Who was better: Patton or Rommel

[CCB]

Rommel was better than Patton as Rommel was able to do more with less, especially considering Rommel had a huge handicap, namely Hitler.

[String]

If one listes carefully he can hear the popping sound of a huge can of worms being opened..

[CCB]

ORIGINAL: String

If one listes carefully he can hear the popping sound of a huge can of worms being opened..

hehe

btw why was the 'Patton' thread locked?

[riverbravo]

Good riddons to the patton thread.It was going in circles.

At least the Bismarck thread kept evolving.

[Hexed Gamer]

I think they were equal.

Rommel was no different, but he lacked support.

Both were daring inovative bold rash and not afraid to get right in there and lead.

[Riun T]

Real sorry to wind anyones crank by this post, but come on guys the answer is so right there in front of ya!!! First off Patton even admitted himself his was a lost breed he pictured Himself as a PreMadonna,Like Ceasar,Or Hanibull,even referances Alexander the Great. Vanity in a soldier don't mix whit the job to well in my experience. Rommel on theother hand could kid about the knights of old and the fact that chivilris acts come from even the lowlyest private. Patton was known for Driving his men Rommel Directed his men.

[SlapBone]

The real question should be:

Who was better: Patton or Montgomery?

Now that is a can of worms my friends.

[Error in 0]

Well, anyone who read the Patton thread knows Patton has been hugely overrated by american fanatics, and that Rommel would outclass him 10 of 9 times [:D]

[Kevinugly]

Imho they're both overrated. Rommel's reputation is largely based on his performance in a sideshow and Patton could only fight one sort of battle. It's a close run thing but I'd go with Patton[:)]

[Denniss]

Rommel and Patton are more or less equal - bot have their strengths and failures .

Who's Montgomery ??!??

[SlapBone]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Rommel and Patton are more or less equal - bot have their strengths and failures .

Who's Montgomery ??!??

Yea... I guess you're right.

[PeckingFury]

Got to go with equal respect for both of these Gentlemen.

[gunny]

From what I've read Rommel was out of his environment when given the task of defending the Western wall. Despite warnings from Guiderian and Von Runstedt, Rommel did not fear Naval Guns, overly feared the Air threat. And kept his mobile units too far from the choke points. Instead of training and exercising his second rate troops, he chose to employ them in manual labour such as building barriers and so forth.

Nah, Rommel had his day in the desert, and it passed. True he was the wrong man for the job in France, but hind site.... Where as Patton's day was yet to peak. Imagine if Patton was given a defensive task? Perhaps he too would choke, but history and fate was kinder to patton. He took his objectives and avoided the meat grinders.

[Fallschirmjager]

Boy that Rommel sure kicked the hell out of those Americans

Oh wait...thats right....he lost 95% of his force in 3 months....silly me

[Riun T]

Hey gunny sayin that about Rommel and the west coast defenses ain't quite fair unless u also consider that there was a huge power struggle between the higherups since the assassination attempt. Hitler wouldn't trust anyone enough to put anything together and just like in Africa you must say that for how inhibited and styfulled his assets and supplies were he still soldiered on. in both fronts

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Well, anyone who read the Patton thread knows Patton has been hugely overrated by american fanatics, and that Rommel would outclass him 10 of 9 times [:D]

As I agree with you totally on the fact that Patton is HUGELY overrated. Everyone here knows my point of view oF Patton and his charge to Bastogne to save the 101st. But Rommel outclass Patton is a little bit of a stretch. OMG I got sucked in agian

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Imho they're both overrated. Rommel's reputation is largely based on his performance in a sideshow and Patton could only fight one sort of battle. It's a close run thing but I'd go with Patton[:)]

Naturally, every German general who never had a command on the Ostfront will always have their skills questioned when it comes to "real" battle.

But calling North Africa and France a "sideshow"? I think the British Army, for one, would beg to disagree. It's not like they sent some colonial rearguards to fight the Wehrmacht in those areas...

[Kevinugly]

The British Army can disagree all they want, but the war in North Africa was a total sideshow which had little or no effect on the outcome of the war. This is not to denigrate any soldier who fought in the campaigns but when I read Churchill talking about El Alamein as 'The Hinge of Fate' it really frustrates me.

Back to Rommel, in France he was only a divisional commander who happened to be at the spearhead of the assault. Any credit for that campaign has to go to the likes of Manstein and Guderian. In North Africa he rode his luck against the hapless British and Commonwealth armies who practically gifted him victories at the likes of Bir Hacheim and Gazala. To give him credit, he was one of the first commanders to recognise the anti-tank capabilities of the 88mm Flak guns and make good tactical use of them. He also was an inspiring commander to serve under who preferred to 'lead from the front'. Regrettably his skills as a defensive general were barely tested, had he been allowed to deploy the panzer divisions close to the invasion beaches in 1944 then 'Overlord' may have produced a different result. However, one can only judge a commander by what actually happened rather than what might have been.

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

The British Army can disagree all they want, but the war in North Africa was a total sideshow which had little or no effect on the outcome of the war. This is not to denigrate any soldier who fought in the campaigns but when I read Churchill talking about El Alamein as 'The Hinge of Fate' it really frustrates me.

Back to Rommel, in France he was only a divisional commander who happened to be at the spearhead of the assault. Any credit for that campaign has to go to the likes of Manstein and Guderian. In North Africa he rode his luck against the hapless British and Commonwealth armies who practically gifted him victories at the likes of Bir Hacheim and Gazala. To give him credit, he was one of the first commanders to recognise the anti-tank capabilities of the 88mm Flak guns and make good tactical use of them. He also was an inspiring commander to serve under who preferred to 'lead from the front'. Regrettably his skills as a defensive general were barely tested, had he been allowed to deploy the panzer divisions close to the invasion beaches in 1944 then 'Overlord' may have produced a different result. However, one can only judge a commander by what actually happened rather than what might have been.

I have to protest there Kevin. Rommel was NOT untried as a defensive commander - albeit he also showed that only in that little intermezzo called North Africa. Without Rommel's actions, the DAK would probably had been completely annihilated in the weeks immediately following El Alamein. Rommel's problems in Normandy were more due to conflicts in authority, and that was his weakness. He wanted to believe in Hitler's re-assurances. (For me, I believe the greatest 'disaster' on that part was Rommel "allowing" the entire DAK get caught in Tripoli. 200,000 veteran troops. Imagine what a headache they would have been in Normandy. To compare with Manstein or Guderian, I doubt they would have settled with the Fuehrer's promises)

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: gunny

From what I've read Rommel was out of his environment when given the task of defending the Western wall. Despite warnings from Guiderian and Von Runstedt, Rommel did not fear Naval Guns, overly feared the Air threat. And kept his mobile units too far from the choke points. Instead of training and exercising his second rate troops, he chose to employ them in manual labour such as building barriers and so forth.

Nah, Rommel had his day in the desert, and it passed. True he was the wrong man for the job in France, but hind site.... Where as Patton's day was yet to peak. Imagine if Patton was given a defensive task? Perhaps he too would choke, but history and fate was kinder to patton. He took his objectives and avoided the meat grinders.

To be fair to Rommel, neither Guderian (whose last direct combat command was the winter of 41-42) or Rundstedt (whose last direct combat command was November 1941) had ever faced Allied air power in a tactical role. Rommel had in Africa, and realised the difficulties of operating in such an environment. The other two Gentlemen were correct that Naval gunfire could be devastating, but Rommel realised that allied air power, coupled with the logistical situation (fuel problems etc) meant that the battle would have to be fought on the beaches because a manouevre battle in northern france as out of the question.

I agree that air power may quite possibly have been overrated in Normandy, I don't think it had the effect that has sometimes been claimed, but in parallel with the German experience, what it could do was all but seal a battlefield off. If it couldn't usually act like it does today, knocking out individual strongpoints with bombs, it could hamper and interdict movement to the point that manouevre was too difficult and perhaps even pointless.

On balance, I think Rommel called it right, but he didn't have the resources to play it as well as he wanted to. I think Rundstedt's strategy would have failed. It's possible it might have kept the campaign for France alive as long as Rommel's did, but it offered little or no chance for success in the long run. Rommel's strategy offered a slim hope depending on what happened on the beaches.

The training versus building argument depends on how you see it. Second rate troops get a measure of protection behind fortifications. There were also some shortages which meant meaningful training was not easy. On balance, I'd say he got it right again, because of the way he wanted to play it. Had he opted for Rundstedt's battle of manouevre, then you could well argue he should have intensified their training.

As for Rommel versus Patton. Rommel was a more rounded Commander, and I think he possessed (usually) a purpose to his manouevre which Patton lacked.

As for Patton Versus Montgomery. I think it depended what you wanted. If I'd want Monty to fight the battle of Alamein, I'd want Patton leading the pursuit. If I wanted Monty fighting the bulk of the enemy armour around Caen, Patton was the man to drive through the open door at Cobra. Patton on the defensive would have been interesting. I have my doubts he'd have had much luck. It'd take another Patton thread to explain why.

Regards,
IronDuke