Hey Patton-
I don’t recall Patton kicking the crap out
of Rommel. However, Patton did read Rommel’s book on
Tank warfare. You are going against the grain
on this one.
What are you talking about? Patton defeated Rommel’s 10th Panzer at El Guettar (BTW: Patton is my favorite General). Patton was the most dangerous General on all fronts, N. Africa, Sicily, Northern France, and finally Germany. Quite possibly Patton could’ve ended the war by Sept. 1944 if not for arch rival Monty.
I thin MacArthur was the best general also.
And As far as getting thrown out of Koriea, Truman thought he was a rival for president, So thats why.
I hate to burst your bubble Moses, but Patton arived in Africa and took over command on the 4th of March 1943, and Rommel was relieved and returned to Germany on the 5th of March 1943. The big stories of Patton defeating Rommel are a propaganda myth. Patton along with the rest of the allied army in Africa faced Colonel-General von Arnim. Not familiar with him? History doesn’t remember loosers.
I agree the Patton was a great General, one of histories best, however he never realy went head to head with Rommel.
Well of course I knew that Rommel wasn’t present during Patton’s victory. However it is undoubtably true that Rommel planned the battle. If you beat Rommel’s plans, didn’t you defeat Rommel? Plus, Patton’s greatest victory wasn’t even against Rommel. Patton was the person who saved the Allies’ hide in WWII at BotB.
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-02-21 19:19 ]
However it is undoubtably true that Rommel planned the battle. If you beat Rommel’s plans, didn’t you defeat Rommel?
Not really, If a general is not present at a battle, they can not addapt their plans for things the enemy does.
As I have stated before lets not debate over
an issue like this. Why not see what Patton
thought about Rommel?
PATTON, SAID " ROMMEL IS THE MOST MAGNIFICENT
SON OF A BITCH I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY
LIVES" Patton thought he lived many lives
including being in battles in the Civil War
and wars back during the Greek period.
You see if Patton himself believes this
and so do most experts/historians why
even debate it? However, Patton was an
awesome leader so I respect your passion
for him.
Don’t worry, I never said Rommel anything that would try to discredit or tarnish his reputation. (BTW in the present era many generals are not “present” at the actual battles simply because the size of armies has evolved from Ceaser’s 5,000 man legions to Patton’s 3rd Army numbering almost 500,000). Rommel was one of the best generals the Germans had during WWII and for any other time. His actions in North Africa and the stubborn defense of Normandy was nothing short of brillant due to the superior forces of his opponent.
Umm…. Rommel was a Field Marshall.
Marshal
In America there is no rank of Field Marshal since it is a European term for an Armny Officer. I’m pretty sure if there was, Patton would’ve attained such a position.
Normandy landings:
very little point in judging a general by this success as Germany had already lost the war. it was only a matter of time. After the failed russian campaign effectively ending at the battle of kursk and the north african failure -the germans were retreating. Russia wanted the invasion of france to happen a whole year before it actually did, but the allies declined - seeing fit to pursue the war on the easier target of southern italy - possibly a good decision there as it would have been less heavy on casualties than a normandy invasion. On the other hand, the war could have been brought to a swifter end had they attaked in 1943…possible?? who knows, history can’t be decided on ifs and buts… It is certainly true that the russians bore the brunt of the war and should be praised for doing so even if stalin proved to be as callous, evil and ruthless as hitler. anyway, not enough room here to post my historical perspective of the war.
While Italy was not the soft underbelly of Europe (as Curchill had said) and one of the bitterest campaigns fought in WWII, I think that casulties would’ve be much lighter than if the Allies had Normandy early. Case in point the Raid on Dieppe in August 19, 1942 was certainly a disaster for the Allies.
I always liked Aldolf Galland. Youngest Inspector of Fighters General in history. What a sweetheart ace.
Kesslring. he had his eyes on the prize (malta) and kept us running till the end.
rommel pulled too many blunders IMO. and monty sux as much as the boston red sox.
What about Erich von Manstein?? He was very good at warfare!!!
Actually it was Kesselring that pulled many blunders too. Though many will remember him for the staunch defense of Italy against the Allies, he was marred by two critical incidents.
During the Battle of Britian, he was instrumental in Hermann Goring’s decision to change Luftwaffe tactics from direct pressure on RAF Fighter Command to bombing Britain’s cities. This led to the ultimate loss of the Battle of Britain.
The second was when Resistance members detonated a bomb in Rome killing 32 German soldiers. In retaliation, Hitler demanded that all able-bodied men in Italian capital be transported to prison camps. Kesselring instead had 335 citizens of Rome rounded up and shot at nearby Grotto Via Ardeantina. Kesselring worse then Hitler?
To add on from what you said, when the foundations of the Luftwaffe were being set, Kesselring was not an advocate and protested harshly about a long-range heavy bomber. This had many repercussions especially during the Battle of Britain and the war against Russia.
From what my brother has in his World War II binder, the use of the Luftwaffe was based more on the experiences from the previous Great War. He writes,
"…The continued domination of the European skies by the Luftwaffe was caused by two factors, the first of which was the difference in military theory between the Luftwaffe and the Royal Air Force. The theories concerning the purpose and function of the Luftwaffe and RAF were exactly opposite and were a result of their experiences in World War I.
During WW I, Germany attempted a strategic bombing effort directed against England using Gothas (biplane bombers) and Zeppelins (slow-moving hydrogen balloons) which did not give much of a result. This, plus the fact that German military theory at the beginning of WW II was based much more on fast, quick results (Blitzkrieg), meant that Germany decided not to develop a strategic air force. The Luftwaffe had experienced great success when they used tactical ground-attack aircraft in Spain (e.g. at Guernica), and so they figured that their air force should mainly consist of this kind of plane. So Germany made the Luftwaffe a ground support force that was essentially an extension of the army and functioned as a long-range, aerial artillery.
The RAF, on the other hand, had experimented with ground-attack fighters during WW I, and had suffered grievous casualty rates. This, combined with the fact that the British had been deeply enraged and offended by the German Gotha and Zeppelin attacks on their home soil, made them determined to develop a strategic air force that would be capable of bombing German soil in the next war. Thus, at the beginning of WW II, the RAF was mostly a strategic force that consisted of heavy bombers and backup fighters, and lacked any tactical dive-bombers or ground-attack fighters."
There still leaves one question left. How would Kesselring, a army officer, have any say on the Luftwaffe? Did he use to be a fighter pilot like Herman during the Great War? Can anybody shed some additional light on this? I will try to look into his notes some more.
Still, all projects regarding the heavy bomber were scraped, hindering the development of one in the future. The closest the Germans ever got to a heavy bomber was the Heinkel 177 and it was a piece of crap. I guess the Germans had no perception of the limitations of the Blitzkrieg, which was their downfall.
