Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also Lee was a terrible general.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Also Lee was a terrible general.

 LordofHats wrote:


Another reason the Southern coal resources weren't as developed is because coal in PA was sooooo much easier to get. The Susquehanna River valley offers a very geologically advantageous network for transporting resources, and the coal there was easier to access (and thus discovered sooner, coal in WV wasn't known till after the war, and in Alabama and Arkansas unknown till the 1840's). When railroads came in, it became simple for industrialists to focus on the PA coal resources and improve that industry, meaning that the bulk of US coal production ended up happening in the North, not the South.

I would also not agree with that theory (it's been patently disproven). The real issue is the availability of capital. Did Southerners have a lot of wealth? Hell yeah. They had a lot of wealth. Problem? That wealth was mostly tied up in land and slaves. The vast majority of southern plantations were not the spanning luxury mansions we think of today (many of those were really built after the Civil War). Southerns had little spendable cash, and thus could not invest in industry as easily as Northerners could. There were attempts of course. In the 1840's Georgia enjoyed a boom in textile production but a cotton crash later in the decade destroyed it all.

Ok, that fills in some gaps in my knowledge. I knew PA was big in coal and I knew WV was, too. I didn't realize that WV wasn't very big until the post-war period. I also didn't know AL and AK coal was pre-war (I thought it was more post-war). The information about money being tied up in property goes a long way to explain the lack of industrialization, especially if AL and AK had coal pre-war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Also Lee was a terrible general.

He wasn't terrible, he was just susceptible to ego-driven battlefield descisions. Like at Gettysburg, where the smart thing to do would be to disengage and fight the North on more favorable ground. He was a good general for the era, but the era was ending. Longstreet, Sherman, and Grant were generals for the new era of warfare.

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Also Lee was a terrible general.

He did well when he had Jackson telling him to stop being a small girl, and he was a fool to never give the same respect and courtesy to Longstreet. When Jackson was killed, with him refusing to heed Longstreet you have events like Pickett's charge.

squidhills wrote:

He wasn't terrible, he was just susceptible to ego-driven battlefield descisions. Like at Gettysburg, where the smart thing to do would be to disengage and fight the North on more favorable ground. He was a good general for the era, but the era was ending. Longstreet, Sherman, and Grant were generals for the new era of warfare.

This. I call him terrible mainly due to the sad idolisation of him. Hell, there was even a movement to discredit Longstreet to prop up Lee's image. That's just pathetic.

There's also John T. Wilder, aka "omg guys I think I just discovered combined arms warfare!"

I think Lee was a capable general, but he operated (like most US generals at the time) on Jominian Theory. Grant quickly found that being at the bottom of his class at West Point had serious advantages, namely that he didn't actually understand Jominian theory, didn't try to apply it, and ended up kicking ass XD

Lee had a good PR department after the war.

Beyond that he was average at best.

Also combined arms was a lot older, even in the 17th century Gustavus of Sweden practised it with commanded shot alongside cavalry, and even light cannon.

There are examples of it much longer ago than that, but it was more isolated. The idea of mounted infantry wasn't new, but I think what made it so much more effective in the Civil War was the advent of rapid firing weapons that allowed smaller groups of infantry that had the speed of cavalry, to rival the fire-power of much larger formations. It was exemplified in the Civil War.

Had a quick read on Wilder, I love how he shamed the US Government to pay for repeating rifles. Brilliant!

Also pretty much this. For the most part, even after the fall of 'ol Dixie, it was southerners and southern politicians that propagated a culture of hate in this country. The norths hands aren't clean in the matter by any means, but the South is where it was most prominent.

Considering the harsh measures of the reformation, the fact that much of the usable land, homes, farms, and much was looted by Union Soldiers, there wasn't exactly much "love" to be had when everything you had was torn from you, Infrastructure that in some cases wouldn't be fixed up till near World War 2, and then you even had Northerners coming to the South in order to exploit said issues that was to be had during that period of time...

Did anyone really expect anything but hatred after all that?

But yeah, even most people down here know that Northern Aggression thing is bs, unless one thinks an economic sort but then shots were fired first and it's ehhhhh yeah that doesn't matter when you fire on them....

Every war has its redeemed hero. Rommel. Lee. Yamato. After a war the side that lost always looks for someone to look to and say "some of us were swell guys" as a means of recovering from the shock of defeat. Sometimes the process involves flowery depictions and some bent truth

 MrDwhitey wrote:


Also combined arms was a lot older, even in the 17th century Gustavus of Sweden practised it with commanded shot alongside cavalry, and even light cannon.

There are examples of it much longer ago than that, but it was more isolated.

To be fair, it was exemplified in the Civil War.

Like most things, yeah 'discovered' is a strong word when applied to one person. Combined arms was a process and the Civil War is the period where we start to see it realized as a practice but it really came to it's fruition in the Franco-Prussian war. Gustavus contribution to the process however was not a combined arms attack but combined arms unit organization (the integration of cavalry, artillery, and infantry into a single regiment).

Throughout the civil war, battles were mostly small. Infantry v infantry, artillery v artillery, and cavalry v cavalry engagements. Even in larger battles for the most part a battle line wasn't about the elements of the force overlapping to complement one another (combined arms) as all of them shooting in unison at a single target which is more akin to focus fire. The innovation of the Civil War with respect to the development of combined arms was maneuver battle.

The brief exception was John T Wilder. During the Battle of Chattanooga, for a very brief moment, he'd issued a serious of commands that ended up producing a picture perfect realization of combined arms warfare that wouldn't be seen again until 1870. Keeping it short, it at got mess up. The Artillery started firing before they were supposed to, and ended up firing short and needed to readjust several times. The infantry had gotten their orders early, while the artillery got them late and had already started advancing. They ended up being really, really close, to where their own shells were hitting, but advanced anyway. The product was an inadvertent creeping barrage covering the Union advance.

When the artillery finally got their target right, the Confederates found themselves taking very close fire from infantry and artillery at once. Then the commander of the cavalry, after he got lost for a little bit, showed up catching that section of the confederate line from behind. All of this ended up happening at exactly the same moment and shattered the right side of the Confederate battle line. The section of the line got hammered from three different angles by 3 different weapon system that were moving complimentary (if accidentally) which each other.

This was the first time this application of arms can be definitively identified in warfare and typically regarded as the first true instance of a combined arms attack (also called an all arms battle using WWI lingo) . Not that Wilder was a genius exactly, his orders just ended up getting muddled in such a way it produced the result

Had a quick read on Wilder, I love how he shamed the US Government to pay for repeating rifles. Brilliant!

Venture industrialists don't let a little war get in the way of getting the US government to pay for the military industrial complex

Yeah, but Rommel was good.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah, but Rommel was good.

Also a total bad ass;

 LordofHats wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
Maybe I want to celebrate my Ancestor who fought to defend his homeland..

Yeah... And as a byproduct he was fighting to defend slavery. After the civil war it was flown by racists and in support of racism. You can plead ignorance to that and try to change historical fact, but it's the truth. People will judge you by what they see.

You have a right to fly the flag as much as others have the right to question why you would chose to.

Surprisingly, I'm with LordofHats here... There is (sadly) a whole branch of "historical study" of the ACW called "Lost Causers" and the exact sentiment that they project is what GG keeps talking about. They're the idiots who claim the ACW was about "states rights over federal rights" when it was, and always will be about the "right" to own people.


The thing with the Confederate flag that gets flown outside of the South that always gets me, is that, up here in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc) all these idiots think that flying the flag means they are "rebels" and staying true to their roots, when none of them have any Southern heritage... But, they also think that wearing camo to Thanksgiving dinner is the cool thing to do, and that hunting is some form of rebellion against "the Man"

I mean, here's really how it boils down... hunting =cool.... flying the confederate flag because you hunt = not cool.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Also Lee was a terrible general.

Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Cold Harbor disagree.

Also its hard to do combined arms when you have no ammo, or shoes for that matter.

Lee was not great, but he was good, and like Washington good at holding his army together despite going against Zhukov, er Grant.

Fredericksburg, the battle where the Union obligingly tried to cross a river under heavy fire from entrenched positions. Also, Longstreet and Jackson.

Chancellorsville, again, Jackson, though it was also where he was lost. Also, just because the opposing commander was gak, doesn't make Lee good.

Cold Harbor, idiotic Union frontal assaults on fortified positions.

These aren't examples of great generalship on Lee's behalf, they're examples of fething stupidity on the Union. Being taller than a midget doesn't make you "tall". Of those examples only Chancellorsville even approaches being a good manoeuvre, and only if he knew how bad Hooker was. If he didn't, then what he did was one of the stupidest things he could've, but he got so overwhelming lucky it's unbelievable.

squidhills wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


The westernmost portions of Virginia... as in West Virginia? The section of the state that seceded from Virginia to form a new state? Aside from oil fields in Texas (a technology that wasn't really developed yet mind you), in general the South didn't have significant deposits of anything that could be used at the time, either due to being inaccessible or not yet having been developed.

Yes, West By God Virginia. It had coal. Lots of it. The South, in general, hadn't exploited or developed it enough to industrialize itself prior to the war. My point is that they could have done so, if they weren't married to an agrarian economy because of the institution of slavery. Could the South have used the coal in WV to industrialize in 1861? Of course not. Could they have done it in 1830? Yeah, there's no real reason why they couldn't. But they chose not to. One theory for why that was that I've heard is that the plantation owners saw themselves as directly mirroring a romanticized image of the old European feudal estates, and that they felt better than the North becuase they were a sort of American "aristocracy". Mining and factory building were not "aristocratic" pursuits, so industrialization was not a priority for the South. I'm not sure I totally agree with that theory, but it does explain some of the characatures of pre-war Southerners I've seen.

Again, geography. West Virginia is bordered to the west by? The Ohio River. What major American steel city is just to the north of West Virginia right ON the Ohio River? Pittsburgh. Shipping mined coal from WV to Pittsburgh was easier than transporting it to Richmond or Atlanta, was more immediately profitable, and was a long established marketplace that could (and did) compete for natural resources with other areas, as did most major northern industrial center. Additionally, after West Virginia the countries most significant coal deposits are in Pennsylvania IIRC, which was pretty solidly in the north. Beyond that, of the Southern States, the most industrialized was Virginia, which was easily on par with New York or Pennsylvania in terms of Industrial capacity (but any advantage to be gained from Virginia was rendered irrelevant given the fact that a Union army spent five years besieging and/or occupying the most industrialized areas, and any remaining industrial capacity was largely rendered irrelevant by Union blockade). The remaining states lacked the population, resources, means and willpower to follow suit. The South just wasn't conducive to industrial production, hell a good chunk of the South was considered practically unlivable prior to the invention of Air Conditioning. Of course, as LordofHats pointed out, nobody even knew about coal in WV until after the war, and that was true for many of the other southern mineral deposits as well (which for the most part aren't all that significant by way of comparison to the deposits the north had).

So if the South had so much power in government, then how did the North get all these evil, oppressive policies through that hurt the South? Was it because they were so "honorable" that they couldn't bear to stop the North from oppressing them, or were they just bad at their jobs?

The balance of power shifted in the 1850s, even then the Southern states managed to push through most of their policies. You really should fact check your history, there were few if any 'evil, oppressive policies that hurt the South' prior to Lincoln, and even then they weren't all that evil or oppressive, unless you equate being evil and oppressive with freeing those oppressed by evil.

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Also Lee was a terrible general.

I wouldn't disagree. Well, terrible is probably going too far (though the events at Cheat Mountain might say otherwise), but he is certainly overrated. He was in fact very capable, perhaps even borderline brilliant, but one of the hallmarks of a good leader is trusting your people, something which he failed to do repeatedly (unless your name was Stonewall Jackson) and it cost him dearly. If anything, Lees success was because of Stonewall, certainly so considering that Lee's orders were frequently unclear and incomplete, meaning that the recipient of said orders had to determine what it was that was being asked of them. If I had to put my money on a Confederate General, it would probably be Longstreet. While Stonewall was probably the best field commander on either side of the war, he (IMO) wasn't very forward thinking or creative, very much a traditionalist and established in his methodology . Longstreet on the other hand was a man who saw the writing on the wall, he pretty much predicted the fighting of World War 1, and if he had had his way, the war probably would have been a lot longer and bloodier, and certainly far more costly for the Union.

There's also John T. Wilder, aka "omg guys I think I just discovered combined arms warfare!"

Dragoons were a thing before Wilder mounted his infantry and handed them repeaters and hatchets, they just didn't have semi-automatic rifles and brutal native american weaponry at their disposal

I think Lee was a capable general, but he operated (like most US generals at the time) on Jominian Theory. Grant quickly found that being at the bottom of his class at West Point had serious advantages, namely that he didn't actually understand Jominian theory, didn't try to apply it, and ended up kicking ass XD

Jominian theory isn't hard to understand, what is hard to understand is why anyone would think it a good idea.

Every war has its redeemed hero. Rommel. Lee. Yamato. After a war the side that lost always looks for someone to look to and say "some of us were swell guys" as a means of recovering from the shock of defeat. Sometimes the process involves flowery depictions and some bent truth

Understatement.

Throughout the civil war, battles were mostly small. Infantry v infantry, artillery v artillery, and cavalry v cavalry engagements. Even in larger battles for the most part a battle line wasn't about the elements of the force overlapping to complement one another (combined arms) as all of them shooting in unison at a single target which is more akin to focus fire. The innovation of the Civil War with respect to the development of combined arms was maneuver battle.

The brief exception was John T Wilder. During the Battle of Chattanooga, for a very brief moment, he'd issued a serious of commands that ended up producing a picture perfect realization of combined arms warfare that wouldn't be seen again until 1870. Keeping it short, it at got mess up. The Artillery started firing before they were supposed to, and ended up firing short and needed to readjust several times. The infantry had gotten their orders early, while the artillery got them late and had already started advancing. They ended up being really, really close, to where their own shells were hitting, but advanced anyway. The product was an inadvertent creeping barrage covering the Union advance.

When the artillery finally got their target right, the Confederates found themselves taking very close fire from infantry and artillery at once. Then the commander of the cavalry, after he got lost for a little bit, showed up catching that section of the confederate line from behind. All of this ended up happening at exactly the same moment and shattered the right side of the Confederate battle line. The section of the line got hammered from three different angles by 3 different weapon system that were moving complimentary (if accidentally) which each other.

This was the first time this application of arms can be definitively identified in warfare and typically regarded as the first true instance of a combined arms attack (also called an all arms battle using WWI lingo) . Not that Wilder was a genius exactly, his orders just ended up getting muddled in such a way it produced the result

The first part (artillery vs artillery, cavalry vs cavalry, etc. is incorrect, especially as the New Model Army did *not* function in such a manner, nor did Napoleons army.
The second part is also a bit of a headscratcher for me, as the creeping barrage isn't credited as having been invented until the Second Boer War about 20-30 years later... also the Second Battle of Chattanooga was a protracted multi-day artillery bombardment used as a diversionary tactic to allow Rosecrans to cross the Tennessee river undisturbed, which he did successfully, and which resulted in Bragg abandoning Chattanooga instead... so unless we're talking about different battles, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah, but Rommel was good.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong (I assume you mean the whole "Rommel wasn't a Nazi" thing, otherwise as a military mind he was probably one of the best, though he wasn't without serious flaws, such as his impetuous nature and tendency to overextend himself).

Fredericksburg, the battle where the Union obligingly tried to cross a river under heavy fire from entrenched positions. Also, Longstreet and Jackson.

Chancellorsville, again, Jackson, though it was also where he was lost. Also, just because the opposing commander was gak, doesn't make Lee good.

Cold Harbor, idiotic Union frontal assaults on fortified positions.

These aren't examples of great generalship on Lee's behalf, they're examples of fething stupidity on the Union. Being taller than a midget doesn't make you "tall". Of those examples only Chancellorsville even approaches being a good manoeuvre, and only if he knew how bad Hooker was. If he didn't, then what he did was one of the stupidest things he could've, but he got so overwhelming lucky it's unbelievable.

On this, you are right.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah, but Rommel was good.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong.

He's really not wrong here... Certainly Rommel had one glaring weakness, but he was an outstanding field commander within his time and day. There's a reason why some of the greatest military minds (Montgomery and Patton) went head to head with this guy and some some other "slouch" of an officer.

The first part (artillery vs artillery, cavalry vs cavalry, etc. is incorrect, especially as the New Model Army did *not* function in such a manner, nor did Napoleons army.

On paper no. In practice its what the war became however. On paper everyone was expecting big battles like Gettysburg to be the norm, when in reality they became the exception. The bulk of the fighting in the Civil War was a series of long sieges and small unit actions. The new model army was built for a conflict that didn't actually materialize, though everyone until Grant kept trying to fight it.

Lee was always looking for that decisive victory, irony being that when he finally got his big decisive battle, not only did he lose but regardless of the outcome Gettysbury was never going to matter

The second part is also a bit of a headscratcher for me, as the creeping barrage isn't credited as having been invented until the Second Boer War about 20-30 years later... also the

The British developed the practice of barrage during the Second Boer War yes. The events I describe above were not a purposeful series of actions but rather the result of orders arriving early, late, and a commander getting lost. All completely accidental but producing the result of a combined arms attack.

Second Battle of Chattanooga was a protracted multi-day artillery bombardment used as a diversionary tactic to allow Rosecrans to cross the Tennessee river undisturbed, which he did successfully, and which resulted in Bragg abandoning Chattanooga instead... so unless we're talking about different battles, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

My bad here. I'm referring to the protracted series of battles around Chattanooga, where the Chattanooga Campaign and the Second Battle of Chattanooga have been at times used interchangeably. Actually upon inspection I've committed two errors

The battle in question specifically is the Battle of Lookout Mountain, and it was not John Wilder but Joseph Hooker that the events concern.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah, but Rommel was good.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong.

He's really not wrong here... Certainly Rommel had one glaring weakness, but he was an outstanding field commander within his time and day. There's a reason why some of the greatest military minds (Montgomery and Patton) went head to head with this guy and some some other "slouch" of an officer.

I edited my post right after posting it to clarify what I meant.

The battle in question specifically is the Battle of Lookout Mountain, and it was not John Wilder but Joseph Hooker that the events concern.

I had a feeling it wasn't Wilder @ Chattanooga, seemed odd that he would have been responsible (even by accident) for all that given that the artillery he did have under his command was very light and limited.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong (I assume you mean the whole "Rommel wasn't a Nazi" thing, otherwise as a military mind he was probably one of the best, though he wasn't without serious flaws, such as his impetuous nature and tendency to overextend himself).

Well, in the sense that he wasn't a party member, no Rommel wasn't a Nazi, but indeed his 'redeemed' image overlooks his very proactive support for Hitler. Rommel was sidelined after WWI because he was kind of a jerk to his fellow officers, and only got his command of 7th Panzer because he and Hitler were good buddies.

There's also always been the overstating of his supposedly roll in the July 20 Plot, a plot that at most he only knew about and did nothing to aid or hinder.

Have to remember. Guderian, a logistical officer, came up with this crazy idea about introducing cavalry tactics to a mechanized force. Afterwards it was nothing but refinements and experience. Work really well against other military forces thinking "old school"

Rommel made huge errors in judgement in his Defense of France. The Atlantic wall was a farce, the idea that you could defend against sea based landing support was foolish. Trying to send tanks to the front, when you have naval vessels firing at you doesn't work well.

I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant in Africa, but he wasn't all that and a bag of chips.

GG

chaos0xomega wrote:

squidhills wrote:


So if the South had so much power in government, then how did the North get all these evil, oppressive policies through that hurt the South? Was it because they were so "honorable" that they couldn't bear to stop the North from oppressing them, or were they just bad at their jobs?

The balance of power shifted in the 1850s, even then the Southern states managed to push through most of their policies. You really should fact check your history, there were few if any 'evil, oppressive policies that hurt the South' prior to Lincoln, and even then they weren't all that evil or oppressive, unless you equate being evil and oppressive with freeing those oppressed by evil.

I was being facetious. Other posters have come here and claimed that the South was justified in rebelling because of all of the mean political things the North did to them prior to the war. they claim that was the real reason behind the war and not slavery. You pointed out that the South had a lot of political power prior to the war, and I used that to point out the fallacy in claiming that the North politically bullied the South. And Lordof Hats already 411'd me on the pre-war Southern coal situation (you grow up as close to WV as I do, you think all coal in the world comes from there) but I appreciate the extra info.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah, but Rommel was good.

If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong (I assume you mean the whole "Rommel wasn't a Nazi" thing, otherwise as a military mind he was probably one of the best, though he wasn't without serious flaws, such as his impetuous nature and tendency to overextend himself).

I was talking entirely about his abilities as a commander.

 generalgrog wrote:
Rommel made huge errors in judgement in his Defense of France. The Atlantic wall was a farce, the idea that you could defend against sea based landing support was foolish. Trying to send tanks to the front, when you have naval vessels firing at you doesn't work well.

I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant in Africa, but he wasn't all that and a bag of chips.

GG

Rommel was right though, defeating the allied invasion on the beach would have been the only real way for Germany to ensure a victory against the Western Allies, Rommel was put in a gakky situation and did pretty well for it. Also keep in mind that the defenses were never finished, not that I think it would have made too great a difference.

Rommel had people go over his head, disobey orders, wasn't given command of the tank reserves, he got fethed.

Even as a commander its hard to tell just how much was Rommel being good and how much was Rommel being a gloriously lucky bastard. They pop up from time to time. Those people who make decisions that seem like they just shouldn't work but who just make it out alive.

A lot of German commanders used Rommel's style; bold, insanely reckless, possibly suicidal, and disjointed. Rommel's just one of the few who not only lived (its ridiculous how many times he almost died in the war) but one of the few to have successive success.

I'd argue Rommel was good at what he did but overall a commander with serious weakness. What saved him were his men. The Afrika Korps had some of the best officers in the German Army. Men who had enough talent and ability to take the running insanity that was Rommel and make it work. Johann von Ravenstein is almost undisputedly the best Division commander in Germany in 1942. I'd have to look up the name, but the Afrika Korps also benefited from the one of the best staff officers as well along with a host of other very talented and capable men who could take action themselves and win.

Being a great general is half skill and half being a lucky bastard.

Lee was a lucky bastard in that until Grant came on the scene Lincoln had terrible taste in CGs. George B. "Fights Like A Quaker" McCLellan in particular prolonged the war a good year at least by his failure to fething DO anything.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Being a great general is half skill and half being a lucky bastard.

True enough words indeed

Also the argument that the part of being a good leader is have good people to help you get the job done. A good example is Hannibal. Everyone remembers his name and his victory at Cannae, but almost no one remembers his brother, Margo, who bears the bulk of the weight for making that victory happen.

For the record Rommel was a brilliant son of a bitch. If he'd been able to have his panzers forward the Allied invasion of Europe would have died on the beaches.

Also I've read that magnificent bastard's book, and it's absolutely stunning the tactics he was up to as an infantry commander in the first world war. His Ghost Division during the Blitzkrieg (the first time had commanded tanks) and his skill during the Desert War similarly marks Rommel as a truly great general.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
For the record Rommel was a brilliant son of a bitch. If he'd been able to have his panzers forward the Allied invasion of Europe would have died on the beaches.

Also I've read that magnificent bastard's book, and it's absolutely stunning the tactics he was up to as an infantry commander in the first world war. His Ghost Division during the Blitzkrieg (the first time had commanded tanks) and his skill during the Desert War similarly marks Rommel as a truly great general.

Agreed... It's almost standard, required reading for anyone who ends up in a Tank unit in the US Military As I alluded to earlier in the thread, he was brilliant with one pretty big flaw, which was his tendency to outrun his supplies

Right, there's a beautiful quote out there that said a gifted commander masters strategy but a master concerns himself with logistics. Smedley Butler's decision to unfuck "Rail Camp" first and foremost, leaving order where there was chaos THEN going out to whomp ass during the first world war is an interesting look at the mind of a skilled commander.

Rommel's book SHOULD be standard issue for any grunt too, there's solid info and doctrine on moving troops, broken up with spicy quotes like "In the absence of orders, find something and kill it". It does lack pictures except for a few diagrams as I recall so that might make it hard for some of my grunt brethren to complete...