mellenthin wrote:At no time Rommel was at a point where he could not be supported.
There was for example no impossibility of supporting him at El Alamein.
Again a bit of a strawman although a more cleverly worded one than usual. No one has claimed he could not be supported or that it was impossibile to support him in front of El Alamein. However the logisitical support was clearly inadequate on a number of ocasions and at El Alamein was one I believe.
The main difficulty was always supplies being sunk before they arrived.
The evidence is pretty clear that this is not the case. The problem was moving material to the front from the ports as has been clearly described a number of times over on the axis history forum. Usually just before you get another account banned.
Before Rommel started his attack in august 1942, for example,he had received the assurance that he would get the fuel he needed,if necessary by air.Ufortunately,the tankers were sunk and Kesselring did not succeed in fullfilling his promise of getting enough fuel through by air.
I.e. he couldn't recieve adequate logistical support.
The german and italian high commands could have theoretically ordered a retreat for logistical reasons but obviously that did not happen as it would have meant giving up a lot of terrain.
Why you keep repeating this pieces of irrelavancy I don't know.
In addition the position at El Alamein was a very good one from a defensive viewpoint.
Not given the length and vulnerability of his supply lines it wasn't.