Rommel vs. Patton in single tank combat

Because...?

Welcome to the forum, Canadian patriot.

 

The reasons are obvious to some of us.

 

Yeah, to fans of Rommel... Welcome back Liang.

Still I would like to be made aware of the reasons?

 

this is my opinion they should have a dance off .........JK yeah patton his two revolvers and Rommel with a wather p38 i'm putting my money on patton not only did he have a gun but a horse wipe know if it was a cussing compition Patton would of put rommel 2 shame who agree's

 

I like rommel more then patton just like the guy's above me know mabe a chess game or a game of poker where with rommel renember Rommel charged 3 french solidiers in ww2 he got hit in the leg but he wasn't fear less

 

It seems to me like this topic is getting a bit retarded. It is remotely possible that the two commanders, both leading from the front (which IIRC only Rommel did), could meet up and face off. In that case Rommel would be in his Sd.Kfz.250 and Patton in a jeep; easy to determine who wins. It is not really possible at all that the two would decide to play chess or cross swords over it.

 

Roel wrote:

Well it was a silly topic to begin with. I don't think most people took it seriously. As to your comments about leading from the front I think you are misinformed.Neither were hesitant to get close to the action, at times, in order to better control the situation or to inspire the troops however "leading from the front" went out with Alexander and "heroic " leadership where the leader fought as a warrior on the front lines. Any officer above the rank of Major who spends to much times in the very front ranks is going to be an exceptionally poor commander of any unit above the size of a battalion. It's not possible to cordinate large unit tactics while firing a rifle or commanding a tank in battle.

ps all that aside if one looks at the skills of fighting such as marksmanship or close combat (sabers for instance)there is no doubt that Patton demonstrated those skills(Olympic games and other competitions ) whereas with Rommel one is left to wonder.

 

Pardon name, needed one

SAy each peerson had 20 other tanks under his command. PAtton would have used better tactics agaist the Desert FOx

 

Patton, with his mysticism and reincarnation would have called upon 'the spirts' to win.

Factually, didn't Rommel die first, of 'suicide' , if you will.

Thats the answer.

lol

 

And? Why fight fair when you're fighting to win :lol: ?
Not cheating, just making better use of the forces available
Oli

 

I seriusly think that none of them would have played this match fair!! :bang: :bang: :angry: :angry:

sorry for the bad english

 

Where there no PIV in North Africa when Patton showed up?

 

Yes, but many of them will still have been short-barreled early Panzer IVs, and their purpose was infantry support, not tank-to-tank combat.

 

But maybe he'd end up using his pearl handled six-shooter)


they were ivory :bang:

 

I would go for Rommel. Maby hitler will send him a King Tiger for his birthday

 

Those tanks weren't in production yet at the time.

 

yea but he pre-ordered one

 

.
.
.

To assume Patton would have had a sherman is somewhat optimistic , if the
contest had taken place on the north african theather,
it would have been a Lee versus Pzkw 3 at best or , god forbid , a stuart
versus a tiger at worst ,
:bang: :bang: :bang:
.
.
.
.

 

There were as many Shermans in North Africa as Tigers. I.e. very few of either. More likely an M-3 Grant versus a Pz III or Pz IV. The match up was pretty close in either case. Despite being a stop-gap tank until the M-4 was introduced the M-3 was well liked by the Brits in N. Africa because it was the only tank they had that could ourange the Panzers.

 

.
.
True about the lee being apreciated by the brits , if only for having a decent gun .
They also loved the stuart , a much underestimated piece of hardware ,