Patton or Rommel?

Lancer · November 12, 2003, 12:23

Who was the better general?

Kirnwaffen · November 12, 2003, 12:30

I'm voting Patton, simply because his personality was so much more colorful, but both were truly brilliant strategists/tacticians, and I'd be hard pressed to pick one over the other.

uh Clem · November 12, 2003, 12:31

Guderian.

problem_child · November 12, 2003, 12:31

you sad tossers.

Lancer · November 12, 2003, 12:40

I named my golden retriever (RIP) after Rommel.

Just thought you should know.

DanS · November 12, 2003, 12:42

Patton was better because he won. But you can't help but have fondness for Rommel's style.

It's about like Hannibal. Amazing general, but not the best because he didn't follow up his victories by sacking Rome and because he ended up being beaten. Grant gets very high marks because he did what it took to win, even if his MO was rather brutish.

Paul Hanson · November 12, 2003, 12:50

Rommel had far better dress sense. But, then again, Patton won.

Kirnwaffen · November 12, 2003, 12:54

I think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Rommel not been so severely handicapped by his leadership/supplies.

Lancer · November 12, 2003, 12:55

You're too hard on the man, Dan. Look what he did to the English again and again with a handful of Germans and a mob of Italians! Give him half of what Patton had in material, air support, and supply and Egypt would have been his!

Also, nobody could have defended europe, Germany was already beaten by the Rooskies and the bombing. The allies had almost endless force which nothing could have competed with. This was Hitlers fault. If Patton was a German, he would have lost too, because Germany had no chance against the power of allied industry, yes?

His attack into France in '40....incredible! What a guy.

Drake Tungsten · November 12, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Look what he did to the English again and again with a handful of Germans and a mob of Italians!

Well, his opponents were English. Not the Navy, either.

Garth Vader · November 12, 2003, 12:58

Patton took a huge advantage in men, material, supplies, air power, tanks, etc and was able to win.

Rommell had the reverse of that and was able to come damn close.

No contest.

Lancer · November 12, 2003, 13:02

"Well, his opponents were English. Not the Navy, either."

If you had said 'French', as in '40, I'd have agreed, but the English? I don't see a heck of alot of difference between English and Americans, imo. English troops are tough SOBs!

Saras · November 12, 2003, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by uh Clem
Guderian.

Guderian. Rommel is overrated.

Drake Tungsten · November 12, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

I don't see a heck of alot of difference between English and Americans, imo. English troops are tough SOBs!

Yeah, but Monty was the best general they could come up with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their army, is it?

Lancer · November 12, 2003, 13:14

"Yeah, but Monty was the best general they could come up with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their army, is it?"

He was pretty bad...

Drake Tungsten · November 12, 2003, 13:18

I rest my case.

Darsnan · November 12, 2003, 13:25

Patton, Montgomery, and the lot of British commanders before them all had the advantage in that they were reading all of Rommel's battle communiques (i.e. troop strength/ disposition, fuel shortages, convoy arrivals, etc.). For Rommel to have survived as long as he did in Africa gives testiment to his capabilities as a commander. Rommel, hands down.

D

Lancer · November 12, 2003, 13:28

Do bad generals make good generals then? I think Monty was bad, but Rommel was also good. Look at Napoleon, he whooped em all, good and bad, except Wellington. You could be a good general, and face Napoleon, and still get your ass handed to you. I think Monty was bad, we're agreed, but also Rommel was good, very good. He took what was basicly a holding force, and romped all over a superior army...

Can't take that away from the guy.

Chilean President™ · November 12, 2003, 13:40

Rommel

Rommel or Monty?

Pekka · November 12, 2003, 13:43

Patton or Rommel.. hmm.. tough one. I'll go with Mannerheim.

MichaeltheGreat · November 12, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
You're too hard on the man, Dan. Look what he did to the English again and again with a handful of Germans and a mob of Italians! Give him half of what Patton had in material, air support, and supply and Egypt would have been his!

Also, nobody could have defended europe, Germany was already beaten by the Rooskies and the bombing. The allies had almost endless force which nothing could have competed with. This was Hitlers fault. If Patton was a German, he would have lost too, because Germany had no chance against the power of allied industry, yes?

His attack into France in '40....incredible! What a guy.

His attack in France was as a divisional commander executing orders he was given in relation to a plan he had no hand in making.

In North Africa, he had far more than "a handful" of Germans as fast as they could be landed, his constant right hook tactics were inanely predictable, and he was successful for two reasons - a talented mathematician (Hauptmann Alfred Seebohm, commander of the 621 Military Intelligence Company, the Pazerarmee Afrika signals intercept company), and a polo-playing chap named Bonwit Fellers, a US Colonel and the military attache to the US Consulate in Cairo. Old chap Bonwit, no doubt over tea and crumpets, used to get briefed in detail by the jolly Brit social set officers on everything going on with British 8th Army and their plans. Then old chap Bonwit would inform his superiors back in Washington, using a diplomatic code broken by Seebohm. Rommel used to refer to his intercept reports from Seebohm as his "little Fellers" and used that info on Brith strengths, locations and plans to plan his attacks.

Seebohm's company was overrun by the Aussies in the beginning of the first El Alamein campaign (great general, ol' Rommel, for not having his HQ area and such a critically important unit secured), and Seebohm was mortally wounded - and even worse, the Aussies secured the company's records and current working intercepts, so old chap Fellers was relieved in disgrace and sent packing. With his information pipeline cut, Rommel never again won in Africa, and in fact he had his ass handed to him multiple times. The only reason he hung on as long as he did was old Monty and his habit of never seeing a reason to move aggressively.

Rommel was in fact so fond of running amok in his command vehicles that he often lost contact with most of his staff, and was often entirely out of radio contact with his HQ, so he effectively lost control of his battles. Rommel also had such a pathological issue with the Italians (he was fond of rubbing his Pour le Merite in the Italian's face for having won it for the fight at Longarone in the first war) that he insisted any security leaks were due to Italian "traitors" and would not change his practice of insisting on the Italians broadcasting the exact scheduled arrival times of supply convoys - no matter how often RN subs happened to show up and nail the supply vessels just outside of port.

At any level above divisional command, Rommel was thoroughly mediocre.

MichaeltheGreat · November 12, 2003, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Darsnan
Patton, Montgomery, and the lot of British commanders before them all had the advantage in that they were reading all of Rommel's battle communiques (i.e. troop strength/ disposition, fuel shortages, convoy arrivals, etc.). For Rommel to have survived as long as he did in Africa gives testiment to his capabilities as a commander. Rommel, hands down.

D

Convoy reports, etc., yes. Troop strength and disposition, no - Rommel was notorious about not sending out detailed reports (von Mellenthin and others addressed this), but mostly of screaming for more men and supplies.

There was only a relatively brief time between the cracking of enigma in adequate time for battlefield intelligence and Monty's replacement of Auchinleck. IIRC, Auchinleck and Wavell were never cleared for Enigma, because dissemination was limited to RN units through naval codes and strategic intelligence at their times of command of 8th Army.

It is known that 8th Army was completely surprised by deployment of the first long-gunned Panver IV's to the 10th Panzer div. so as of June-July 1942, they were not getting near real time intercepts of Enigma communications to and from Panzerarmee Afrika HQ.

If Monty was getting NRT intercepts, he sure as hell never made use of them, but by the time of the American landings in Africa, NRT intercepts were issued to allied Army commanders on a regular basis. By that time, Rommel and Panzerarmee Afrika were finished.

Q Classic · November 12, 2003, 15:09

George C. Scott so totally owns Rommel.

alva · November 12, 2003, 16:37

Are we sure btw, it isn't MichaelTheGreatCollective??

MichaeltheGreat · November 12, 2003, 16:53

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Adam Smith · November 12, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Yeah, but Monty was the best general they could come up with. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their army, is it?

IIRC Slim did far more with far less.

Shogun Gunner · November 12, 2003, 18:44

Rommel. He was the better tactician.

axi · November 12, 2003, 19:31

Rommel.

You're forgetting the Atlantic Wall. Hitler had it all wrong, until Rommel took charge of it and started fixing it up. Fortunately he did not have enough time to make his defenses strong enough.

Verto · November 12, 2003, 19:38

Patton. Too bad we didn't listen to him more.

Sandman · November 12, 2003, 21:12

Rommel, since he was involved in the plot to kill Hitler.

I must point out that British and Allied forces pushed Rommel back not once but twice, the first time being under more favourable conditions to Rommel.