France
Yes, I read your sources and came to the conclusion they're wrong. They keep going on about how Montgomery didn't defeat Rommel because of his experience, skills and tactics but because of American equipment. Here's something to take into account, if anyone else but Montgomery was in given the task of defeating Rommel and pushing Germany out of Africa, would they have been able to accomplish that task? Montgomery when WW2 broke out had considerable battlefield experience and was highly respected among colonial troops; he was by no means inexperienced and inept. Rommel on the other hand didn't have much experience and wasn't respected by a lot of his troops(Italians and Germans).
Guderian was actually a skilled General, but I can't say the same about Rommel; he literally screwed Germany in Africa and I honestly believe someone else should've replaced him. Look no further than Normandy where he was stationed after his defeat in Africa; was he able to achieve victories there? No, not even close.
"LAURENCE REES: So what lessons were we learning in North Africa?
ROBERT CITINO: Well, better intelligence. General Montgomery benefited from the Enigma Intelligence or Ultra Intelligence that was flowing into his headquarters, and soldiers in both the British and the American Army learnt that a German tank attack as impressive and as much, to use the current cliché, shock and awe as it contained was also something that could be countered with massed anti-tank guns, with steadier infantry formations, and with better fire control systems for the artillery. And certainly the British Army had learned those things by itself by Rommel’s last great throw of the dice at the end of 1942. Montgomery was then able to go on the offensive and actually destroy a German Army, something that the Western Allies had not been able to do up until this point. And Churchill’s famous saying that before Alamein we never had a victory and after Alamein we never had a defeat, still speaks volumes to my mind about armies having to learn how to win."
See they do praise Monty's expertise on using superior British Intelligence in order to counter the german blitzkrieg with superb defensive line, he also trained troops and built morale which is very important. No one said it was USA Equipement that defeated Rommel they just say that the landing 60 000 US troops sealed the deal. They mainly pick on Monty for having an inflated ego and taking credit for things he did not do or merit. By the way, the Australians and New Zealanders did not get along with Montgomery, they made a bing chunk of the colonial troops.
Rommel did not really screw it up in Africa, he was in a desperate position and gambled it all on the El Alamein offensive because he had no more supplies so he attempted a breaktrough (He failed, it happens). Then the Afrika Korps lost the initiative and was hunted down; that is how you lose wars. The same thing happened in Kursk on the eastern front, the Ostheer lost the initiative forever. Truly it was the German High Command that screwed up by not giving more strategic importance to the North African Theather, replacing Rommel would not have changed the outcome. I'm still glad the Axis lost in North Africa, I'm just noting that it was a formidable training ground for the US Army, the British Forces and the Free French at Bir Hakeim, in part because Rommel was a splendid enemy and thus teacher. Rommel's lack of victories in Normandy are also the consequence of the lack of initiative, the germans were on full defense at the operational and strategic level, if you're constantly taking punches then u can't win as you lack initative and can't punch back/riposte.
Regarding Guderian.
Relic Entertainment
