Top 100 Generals

I suppose you don't see the hypocrisy in accusing me of making 'ad hominem' attacks (below) when that is in fact what you are doing and I am not.

I'm not dismissing it. However you do appear to be dismissing 'Engima' which was the biggest intelligence coup of the war. I have studied the campaign in detail. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that you have not. You read one book that describes the good intel that the Germans had for a certain period and base your entire 'theory' of Rommel's command ability on that. A clear sign that you are not as well read on the subject as you pretend to be. 

No, you've stated vague generalities about the campaign that are not particularly accurate, such as British defenses 'denuded', 'massive reinforcments' for Rommel and 'huge advantage' for Rommel. You've then consistently failed to back up those claims. Your argument that the information supporting your claims in 'readily available in the public domain ' is laughable. If it is so 'readily available' then why don't you simply post exactly what the British supposedly removed from the front in Cyrenaica to go to Greece that left their defenses 'denuded', as you claim? It is because you can't, because you don't know, because your claim is false.

Lol. This is actually pretty funny. Not 'bogged down' in sources or numbers? I can understand why you prefer to avoid this, since in fact you don't really know what you're talking about. However, sources and 'numbers' are what proper historical study is based upon. You on the other hand appear to be basing your comments on little more than your anti-German prejudices and the occasional piece of information you've happened across � which you fail to put in its proper context due to your lack of a comprehensive understanding. Rommel is very far from being a 'hero' to me. However I have made a balanced assessment of his military performance, which you have failed to do with your 'everything German is bad' bias.

No, it is part of a pattern in your posts, where you consistently make statements that you cannot back up with proper cites. In that case it was your claim that the German population was 100 million, which is much higher than other sources, and which you could not justify.

But the British were fighting the Italians, the Germans were fighting the British. Which British units were 'poorly trained'? The British held Tobruk at the time, the Axis supplies were coming from Tripoli. So who was further from their supply source as the Axis advanced across Cyrenaica? Most of the forces available to Rommel were actually Italian. So how do you reconcile the fact that the British crushed a much larger Italian force when it was led by Italians but Italian units, with a few German units, were able to defeat the British with Rommel in command, and when the numbers were much more even.

Congratulations, you actually looked up some 'numbers' on Wiki. However, this conclusively demonstrates that you don't really know as much as you pretend to know about the conflict, or about historical research. First let me start with the following source: �Afrika Korps� by Major K.J. Macksey, M.C. Major Macksey says that at Second Alamein the British had �over a thousand tanks�. So I suppose you must consider Major Macksey to have only studied the battle at 'the superficial level' and have used 'school books' figures. BTW Major Macksey agrees with the 489 figure for the Axis which you quoted from Wiki. So now I check �History of the Second World War� by B.H. Liddell Hart. Hart says that the British had 1,440 tanks of which 1,229 were 'ready for action'. He also states that the Axis had 260 German tanks (20 under repair, 30 light Panzer II's) and 280 Italian tanks. Finally, if you had bothered to look at your Wiki source more than 'superficially', you would have noted the source was Playfair, Maj.Gen.I.S.O. - History of WW II �The Mediterranean & Middle East�. This is what Playfair has to say about the number of tanks for each side in the Second Battle of El Alamein:

Playfair, Pg 9 - 1,029 tanks ready for action broke down into: 170 M3 Grants, 252 M4 Shermans, 216 Crusader II, 78 Crusader III, 119 M3 Honeys, 194 Valentine. Playfair also notes that 200 tanks were available as replacements and there was over 1000 tanks in workshops being repaired, overhauled or modified

Playfair, Pg 9-11 - broken down into 31 x Panzer II, 85 x Panzer III (short 50), 88 x Panzer III (long 50), 8 x Panzer IV (short 75), 30 x Panzer IV (long 75), 7 x Command tanks, 278 x M13/40 Variants, 20 x "light" tanks. Playfair notes that another 23 German tanks were under repair but these have been excluded from the above total

So Playfair actually says that the British had 1,029 in the front, another 200 available for replacements and a further 1,000 potentially available in 'workshops'. So, one might more generally state that the British had 'over 1,000', or one might specify that 1,029 were in the front with the additional numbers described by Playfair and / or Hart as 'available'. However, claiming that the British only had exactly 1,029 is just plain wrong. I also note that here you rather hypocritically 'accuse' me of not being specific, whereas you previously excused yourself for not being specific.

I have done 'research'. Beyond your unattributed Wiki quote, you have not. You are the one guilty of 'ad hominem' attacks. I do not expect you to provide me with any accurate information, spoon fed or otherwise, since with the rare Wiki exception you are not in possession of accurate information. If you were actually as well read as you pretend to be, you would know that Rommel's reputation is not based on 'Nazi propaganda', unless you consider historians such as B.H. Liddell Hart to be guilty of disseminating 'Nazi propaganda'. Regarding your laughable 'worth' counter-argument comment � you started off stating generalities which were not particularly accurate, and then completely failed to back up your claims. The one actual specific stat that you attempted to use, the Wiki tank reference, was inaccurate and incomplete as I have demonstrated. You not offered any argument at all, simply your own biased anti-German 'opinions'. What is left for me to refute?