Patton v Rommel....

Discussion in 'WW2 General' started by Lucky13, Aug 24, 2009.

?

Patton v Rommel

  1. Patton

    41.4%
  2. Rommel

    58.6%
  1. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,731
    Likes Received:
    1,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    Who was the better tactician?
     
  2. imalko

    imalko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vojvodina, Serbia
    #2 imalko, Aug 24, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
    I would say Rommel. He achieved impressive results in African campaign only to be outnumbered in the end. During all that time he had to cope with lack of men and materials. Patton never had that kind of problems...
     
  3. Thorlifter

    Thorlifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    7,911
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    IT Nerd
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx Jubail, Saudi Arabia
    I'd have to agree with Imalko for the exact same reasons. Had Rommel received men and material the way Montgomery and Patton did, it would have been quite different.
     
  4. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    I also have to go with Rommel, Patton had huge advantages in men and supplies when he made his advances, Rommel was normally at a disadvantage when he made his strikes.
     
  5. B-17engineer

    B-17engineer Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,953
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    model builder
    Location:
    Revis Island.
    I think it's unanimous so far, I say Rommel. As all of them said, if he got the supplies he needed it would've been a much different out come, in my opinion, in North Africa. While commanding his Africa Korp his tactical awareness could change a possible defeat into a stunning victory. Since he didn't have numbers after the battle of Alam Halfa he had to attack because the allies would've had numerical superiority, the Afrika Korps days were numbered. Hitler (made yet another bad decision) to over rule Rommel's decision, Rommel started lacking supplies he needed to keep his Korp going.

    Don't get me wrong though Patton was a great tactician himself! Both men were well respected by there troops.
     
  6. renrich

    renrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    real estate
    Location:
    Montrose, Colorado
    I would go with Rommel also
     
  7. RabidAlien

    RabidAlien Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    6,592
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Hurst, Texas
    Rommel's tactics vs. Patton's are like comparing a rapier to a halberd. Both have pointy ends, but one is made for feints and slashing and quick maneuvers, whereas the other is made for heavy-handed power-blasting through the defenses. Given equal supplies/men/material, I think that Rommel would've driven circles around Patton...but once Patton hit, hard, then all bets would be off. I guess, with the might of the US industrial machine behind him, Patton never really had to stretch his creativity as far as Rommel did. Who knows what would've happened if the situation had been reversed? We might be calling Patton the "Desert Fox" and praising his ingenuity and ability to keep running a machine that was continually shutting down on him.

    With history as it stands, I'm goin with Rommel.
     
  8. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Patton for me.

    He seemed to have a knack at understanding on how to integrate all the facets of modern mechanized army ... armor, air and artillery. I would say that because he had so much men and material to work with, he accomplished things Rommel never did.

    We know what Patton did with it, but we can only speculate on what Rommel COULD have done. And thats a huge difference.

    And why would you suppose Rommel could have "run rings" around patton? Id say that Rommel would have made one flanking movement and then would be in one heck of a fight that he couldnt extricate himself from.
     
  9. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,772
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Why would you say that? I think that is only speculating as well.

    As for me, my mind is not made up yet on this. I think both had their strong points and weaknesses. What is sad is that these two great Generals never had the chance to work together.
     
  10. Coors9

    Coors9 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Machinist
    Location:
    St.john's Newfoundland
    #10 Coors9, Aug 24, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
    I luv them both. Old ivory handle's was no slouch just the same. He couldn't help that he was well equipped. Too close to call in my opinion.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I based my opinion on how Patton fought at the Ardennes. He was of the mindset of "theres the enemy, go engage him and dont let go untill they have been destroyed". I also based it on how he pushed the 3rd army through France after their breakthrough in Normandy. Hes like a combination of Robert E Lee and Ulysses S Grant.
     
  12. Marcel

    Marcel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    6,977
    Likes Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bioinformatician
    Location:
    Dordrecht
    I tend to agree with sys here, as I believe Rommel is a bit overrated. He usually made risky gambles which could have cost him (as it later did). But he had a bit of luck, helped by the incompetence of his British adversaries at the time, which all gave him some success in the beginning. But it didn't last. When the British sorted things out, they fought him back quite successfully.
    I'm not sure if Patton was such a brilliant general, but having to choose here, I would pick him if only for his spirit and attitude. But remember, this is only my opinion.
     
  13. B-17engineer

    B-17engineer Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    14,953
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    model builder
    Location:
    Revis Island.
    #13 B-17engineer, Aug 24, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
    It could've been a whole different game if Hitler hadn't overruled his decisions. That's something to take into consideration.
     
  14. Vassili Zaitzev

    Vassili Zaitzev Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Substitute teacher; graduate student
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States
    I think Rommel was more creative with his planning, but Patton was plenty aggresive and wouldn't stop until he completed his objectives. Hard to say, I'm a fan of both.
     
  15. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    #15 Juha, Aug 24, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2009
    A couple notices on Rommel
    Firstly how much of his successes in NA was in fact because of German Army’s combined arm doctrine was clearly better than that used by Commonwealth forces there in 41-42, especially latter's tank tactcs still included too much cavalry charge mentality? So Rommel had qualifiedly superior instrument.
    How much of the German successes in NA were in fact result of the tactical brilliance of Ludwig Crüwell the CG of DAK from Sept 41 to May 42?
    And on Rommel’s supply problems. Much of it was self-made. First of all he wanted frequently info on exact position of his supply convoys, on radio. British intelligence much have loved the man. He made the finding of the convoys so much easier. Secondly, he decided to use much of his heavy flak in front lines. They made great job in A/T work but because of that his supply harbours and supply depots had weaker AA protection. British decided otherwise and kept their heavy AA protecting rear areas. Both decisions had their pros and cons but one cannot complain too much that enemy a/c sunk his supply vessels in harbours if one had moved most of AA guns away.

    Juha
     
  16. diddyriddick

    diddyriddick Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Hamlet, NC, US
    But do you really think they could have worked together, Adler? Two colossal egos.
     
  17. Messy1

    Messy1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Sales for Karl Performance
    Location:
    Ankeny, Iowa
    Home Page:
    Who do you think is the more over rated of the two? Did Patton ever have to deal with low supplies to the point where we would get a good idea on how he would perform in this situation?
     
  18. glennasher

    glennasher Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    kitchen countertop laminator
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Patton DID run out of fuel in the push towards Germany, the fuel went to Montgomery instead, for Market-Garden, I think it was. He was very upset that Monty got the fuel instead of 3rd Army and him. Later on, he got more fuel, but not when he wanted it. I think they were both overrated, the US had a lot of good generals, Patton had the most publicity, and Rommel not only had the German press on his side, but the British press machine as well.
     
  19. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    If a General had to face either Rommel or Patton my guess would be that they would rather face Patton. This may sound odd but with his eagerness to get to grips with the enemy, to strike hard and kill it probably made him more predictable

    Personally I wouldn't fancy facing either of them
     
  20. ToughOmbre

    ToughOmbre Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,182
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired from Verizon Communications - Now Working for Point Lobster Company, Pt. Pleasant Beach, NJ
    Location:
    Jersey Shore, USA
    Both were great commanders, have great respect for these two men. I would take either to lead my armies.

    Tough call, but since my father was in Patton's Third Army, I guess I might lean toward GSP.

    And both were head and shoulders above Monty.

    TO
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Lucky13
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,000
  2. ellis995
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,843
  3. pbfoot
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    11,742
  4. ChuckW
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    3,968
  5. v2
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    4,708

Share This Page