Who would you choose?

[elmilitaro]

All right my good friends I have a question for you all.

If you were to choose one of these commanders to win a war quick for you and with the least casualties, who would you choose?


George S. Patton

Bernard Montgomery

Erwin Rommel


WHO?? Explain also why.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would go with Irwin Rommel

 

[Joe2]

A tricky one there. I would say Monty as he aimed for low casualties or Patton because he was speedy

 

[dutchman]

That is a tough question, to get a speedy victory with few casualties is tough duty. Patton could give you speed and Monty would keep casualties low. But to get the balance of both Rommel would be my choice. If I could go off the those three I'd take Bradley.

 

[stona]

I think winning quickly and with few casualties are mutually exclusive in most scenarios.......sorry.
Steve

 

[davebender]

A highly regarded infantry officer during 1914. Became a highly regarded mountain warfare officer during 1915 to 1918. Awarded a well deserved Pour le Merit for his leadership at Caporetto.

Kicked butt while commanding an armored division in 1940 France. Kicked even more butt while commanding Afrika Korps during 1941 to 1943 despite being outnumbered and out gunned most of the time.

It would be difficult to find another officer so consistently successful in such a wide variety of circumstances and terrain despite being outnumbered most of the time.

 

[redcoat]

All right my good friends I have a question for you all.

If you were to choose one of these commanders to win a war quick for you and with the least casualties, who would you choose?


George S. Patton

Bernard Montgomery

Erwin Rommel

It should be remembered that all were products of their nations armies, and the style of fighting they developed was designed to best suit these armies.
For example if Rommel was given control of the British army it wouldn't suddenly become as capable of quick reactions to a fluid situation as the German army was in ww2

 

[stug3]

Patton

1. relentlessly agressive
2. Loved his job
3. Told his troops to "make those other bastards die for their country" (or something to that effect)

 

[dutchman]

I agree with you on the training, but the organization is just as important. The Germans were amoung the first to see tanks as vehicles of attack rather then infantry support. So their organization of units were different from British and French.

You make a great point about putting Rommel in charge of British forces. Imagine Patton in charge of German forces!

 

[DonL]

1. Monty was an attrition specialist, to me he wasn't very innovative or a man to improvise.
His style to fight, was in need of circumstances, that his army is stronger and the supply better then his enemy counterpart.

2. Both Rommel and Patton are very equal, Patton more stronger in logistics, Rommel more stronger at improvisation, both are hot-blooded, tactical very gifted and very popular by their men.

But honestly to achieve the given task in this thread; I would choose Heinz Guderian, because he combined both strenghts of Rommel and Patton and is a better strategist.

 

[Thorlifter]

I think I'd have to go with Rommel. They didn't call Patton "Ol blood and guts" for nothing. (Our blood, his guts) No doubt Patton could get the job done quickly, but it could be at a heavy cost. If I could pick someone different, I would also go with Omar Bradley.

 

[meatloaf109]

Ah, the "G.I. " general.
Rommel was also known as a man who would try to spare the lives of his men.
He gets my vote.
Monty tried too hard, and sometimes sacrificed more than necessary.
Patton. Well, ..... A brilliant tactician and a leader, but one could hardly call him conservative of lives.

 

[redcoat]

Ah, the "G.I. " general.

I've often wondered why Bradley was given this title as some of his campaigns were noted for high infantry casualties, the early battles in Normandy and the bloodbath that was the Hurtgen Forest are ones that come to mind.

Rommel was also known as a man who would try to spare the lives of his men.

While not a butcher, he did drive his men to their limits, and they suffered considerably due to his unwilliness to accept logistical realities.