Patton or Rommel?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hindenburg, I think. Either him or Ludendorff . It was at the Battle of Tannenburg.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Okay, who was the German general that took on 2 Russian armies early on in WWI defeating them both and instigating the Russian Revolution and Russia's expedited withdrawal from the war?

Stonewall Jackson?

[Tingkai]

Guderian if the choice was available, otherwise Rommel.

Patton was a "problem child" capable of being a great leaser, but all too often whining and acting like a spoiled brat.

[MichaeltheGreat]

This from TCO, who PM'd me because he's apparently still out of commission:

I wouldn't put all the emphasis on the strategy aspects. Leadership and finding the right strat weenies is a big part of it also. Look at Schwartzkopf. He was an SOB, who would releive his staff members if they didn't perform. But it worked for him. And so did the larger than life image. Face it, people love that he-man Marine Corps stuff."

I think the greatest general of all time was Alexander the Great. He was a skilled civil leader as well as a military leader. He was responsible for bold, battle-level decisions. He created a larger than life image that affected his followers and opponents. And he was a great individual warrior.

[Ancyrean]

Tough question, but Rommel. MTG's reminder about the Fellers connection notwithstanding, and although he didn't "win" in the end like Patton, I'm still more inclined to say overall Rommel had more odds to overcome than Patton ever had.

[TheStinger]

I'm not sure its a very good question. Both of them were reasonably talented generals, nothing more nothing less.

Oh and Monty wasn't a bad general he might not have been brilliant and he was hyped up to much but he wasn't bad.

[Paul Hanson]

There's only one way to settle and argument like this: Hearts of Iron! Let's have a look at the two generals:

Patton's skill rating - 5
Rommel's skill rating - 5

It's neck and neck folks! Their real test of these men is going to be in their additional skills and traits:

Patton - Panzer Leader, Offensive Doctrine
Rommel - Panzer Leader, Offensive Doctrine, Trickster, Logistics Wizard

Rommel clinches it!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Oh and Monty wasn't a bad general he might not have been brilliant and he was hyped up to much but he wasn't bad.

Yes, now he tends to be highly under-rated.

Monty ran circles around Patton on one important aspect of being a general, getting the tools to do the job.

Patton alienated so many of his bosses that when he had battlefield opportunities to exploit, he couldn't get the logistical support.

Monty pissed off his superiors, but when the chips were down, he was able to convince them to follow his plan.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually, it pinned down an entire army (I believe the 7th), plus panzer reserves.

As for which one was better? Well, in France, Patton was in a position where he couldn't really lose, and much of Rommel's success can rightly be attributed to talented subordinates. Patton also had some talented subordinates, most notably, at one point, Omar Bradley.

I really don't think you can say that either one is individually responsible for the large amounts of success they both enjoyed, at various times.

Wrong on so many accounts. Firstly where did you get such a high regard for Bradley? He was mediocre, which makes him better than some other commanders, but hardly an inspiration. Wood of the 4th armored division and Patton's air commander Weygand (iirc) were his most talented subordinates by far imo. As for Rommel, he certainly doesn't have to share much credit with his subordinates for his numerous actions in WW1. The man was a brilliant tactician undoubtedly.

Patton was never really in enough combat early enough in his career to have much small unit combat experience, but he was a capable administator and became a good tactical comander at the operational level eventually. What makes Patton seem better than he probably was is that he was willing to entertain ideas about mobility and the shape of the modern battlefield that his superiors and the vast majorities of his peers were unprepared to. If he wasn't regularly compared to Montgomery and Eisenhower his reputation would suffer. There were a number of much better officers on the allied side in this war, but few rose to the top or anywhere near it.

[TheStinger]

I think Alexander the British Lt General was the best Brit commander but IIRC he was captured early on and didn't have the chance to command an entire army

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Lancer
"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!

Well trained, highly disciplined, well equipped soldiers led by stupid inbred rich kids.

That's the story of the British army, luckily some of them turn out to be decent leaders.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Yes, now he tends to be highly under-rated.

Monty ran circles around Patton on one important aspect of being a general, getting the tools to do the job.

Patton alienated so many of his bosses that when he had battlefield opportunities to exploit, he couldn't get the logistical support.

Monty pissed off his superiors, but when the chips were down, he was able to convince them to follow his plan.

I don't see this as a plus when he is in fact pulling resources from those who would use them to gain ground in order to attempt that Market-Garden crap. Political skill is a liability in an officer who is already way over his head, even though it is also an asset for anyone who has the right idea.

I also think you are under estimating Patton's political skill. We are talking about him now, which is certainly one measure of that skill. He was well-connected in Washington, with the Secretary of Defense being a close friend, for one. He was also popular with a lot of his fellow officers, and already famous with the public before WW2 for his appearance in the 1912 Olympics, numerous articles written, his run-in and gunfight with Pancho Villa's Lieutenants in Mexico, etc. He had the confidence of Marshall insofar as Marshall believed him to be a gifted commander if a large pain in the a$$. He also had Ike's confidence and friendship, even though there was an enormous amount of tension between the two during the war.

You are correct in stating that Patton's inability to control himself did hurt his cause, and perhaps the allied cause as well. To the extent that it is his fault that Ike gave the offensive impetus to Montgomery time and again it was tragic. Of course IMO part of that was Mongomery's political skill, and probably an even larger part was Churchill's political skill.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I think Alexander the British Lt General was the best Brit commander but IIRC he was captured early on and didn't have the chance to command an entire army

Are you confusing him with O'Connor? Alexander was there for all of it iirc.

[TheStinger]

Yes I am

I am in fact stupid

[Whaleboy]

Rommel. Patton merely had better forces.

MtG: With regards to the Atlantic wall, if you fortify any position, you automatically send the enemy to a weaker point, consider for example, a castle with a strong wall with one weak segment. Where do you attack?

It was far better for the Germans if the Allies invaded Normandy instead of Calais, the latter being closer to Germany, and outflanking most of the occupying German forces in France. If they had got their act together, they could have easily defeated the Allies in June '44, it was because of a clever deception on the part of the Allies, and blunders at the highest level on the Germans, that we succeeded in pushing the Germans out of France and accross the Rhine.