Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Who was the better tactician?
Patton v Rommel....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
imalko
Chief Master Sergeant
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...
Last edited:
Thorlifter
Captain
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.
Glider
Captain
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.
B-17engineer
Colonel
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.
Don't get me wrong though Patton was a great tactician himself! Both men were well respected by there troops.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I would go with Rommel also
RabidAlien
1st Lieutenant
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.
With history as it stands, I'm goin with Rommel.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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.
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.
Coors9
Senior Airman
syscom3
Pacific Historian
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.
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.
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.
B-17engineer
Colonel
It could've been a whole different game if Hitler hadn't overruled his decisions. That's something to take into consideration.
Last edited:
Vassili Zaitzev
Master Sergeant
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.
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
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
Last edited:
diddyriddick
Staff Sergeant
But do you really think they could have worked together, Adler? Two colossal egos.
Messy1
Master Sergeant
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?
glennasher
Senior Airman
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.
Glider
Captain
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
Personally I wouldn't fancy facing either of them
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
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
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
