Jump to content


Patton vs. Rommel, who would win?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
280 replies to this topic

Poll: Patton vs. Rommel (191 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Who would win in an equal fight?

  1. Patton (71 votes [37.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.17%

  2. Rommel (120 votes [62.83%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 62.83%

Vote Hide poll

Ace Man 7 Delta #241 Posted 09 August 2015 - 10:05 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostGRAYWOLF1981, on 03 August 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

The Germans never heard of Pattern during WW2. So this pole is nu en void

Yes or no?

 

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 06 August 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

 

What are you talking about?  Look up the "First U.S. Army Group" or "FUSAG"'s role during WW2...
One of the allies biggest deception plans during WW2 was based off of the germans knowledge of Patton.

I say NO..

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 12:10 AM, said:

 

He's actually right. During the war the Germans didn't attach any particular significance to Patton, and weren't particularly impressed by his actions during the war. Read this article for more details:
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-truth-we-know-it/

Edit: Though I'm sure that they likely knew who Patton was, it would be surprising if they had literally never heard of him. 

 

Your response....."He's actually right"..  "Edit: Though I'm sure that they likely knew who Patton was, it would be surprising if they had literally never heard of him." 

Your saying yes or no?  Or are you just standing on a soap box full of opinions? 

Because I don't understand what your saying?  You contradict yourself in the same post.. And I can't read your mind...

The OP said the germans had "never" heard of Patton..   They "NEVER" heard of him during WW2?

Or are you defending or agreeing with this? "The Germans never heard of Pattern during WW2. So this pole is nu en void"

I guess he could be technical right... Because I never heard of "Pattern" during WW2 either..

 


"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Ace Man 7 Delta #242 Posted 09 August 2015 - 10:11 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 09 August 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

 

*Question from AFV news;  Patton is such an iconic and in some ways mythical figure in the American consciousness.   How does the mythical Patton differ from the Patton you discovered in your research? 
 
*Answer form Harry Yeide   "I didn’t set out to discover a Patton, I just wanted to find out what his enemies thought.  So in a way,  I’m just the messenger of other people’s opinions, although I insert some of my own into the analysis. It was more than just looking at what they thought of Patton.  That could have been done actually in a much briefer way by simply compiling the actual comments they made.  I had a second goal to explore who these people were, who the enemy commanders were.  The reason I wanted to do that was that I thought I needed to understand what experiences they had that would shape the way they thought about Patton and then also to address the question of were they competent to have views that you could take seriously.  What I found was, in very brief summary, that by and large the people that fought against him had vastly more combat experience, and many of them, especially in Lorraine, had participated in some of the largest mechanized battles in history on the Eastern Front.  So they had the right and the experience to judge Patton on the grounds for which he became most famous, as a General who is good at mobile warfare."
 
From the author of the book "Fighting Patton" that the Cheifton formed his opinion off of.. 
No where does it say it's historically correct.  And I can find 100 times the books and published articles that say different. This book was written to try to debunk some of the myths and propaganda the U.S. had about Patton during WW2..  Not that the germans had no idea who Patton was..
Plus the book "Fighting Patton" he refers to has terrible reviews. 2 to 2.5 out of 5 were some of the best ones...
  
You can't tell me the germans "had no idea who Patton was".  
They fought him during the entire war from northern africa to berlin.. Do you really expect me to believe that no one in germany or in the german army never heard of Patton during WW2? 

worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-truth-we-know-it/

This is the "soap box full of opinions" you keep telling me to read...   What does this have to do with germany's knowledge of Patton during WW2 anything? Other than the opinions of what the germans had about Patton.. And some of the myths and propaganda the U.S. had about Patton during WW2.

If anything your proving my point.. I never questioned the importance of Patton to the germans... 

Other than they obviously had knowledge of Patton and why FUSAG was used to "try" and deceive the germans...


"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Matthew J35U5 #243 Posted 10 August 2015 - 12:41 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 09 August 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

Yes or no?

 

I say NO..

 

Your response....."He's actually right"..  "Edit: Though I'm sure that they likely knew who Patton was, it would be surprising if they had literally never heard of him." 

Your saying yes or no?  Or are you just standing on a soap box full of opinions? 

Because I don't understand what your saying?  You contradict yourself in the same post.. And I can't read your mind...

The OP said the germans had "never" heard of Patton..  Are you agreeing?  They "NEVER" heard of him during WW2?

Sorry, I thought this was so simple that it didn't need to be explained. 

The first person said that the Germans didn't know Patton. You said that they attached great significance to Patton. I said that he's actually correct, the Germans didn't attach much significance to Patton. That sentence is meant to be read as a complete thought. I then clarified that he wasn't literally correct. Do we all understand english now?

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 09 August 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-truth-we-know-it/

This is the "soap box full of opinions" you keep telling me to read...   What does this have to do with germany's knowledge of Patton during WW2 anything? Other than the opinions of what the germans had about Patton.. And some of the myths and propaganda the U.S. had about Patton during WW2.

If anything your proving my point.. I never questioned the importance of Patton to the germans... 

Other than they obviously had knowledge of Patton and why FUSAG was used to try and deceive the germans..

Or are you defending or agreeing with this? "The Germans never heard of Pattern during WW2. So this pole is nu en void"

I guess he could be technical right... Because I never heard of "Pattern" during WW2 either..

The article is rather clear in its goal of showing that the Germans weren't attaching any particular significance to Patton. If you aren't disagreeing with this, why do you keep disagreeing?

Edit: FUSAG could have been run by a pig in a tutu and it still would have accomplished the same goal. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


FrazzleFallout #244 Posted 10 August 2015 - 12:49 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17396 battles
  • 1,933
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    07-21-2014
Are we talking about an actual fist fight here? If that were the case I'd choose Patton, he had the weight to put behind a punch. Rommel was all skin and bones.

Thanks to Violet Viper for the sig.

Corruption Clan Co-Founder


Ace Man 7 Delta #245 Posted 10 August 2015 - 01:06 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostGRAYWOLF1981, on 03 August 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

The Germans never heard of Pattern during WW2. So this pole is nu en void

 

I understand english just fine... I'm responding to this nonsense.. And I'm trying to give a documented example of germany's knowledge of Patton during WW2.  
Not to split hairs about how effective FUSAG was or if Patton was a household name in germany. Or how much the germans had feared him. 
Sorry bad example apparently.. It's the first example I could give of the top of my head. 
I guess he could be technical right... Because I never heard of "Pattern" during WW2 either..

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Ace Man 7 Delta #246 Posted 10 August 2015 - 01:34 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

 

The article is rather clear in its goal of showing that the Germans weren't attaching any particular significance to Patton. If you aren't disagreeing with this, why do you keep disagreeing?

Edit: FUSAG could have been run by a pig in a tutu and it still would have accomplished the same goal. 

 

And this "article" you keep refereeing is one persons opinion on another persons opinion.  It should be stated that the book was based of opinions not facts... As the author him self states in the AFV news interview.. I’m just the messenger of other people’s opinions, although I insert some of my own into the analysis.

This I came up with after a quick search.........  

German general Günther Blumentritt, a key planner of the invasions of France and Poland, wrote in a study for the U.S. Army after the war, “We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive Panzer General of the Allies, a man of incredible initiative and lightning-like action…. His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander.” Alfred Jodl, who served as Hitler’s chief of operations from 1940 until the end of the war, told American interrogators, “He was the American Guderian. He was very bold and preferred large movements. He took big risks and won big successes.” General Heinz Guderian himself, after Germany’s surrender, told his Allied captors, “From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him for his victory since he acted as I should have done had I been in his place.”


"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Matthew J35U5 #247 Posted 10 August 2015 - 01:42 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 09 August 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

 

And this "article" you keep refereeing is one persons opinion on another persons opinion.  It should be stated that the book was based of opinions not facts... As the author him self states in the AFV news interview.. I’m just the messenger of other people’s opinions, although I insert some of my own into the analysis.

Yes, he is the messenger of the opinions of the Germans fighting Patton. Which is what was in question, "What did the Germans think of Patton". 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Ace Man 7 Delta #248 Posted 10 August 2015 - 01:47 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 08:42 PM, said:

Yes, he is the messenger of the opinions of the Germans fighting Patton. Which is what was in question, "What did the Germans think of Patton". 

 

This............
German general Günther Blumentritt, a key planner of the invasions of France and Poland, wrote in a study for the U.S. Army after the war, “We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive Panzer General of the Allies, a man of incredible initiative and lightning-like action…. His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander.” Alfred Jodl, who served as Hitler’s chief of operations from 1940 until the end of the war, told American interrogators, “He was the American Guderian. He was very bold and preferred large movements. He took big risks and won big successes.” General Heinz Guderian himself, after Germany’s surrender, told his Allied captors, “From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him for his victory since he acted as I should have done had I been in his place.”
Now what's the truth and what is B S ? 
Both........ History is written by the victorious. And sprinkled with B S to make it sound good.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Matthew J35U5 #249 Posted 10 August 2015 - 01:53 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostAce Man 7 Delta, on 09 August 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

 

This............
German general Günther Blumentritt, a key planner of the invasions of France and Poland, wrote in a study for the U.S. Army after the war, “We regarded General Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive Panzer General of the Allies, a man of incredible initiative and lightning-like action…. His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander.” Alfred Jodl, who served as Hitler’s chief of operations from 1940 until the end of the war, told American interrogators, “He was the American Guderian. He was very bold and preferred large movements. He took big risks and won big successes.” General Heinz Guderian himself, after Germany’s surrender, told his Allied captors, “From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him for his victory since he acted as I should have done had I been in his place.”
Now what's the truth and what is B S ? 
Both........ History is written by the victorious. And sprinkled with B S to make it sound good.

If during the war the generals facing him were entirely unimpressed, and after the war they were gushing over him... my guess would be the germans sucking up to the Americans. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Ace Man 7 Delta #250 Posted 10 August 2015 - 02:06 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

If during the war the generals facing him were entirely unimpressed, and after the war they were gushing over him... my guess would be the germans sucking up to the Americans. 

 

I don't know.. I was never an actual german field general...  So my opinion on Patton from a germans point of view means nothing..
And I don't know if there are any german generals left to ask.. So it's all just opinions and speculations. From a bunch of people who weren't there.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Ace Man 7 Delta #251 Posted 10 August 2015 - 02:13 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
And I'm pretty sure those generals would have talked for days about how great Patton was rather than talk about war crimes.
Just my opinion..

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

Matthew J35U5 #252 Posted 10 August 2015 - 02:44 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
The German generals loved to talk about war crimes and how they, honourable men all, had nothing to do with them. ;)

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Red Dough Boy #253 Posted 10 August 2015 - 03:27 AM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 27896 battles
  • 5,709
  • [_POI_]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

I would say Rommel because he cared about his troops and their morale, unlike Patton that beat a soldier suffering from shell-shock and pushed them too hard for his personal glory.

 

Rommel was also a bit more of a gentleman according to some stories I've heard where he would call a cease-fire with the British so each side could retrieve their wounded and dead, which to me shows a lot of respect for the enemy.


If I only had a Baneblade....

 

 

 


Ace Man 7 Delta #254 Posted 11 August 2015 - 02:53 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 4353 battles
  • 761
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 09 August 2015 - 09:44 PM, said:

The German generals loved to talk about war crimes and how they, honourable men all, had nothing to do with them. ;)

 

 Unless there secretly being recorded by the British...  Then there just  "refereeing" to "someone else"..


"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Trinity 1945
 

x Gadreel x #255 Posted 12 August 2015 - 04:36 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14450 battles
  • 428
  • Member since:
    01-04-2014
Rommel becuase he's was awesome, sorry I don't feel like typing a detained essay that carefully explains my thesis...school's about to start which means lots and lots of DBQs and FRQs.

 

All the credit goes to METALHELLIONx84 for this awesome Sig.


DStegCat #256 Posted 13 August 2015 - 08:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

1.  Patton and Rommel are products of different propaganda organizations.

2. Both followed doctrine of their armored services.  Both followed orders.

3. Both expressed attack as the best defense.

4. Logistics.

 

So....

1.  Don't fall into the propaganda trap..

2.  Both doctrines give leeway to the commanders for accomplishing orders.  Hitler's focus on your units meant orders that were not attainable. Edge Patton.

3. Equals.

4. Edge Merica.

 

Leaders/units trained by both Patton and Rommel did meet on the battlefield in the desert and in western Europe.  Allies won.


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Chieftain WGA #257 Posted 14 August 2015 - 08:19 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

The thing about Yeide's book is that he pays limited attention to the post-war writings of anyone. He goes into the archives for the documents written -at the time-, and while he does mention the post-war commentary, he tempers them by the period documentation. He also points out that most of the pro-Patton post-war commentary came in the 1950s, at a sensitive time for German military relations with the US. (And for ex-German generals looking for work, people like Balck and Mellethin became consultants for NATO).

 

 

Right below the Blumentritt quote, Yeide then looks at Guderian, who doesn't mention Patton at all in his memoirs, and mentioned Patton's tanks once. Rommel, writing when convalescing from his wounds, pondered Montgomery much, and Patton once, though in fairness to all concerned, Rommel faced Montgomery far more.


With respect to FUSAG, the Germans didn't conclude until Mid-May that Patton was in charge of it, long after they had been suckered into Pas-de-Calais planning. The copy of "Invasiongenerale" in the German Archives dated Feb 44 lists general officers likely to partake in an invasion, and Patton is notable for being the only senior general -not- to have been considered worth writing a paragraph about. Even if the Allies honestly believed that the Germans feared Patton and would view his presence at FUSAG as a major indicator, hence being the main reason he was put in charge of it, it seems they didn't bother to check with the Germans to see if they agreed with the assessment.,

 

This is the last paragraph of Yeide's book:

"The Germans did not track Patton's movements as the key to Allied intentions. Hitler does not appear to have thought often of Patton, if at all. The Germans considered Patton a hesitant commanding general in the scrum of position warfare. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists. But they respected him in their own demanding terms as a great Panzer officer. It is enough"

 

As regards the low rating of Yeide's book, read those reviews on Amazon. Compare the 5-star rating given by known author Forczyk, vs the 1-star rating given by Candy. The low ratings are almost universally because Yeide dared to challenge the Patton reputation. The low reviews aren't because Yeide didn't put in the research or put it forward coherently, they are because the reviewer disagreed with Yeide's conclusion.

 

 



Hellhound2723 #258 Posted 15 August 2015 - 12:07 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29264 battles
  • 412
  • [AA]
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

Patton already kicked his butt in WW2 North Africa and Normandy.

 


Edited by Hellhound2723, 15 August 2015 - 12:09 AM.

"SOUND THE CHARGE"   

  

  

 


FlukenJager #259 Posted 16 August 2015 - 11:44 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18174 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    01-19-2015

 

Patton.

 

History proves it.

the americans won.

the german doctrine was inferior to the organized and deliberate defense/offense. 

Rommel not only followed German doctrine, he wrote almost half of it.

MOST of the Red Army Doctrine for armored warfare was written and taught to them by americans.

the doctrine that won was overwhelming numbers and flanking.

On the contrary the older UK/European doctrine which the brits followed, was defeated by the German Doctrine.,, which is why the Germans had initial success.

Many people don't realize the russian factories for their tanks were built and the workers trained by americans. So the Russian "war machine" WAS the American war machine.

 

Additionally, Rommel valued his men more than Patton. Patton was willing to sacrifice men and told them it was their duty to do so, Rommel was interested in so such risks.



Matthew J35U5 #260 Posted 17 August 2015 - 01:22 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostFlukeyHen7502, on 16 August 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

 

MOST of the Red Army Doctrine for armored warfare was written and taught to them by americans.

the doctrine that won was overwhelming numbers and flanking.

 

I didn't realize Tuchakevsky was american. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users