Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 6:05:44 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Erich von Manstein

For the most part, Manstein achieved most of his successes against inferior troop quality in the west and in Russia:

Successes:

* in 1938, took part in the German take-over of the Sudetenland as the Chief of Staff to General von Leeb

* On February 1st of 1940, he received the command of 38th Infantry Corps to invade France

* June 22nd to 26th, von Manstein advanced over 320km, while capturing bridges across Duna River yet failed to capture the city of Leningrad.

* he secured the Crimea and eventually took Sevastopol


********************************

However, Manstein's failures were of a greater consequence to Germany's strategic position:

FAILURES:

* August of 1942, von Manstein was once again in charge of forces attacking the city of Leningrad and FAILED to capture it.

* In November, 1942 Erich von Manstein received the command of newly formed Army Group Don, which was made up of Hoth's 4th Panzer Army, Paulus's 6th Army (entirely trapped in Stalingrad) and 3rd Romanian Army. He was ordered to relieve the 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army trapped in the city of Stalingrad. Von Manstein started his attack on December 12th and by 24th was within 50km from "Fortress Stalingrad", when his advance was halted and he was forced into 200km long retreat, which continued until February of 1943. He FAILED again.

* von Manstein's Army Group South FAILED in its attack at Kursk in 1943.

* After the unsuccessful outcome of the Operation "Citadel" (July/August of 1943), Erich von Manstein was driven into a long RETREAT by the Russian counteroffensive.

* In late January, 1944 Manstein was forced to RETREAT further westwards by the new Soviet offensive.

* On March 30th of 1944, Erich von Manstein was dismissed by Adolf Hitler.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/12/2004 4:08:55 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 121
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 6:24:06 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
Different commanders, different theatres, each with their own set of problems. 'Jungle' could be equally as varied as the 'open plains of Western Europe'. Patton never had to deal with the Monsoon, crumbling (or non-existent) roads, relying on air transport for much of his logistical support. Additionally, I think describing Slim as 'an infantry commander' is about as accurate as calling Patton 'A Tank Commander'.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 122
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 6:27:03 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
Von Rom,I note you avoided to mention Mansteins brilliant victory at Kharkov and the reason he was sacked by Hitler (disagreeing with the little corporals 'military genius' once too often). Balance please

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 123
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 6:40:59 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
Back to Slim momentarily, head over to http://198.231.69.12/papers/amsc1/040.html for a good analysis of Slim's generalship in India and Burma in WW2. It's a scholastic work and is well researched and annotated.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 124
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 7:04:48 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Different commanders, different theatres, each with their own set of problems. 'Jungle' could be equally as varied as the 'open plains of Western Europe'. Patton never had to deal with the Monsoon, crumbling (or non-existent) roads, relying on air transport for much of his logistical support. Additionally, I think describing Slim as 'an infantry commander' is about as accurate as calling Patton 'A Tank Commander'.



Slim was essentially an infantry commander - look at the OoB of 14th army.

He fought in ONE theatre with jungle terrain.

Patton dealt with desert, heat, and winter in a variety of terrain, from severe rains and flooding in Lorraine to severe winter storms in the Bulge.

Plus before the Lorraine Campaign, Patton lost half of Third Army, lost half his airforce, had few supplies and little gas. . .

Patton commanded a wide variety of green armies, while Slim had only the 14th.

Slim retreated and lost battles. Patton NEVER retreated and never lost a campaign.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/12/2004 5:06:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 125
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 7:13:34 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom,I note you avoided to mention Mansteins brilliant victory at Kharkov and the reason he was sacked by Hitler (disagreeing with the little corporals 'military genius' once too often). Balance please


Kharkov:

Both Hausser and von Manstein knew that the Russians were not able to expend more effort at this time, and that their lines of supply were now dangerously outstretched. The Russian men were exhausted from months of relentless fighting. Von Manstein asked and received 12 tank divisions - the largest concentration of Panzerdivisionen so far - for an armoured counterassault against the Russian salient that had formed at Kharkov. He envisaged an assault from three sides, and the SS-Panzerkorps would be the head of the pincer that would destroy the Russian divisons around Kharkov.

Yes, Manstein achieved his victory against an exhausted and spent Russian army that was at the end of its supply lines, and that eventaully surrendered in droves.

It was also a costly German victory.

OK, ONE major victory for Manstein after 1942 - yet ALL of his other battles were FAILURES.

So, I agree - more balance is needed when looking at Manstein

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/12/2004 5:17:26 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 126
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 7:15:25 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Back to Slim momentarily, head over to http://198.231.69.12/papers/amsc1/040.html for a good analysis of Slim's generalship in India and Burma in WW2. It's a scholastic work and is well researched and annotated.


I am not disagreeing that Slim was a good commander.

However, to compare him to Patton is like comparing apples and oranges.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 127
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 7:36:53 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
More on von Manstein and the War in the East

The Nazis deliberately used famine as a political weapon in the East, and it soon became the largest single killer.

As the German invasion of the USSR began, General (later Field Marshal) Erich von Manstein told the Wehrmacht that the Soviet population *had to be* starved and that nothing:

"...may, out of a sense of mistaken humaneness, be distributed to prisoners or to the population - unless they are in the service of the German Wehrmacht."


Other features of military regulations promulgated by von Manstein on the eve of the war include orders for the immediate liquidation of all captured Soviet political officers or leaders, summary executions for civilians who 'participate or want to participate' in resistance to German troops, and "collective measures of force", which soon came to mean murder of entire populations of villages, including children-to punish hamlets in which 'malicious attacks [against the Wehrmacht] of any kind whatsoever' had taken place.

German soldiers who had committed what would otherwise be crimes under Germany's own military code were not to be prosecuted if their acts had taken place "out of bitterness against . . . carriers of the Jewish-Bolshevik [sic] system."

Manstein later claimed at his trial for war crimes that the starvation order had escaped his memory entirely. He was convicted by a British tribunal and sentenced to eighteen years in prison, but he obtained release in 1952 after serving fewer than three years of his term. The former field marshal eventually became an adviser to the West German Defense Ministry.


[Source: Simpson, Christopher. 1988. Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. (pp.14 and 15)]

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/12/2004 5:43:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 128
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 9:32:22 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Different commanders, different theatres, each with their own set of problems. 'Jungle' could be equally as varied as the 'open plains of Western Europe'. Patton never had to deal with the Monsoon, crumbling (or non-existent) roads, relying on air transport for much of his logistical support. Additionally, I think describing Slim as 'an infantry commander' is about as accurate as calling Patton 'A Tank Commander'.



Slim was essentially an infantry commander - look at the OoB of 14th army.

He fought in ONE theatre with jungle terrain.

Patton dealt with desert, heat, and winter in a variety of terrain, from severe rains and flooding in Lorraine to severe winter storms in the Bulge.

Plus before the Lorraine Campaign, Patton lost half of Third Army, lost half his airforce, had few supplies and little gas. . .

Patton commanded a wide variety of green armies, while Slim had only the 14th.

Slim retreated and lost battles. Patton NEVER retreated and never lost a campaign.



As has been pointed out, India and Burma are not just jungle! 14th Army was a heterogenuous collection of units from various nations, many of them of dubious quality and reliability - Slim had to weld them together into an effective fighting force. Slim never had the benefit of overwhelming air superiority nor access to the latest equipment. Patton NEVER faced the kind of adverse conditions Slim did.

The comparison you make between Patton and Slim over retreating and losing battles is not a good one. As is well known, Hannibal is everywhere regarded as one of the great commanders of all time as well as being Pattons military hero. Yet Hannibal failed in his campaign against the Romans in Italy and was decisively defeated at Zama before ignominiously ending his own life on the run from Roman justice.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 129
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 9:35:24 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Erich von Manstein

For the most part, Manstein achieved most of his successes against inferior troop quality in the west and in Russia:





Bit like Patton in Western Europe then

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 130
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 10:10:03 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
I'm not going to get involved in a major discussion on Patton again (please, I have a life).

On Manstein, I'm going to 'crib' this summary of his military career from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein - it reflects the problems he faced in many of the battles he commanded in, especially when considerably outnumbered on the Eastern Front and regularly hamstrung by Hitlers interference and intransigence. I'd like to go into more depth but I'm away for a few days so hopefully another can take up the cudgels

"During the Operation Fall Weiss, the German invasion of Poland, he served as chief of staff to the Army Group South under Gerd von Rundstedt. He was first to strike into Warsaw's suburbs, and when the remainder of the Polish army moved east he closed off the encirclement and was the main force in the total destruction of the encirclement. This was considered his first mark of genius.

In 1940 Manstein worked with Blumentritt and von Tresckow to develop the plan to invade France. He suggested that the tank troops should decisively attack through the wooded hills of the Ardennes, where no one would expect them, seize bridges on the Meuse River before striking eastwards, thus outflanking the Maginot Line and cutting off strong French and Allied Armies in the Belgium and Flanders from the French mainland.

OKW originally rejected the proposal, but Hitler, looking for a innovative new methods of waging war, approved of a modified version, Fall Gelb, that later became known as the Manstein Plan. Manstein was then sent back to Silesia and did not take part in the operation until the final stages when he served under Günther von Kluge. The plan was so successful that Manstein was awarded the Knight's Cross for planning it and made into a General.

In February 1941, Manstein was appointed commander of the 56th Panzer Corps. He was involved in Operation Barbarossa where he served under General Erich Hoepner. Attacking on 22nd June 1941, Manstein advanced more than 100 miles in only two days and was able to seize the important bridges at Dvinsk. The following month he captured Demyansk and Torzhok.

Manstein was appointed commander of Eleventh Army in September 1941, and was given the task of conquering the Crimea. The Red Army defended Sevastopol and this important Black Sea naval base was not taken until late June 1942. Promoted to Field Marshal on July 1, Manstein was sent to the Leningrad front. This led to a series of bitter battles where Manstein's inferior forces managed to outmaneuver superior Soviet forces, and the loss of over 60,000 men over the next few months.

In November 1942, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Adolf Hitler appointed Manstein the commander of the Army Group Don (Heeresgruppe Don) and ordered him to rescue the Sixth Army of Friedrich Paulus that was encircled inside the city. Placed in charge of a hastily assembled group of tired men and machines, he got his three panzer divisions to within 35 miles of the city, at this point Manstein pleaded that the 6th Army attempt a break out, but Hitler refused to issue such an order, and ordered the 6th Army to stay in the besieged city. A massive Red Army attack at another point on the line forced Manstein to divert his forces to help hard-pressed Army Group A in its retreat from the Caucasus to the Ukraine, thus avoiding the complete collapse of the entire front.

Manstein regrouped and the following year inflicted a heavy defeat on the Soviets at Krasnograd. An estimated 23,000 Soviet soldiers were killed and a further 9,000 were captured. Manstein now went on to recapture Kharkov and Belgorod with 2nd SS Panzer Corps. In recognition for this action, he received the Oak Leaves for the Knight's Cross in March 1943. Manstein then proposed a daring action for the summer to outflank the Red Army into the Sea of Azov at Rostov, but Hitler instead chose to back the more conventional Operation Citadel aimed at crushing the Kursk salient.

During the Citadel Manstein led the southern pincer, and despite immense losses he managed to complete most of his initial goals, but due the almost complete failure of the northern pincer, as well as the Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of Italy, Hitler decided to call off the offensive. Manstein protested, asserting that the victory was almost at hand. After the failure of Citadel the Soviets launched a massive counterattack on the exhausted German forces.

In September he withdrew to the west bank of the Dnieper River, while inflicting heavy casualties on the Red Army. From October to mid January of 1944, von Manstein "stabilized" the situation but in late January was forced to retreat further westwards by the Soviet offensive. In mid-February of 1944, von Manstein disobeyed Hitler's order and ordered 11th and 42nd Corps (consisting of 56,000 men in six divisions) of Army Group South (Heeresegruppe Süd) to break out from the "Korsun Pocket", which occurred on February 16/17th. Eventually, Hitler accepted this action and ordered the breakout after it already took place.

Manstein continued to argue with Hitler about overall strategy and in March 1944 he was relieved of his command. On 2 April 1944 Colonel-General (later Field Marshal) Walther Model replaced him as commander of Southern Army Group. Nevertheless Manstein received the Swords for his Knight's Cross, the highest German military honour. After his dismissal he entered an eye clinic in Breslau, recuperated near Dresden, and then retired. Although he did not take part in the attempt to kill Hitler in July 1944, he was aware of it. In late January of 1945 he collected his family from their homes in Liegnitz and evacuated them to western Germany."

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 131
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 11:43:03 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Different commanders, different theatres, each with their own set of problems. 'Jungle' could be equally as varied as the 'open plains of Western Europe'. Patton never had to deal with the Monsoon, crumbling (or non-existent) roads, relying on air transport for much of his logistical support. Additionally, I think describing Slim as 'an infantry commander' is about as accurate as calling Patton 'A Tank Commander'.



Slim was essentially an infantry commander - look at the OoB of 14th army.

He fought in ONE theatre with jungle terrain.

Patton dealt with desert, heat, and winter in a variety of terrain, from severe rains and flooding in Lorraine to severe winter storms in the Bulge.

Plus before the Lorraine Campaign, Patton lost half of Third Army, lost half his airforce, had few supplies and little gas. . .

Patton commanded a wide variety of green armies, while Slim had only the 14th.

Slim retreated and lost battles. Patton NEVER retreated and never lost a campaign.



As has been pointed out, India and Burma are not just jungle! 14th Army was a heterogenuous collection of units from various nations, many of them of dubious quality and reliability - Slim had to weld them together into an effective fighting force. Slim never had the benefit of overwhelming air superiority nor access to the latest equipment. Patton NEVER faced the kind of adverse conditions Slim did.

The comparison you make between Patton and Slim over retreating and losing battles is not a good one. As is well known, Hannibal is everywhere regarded as one of the great commanders of all time as well as being Pattons military hero. Yet Hannibal failed in his campaign against the Romans in Italy and was decisively defeated at Zama before ignominiously ending his own life on the run from Roman justice.



quote:

As has been pointed out, India and Burma are not just jungle! 14th Army was a heterogenuous collection of units from various nations, many of them of dubious quality and reliability - Slim had to weld them together into an effective fighting force. Slim never had the benefit of overwhelming air superiority nor access to the latest equipment. Patton NEVER faced the kind of adverse conditions Slim did.


14th Army was essentially an INFANTRY army.

Slim lost his early battles and was driven back into India.

He fought essentially INFANTRY-type battles.

Patton never faced adverse conditons?

Please examine the Lorraine Campaign more closely (bad weather and terrible flooding) meant NO air support. He also lost HALF his army and airforce before the campaign even began. He was also low on ammo and artillery shells.

Please do more readng on the Bulge - he did what NO other Allied or German commander thought was possible: he moved three divisions 150 miles in 48 hours in the worst winter storms to hit the Ardennes in decades, and ALL without air support.

Most of the time he had to work with green troops and was always running low on supplies and fuel (Lorraine).


quote:

The comparison you make between Patton and Slim over retreating and losing battles is not a good one. As is well known, Hannibal is everywhere regarded as one of the great commanders of all time as well as being Pattons military hero. Yet Hannibal failed in his campaign against the Romans in Italy and was decisively defeated at Zama before ignominiously ending his own life on the run from Roman justice


What's your point?

Patton NEVER lost - Slim did.

Slim was a relatively good commander fighting in a limited theatre (Burma) with essentially an infantry army.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 132
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 11:44:33 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Erich von Manstein

For the most part, Manstein achieved most of his successes against inferior troop quality in the west and in Russia:





Bit like Patton in Western Europe then



No.

The Germans were fighting do - or - die battles, and were man for man still better than the Polish, Flemish and French forces in 1940.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 133
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/12/2004 11:52:25 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

[clipped for space]

On Manstein, I'm going to 'crib' this summary of his military career from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein - it reflects the problems he faced in many of the battles he commanded in, especially when considerably outnumbered on the Eastern Front and regularly hamstrung by Hitlers interference and intransigence. I'd like to go into more depth but I'm away for a few days so hopefully another can take up the cudgels



As I mentioned before:

Manstein, as many German Generals did, achieved his early blitzkrieg victories against inferior forces in Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France and in Barbarossa (against ill equipped and poorly trained Russian troops).

Manstein failed to take Leningrad (twice); failed to relieve Stalingrad; failed at Kursk; and failed to stem the Soviet advances.

He did achieve a temporary victory at Kharkov - but even this was against exhausted and worn out Soviet troops, who surrendered in droves. But he failed to stop their advances.

Manstein had a policy of starving the Soviet populace; he did not join the conspirators to kill Hitler as Rommel, Stauffenberg, etc did; and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for war crimes.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/12/2004 9:59:04 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 134
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 5:39:48 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
VR,
Your posts about Mainstein in regards to his crimes are noted, he was a bad person in that he did little to feed an enemy populace. I consider him an above average example of the german officer corp, do you really think with aduquit supplies and manpower levels he would have "failed"?

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 135
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 11:04:03 AM   
Error in 0


Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline
vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 136
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 2:14:32 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

As I mentioned before:

Manstein, as many German Generals did, achieved his early blitzkrieg victories against inferior forces in Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France and in Barbarossa (against ill equipped and poorly trained Russian troops).

Manstein failed to take Leningrad (twice); failed to relieve Stalingrad; failed at Kursk; and failed to stem the Soviet advances.


Yeah, that's one way to put it. One can also argue that Stalingrad was a failure because the 6th Army and 4th Panzer had their hands tied as they were not allowed to cross the Volga. Had they done that, Stalingrad could have been taken in a matter of weeks. It's not necessarily Manstein's fault that the rules of the game were changed - by his own superiors.

Also, it's true that he failed to relieve Stalingrad. But the fact that he was successful in closing the absolutely enormous hole left after the collapse of 6th Army says more. There were literally no units in the rear, yet the Soviet offensive after Operation Saturn was stopped.

quote:


He did achieve a temporary victory at Kharkov - but even this was against exhausted and worn out Soviet troops, who surrendered in droves. But he failed to stop their advances.


With arguments like this it's easy to belittle anything, the same could (I guess) be said about Operation Overlord. And the Wehrmacht, too, was exhausted and worn out.

quote:


Manstein had a policy of starving the Soviet populace; he did not join the conspirators to kill Hitler as Rommel, Stauffenberg, etc did; and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for war crimes.


Nothing to debate there. Keep in mind though that Manstein was an aristocrat, and an officer raised with Prussian ideals. Treason was beyond his frame of imagination, albeit for a greater good.

< Message edited by Belisarius -- 8/13/2004 1:19:06 PM >


_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 137
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 2:33:53 PM   
max_h

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/18/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

FAILURES:
* von Manstein's Army Group South FAILED in its attack at Kursk in 1943.

* After the unsuccessful outcome of the Operation "Citadel" (July/August of 1943), Erich von Manstein was driven into a long RETREAT by the Russian counteroffensive.


hear, hear... so Manstein was ordered to do something where he adviced something else (he proposed a completely different operation and after that plea was dismissed he constantly pleaded to start citadel as early as possible b4 the soviet fortification events were finished). how is this different to your beloved Pattons "failure" to close the Falaise gap. obviously Patton - with the rules you apply to Manstein - is to be taken responsible for it.

you probably still believe the Prokhorovka battle was a large tank melee with heavy losses for both sides, but that´s completely wrong. in this battle the russian guards tank corps was almost anhiliated with only 40+ german tanks destroyed and damaged. that´s the reason why Manstein wanted to continue the attack (the 1st SS Panzerkorps hardly lost its strength), only the allied invasion of sicily and the advance (rather lack of) of the northern pincer forced the german high command to cancel this operation. for reference check the journal of military history, the data became available during the last few years.

I really ask you to read more than just Patton fanbooks.

< Message edited by max_h -- 8/13/2004 12:35:13 PM >

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 138
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 2:45:38 PM   
fjbn

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Cordoba, Spain
Status: offline
About Kursk. In fact, South Army in Kursk, the one at Manstein´s command, achieved good victories. In fact, Prokorovka was a terrible defeat for USSR, and germans still were advancing after that day. Manstein asked Hitler to allow the use or armour reserves, because he rightly thought that he would destroy Russian armour reserves and, if not turning Zitadelle to a victory, that was impossible, maybe making great damage in Russian operational forces, and forcing them to halt and reagroup, leaving the germans a time to reinforce their defences. So, Kursk failure was not Manstein's failure, but Hitler.

About Kharkhov. Well, Hitler's initial idea was to counterttack inmediately, but Manstein convinced him that was better to reagroup german forces, especially armour, and let the Russian to advance beyond their suply posibilities. That make the counterstrike lethal. This is a demonstration of superb strategical evaluation.

Leningrad. German forces in North Front were weak. Many panzer regiment have to give tanks to support the advance in South front, so Germans haven't the weight to achieve a victory. In fact, they couldn´t take a serious offensive in two fronts, so atacking to Leningrad was a serious mistake, not from Manstein, but OKW.

Stalingrad. Manstein was making quite good progress, but he was attcking from Rostov. He knew, and Russians too, that if Russians made a counterstrike in italian and Hungarian sector Manstein's army was in serious danger to be trapped, and the 6th army condemned to death. So it was not Manstein's fault.

Of course you are right about Manstein and other officers responsibility in criminal treat of POW and civil population, but Manstein was not the exception, only a few officers did a decent job in that way.

(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 139
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 6:06:37 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

VR,
Your posts about Mainstein in regards to his crimes are noted, he was a bad person in that he did little to feed an enemy populace. I consider him an above average example of the german officer corp, do you really think with aduquit supplies and manpower levels he would have "failed"?


Hi

The question might be put this way:

Would any good commander have failed without the proper supplies and troops?

Rommel for example, did wonders with so little - one can only imagine what he might have done with just one extra panzer division.

But the war is fraught with examples of what-ifs, especially when it comes to interference from high command:

Example:

Hitlers' order to halt the panzers outside of Dunkirk.

Ike's and Bradley's oders to halt Patton from closing the Falaise Pocket.

_____________________________


(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 140
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 6:30:28 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?


The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/13/2004 6:19:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Error in 0)
Post #: 141
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 6:50:23 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

As I mentioned before:

Manstein, as many German Generals did, achieved his early blitzkrieg victories against inferior forces in Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France and in Barbarossa (against ill equipped and poorly trained Russian troops).

Manstein failed to take Leningrad (twice); failed to relieve Stalingrad; failed at Kursk; and failed to stem the Soviet advances.


Yeah, that's one way to put it. One can also argue that Stalingrad was a failure because the 6th Army and 4th Panzer had their hands tied as they were not allowed to cross the Volga. Had they done that, Stalingrad could have been taken in a matter of weeks. It's not necessarily Manstein's fault that the rules of the game were changed - by his own superiors.

Also, it's true that he failed to relieve Stalingrad. But the fact that he was successful in closing the absolutely enormous hole left after the collapse of 6th Army says more. There were literally no units in the rear, yet the Soviet offensive after Operation Saturn was stopped.

quote:


He did achieve a temporary victory at Kharkov - but even this was against exhausted and worn out Soviet troops, who surrendered in droves. But he failed to stop their advances.


With arguments like this it's easy to belittle anything, the same could (I guess) be said about Operation Overlord. And the Wehrmacht, too, was exhausted and worn out.

quote:


Manstein had a policy of starving the Soviet populace; he did not join the conspirators to kill Hitler as Rommel, Stauffenberg, etc did; and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for war crimes.


Nothing to debate there. Keep in mind though that Manstein was an aristocrat, and an officer raised with Prussian ideals. Treason was beyond his frame of imagination, albeit for a greater good.



Belisarius:

I wrote what I did for this simple reason:

I applied the same standard to Manstein as some others have applied to Patton in the past.

As you can see, this type of approach can be applied to any general in WW2, even to Manstein, who has been considered one of Germany's best generals.

That is why when looking at any general in WW2, a person must consider the circumstances around which an action takes place.

Just for the record I am NOT American.

I was born in Germany.

Why do I defend Patton?

Simply because I consider Patton to have been a pure warrior in a similar mode to that of Rommel. I admire their war-like qualities. There is also a reason why most German Generals admired Patton.

Both Rommel and Patton were highly competent, professional soldiers.

And a great deal of what has been written about Patton is simply wrong.

If Rommel had been subjected to the same type of criticism and misinformation as has been applied to Patton, I would also defend him in the same manner.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/13/2004 5:07:44 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 142
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 6:57:29 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: max_h

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

FAILURES:
* von Manstein's Army Group South FAILED in its attack at Kursk in 1943.

* After the unsuccessful outcome of the Operation "Citadel" (July/August of 1943), Erich von Manstein was driven into a long RETREAT by the Russian counteroffensive.


hear, hear... so Manstein was ordered to do something where he adviced something else (he proposed a completely different operation and after that plea was dismissed he constantly pleaded to start citadel as early as possible b4 the soviet fortification events were finished). how is this different to your beloved Pattons "failure" to close the Falaise gap. obviously Patton - with the rules you apply to Manstein - is to be taken responsible for it.

you probably still believe the Prokhorovka battle was a large tank melee with heavy losses for both sides, but that´s completely wrong. in this battle the russian guards tank corps was almost anhiliated with only 40+ german tanks destroyed and damaged. that´s the reason why Manstein wanted to continue the attack (the 1st SS Panzerkorps hardly lost its strength), only the allied invasion of sicily and the advance (rather lack of) of the northern pincer forced the german high command to cancel this operation. for reference check the journal of military history, the data became available during the last few years.

I really ask you to read more than just Patton fanbooks.


Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/13/2004 5:03:12 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to max_h)
Post #: 143
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 7:29:13 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
If anyone wants, I will take the time and write up an example (with sources) of where D'Este in his book is wrong (or provides misleading information) about an important aspect of Patton.

_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 144
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/13/2004 7:55:15 PM   
max_h

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/18/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.


rofl, ok

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 145
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/14/2004 12:15:58 AM   
Jane Doe

 

Posts: 322
Joined: 4/16/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

Straw men

I intervened in case max_h didn't read the entire patton thread... this is simply not true. Ironduke kicked his @55 in that thread. ID's analysis was better; more objective, less obtuse, based on facts, way less emotional, clearly presented, was not driven by an agenda, exempt of rhetoric with no straw men, did I mention way less emotional; a scholarly analysis quoi.

It was certainly not a kind of argument we seem to read a lot recently that goes like (ex) "Napoleon was a bad commander because he lost in the end"...

_____________________________

Ainsi dans le courage et ainsi dans la peur, ainsi dans la misère et ainsi dans l'horreur.

"first you need a tear, just a tear of gin......and then a river of tonic"

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 146
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/14/2004 12:32:55 AM   
Error in 0


Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?


The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .



I am not accusing you of anything. I am just interested in your answer. It should be very easy to answer. If you feel for it, even a Yes/No answer would suffice.


JT

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 147
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/14/2004 2:56:43 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

Straw men

I intervened in case max_h didn't read the entire patton thread... this is simply not true. Ironduke kicked his @55 in that thread. ID's analysis was better; more objective, less obtuse, based on facts, way less emotional, clearly presented, was not driven by an agenda, exempt of rhetoric with no straw men, did I mention way less emotional; a scholarly analysis quoi.

It was certainly not a kind of argument we seem to read a lot recently that goes like (ex) "Napoleon was a bad commander because he lost in the end"...


Well, well, how nice of you to jump to max_h's aid

Many of ID's arguments were simply not arguments.

Many of his assumptions were based on FALSE information.

I did not even respond to some of his arguments simply because they were ridiculous on the face of them.

Surely, my example of criticizing von Manstein has shown you how someone with an agenda can tear apart any general - yes, even von Manstein. And I did that without even trying. You are aware, aren't you, that von Manstein - that vaunted German general - was tried as a war criminal and sentenced to 18 years in prison?

And ID had an agenda. . .

As to being enotional - I seem to recall you jumping into that other thread and pinning degoratory remarks on me.

Of course, it appears you are only interested in supporting the information that coincides with what you, yourself, believe.

BTW, Jane Doe, since you seem to know all about Patton - you must since you agree with ID - please tell me who originated Operation Cobra. And please provide sources.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/14/2004 1:06:21 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jane Doe)
Post #: 148
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/14/2004 2:57:53 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?


The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .



I am not accusing you of anything. I am just interested in your answer. It should be very easy to answer. If you feel for it, even a Yes/No answer would suffice.


JT



quote:

If you feel for it, even a Yes/No answer would suffice.



OK, yes and no.

_____________________________


(in reply to Error in 0)
Post #: 149
RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel - 8/14/2004 3:57:51 AM   
Jane Doe

 

Posts: 322
Joined: 4/16/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well, well, how nice of you to jump to max_h's aid

Many of ID's arguments were simply not arguments.

Many of his assumptions were based on FALSE information.

yeah, right...

quote:


I did not even respond to some of his arguments simply because they were ridiculous on the face of them.


quote:


Surely, my example of criticizing von Manstein has shown you how someone with an agenda can tear apart any general - yes, even von Manstein. And I did that without even trying. You are aware, aren't you, that von Manstein - that vaunted German general - was tried as a war criminal and sentenced to 18 years in prison?

Nope, your straw men only showed me how bad you were at debating

quote:


And ID had an agenda. . .

He had opinions, not agenda. And IMHO his opinion seemed to be baked up pretty well by lots of research on the subject.

quote:


As to being enotional - I seem to recall you jumping into that other thread and pinning degoratory remarks on me.

Hey, I was only trying to help you. That's why i posted a quick guide on how to debate.

quote:


Of course, it appears you are only interested in supporting the information that coincides with what you, yourself, believe.

If you say so

quote:


BTW, Jane Doe, since you seem to know all about Patton - you must since you agree with ID - please tell me who originated Operation Cobra. And please provide sources.

Operation Cobra was originated from God, because God is everywhere, in substance and in everyone's thoughts. AND Patton believed in God. Yeah Patton was a firm beliver. Heck Patton would have even crossed the highway with his eyes shut to show his faith in thy Lord. So it's normal that God chose Patton to be his voice on earth and be the great general who thought of operation cobra...

Oh, and did you know that Patton was afraid of snakes.. talk about a coincidence... Hey but as you know, Patton was known to overcome even his worst fears! And Patton did just that when he executed the cobra. Yeah Patton was the best.

Hourra for Patton!
Join the witnesses of Patton
Hourra for Patton!

_____________________________

Ainsi dans le courage et ainsi dans la peur, ainsi dans la misère et ainsi dans l'horreur.

"first you need a tear, just a tear of gin......and then a river of tonic"

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Who was better: Patton or Rommel Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.828