rommel versus patton

who was better. Rommel or Patton? both were men of action and the offence. once they had a breakthrough they drove there tanks deep into the enemy, both liked it to take a risk.
the only bad thing about Rommel was that he couldn't fight defensivly
The bad thing about Patton was that he didn't concerned his flanks (just look at his breakthrough towards brittany. his corridor was for some days only a couple miles wide and he lets his whole 3th army race through it.

anyway, what do you guys think?

 

Neither one of these generals ever managed to think defensively. Therefore in a straightforward engagement between the two, with one attacker and one defender, one would be at a huge disadvantage and would undoubtedly lose. But I'm not sure if that's what you mean; if you meant to ask which general would achieve more in a comparable situation, that would leave more ground for speculation.

In my opinion, both these generals are overrated; they are the favourites of the masses because they thought and acted in terms of offensive fighting, of action and initiative, and even in terms of chivalry and honour. However, the realities of war do not always allow for such characters to display their abilities, and when placed in those very real situations that abound in war that do not involve glorious offensives, they are bound to fail. Rommel has clearly shown this in Africa and in Normandy.

Thus I think it's very important to determine exactly what we are supposed to compare here: both generals doing what they do best, or both generals in an "average" World War II situation?

 

why was rommel not able to think defensivly?

twice in North africa he was thrown into the defensive against heavy odds and an agresive attacker and on both occasions he fought a fine and coordinated fighting retreat.

His command in Normandy was also defensive in nature and again lasted far beyond what you would expect given the paper positions and strengths.

I think there was no finer army than the germans in retreat being cool and collected as well as resourcful and stubborn

FNG

 

i mean in comparable situations. like, what if patton would commanded the DAK and rommel the 3the army. that kind of things.

 

His concept of a defensive position was flawed, and at El Alamein he underestimated his enemy severely. He lost a ridge (perfect defensive ground!) to an enemy attacking through a minefield (delayed in a position of great vulnerability).

In that case your papers differ from mine, Rommel commanded some of the finest divisions in all of France and his position in the Bocage terrain would make one expect no less than a battle of attrition. The Allied tactic of basically throwing as much raw power against the German lines as possible, certainly aided in the success of his defence.

Even so, when it comes to fighting retreats, I think the situation faced by Manstein in Russia in 1943 was far worse; the same goes for Model in the West in late 1944. Both these men pulled off much more astounding feats than Rommel ever did, if you ask me.

 

Both specialized in offence, but what about either of them makes you think they where bad at defensive battles?

Rommel did account well for himself in defensive battles at North Africa, and what would have happened had he not been struck down by allied air power, and then killed for his part in the plot to kill Hitler is a mystery.

My reading on Patton might not be the best, but I don't know of him ever losing a defensive battle, if anyone else does say so, but as far as I know he never lost.

 

Rommel only lost in defensive battles, and he was losing in Normandy as well, though no commander can truly be held responsible for failing in Normandy since they all had their hands tied behind their backs and the strings were pulled by Hitler. What makes me feel that Rommel was incapable of carrying out defensive battles is the fact that according to several sources he believed strongly in the capability of mines to stop whole armies, which simply isn't true, and his concept of stationing all armoured forces within a thin strip of coast for immediate defence of the beaches was deeply flawed.

He never fought a defensive battle as far as I know. His strength and his entire character was the attack, the dashing move, the continuous offensive - a tactic which cannot be used defensively because it will simply exhaust one's armies. I think if he had been required to ever fight a major defensive war (for example to command the troops in Normandy instead of Rommel) he would have failed spectacularly.

 

The closest Patton ever came to big defensive battles were:

1) the German counter-attack on th eGela beachehad in Sicily.
2) in the Lorraine Sept 1944
3) the Ardennes in Dec 1944.

None of them lasted very long but Patton performed well in all cases. I don't really think there is much ground to say he would have been a disaster as a defensive general.

 

Patton would have conducted an "active" defense much like the German Generals wanted to do in Russia (but couldn't because of Hitler) after they lost the initiative. He'd let the enemy attack and then cut them off at their most vulnerable point or "let them stick their head into the meatgrinder". How well he would have fared commanding totally static units is hard to say, but then again anyone with a non-mobile army and no reserves is doomed.

 

Sicily is not my specialty so I won't speak of that, but in Lorraine the German counterattack was rushed and carried out with inexperienced troops with a lack of support of all kinds. In the Ardennes he didn't actually command the defending troops, he just led the counterattack and performed fairly poorly (though it must be said that attacking towards Bastogne was not what he originally wanted to do).

 

Roel,

These actions were as close as Patton ever came to defending a major defense, I wouldn't say any of them give any real indication of his capabilities as a defensive general. In no case was he on the defensive for long.

The German counter-attack at Gela, Sicily, primarily by the HG divison (led by invincible Tiger tanks) was very short lived and quickly turned into a retreat.
Lorraine as you say was over quickly and there are a multitude of excuses for the German defeat or poor performance, none of which ever seem to figure in a German vioctory at any point in the war.
At the Bulge it was only a couple of days of waiting for the bulk of Third Army to arrive and a kind of mutual standoff with German 7th Army at the extreme south-east end of the battle field. I don't think Patton's performance was all that bad, he reached Bastogne one day later than planned. It would have help if Monty hadn't waited so long to go over the offensive in the North (other than the unauthorized attack on 2 Pz Div). As it was the Germans were able to concentrate around Bastogne and slow things up. It was also the worst campaigning weather possible.

The point I was trying to make was that there really isn't much evidence to say Patton was a bad (or good) defensive general. But the same can be said foe Guderian.

 

Alright Roel, how can you define him as performing fairly poorly in what is almost universally considered a masterful redirection of forces in mid-winter? Now if you want to talk about him beating his head against a wall at Metz (in a figure of speech) I'll agree wholeheartedly, but in this case I couldn't disagree more.

 

The movement of his forces was good and fast, though he had prepared for this move since he first heard of the German breakthrough so it actually took him two days more than most people think. However, what I am mostly talking about and have argued about on this forum before, is his performance trying to break through to Bastogne. In spite of a numerical advantage of about 4:1 and troops with plenty of experience and support, it took him four days to batter down a single depleted German Luftwaffe ground personnel division which called itself Fallschirmjäger. Boohoohoo.

 

there are a couple things that you forget, Roel. we are talking here about the 4th armour division in december '44, not the 4the armour of august '44. here are the things you forgot
1. it is one of the srangest winters in belgium in those days. one moment it freezes like hell, the other moment the temprature starts climbing. so, you got icy roads one day, mud roads the other day and back in the evening icy roads. you can't axpect a blitzkireg on such roads.
2. most tanks were old and sensitive for breakdowns. the 4the armor lost a lot of tanks in that way
3. a lot of green soldiers. most veterans were dead or transfered at that time.
4. a new division commander, just appointed. don't expect a masterpiece of him on his first attack
5. the first day the average advance was about 15 kilometers (13 for CCA and 19 for CCB). the second day however, they were stopped in front of a river because the germans blew up all the bridges over the river Süre. tanks can't swim (okay, DD sherman can but those weren't there )
6. seeing the importance of Bastonge i'm sure that the germans putted the whole 7the amry of general Brandenberger against Patton to by The 5the panzerarmy the time to capture bastogne. there wasn't that one luftwaffe division, the 7the army was there to protect the 5the panzerarmy from any attack Patton would launch. they were dug in and waited for the americans to come.
7. 5 ferdinand tanks, in a good camouflaged position against a bunch of shermans in the open field. yep, the 4th did took some hits. no need to say that this attack did halted them for a while.

seeing al this, i would say that driving to bastogne in 4 days was a very good job. i doubt if it could have been done faster.

 

It's no longer a question of mobility once the attack starts but of simple battlefield advance. If the tanks can't go on, well, the 4th armoured had its own mechanized infantry and it was supported by two US Infantry divisions. All these units really did face the 5th FJ only, no other units and no support units at all. Seventh Army held a line from the south of Bastogne all the way back to the Siegfried Line facing several American divisions, and they were a pretty poor army to begin with. Seventh Army consisted of four Volksgrenadier divisions and an FJ division.

No Ferdinands, definitely. There may have been a few units of StuGs.

 

Both are great!!!

But I believe Patton was offensive by nature, he was an agressive man, who cannot accept an static position. "He was movement". And so, I assume he could not be very well in a defensive stance.

Rommel was more versatile, attacking was a master and his performance was good in retreating manouvers and in defensive battles. If we add to him, great resources...I believe, he would be better than Patton.

It is a matter of nature of Both. I see Patton like an impulsive and agressive general, and Rommel an agressive and methodic one.

 

That makes sense, arimanis, though I wouldn't overestimate Rommel's ability to defend. He mostly relied on mines and immediately available troops instead of defences in depth and mobile reserves, which just about always works better.

 

True, plus Rommel's biggest weakness is generally acknowledged to be logistics. He took little note of something which as the battles get bigger and bigger becomes more and more crucial to success.

 

rommel ,at el alemain had little concern about supplies as ther were no supplies to be brought up ,really....in normandy ,the roads were closed to virtually all daytime truck convoys by the jabos of the raf and aac ...surely one must take into account the complete lack of air cover rommel faced in both battles

 

German supreme command in France asserted that air interdiction by day did not impede the movement of armoured visions one bit - since they simply moved them by night. Supplies would be the same thing. In Normandy, though, supplies weren't Rommel's problem, it was the fact that he had no clue whatsoever how to defend.