patton vs.rommel

[waltero]

Do you think; If the Germans would of destroyed France on there way out, would that of been a war crime?

Some of the Generals disobeyed orders, knowing they would have to live with the French after the war. (rules)

What do you think the crew of the enola gay thought after they had dropped the bomb?

From my understanding some of them could not live with it.

The Second Bomb Might of been a crime. I think the US reacted too fast, The first bomb blew out all communication to the rest of the world, they could not get on the phone and say, "hey that really F*cked us up man".

If somebody comes to you and throws the gauntlet? then "rules" apply.

If somebody comes from the back and stabs you? They are going to get a worse lick en!

Rules = Honor.

We threw the gauntlet on Japan to remind them to fight honorably (Or have your Sh*t together)!

Every solder has orders and obey the rules, rules of war would be just like any other rule.

As long as you have rules, if you don't then it is open season!

But the solder will always have rules!

One should be thankful that there are rule of war, With nukes and all!

[ August 02, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: waltero ]

[roqf77]

true. but back to topic. rommel hands down. now rommel v bradley thats another matter.

[jon_j_rambo]

We won is the bottom line, crime that. Mess with the bull, you get the horns. The Germans & Japanese have a pride problem, should have surrendered.

I bet some of the dudes on the Enola Gay were like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove. I know my Uncles celebrated.

[jon_j_rambo]

Rommel hands down? Dude, what was Germany even doing in Egypt, it was a lost cause from the beginning. Who was responsible for the North Africa plan? Didn't have a chance.

[roqf77]

not sure who was responsible? hitler i believe, the italians were buckling. in was in order to gain oil/ try to stop a second front forming. well it did have a chance but would of required much more manpower much sooner. of course you may have the point that this may bot of been available as barborrosa was not long away.

[hellraiser]

The war for North Africa was a good ideea, IMHO, only it was waged w/o having adequate resources.

- with Egypt and Middle East taken, the germans could have pushed thru Caucasus, opening another front in the east + it would have 'freed' some islamic nations which were under british domination -> more oil would have poured into Germany, reducing the dependancy on Romania's oil and own, limited, synth fuel;

- it drained UK 'MPPs', otherwise possibly used for actions in another areas, far more dangerous for Germany;

So, the war in N Africa was not a 'lost cause' by all means. Just an ill strategically planned one. They wasted one of their greatest tacticians' (Rommel) skills for nothing.

[roqf77]

plus alot of tanks and aircraft.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Hellraiser --- Dude, you don't have a clue about reality of war. You're a landlocked citizen of a country who buddied with the Buntas & befriended the Commies. The Oceans are/were ruled by the Yanks/Brits, the Germans didn't stand a chance in North Africa. This should've/could've/would've is exactly that! Don't give me this...well, the Fritz was going to Egypt for the oil! If they were going for the oil, what the Hell (Heaven) would you land in Libya? Makes no sense, porting then marching thru a desert. Only people successful getting in/out of Egypt was Israel with the help beyond. Don't give me this..."IF", "IF", "IF"...Gerry wasn't going anywhere, except HELL. I piss on Rommel, his family, & his grave. I'll never make heroes out of the Germans who tried to murder the planet. Call them Nazis, or 'just regulars doing their job'...well, we did our job & defeated the murderers.

USA forever,

Legend

[ August 03, 2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[roqf77]

well. that was there plan. and if you look closely at a map it makes sense. only clarification i would add. it was the collapse of the italians that sent german forces there in the first place. i think the plan would of developed after. and they came very close. i can see your point about not wanting to glorify the nazi regime so please dont take this as an arguemnt.

[jon_j_rambo]

I don't see the value of Libya either in the 1940's or today. Check real estate values in the United States, we're in a massive bubble, our dirt is expensive. You can have Libya & Egypt. Egypt has been a dump for 3700 years.

[jon_j_rambo]

"Yeah, that was Wilson, fast on the draw, but not fast enough" --- Shane got Wilson, Patton got Rommel.

[roqf77]

err rmabo. oil! very simple. real estate is irrelvant. they didnt invade libya ofr houses. secondly patton did not get rommel. not even close. they never directly met. and the us engagements in na were largely disaterous. especialy early on. patton rose(rightly or wrongly)to prominence in this atmosphere. i dont think patton engaged him in normandy. so they never realy met.

[JerseyJohn]

During the North African Campaign, no one knew there was oil in Lybia. Occasionally some crude seeped into water holes and both sides accused the other of poisoning them. If oil had been discovered in Libya during the thirties instead of the fifties, the whole strategy would have been different.

Rommel's real job was supposed to be holding on to Libya so they British couldn't use it as a bomber base to strike at Sicily and southern Italy.

When he captured Tobruck, he also captured large stores of oil and that was what he used for his drive into Egypt. Once that was exhausted he began having severe supply problems. He knew that would happen if he fell short of capturing Alexandria quickly. He gambled and lost.

Most of this thread is fairly pointless. They were both good generals, particularly as tacticians. There wasn't enough difference between them to measure and, as has been said several times already, they never did actually meet in battle so it will forever remain a hypothetical question.

[hellraiser]

True - they are somehow similar as far as recklesness and boldness are concerned

Back in 1940, you had a Rommel driving like mad thru french defences pretty much like Patton did in 1944. At that time, Germany had superiority in every aspect.

During NA campaign, you had a Rommel trying to come up with various tricks to try to offset the lack of supplies and reinforcements and squeezing victories out of the blue. Patton was never put into this kind of situations.

So if you compare the 1940 Rommel with 1944 Patton, they are pretty much the same. As for the rest of the war years, you cannot compare them - they faced completely different situations.

@JJR - dude, the discussions over here revolve around a lot of IFs.

The fact that the oceans were always rules by the brits and yanks have nothing to do with the NA campaign or Rommel&Patton.

Jersey John was right - germany came to the rescue in 1940 - italians were a joke, they couldn't even load the ammo into their weapons

As for landing in Lybia - well, you know what happens if u land in hexes controlled by the enemies - landing casualties!!! That was what the germans wanted to avoid

UK had HQ, tanks, armies+air support in Egypt - so you need a german HQ+air+whatnot landing in Lybia, right?

[hellraiser]

'You're a landlocked citizen of a country who buddied with the Buntas & befriended the Commies.'

Well, do you want us to go over it again?

Buddied with the buntas - we had to choose between them and the reds - would you have done something different back then? I don't think so.

Befriended with the Commies - never happened. We were imposed a communist government by the USSR - no1 ever asked us if we wanted that govt or not.

Better go check some real history books. TV ain't good enough, I tell you.

This attitude of yours is so typical for you yanks - you care so little about the others; the only thing that matters is the USA. Well, you gotta start changing that - you are the only superpower left and you have responsibilities. You want respect? Start respecting the others (that includes their history). Force alone ain't enough - check again the history books - others have tried it before you and failed.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Hellraiser --- Dude, defending the USA is what's critical: Bill of Rights, Constitution, economic opportunity, & religious freedom. Has a little to do with location of just being in the Americas, look at Mexico, filled with corruption.

The naval power was everything in N.Africa. You really think the Germans/Italians were going to start sailing oil tankers from Africa to Italy safely? Yeah, right.

Yes, Romanians did have a choice, come to America! I had some relatives leave Draculaville in the late 1800's / early 1900's.

Far as USA helping out beyond force. Dude, look at the missionaries we crank out, the hospitals, the rebuilding of Japan/Germany, "Mr. Gorby, tear down this wall", immigration opportunities & all the other help we dish out. We pay all the United Nation bills, lead NATO, & have spread our economic Democracy across the planet. You think China/India could have figured out how to live & prosper on their own?

Now, our next big hurdle is converting the Middle East...but that's going to take time & I can't talk about politics here. Plus I'm on double secret probation.

If anybody needs educated please contact the Legend offline via ICQ.

[jon_j_rambo]

Keeping this on subject. Patton needs to have a rating of 9! The Buntas are given all these great HQ ratings for defeating Poland, France, & sleeping farmers...give me a break. The Germans were talented in killing civilians, not soldiers. Battle of Britain was a diaster. If Gerry was so smart, why spend winter in Stalingrad? And don't blame everything on Hitler. And if you still blame Hitler, then don't work for him.

[roqf77]

rambo.. lead nato. Dont make me laugh. Pay un's bills? err well actualy nobody pays what there supposed to. its a little bit of a crisis.

to hellraiser, good points but he has already says he more of a smack guy than a ww2 nut.(not sure what that means). as far as the comaprison go's its a little off. the germans had an inferiority in supply numbers then. plus patton had a habit of attacking small numbers of germans. and when it gets rough he has a habit of failing, look at his attempts to cross the rhine. although there is one clear comparison. majority of the troops that served under them had somehwhat of a dislike(certainly every one ive spoken to her served under patton disliked him).

[pino]

Rambo, I get your point but not al german generals were Nazi's.

I don't think Rommel was a Nazi sine he participated or at least knew about the plans to kill Hitler.

Would a REAL Nazi try to kill the one who was the father of Nazisme? A real Nazi would never try to kill Hitler, or would at least warn him if plans were being made to kill him.

What Rommel and lot's of other German generals did was selling there souls to the Nazis. They agreed to be used in Nazi propaganda and stuff like that so that they could be close to Hitler wich would give them more changes to build on their military carreers.

And like some of the generals, when he realised that the war could not be won if Hitler still was in charge, they tried to kill him.

So, was Rommel a "Nazi?" In the true sense, probably not. Most generals probably were not Nazis in that sense. Yet they, like Rommel sold their souls.

[waltero]

If Patton and Rommel were on the same team, and I had my choice to pick who I wanted to be under, It would have to be Rommel.

I would not want to be with Blood and guts!

Although, If You have to send one of them in to do a job, It would have to be Patton.

It was Rommel who lost sight of the Ball.

Early in the Africa campaign Rommel stated that Malta must be taken before attacking Alexandria (he went for it anyway).

He lost his first assault on Tobruk.

Patton sent a raid on a German prison to rescue his son! (got his son back)

Patton did not F*ck around!

It makes no difference who was a Nazi!

Everybody in Germany during WWII was a Nazi!!! You would be too if you lived there.

[waltero]

You would be crying like a little girl, whimpering to the Gestapo, "I am a good Nazi, I'm a good Nazi!

[roqf77]

true. but he got alot of people killed. the blood and guts comment, was actual meant as an insult towards him. something like its his guts but our blood. although having said that rommels troops in north africa at least were not particulaly found of him either.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

true. but he got alot of people killed. the blood and guts comment, was actual meant as an insult towards him. something like its his guts but our blood.

The comment was coined between the wars, and was originally a reference to the type of speeches he gave - fire and brimstone. It may have evolved later into what you write (though I suspect you lifted that out of the George C. Scott movie, which most people tend to confuse with the "real" Patton), but was originally less insulting. At the time it was coined, Patton was not a combat commander nor particularly known for being wasteful of anyone's lives.

I'm not so sure it wasn't said with affection even in WW II, though I am sure it was said derisively also on many occasions.

[roqf77]

well good points. i never actualy managed to sit through that film. its just my understanding from my uncle on my mothers side and all of his friends who i spoke to, that he was overly agressive and to willing(not saying he was the owrst by any means) to often to trade his mens lives for results.especialy ones that made him look good. i have never met(although i have met only a few) anyone irl that served under him that had anything(and i mean anything) good to say about him. although i know indirectly of a fair few people(i.e websites and such) that do. just my impression from those i have spoken to, out of monty dempsy bradley and sorry tha canadian guy's name escapes me and patton. that he was the bottom of the pile(not that he was the worst commander in the allied army by any stretch, just the worst of his level in that campaign) whether or not this is true i dont know. accounts of him tend to be incredibly bias either way.

[hellraiser]

@jjr

'The naval power was everything in N.Africa. You really think the Germans/Italians were going to start sailing oil tankers from Africa to Italy safely? Yeah, right.'

At some point, the UK had only 3 capital ships left in the Med ... and oil was supposed to flow from Iraq/Iran/Caucasus, not N Africa.