2006-08-10 20:12:57 · 14 answers · asked by tbone 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Rommel was a brilliant srategist (so much so that the Allied generals, even Patton himself, acknowledged this and respected him greatly). Patton was no fool that much is true...but I still regard his tactics to be slightly less than Rommel's. In a Tank on Tank battle between the forces of these two generals...it would depend on other factors (like supplies, equipment, troop motivation, availability of air-support etc.). If all things were equal it would most likely be Rommel who'd win.
2006-08-10 20:22:10 · answer #1 · answered by betterdeadthansorry 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends since Rommel was known as a great tactics general while Patton was more of a leadership by example and had a crazy genius about him. In one battle, I would say Rommel would win but over a long campaign I got a feeling Patton would wear the other down as his generalship tends to leads to more breakthroughs.
2006-08-11 03:21:40 · answer #2 · answered by Havlat9 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I think Rommel was a better strategist, I think Patton would have won the battle simply because he was a risk taker and a better leader. His men would have followed him into a burning building had he asked them to. He would have also made a move that was not taught, out of the norm, and beat Rommel on pure desire and will.
2006-08-11 03:24:34 · answer #3 · answered by TexMan98 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The bottom line is Patton met Rommell's units several times and sounded beat them. Patton was a historian and a student of the game. He had read Rommell's book and knew his oponent and used his own tactics against him.
2006-08-11 21:57:07 · answer #4 · answered by TOPKICK 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if they had an even number of tanks i'd say Rommel! Patton was stubbern, he wasnt very smart! the only reason he won battles was because he had more man-power and equipment! Rommel on the other hand was very smart and understood the art of war! he would have won hands down in my opinion!
2006-08-11 06:33:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in my opinion George Patton was the world's biggest blowhard when he commanded american forces in ww2. Erwin Rommel's biggest problem was that he was fighting on the wrong side had he been on the side of the allied nations he and his tanks would have made patton look like a six year old in a sandbox
2006-08-11 03:21:44 · answer #6 · answered by sonnyd 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Patton, he read Rommel's book he wrote about his strategic plans.
2006-08-11 12:58:32 · answer #7 · answered by Michael B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given that all things were equal, Rommel would have won. He was constrained by lack of support and material.
2006-08-11 03:53:49 · answer #8 · answered by majorcavalry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gee, didn't that already happen? Or did I miss something and America lost that war? I think Gen. Patton and America won.
2006-08-11 03:46:00 · answer #9 · answered by basscatcher 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
rommel he has a bigger and better tank
2006-08-11 03:16:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋