rommel's nature. To simply turtle and conserve ammo and supplies was simply not in his nature. He knew it was a long shot, but he probably thought it was the only card he had to play.
@@codycarlsonph.d.5591 I figure that Rommel winning in North Africa was a long shot- the more successful he was, the longer his supply lines and his attacks running out of steam. He needed to hope for a blow that would cause the Brits, then later Americans, to collapse, sort of like in France 1940. Whether there ever was a chance for the collapse, at least he had to consider it, because it's hard to imagine anything but eventual defeat if he simply went on defense. The Brits would have had to batter away at him and suffer a lot of losses, but eventually they'd wear him down. Like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, etc., to be successful in a bad situation, you've got to be audacious, aggressive and rely on a bit of luck going your way. That's worked many times in history, but that luck part means there's a lot of risk, and for Rommel, with his poor supply situation, and Germany focused on the East, his only hope was to attack and have a huge amount of luck go his way. If he'd got that luck and drove the Brits out of Egypt and captured the oil fields for Germany, I'm sure a lot of people that criticize him now, would talk about how brilliant he was to keep attacking. At least, that's my take on it.
@@codycarlsonph.d.5591Rommel et al; were once again in a now or never situation, I don't see the logistical interdictions by the allies as a fault of the panzer army afrika. Von Thoma predicted that problem as unavoidable in a 1940 report and Rommel was poaching fuel off the Italians and captured stocks from his first battle in N Africa. The axis constantly bit off more than they could digest and noone could have contended with us production and shipping capabilities, I think... Thanks for good lectures 👍
what film? (that you mention at the end)
"Patton"
he built a HQ 60 miles form the front line is a coward while Macarthur has a HQ over 2000 miles from the front line and not even on the same island during the battles for PNG and is a hero?
Much different circumstances.
Thanks for the interesting recount! In perfect hindsight, would Rommel have been better off attacking the British or doing something else? The US group may have languished under poor command indefinitely, posing little threat. Why attack with so little gasoline supply?
"Attack" was in Rommel's nature. To simply turtle and conserve ammo and supplies was simply not in his nature. He knew it was a long shot, but he probably thought it was the only card he had to play.
@@codycarlsonph.d.5591 I figure that Rommel winning in North Africa was a long shot- the more successful he was, the longer his supply lines and his attacks running out of steam. He needed to hope for a blow that would cause the Brits, then later Americans, to collapse, sort of like in France 1940.
Whether there ever was a chance for the collapse, at least he had to consider it, because it's hard to imagine anything but eventual defeat if he simply went on defense. The Brits would have had to batter away at him and suffer a lot of losses, but eventually they'd wear him down. Like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, etc., to be successful in a bad situation, you've got to be audacious, aggressive and rely on a bit of luck going your way.
That's worked many times in history, but that luck part means there's a lot of risk, and for Rommel, with his poor supply situation, and Germany focused on the East, his only hope was to attack and have a huge amount of luck go his way. If he'd got that luck and drove the Brits out of Egypt and captured the oil fields for Germany, I'm sure a lot of people that criticize him now, would talk about how brilliant he was to keep attacking.
At least, that's my take on it.
@@codycarlsonph.d.5591Rommel et al; were once again in a now or never situation, I don't see the logistical interdictions by the allies as a fault of the panzer army afrika. Von Thoma predicted that problem as unavoidable in a 1940 report and Rommel was poaching fuel off the Italians and captured stocks from his first battle in N Africa. The axis constantly bit off more than they could digest and noone could have contended with us production and shipping capabilities, I think... Thanks for good lectures 👍
Have a cuppa Tea m8 👍
Thanks.