Patton vs Rommel

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

 

[Sharwood]

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 -, 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?

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.

 

[alcal]

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.

 

[say1988]

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

 

[alcal]

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.

 

[Antilogic]

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

 

[Dachs]

Forget about the morality, and focus on strategic leadership.

Neither commander was on the strategic level of warfare. (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.

 

[alcal]

Neither commander was on the strategic level of warfare. (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

 

[Defiant47]

My vote is obvious

 

[Antilogic]

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



You've confirmed my point

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.

 

[Cutlass]

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

 

[Dachs]

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

Armando Diaz did it pretty well.

 

[mrt144]

And maybe Kobe is better than Jordan.

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

 

[Sharwood]

Armando Diaz did it pretty well.

Not to mention Garibaldi.

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[budweiser]

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.

 

[Padma]

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. )

 

[alcal]

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)

 

[budweiser]

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.

 

[say1988]

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).