I already reported this, but would love to share this piece of work:

As a battlefield commander in WWII Rommel had no equal.

Which is why he was in Africa, and not the Eastern Front.

Upon landing in Libya, Rommel immediately went on the attack not even bothering to wait for his entire Afrika Korps to arrive.

Which, as everybody knows, is a key tactic in WW2: The RTS, since if you rush your opponent, you are winning. Nevermind your logistics, your defenses and flanks, just Never mind the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Leading from the front Rommel was able to put his unique command gifts

These being: Circumventing the chain of command, and micro managing what he has a staff for, instead of looking at the strategic situation, as would be proper for a theater commander.

to good work in the desert where he could concentrate his tanks in tactical formations (as in close vicinity where he could command the entire formation by radio)

See? Big picture is overrated, just mass all your tanks, and tell 'em when to do what. That's why you got that general commission, and aren't some colonel.

and achieve operational success attacking more numerous foes. The recipes for success were exactly the same as in WWI. The difference was that instead of leading 400 men into battle, he lead 400 Panzers.

The other difference being that it was World War 2, and not World War 1, and warfare was completely changed by this little thing called aeroplane, also tanks.

Every single one of Rommel's successes was reversed by the British, because they cheated and minded their logistics, giving ground where they could, and starting counter-offenses when German supply lines became overstretched. They just weren't as brilliant as Rommel, who charged ahead, ignoring his chain of command and logistics trail.

Source of the Shit that Wehraboo Said: https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3f5f6v/why_is_erwin_rommel_so_revered_as_a_military/ctlu68v