Last night I was watching the movie Patton on Encore and this question occurred to me. Simply, who would I rather have on my team? Patton or Rommel?
Politics aside consider this merely from a “I want to win” angle. Granted Patton seemed to beat Rommel but there were other factors aiding Patton not the least of which was superior intelligence information (as I understand it occasionally Patton or Montgomery knew Rommel’s orders before Rommel himself knew although that may be a myth). Rommel had better equipment (read tanks) but Patton had a helluva lot more tanks.
In short, I’m having a hard time separating the variables that affect a battle/war to get at the men underneath. Assume all otehr variables are equal. Same quality/quantity of men and equipment and the same intelligence on the enemy’s disposition. Given that who would win a battle? Patton or Rommel?
My personal quick take on it is that Rommel was probably the superior tactician but Patton was just downright more ballsy. I don’t know if that is a fair assessment though.
[sub]I realize that this thread might belong more in IMHO but given teh subject matter I hope for a more vigorous debate here. If that was a bad choice go ahead and move it (like you need my permission). [/sub]
First, you must realize that trying to assign a “superiority” rating to one general or another is generally fruitless. Getting a good leader on your side is a matter of training, expereince, and luck. Luck to be in the right place at the right time.
In any event, Rommel was better at coming up with innovative tactics, but Patton truly led an army, and his men had unrivaled faith in him - even if they didn’t always love him. Both men knew how to use the equipment and men at their disposal. Your trying to compare the second and thrid laws of thermodynamics and asking which is more important.
Fair enough smiling bandit. I agree it is pretty subjective. Still, can you answer who YOU would pick to fight for your side (you can only pick one of those two)? Also, if you’re willing to elaborate, why would you pick who you did?
Rommel. Patton seems (IMHO, of course) to be better known for wins that possibly owed as much to the poor quality of his opposition as to his own leadership skills (I’m thinking primarily of the breakout from Normandy here). Rommel seemed to make more from less, whereas Patton made lots from lots.
What are you trying to do to me Whack-a-Mole? My brain melts at the thought of the choice. I mean hellfire and damnation, couldn’t you have taken Patton or Rommel vs. Zhukov? It could only have been worse if you would have put Monty up against Rommel… Or maybe that would be easier as well…
Hmmm…
Damned! I don’t have the time to do this at the moment. It’s ironic that the reason is work and in some vaguely strange manner Rommel has a lot to do with said work. Anyway, time constraints and all I can’t help to just say that it will have to be Rommel… I think… or Patton… Ahhh GAWD! Of all the Allied generals it has to be one of only two that knew how to sport uniforms that were well on par and sometimes even beyond the Germans, so I cant even use that as a delimitation.
Rommel? Yes Rommel! For his reputed deep and open love of his family. For his obvious sense of morality. If only for a rumor, at least it is a rumor that he was bisexual. For having tried to kill Hitler. For the coolest desert goggles I have yet to spot on a general. For the fact that his enemies respected him as much as his allies.
Yes Rommel, one of the only, if not the only Third Reich high commander that I truly regret that I will never meet.
I wish I had time to explore this further. Great thread idea, and yes even if I didn’t manage to live up to the level, this is GD fodder, I hope that others have time for more and better arguments… my brain is still arguing against itself.
An assessment of the performance of Patton and the US Army in general in North Africa is to be found in A General’s Life by Omar N. Bradley. It is factual, at least as far as Bradley’s records and memory take him, as compared with fictional as in the movie.
The entire North African campaign was a learning experience and shakedown period for the Army and all of its commanders.
I was thinking just the other day of comparing the (Empire) riches awaiting the winner at Waterloo with what’s on offer for George if he wins the current dust up…Anyway, do we really know enough of Patton (in various circumstances, length of Campaign, etc.) to really judge him in the way we could Rommel ?
I mean no offense to our European brethern (specifically the British ones) but I was always under the impression that Monty was a putz. If Rommel is to Lee as Patton was to Grant then Monty would be paired up with McClellan.
I don’t know Patton’s career in any detail, but I’ve read a couple books on Rommel. Rommel’s a clever guy, a good soldier, and had the guts to try and kill Hitler. But. He could have stayed in the room with the explosive if he’d been less concerned about his own skin. So he only gets 3/4 points for that.
What he really gets downgraded for is that he had access to the British secret codes in Africa, and was reading British orders on a regular basis. It’s known that a number of his “astonishing” moves were done when he knew a great deal about where the British were, and how strong they were. Rommel had experienced troops fighting against man men who had never fired a shot in anger.
So it possible that the “Desert Fox” was no more than a good general.
Patton was certainly that. Comparing Patton to other allied generals after D-Day is more of an even field than comparing with Rommel.
With great reservations, because I don’t like Patton, and I do like Rommel, I’d chose Patton.
Monty and Patton were certainly of different leadership styles, but certainly in the early stages of the campaign in NW Europe they also faced very different challenges. Monty was up against more experienced panzer and SS panzer troops than Patton, which inevitable coloured the end result (glorious breakout by Patton, bloody stalemate at Caen by Monty).
Personally, I think Monty was certainly flawed as a leader – cold, fussy, too concerned with details and being ‘tidy’ – and I don’t suffer any nationalistic stubbornness that would stop me from acknowledging Patton as a better leader, but I’m not sure when you could compare his achievements with Patton’s fairly.
Overall? Either one would work as a tactical commander, but I wouldn’t put either of them in a position of overall command as neither one seemed to have a grasp of logistics. If I had to choose
While I used to buy the old Rommel heroics bit, his performance in North Africa was pretty bad. Oh yes, he managed to win a bunch of little battles, but there was no way he could have hoped to conquer Egypt, much less the pipe dream of conquering all of the middle east then attacking Russia through the Caucuses. The Italian navy wasn’t up to shipping supplies outside of land-based air cover, and just fueling PZA when it was barely into Egypt was already hard (I forget the exact figure, but it took several gallons of fuel for every gallon that made it to the front), to say nothing of the kind of reserves the UK and US could put into Egypt if a real disaster was looming. Had he followed orders and fought a basically defensive campaign (possibly knocking the brits out of Libya but not getting his army almost wiped out by overstretching), it would have taken fewer resources to hold onto Africa and possibly could have prompted the high command not to engage in the Tunisia fiasco. So the whole NA campaign, while tactically brilliant, was a strategic failure excaberated by his tendancy to overreach and get most of his army destroyed - not exactly the sort of person you want in the general staff.
Patton similarly argued for several such hare-brained schemes, wanting to simply send his army running straight to Berlin (with no reserves and no flank protection), or to launch a war with the USSR immediately after defeating Germany. He did a better job at following orders, though - while he would bend his orders a bit, he didn’t go off and completely reverse orders in a highly detremental way. Since he didn’t have any really glaringly bad command decisions (unlike Rommel) I’d go with Patton, but again I wouldn’t want either one running my whole army.
Overall? Either one would work as a tactical commander, but I wouldn’t put either of them in a position of overall command as neither one seemed to have a grasp of logistics.
While I used to buy the old Rommel heroics bit, his performance in North Africa was pretty bad. Oh yes, he managed to win a bunch of little battles, but there was no way he could have hoped to conquer Egypt, much less the pipe dream of conquering all of the middle east then attacking Russia through the Caucuses. The Italian navy wasn’t up to shipping supplies outside of land-based air cover, and just fueling PZA when it was barely into Egypt was already hard (I forget the exact figure, but it took several gallons of fuel for every gallon that made it to the front), to say nothing of the kind of reserves the UK and US could put into Egypt if a real disaster was looming. Had he followed orders and fought a basically defensive campaign (possibly knocking the brits out of Libya but not getting his army almost wiped out by overstretching), it would have taken fewer resources to hold onto Africa and possibly could have prompted the high command not to engage in the Tunisia fiasco. So the whole NA campaign, while tactically brilliant, was a strategic failure excaberated by his tendancy to overreach and get most of his army destroyed - not exactly the sort of person you want in the general staff.
Patton similarly argued for several such hare-brained schemes, wanting to simply send his army running straight to Berlin (with no reserves and no flank protection), or to launch a war with the USSR immediately after defeating Germany. He did a better job at following orders, though - while he would bend his orders a bit, he didn’t go off and completely reverse orders in a highly detremental way. Since he didn’t have any really glaringly bad command decisions (unlike Rommel) I’d go with Patton, but again I wouldn’t want either one running my whole army.
I’d rather be the hound than the fox. Rommel distinguished himself in retreat wheras Patton distinguished himself by advancing rapidly both in Sicily and Germany.
Did Rommel really tried to kill Hitler? I read in “Desert Fox” by David Irving (granted not the best author to look for the truth… in fact probably the worst) that he didn’t. Irving claims Rommel was implicated as was Von Kluge. So will I have to ask Cecil fo the Straight Dope, or someone will do the master job?
Estilicon, I was wrong. There’s no evidence at all (that I know of) he tried to kill Hitler. The degree to which Rommel was involved in a plot to get rid of Hitler one way or the other isn’t well-established, but his biographers seem to think he was ready to take action of some kind. Sorry, I don’t remember the author of the Rommel bio I read.
I’d take Rommel if my son, bros. or self were in the Army being asked to sacrifice. I just feel he’d do a better job using us, our efforts and sacrifices to yeild the biggest bang for the buck.
If you are saying all equipment and armies are equal and I need one guy to win a series of battles to keep the above free, I’d take Patton. I trust him more to win.
You can tell I’m a selfish jerk on the face of that – but both had different weaknesses and it depends on where you sit as to which weakness you’d want to try to work around
