Patton Vs. Rommel!

Well here comes the ultimate tank skirmish. You think Rommel will or Patton? Myself, I go for Patton. But let us get some interesting dialog going here!!

reply to post by Theprimevoyager


Patton was an attack-dog, very good at what he did, but with the obvious problems that go with being very good at only one or a few things.
Rommel was a very good tactician who also understood strategy. I have always thought that he suspected the whole North Africa campaign to be a waste of time and effort given that neither Germany nor Italy could realistically control the Med. and that was his supply route.
I go Rommel

reply to post by Theprimevoyager


appologies - but such a vague , open ended senario is simply fanboy bait

to have any meaningfull dialougue - you have to set paramaters for the engagement

otherwise the rabid fanboys on both sides will simple "play out " a fantasy waknkest so hoplesly favouring thier hero - that an enemy victory is imposible

these include [ but are not limited to ]

where and when
which side is on the offensive / defensive
technology availiable
training and battle experience of each force
air support
weather
intelligence
logistic support
political interference

etc etc etc

Rommel was also in Denmark a few times. During the war the commandant of the local German base would come to the house of my friend's grandfather to listen to radio broadcasts from New York. So when Rommel came to Denmark, my friend who is now 80 got to ride in the car with Rommel. Not many people left alive who actually met Rommel.

reply to post by Theprimevoyager


Have you forgotten Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery? It was he who defeated Rommel in North Africa. I will take it that was on oversight by not mentioning him.

It was meant to be a vague question! But I am enjoying the the comments so far, Rommel definitely influenced our current armored tactics. I simply loved Patton because he was always over zealous in his tactics and attack patterns, I mean he was basically responsible for our victory at the battle of the bulge.

Both were damn the flanks, full speed ahead. Patton started in cavalry , and Rommel in infantry and both had to learn armored tactics on the fly. If you were to give the same logistics, and not have a idiot dictator for a leader, Rommel wins hands down.
He had the benefit of not being on the Western Front in WW1, so his mindset was already set on Blitzkrieg tactics.
Patton read Rommel's book "Infantry Attacks". 7th Panzer Division didn't earn the nickname "Ghost Division" in France for nothing.

Rommel's men loved him. (even the SS trooper that was driving when Rommel had to commit suicide wept when he saw the body). A lot of Patton's men didn't care for him, "Our blood, his guts". (but they still respected him).
One book I recommend is "Inside The Nazi War Machine", by Bevin Alexander, it tells how much of visionaries that Von Manstein, Guderian, and Rommel were. The Afrika Korps was also never brought up for any war crimes.

A side note from that, in North Africa , the British and Germans had a cease-fire agreement (between the commanders) for 5 or 6 PM, after that time they would radio each other and make sure they had everyone, inform
who they captured, and who was missing. (sometimes trade goods under the table).

So, yes, Rommel hands down.
Thanks for reading. All comments/criticism appreciated.

Patton vs Rommel is somewhat like Grant vs. Lee...Patton and Grant were hard hitting attack-attack-attack...they believed in total war and initiative.

Rommel, like Lee was restricted by supplies and resources...mainly weapons and men...therefore they had to make every move count, be daring when common sense dictates a conservative approach...and play a lot of defense and then counter by a very hard offense...

Patton vs Rommel...On even footing, equal resources, weaponry... I would go with Rommel. Patton's strength is his inerent weakness... always ready to attack...charge headlong into the fray... and maybe an ambush.

I dunno; does Patton get to benefit from UK having ENIGMA transcripts?

The Bletchley Park Official Story is that Rommel used ENIGMA at formation levels to give commands to his tank commanders, as well as to coordinate supplies coming in from Italy. The claim is that the Allies couldn't fully capitalize on the info because Rommel's tactics were improvised according to the minute-by-minute shifts in conditions on the front, while it took hours to decode a single captured transcript. Supposedly, they cold read where his wings were starting from, at the begin of major tank battles like El-Alemien I and II.

The reason I am aware of this is that you can find software on the internet to mimic the enigma hardware.

The thing is, trying to mimic the "bomb" (Turing's proto-computer) in use at bletcheley park), several user groups have been unable to solve the coded messages that the Allies published in the late 1980s.

There are folks within the amateur cryptographic community who claim that you cannot get the answers the allies arrived at with the variables in place, using rational deduction. Some folks have claimed that Bletchley park could not have solved ENIGMA in the manner that is claimed. More startlingly, US Naval intelligence could not have broken the Japanese PURPLE cypher using logic alone. In other words, cryptography cannot explain how those codes were "broken" by the Allies. A new theory gaining ground based on recently declassified documents is that the US had a spy in the Nazi OKW

Lets face it, the Allies had logistics on their side. Straight strategy, with the same available units, etc., I'd hand it to Rommel. He was used to defeating enemies even when outnumbered.

Patton was better at inspiring his troops though.

Among Nazi officers, Rommel was far more humane, and treated prisoners well, didn't send them off to death camps, etc. He was even in on the plot to kill Hitler, but was forced to commit suicide to spare the lives of his family. Says a lot for the guy.


You'd really have to define an exact scenario though, to make more than a general assumption.

reply to post by Theprimevoyager


I don't know anything about this Rommel fellow, but I do know Patton was an arrogant moron.

reply to post by Thestargateisreal


So much for "Tank Girl," eh?

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


I'm confused?

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

 

I'm confused?

Just that, while you have tank girl in your avatar, you don't know who Rommel is---the creator of modern tank tactics, copied by everyone from Patton down to Schwartzkopf in Iraq in 1991. They fact that people know the comic and its fashions, while being ignorant of the historical turning points of the last hundred years, which spawned the aesthetic behind the comic....

Makes me think that Marshall McLuhan trumps both Patton and Rommel.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


Oh right, tank girl displays tank war tactics.

reply to post by Gazrok

Rommel was never proven to be directly involved in the July 20, 1944 attempt to kill Hitler. (Kluge either for that matter), Rommels' name was used for recruitment purposes only.
I can't remember what book I have that says who ( under Duress) said Rommel was involved, but I do know in one of the DK published books, it says Rommel was never involved.
Hans Von Luck ("Panzer Commander") mentions that towards the end of Rommels life that he became more openly opposed to Hitler, which may have led to his downfall.
Von Luck also mentions that Rommel had told his staff to release the Panzers in the event of an Allied landing in Normandy while he was gone for his wifes' birthday, but early morning June 6th, the staff members were too scared to go against the orders of the OKW. (Von Luck had only found this out in the late 70's).
Thanks for reading