I think in the end, that may explain Rommel's loss of faith in Herr Schickelgrueber.
As for Monty: a prima donna/nancy boy and way over rated. But he was our cousin's so we needed him. Patton, brilliant tactician but a prima donna as well.Had the foresight to see that the Rooshians were the real problem.
Patton, Montgomery, Rommel: Masters of War [Hardcover] By Terry Brighton
Rommel, Monty, and Patton were all the right type of men for the campaign in which they were needed. Rommel was an offensive general, a man who always looked for the attack or counter-attack, a thruster, someone who would take audacious risks, a master of mobility. Monty was a compulsive preparer, conservative, cautious, who would not attack until and unless he had a crushing superiority, solid intelligence, and a sound careful plan. Rommel had a force that was more mobile and had a doctrine geared to the offensive. Monty had endless supplies and (by the time of Alam Halfa and Second El Alamein) a very strong position to work from.
Montgomery could not have succeeded with the Afrika Korps, there’s no way. He didn’t have the materiel superiority he so based his planning upon. But likewise I don’t know if Rommel could have succeeded with the Eighth Army. He would have had supplies and replacements beyond his wildest dreams, but he also would have been stuck with a meddling Churchill, British doctrine, and the bloated and slow British staff system instead of the lightning-fast response he eventually got from his own corps staff and gifted subordinates like Bayerlein. Imagining some of those British divisional staffs having to deal with a force of nature like Erwin Rommel is amusing.
Thanks for the book, I’ll have to check that out. If you want another good biography of Rommel, try Knight’s Cross by David Fraser. If nothing else it shows that Rommel’s exploits in World War I as a mere Leutnant or Oberleutnant are, if anything, even more spectacular than what he accomplished in World War II.
}:-)4