Re: Losers (was Starting to build a tank) [TANKS]

[Steve Edwards <sedwards-at-awger.net>]

Steve Tyng wrote:

>I never stated Rommel was a loser.  I said he lost.  Two different
>things.
>  
>

Ayeah... which is why I said, "depends on how you define 'lost'"  :-)

What I was trying to say (badly, I guess) was that the Afrika Corps' 
ousture from North Africa wasn't so much Rommel's loss as it was a 
result of his situation, which doesn't invalidate his views on tactics 
or strategy. Rommel was faced with an impossible task, and so I can't 
say he "lost" because he failed to accomplish it.

That being said, he did screw the pooch on the invasion in Normandy.

>Even if England had been invaded (doubtful since Germany never put
>together a credible marine invasion force) we would have just staged
>from Africa or through Russia.  It may have taken longer but the Axis
>powers would have succumbed to the Allies greater industrial and
>manpower base.  An individual leader may win the battle but it's the
>economies that win wars.
>  
>

Interesting... and, thinking about it now, I wonder how the Germans 
expected to get their armor across the channel...?

I've always been of the opinion that it was possible for the Germans to 
knock Britain out of the war without an absolute military victory on 
English soil. There was so much materiel and supply coming across the 
Atlantic that, had the Germans been able to throttle it sufficiently, 
England would not have had the resources to continue, and would have 
wound up much like France (Viche vs Free).

So, from a certain perspective, we're in agreement. :)

    - Steve "then again, had we nuked Berlin..." Edwards