Why was Rommel such a bad Corps Commander, though he was a good Divisional Commander?

Rommel is a subject of some controversy with regards to his skill as a commander.

There is no doubt he was very aggressive and opportunistic, but the fact is that most of his more famous exploits were against troops who were badly equipped and/or badly lead.

This applies to both wars.

There are numerous occasions in the first war where by Rommel's own account, his command came perilously close to annihilation due to his having over-extended himself even when faced with Romanian or Italians opponents. It is notable that his bold performances cease when he records the arrival of French and British troops in the Italian alps.

In the second war he suffered a qualified defeat in Operation Crusader despite the enemy having no significant quantitative advantage and very significant qualitative disadvantages, particularly with regards to tanks in what was overwhelmingly a tank-based theatre.

During the battle of Gazala, his entire command only avoided complete destruction thanks to the timely stupidity of the enemy generals, and his only subsequent success of note was against untried and inexperienced Americans at Kasserine pass.

Indeed, one could easily argue that the his drive to the channel coast in 1940, the origin of the Rommel legend, was easily eclipsed by Manstein's drive into Russia the following year.

In short, Rommel was an officer blessed by the good luck of facing an inadequate enemy for the bulk of his career and made the most of it.

There is However, nothing that I have read to indicate he had particular shortcomings at the rank of corps commander, as opposed to divisional or company command.

Sources

Infantry Attacks - Erwin Rommel The Rommel Papers - Erwin and Manfred Rommel Manstien - Hugo Melvin The Imperial War Museum Book of the Desert War - Adrian Gilbert