>>909134
he played with the tactics that others created.

He was never a bad general, but he was never a good one either. He was just known for trying to kill Hitler and beating the shit out of a horribly led army in North Africa. His escapades in Normandy weren't out of this world and probably sum up his skills best.

>>909142
The replies for these threads are so typical, always basically the same.

>no he was overrated shit and complicit in Nazi crimes

>yes he was best general of the war and supreme gentleman

Was Africa a mistake ?

he was a very good general in fact
only to a certain level however, let's say that of a division commander
and the higher up he went, the more cracks appeared as he constantly outran supplies, went against strategic objectives, and was ultimately defeated

>>909134

No, he was a good captain who got promoted to way past his level of expertise.

In his most famous campaign, he really had no plan beyond "CHAREG" and "Win lots of battles and hope for the best" He had no idea how he was going to get his supplies delivered in Tripoli to his frontline pushing ever eastwards, and figured that was someone else's problem.

He either didn't realize the importance of Africa being a strategically defensive theater, and the goal was to try to stall for as long as possible with as little possible materiel, or he didn't want to play second fiddle like that: Neither is particularly good for evaluating him.

>>909134
He was a good general. Enough wanking over him already.

rommel was a good tactician but he lacked skills as a strategist. He was also a good leader. His men all pretty much universally loved him, though he was known for being hard on his subordinate officers.

He was a great field commander. He wasn't suited for high command however.

>>909347
sums it up best

>>909227
ah yes the Peter Principal.

pumb

>>909163
Africa wouldn't have been a mistake if the Italians took care of their shit.