Then guys, who do you think to be the best general? Patton or Rommel?

They were both excellent battlefield commanders. But Rommel has the edge in not being an SOB.

They were both excellent battlefield commanders. But Rommel has the edge in not being an SOB.

A general for Nazi Germany is less of an SOB than an American general with temper issues?

For the topic, Rommel has got to be one of the most overrated generals in history. He doesn't compare to Patton, let alone Omar Bradley or Erich von Manstein.

They should have joined sides and fought the Soviets.

I honestly can't decide. It's a very close call. They were both very good in their own way.

They should have joined sides and fought the Soviets.

In a perfect world...

Originally Posted by RalofTyr
They should have joined sides and fought the Soviets.

Hitler had given Polish Government such proposal - but we couldnt agree because we didnt accepted Nazi's methods.

Hitler had given Polish Government such proposal - but we couldnt agree because we didnt accepted Nazi's methods.

You preferred soviet ones...

You preferred soviet ones...

The Devil and the deep blue sea. The Polish government didn't want anything to do with either, but their location denied them this option.

On further thought, I'm going with Patton. When the two came up against each other in North Africa, Patton was the victor.

Patton's troops had much less experience than Rommel's Africa Korps. Rommel was fighting on two fronts & had a very serious supply problem. It's a very close call.

I would probably say Rommel. Personally I think they are both over-rated. Rommel did some good work in North Africa, and while his troops were generally more experienced then Patton's and he had some much better tanks, he had few supplies and the British rolling on the other side.
Patton almost, if not always, had a significant advantage in supplies and air support in Europe, with his flanks protected by others. Not to say he wasn't a good general, but I get sick of people who act like he conquered France by himself, sure he was often leading the charge, but the Germans didn't just magically disappear elsewhere.

EDIT: I have no idea what happened there, I hit submit once, my computer froze for a moment and these all appeared. Hmm that is weird, before my computer was showing seven posts.....

Hitler had given Polish Government such proposal - but we couldnt agree because we didnt accepted Nazi's methods.
Nah, Poland didn't agree because they didn't want to let the Germans take Danzig, and then Hitler, in true foolish fashion, went the wrong way in his negotiation tactics...he demanded Danzig plus West Prussia...:p

^^^ Ironically, wanting Danzig was probably the least objectionable of all the demands Hitler made. It was the administrative capital of Prussia for a short period for Christ's sake, and the capital of West Prussia for a few hundred years.

Regarding the OP, it's a tough call. Both men are overrated as generals - not to say they weren't good, but people see them as modern day Alexanders, which they're not. Then again, I think he was overrated too - but they were still ver talented, and the problems which they faced were differing. Patton had inexperienced troops much of the time, but often came up against enemies in a worse state. Rommel seldom had enough supplies to hold position let alone push ahead. But, on balance, I find Rommel to be a superior commander. Though it's a close call.

Rommel was also a much better human being than Patton, which is extremely disconcerting, considering he was a Field Marshal and national hero under the Nazis.

Rommel was also a much better human being than Patton, which is extremely disconcerting, considering he was a Field Marshal and national hero under the Nazis.

I say again, how is a man who killed in order to bring Nazi domination to the world a better person than a guy with a temper?

I say again, how is a man who killed in order to bring Nazi domination to the world a better person than a guy with a temper?
A man who planned to assassinate Hitler and surrender France to the Western Allies upon learning of the Holocaust versus a fairly rabid anti-Semite who said Russians were untrustworthy because they were Asiatic, and that being a Nazi party member was no different from being a Republican or Democrat? Yep, Rommel wins hands-down.

A man who planned to assassinate Hitler and surrender France to the Western Allies upon learning of the Holocaust versus a fairly rabid anti-Semite who said Russians were untrustworthy because they were Asiatic, and that being a Nazi party member was no different from being a Republican or Democrat? Yep, Rommel wins hands-down.

The Holocaust isn't the only bad thing Nazi Germany did, and I find it hard to believe that Rommel didn't know of it in the first place. And, his involvement in the July 20 plot is uncertain. Hence why I don't think a possibly good guy fighting for the evil side is better than a short-tempered racist (in the 1940s) fighting for the good guys.

I thought Patton hatted Russians because he believed he was reincarnated from one of Napoleon's generals

Rommel got his butt stomped again and again and Patton never lost so Patton is the victor

The Holocaust isn't the only bad thing Nazi Germany did, and I find it hard to believe that Rommel didn't know of it in the first place. And, his involvement in the July 20 plot is uncertain. Hence why I don't think a possibly good guy fighting for the evil side is better than a short-tempered racist (in the 1940s) fighting for the good guys.
No, the Holocaust wasn't the only bad thing Germany did. But very few of those bad things took place in Africa. You have to remember, Rommel wasn't exactly in the loop a lot of the time, and when he was, he routinely refused to believe what he was hearing. He was hardly alone in this. Many people had supported the rise of Hitler in the belief that all his outlandish statements were merely rhetoric to stir up the common people. There were even a few Jewish industrialists that supported him initially.

On the July 20 plot, a clarification: Rommel almost certainly knew about it, yet did nothing either way. He was, however, the only real choice as a non-Nazi successor to Hitler, regardless of the actual plans of the plotters. And he knew it. He also seemed to be actively planning to surrender France before his staff-car was bombed. This is little-known, as he never actually got to do it.

It's also a certifiable fact that Rommel did his best to stop crimes against humanity when he came across them. When he commanded Northern Italy, he pissed off the Gestapo no end by refusing to obey instructions on how to treat the populace.

Patton was extremely racist, an anti-Semite, and frankly, a bit of a nut. Admittedly, he was horrified when he entered the camps, but even Himmler threw up upon seeing Jews being killed, so I don't really give him points for that. Most human beings would experience absolute horror and sickening contempt upon seeing them.

I seem to recall Patton was also the officer who overlooked many of the crimes of the Goums in Germany, who raped more German women in one night than were raped in France during the whole occupation. I am unsure of this though, as I'd actually expect Patton to take the side of the Germans over the Moroccans. He did appoint many Nazis to positions of power in his territory.

Patton was not a nice guy, whereas from all accounts, even those of his enemies, Rommel was. Hence, Rommel wins the humanity contest. And I'm not even going into the whole "difference between fighting for Germany and fighting for the Nazis" argument, which has some merit.

Just because he served his homeland in a war does not mean anything. I believe he was a soldier for over 2 decades before Hitler rose to power.
Show me where he ordered his men to actively participate in the holocaust. Most of the old German Army generals appear to be quite honourable men, which in many cases likely would prevent them from acting out against Hitler, haveing sworn an oath to him and all.

I am sure if Patton was born and raised in Germany he would have joined the German army in a heart-beat.
I don't know where Patton sits morally, but it sure as hell seems like he was an a-hole.

It's also a certifiable fact that Rommel did his best to stop crimes against humanity when he came across them. When he commanded Northern Italy, he pissed off the Gestapo no end by refusing to obey instructions on how to treat the populace.

The problem is that this would have meant jack squat if the side he was fighting for happened to win the war.

Patton was extremely racist,

Now, I'm not an expert on the man, but I'm familiar with this quotation: "I don't give a damn who the man is. He can be a [n-word] or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I've got. By God! I love him." That seems to be actually a bit less racist than other men of his era.

I seem to recall Patton was also the officer who overlooked many of the crimes of the Goums in Germany, who raped more German women in one night than were raped in France during the whole occupation.

Cite a source for this, please. If this is true, I will concede.

No, the Holocaust wasn't the only bad thing Germany did. But very few of those bad things took place in Africa. You have to remember, Rommel wasn't exactly in the loop a lot of the time, and when he was, he routinely refused to believe what he was hearing. He was hardly alone in this. Many people had supported the rise of Hitler in the belief that all his outlandish statements were merely rhetoric to stir up the common people. There were even a few Jewish industrialists that supported him initially.

I don't know how Rommel could not be considered "in the loop" when he was supreme commander in North Africa and then in France. While Rommel held great admiration for Hitler until at least 1944, and believed in the nationalist part of Nazism, he was also consistent in his blatant disregard for orders to execute captured SAS, as well as orders regarding the treatment of Jews, both civilians and military personnel.

On the July 20 plot, a clarification: Rommel almost certainly knew about it, yet did nothing either way. He was, however, the only real choice as a non-Nazi successor to Hitler, regardless of the actual plans of the plotters. And he knew it. He also seemed to be actively planning to surrender France before his staff-car was bombed. This is little-known, as he never actually got to do it.

Rommel was most certainly a part of the July 20 plot. He and others were waiting for word that Hitler was dead before acting; the military governor of Paris acted to soon, as did Kluge, and both died for it. I wrote an alt-hist thread that began by citing parts of Rommel's writings, and it concerned this issue.

The problem is that this would have meant jack squat if the side he was fighting for happened to win the war.
Rommel did what he could. You can hardly blame a German for fighting for Germany, especially considering the prevalent belief at the time, especially among the military, that Germany really did need Hitler to defend it from the USSR.

Now, you could blame him if he committed crimes himself, but he actively disobeyed orders so as not to commit them. That's very commendable, and a brave thing to do. Even Oscar Schindler technically committed crimes against humanity, let's not forget (use of slave labour). To alleviate the crimes of the Nazis on a large-scale, being a German, you had to work with them. It was the only way to have access to the necessary power. I bet Rommel saved more lives than those who were actively part of the German resistance.


Now, I'm not an expert on the man, but I'm familiar with this quotation: "I don't give a damn who the man is. He can be a [n-word] or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty, he can have anything I've got. By God! I love him." That seems to be actually a bit less racist than other men of his era.
I was not familiar with that quote. Patton was a pretty contradictory guy, I'll admit that, but he displayed anti-Semitic attitudes on more than a few occasions, and everyone knows how he despised the Russians. I remember coming across a story about him pulling his pistol and threatening to shoot a Russian soldier in the head for little reason - a German had been captured by the Americans fleeing Russian-occupied territory in a boat. The Russians wanted the boat back :lol: -, but can't find it, so it may be false, or just an anecdote. Maybe he was just extremely nationalistic, and only hated foreign Jews or something? :dunno:

Cite a source for this, please. If this is true, I will concede.
Wikipedia just says that the Goums were under the command of Eisenhower, which is one of those DUH-worthy comments that makes Wiki great. Everyone was under Ike's command, he was the frigging Supreme Commander. I'll try to find a citation elsewhere.

Forget about the morality, and focus on strategic leadership. Rommel has a great ability too, but most of his succes in North Africa depended on very low level of british troops and generals, so he is overrated. Personally considering what Patton did during the Bulge Battle, i tend to prefer him.

Well, in Africa the bulk of the Axis troops were underequipped and poorly train Italians that had already gotten hammered by the British.

Well, in Africa the bulk of the Axis troops were underequipped and poorly train Italians that had already gotten hammered by the British.

Yes but you forget British troops had lost all their sprint, when Rommel arrived. Personally I think 90% of german victories in the first part of war, are more due to bliztkrieg than commanders'ability. Rommel is part of story.

I cite the near 50/50 divide in this thread as evidence of the Feynman Theory of Generalship. :D

Forget about the morality, and focus on strategic leadership.
Neither commander was on the strategic level of warfare. :p (Except for Rommel in his last year, and we all know how that turned out.)
Rommel has a great ability too, but most of his succes in North Africa depended on very low level of british troops and generals, so he is overrated. Personally considering what Patton did during the Bulge Battle, i tend to prefer him.
Rommel was fighting against O'Connor for the first engagements of the campaign. The latter was one of the best operational British commanders of the war.

Neither commander was on the strategic level of warfare. :p (Except for Rommel in his last year, and we all know how that turned out.)

I guess the term "strategic" has a different meaning in english. Then let's use leadership.

Rommel was fighting against O'Connor for the first engagements of the campaign. The latter was one of the best operational British commanders of the war.

You've confirmed my point :goodjob:

My vote is obvious :smug:

I guess the term "strategic" has a different meaning in english. Then let's use leadership.



You've confirmed my point :goodjob:

These generals were tactical commanders. Strategic commanders were the staff officers that would advise Hitler or Roosevelt about how to proceed in the overall conflict. Tactics refers to the generals' choice of operations in a particular region to achieve the strategic goal set by the staff.

Rommel was able to make Italian troops competent. Something that no one else had accomplished in centuries.

Rommel was able to make Italian troops competent. Something that no one else had accomplished in centuries.
Armando Diaz did it pretty well.

And maybe Kobe is better than Jordan.

Patton. Look at the scoreboard, the stats...

Armando Diaz did it pretty well.
Not to mention Garibaldi.

Not to mention Garibaldi.
Yeah, but he wasn't as unequivocally successful. Pretty awesome, though. The Expedition of the Thousand and Garibaldi's Alpine operations really oughtn't be overshadowed as much by his relatively silly later attacks on the Patrimony of St. Peter. :dunno:

There is very little real knowledge of Patton in this thread, only what has been shown in movies.

He knew a great deal more than Rommel about all kinds of war fighting, not just tanks. However, Patton had real first hand knowledge of tank warfare from the first war and help develop tank strategy in the interwar years. Rommel, IIRC was an infantry commander in the first war.

Next, Patton was an expert in amphibious warfare. I bet most have you have never heard about that. He planned most of the allied invasion in Europe, including Torch, Sicily and Overlord. Then there are Patton's actual military accomplishment in the war compared to Rommel who he defeated.

Patton was much superior to Rommel.

Patton was a Cavalry officer. His first action was riding with Pershing in 1915-16 during the incursion into Mexico after Pancho Villa. Pershing selected him to command his Headquarters Troop. In 1917, Patton became the first member of the newly-established US Tank Corps. He had full command of the Corps, directing the ideas and procedures used. Alongside British tankers, he and his tankers helped win the worlds first large tank battle, at Cambrai, France, in 1917. He established the first US Tank School, in France, and in 1918, he led his Brigade of 345 tanks into the Meuse-Argonne operation, leading from the front, and communicating with his HQ in the rear via pigeons and runners.

During the inter-war years, he held a variety of staff jobs, and was always an advocate for Armored (Tank) Forces. Even though Congress refused to fund any significant armored forces, he continued to study ways to improve them. He carried out experiments to improve communications between tanks on the battlefield. He is also credited with helping invent the co-axial tank mount for cannons and machine guns.

With the outbreak of WW2, demonstrating the awesome power of the blitzkrieg, he finally convinced Congress that a larger, improved armored force was necessary. He was given the command of the 2nd Armored Division in 1941. In November, 1942, he commanded the Western Task Force of Operation Torch, the only all-American force involved, getting his first real taste of amphibious operations. He went on to command 7th Army and was involved in planning the Sicily landings, where he went ashore with his troops.

He did not have any significant involvement with the planning for Operation Overlord, or Anvil/Dragoon. Most of the planning for these was done while he was still commanding 7th Army. He did have some input, however. One of his biggest mistakes (IMHO) was when he recommended against using most of "Hobart's Funnies", a set of specially modified tanks to help breach the coastal defenses, opting to only use the Duplex Drive (DD) "swimming" tanks on the American beaches. Of course, the rough seas took down most of those on Omaha, and in the meatgrinder there it was difficult to get any LSTs/LCTs close enough inshore to discharge any other tanks.

(Yes, I'm a Patton fan. ;))

Rommel was able to make Italian troops competent. Something that no one else had accomplished in centuries.

Italian troops weren't incompetent, they were only bad equipped (thanks to Mussolini and company)

www.pattonhq.com/pattonbio.pdf

Quote:

For example, although Patton is primarily remembered today as a tank general, hardly anyone remembers the fact that Patton was the leading American amphibious authority in the European Theater of Operations. His landings in Morocco were the only ones executed by an All-American force; the other two simultaneous landings were conducted by Anglo-American forces. His tactics in Sicily became the prototype for subsequent invasions of southern Italy, Anzio, Normandy, and southern France. Although Patton was not allowed to play a part in invasions following Sicily, he was the one who set the pattern. Although he wasn’t often consulted officially, he was consulted on every invasion unofficially — and never given the credit he deserved.

Quote:
In 1942, Patton was assigned the task of creating the Desert Training Corps (DTC) in the Mojave Desert, which spans large parts of California, Nevada, and Arizona. It was at the DTC that U.S. Tank doctrine and tactics were created and perfected by Patton and his men. The first contingent of trained tanker units deployed from the DTC was eventually designated as the Western Task Force. It was the first American force to land and fight on foreign soil during WWII. The landing operation was called Operation Torch and the objective was North Africa. Patton had been instrumental in the detailed planning of the entire amphibious operation. He was chosen for this operation because he was one of the very few amphibious landing experts in the U.S. Army, having studied the subject for years.

/also a Patton fan.

EDIT: So, to clarify my previous post, Patton planned the first few amphibious opps, then he executed them. Essentially, training the planners in the process. Then he was 'consulted' on all future landings. But the other american palnners by and large learned from him.

Italian troops weren't incompetent, they were only bad equipped (thanks to Mussolini and company)
Actually a great many were incompetent. Not because of the quality of them men, but because they were very poorly trained (with a few notable exceptions).

Italian troops weren't incompetent, they were only bad equipped (thanks to Mussolini and company)

What Rommel showed was that it was not the Italian soldier that was the problem, it was the equipment, training, and leadership that combined to make the soldier ineffective. Overcome all 3 problems, and they were good soldiers.

... hardly anyone remembers the fact that Patton was the leading American amphibious authority in the European Theater of Operations....

EDIT: So, to clarify my previous post, Patton planned the first few amphibious opps, then he executed them. Essentially, training the planners in the process. Then he was 'consulted' on all future landings. But the other american palnners by and large learned from him.

I certainly can't argue with that! ;)

I don't think anyone can blame Rommel for basically, being a German general. The fact that he has been overplayed should not detract from the fact that he was a pretty good one. He earned this by staying in the news in North Africa for a long time in a see-saw campaign against some pretty good British, Australian, South African, NZ, Free French and Indian units - neither side had a clear advantage for most of it, but they learned to respect eachother. I don't think you can make the case that Patton was a better general because he 'beat' Rommel. The decisive victory after all was El-Alamein. But he was basically dealt a losing hand; outnumbered 2 to 1, even granted by then the Italian soldiers were very solid in battle. By the time Patton seriously engaged Rommel, their fuel supplies were being flown in by Junkers 52s.

It also doesn't matter too much what Patton's, or Rommel's personal opinions or anecdotes were, it is their actions that counted. And in this respect, if Rommel ignored orders from the Gestapo to round up Jews, and was part of the Valkyrie plot, then he actually took the risks to end it, even if he still felt compelled to defend his country. It actually raises my estimation of him considerably.

This is not to say that Patton was not a good general - what I know I think he was an excellent general, even with his faults. He may have been a loose cannon - but he was a cannon.

I don't get all the faux respect for the Italian troops in this thread. They weren't that good (they had a few modern good units). Rommel didn't make them better, he didn't whip them into fighting shape out in the desert. He relied on Germans to do the fighting and the italians to hold the flanks. The fact is, the Italian's hearts were not in this fight and they acted accordingly.

Patton's 3rd Army in France went further, faster, conquered more territory, killed wounded and captured more enemy soldiers than any other army in history.

I don't get all the faux respect for the Italian troops in this thread. They weren't that good (they had a few modern good units). Rommel didn't make them better, he didn't whip them into fighting shape out in the desert. He relied on Germans to do the fighting and the italians to hold the flanks. The fact is, the Italian's hearts were not in this fight and they acted accordingly.

Patton's 3rd Army in France went further, faster, conquered more territory, killed wounded and captured more enemy soldiers than any other army in history.

I'll let others speak to the first point, I don't think it is very material to my argument. Suffice to say, those that were in the line after the Axis capture of Tobruk and the 'Gazala Gallop' were a much greater factor than those that faced O'Connor in Operation Compass. But if their heart wasn't in it as you say (and I wouldn't blame them - anytime they had to retreat, all the motor transport got allocated to Germans first), then it made Rommel's task all the more daunting to face the Commonwealth line-up at El Alamein. So how can we say he is a lesser general ?

As for Patton, I think you will find that the 13th Century Mongol leader Subutai, conquered far more territory, inflicted more casualties, and moved faster, and although he ranks high, he is not at the top of most people's lists of great generals.

Given what Patton's 3rd Army had in France:
In terms of the number of men; the amount of supplies and materiel (not just on the field but replacement vehicles etc..); the amount of support in the form of the combined allied airforces and the other American, Commonwealth and Soviet armies beating the snot out of the Germans elsewhere; fighting demoralized enemies getting beaten everywhere who lost much of their heavy equipment and best troops in Normandy and Falaise.
The 3rd Army was also built up by Patton's predecessor, so it isn't like he created the unit from scratch.

Not to say he wasn't a good general. But you can't take his accomplishments in a vacuum. It isn't like his army alone was in France.

The speed at which he advanced compared to others really can't be compared. During most of history armies couldn't move that fast for a sustained time. Just think of the ease of moving a mechanized army around in 1944 compared to Napoleon's in 1812. Its apples of dodos.

I don't get all the faux respect for the Italian troops in this thread. They weren't that good (they had a few modern good units). Rommel didn't make them better, he didn't whip them into fighting shape out in the desert. He relied on Germans to do the fighting and the italians to hold the flanks. The fact is, the Italian's hearts were not in this fight and they acted accordingly.

Well, there's Folgore (http://bearcatspage.50megs.com/catalog.html).

Contemporary article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932852,00.html) on the Italian performance in Africa.

More detailed (http://www.ww2f.com/north-africa-mediterranean/18297-folgore.html) account on Folgore at El-Alamein (from a gamers' site).

And Rommel proved Civ4 wrong: Machine guns can be used offensively :p

The speed at which he advanced compared to others really can't be compared. During most of history armies couldn't move that fast for a sustained time. Just think of the ease of moving a mechanized army around in 1944 compared to Napoleon's in 1812. Its apples of dodos.

Yeah - Patton was faster than his peers granted, but he wasn't the fastest ever. Subutai was an illustration, his army covered huge distances.

Even compared to his peers: The Germans were hardly mechanized when they were regularly on the offensive). Neither were the British or Soviets (and I believe other US Armies), and he had the most favourable conditions one could ask for, with the possible exception of the Battle of the Bulge. It is still difficult to compare. I wonder how fast France would have lasted in 1940, if the Germans had the American 3rd Army's level of mechanization.

It is just like all the sources that say: British sucked since they didn't succeed in breaking out. It doesn't take into account the differences in the situation that they faced: almost all of the heavy armour and the best German units were stationed around Caen, while the Germans relied on terrain to stop the Americans.

...

It is just like all the sources that say: British sucked since they didn't succeed in breaking out. It doesn't take into account the differences in the situation that they faced: almost all of the heavy armour and the best German units were stationed around Caen, while the Germans relied on terrain to stop the Americans.

That was obviously :crazyeye: :mischief: :rolleyes: because the Germans felt that it was possible to stop the British (as long as their best units were used) while they felt the Americans were unstoppable (and thus did not waste their most effective units in a lost cause).

I favour Rommel because he had to deal with a much more difficult supply situation, and was generally fighting against superior forces.

Plus he had one of the coolest nicknames that it's possible to have. :cool:

Rommel was able to make Italian troops competent. Something that no one else had accomplished in centuries.
I almost wish I read this statement before voting for Patton :p

I almost wish I read this statement before voting for Patton :p

It really went downhill for them after the Roman Empire fell apart, didn't it?

It really went downhill for them after the Roman Empire fell apart, didn't it?

They went downhill even before. That's why roman empire fell.