Posted on 04/30/2008 1:20:52 PM PDT by devane617
Rommel had similar criticism from some of his soldiers during the initial Tobruck attacks for lack of concern for his men.
Rommel's quick advances in the battle of France early in the war rivaled Patton's fast movements.
Rommel criticized Hitlers strategic thinking and constantly tried to change it. Patton resisted against the strategic decisions of his leadership.
One interesting contrast, if Rommel had survived he may have transitioned from the military to civilian leadership in postwar Germany. He was regarded as naive in politics, yet began to learn it later in the war.
With Patton, every day of postwar Europe caused him more problems, and the Allied leadership was desperately looking for ways to get rid of him, or send him home and quiet him.
I think if Rommel & Patton played simulations against each other with equal forces, there would have been no clear cut winner, they would alternate wins.
***Rommel. Hands down.***
That's a Hollywood quote.
Read my post 17.
Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton were all accomplished politicians and administrators.
You could not work your way up to general officer in the regular US Army at any point in US history without administrative or political skills.
Only brevet promotions in the midst of actual warfare would enable someone lacking those skillsets to rise in the ranks.
Patton worked his way from captain to brigadier during 1920-1940 in a peacetime army.
You could not do that then, any more than you could do that now, without doing the bureaucratic work necessary.
Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein.
Well....OK, but it’s still kind of difficult to imagine George S. Patton as a `politician and administrator’.
Different command styles (in the case of Patton and Bradley, profoundly different) often have the same outcome in achieving high rank.
BTW, Omar Bradley exercised his administrative skills for many years after WWII. Wonder what Patton would have done postwar, had he survived.
Rommel ran shoestring operations in Africa, especially in 1942 I'm not sure Patton [or anyone else] could have pulled off. Way fewer tanks than the enemy, no air superiority. etc. His Gazala campaign is one of the greatest in history.
Rommel could [and did] fight set piece battles, one of the flaws in Patton's game [see the above mentioned Cherbourg].
As a junior officer in WWI, while not rising above the rank of Captain, Rommel achieved a record Patton could only envy. His contribution to the victory at Caporetto earned him the Pour La Merite [the ‘Blue Max’]. His inter war writings, ‘Infanterie Greift An’ [”On Infantry Attacks”] was not only a best seller, but led to an assignment as an instructor at the Dresden Military Academy.
Finally, it should be noted that the first time Rommel handled armor was 1940. He had been an infantryman through his entire career. He not only made the transition seamlessly, he proved to be a major innovator as well. Although the Germans may have experimented with 88s in the antitank role in Spain, the first time they were used in that role in WWII was at Arras - by Rommel. By the cauldron in 1942 at Gazala, the had turned the technique into a lethal art.
Rommel, hands down.
Patton seemed to be worried he’d screwed himself by going into tanks.
The Blitzkrieg came at an opportune time for his career.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.