Who were better tactically at war: Patton, Rommel or Mongotmery?

Question

Or...

Answer 1

All other things being equal (terrain, troops, tanks, equipment, ammo, morale) I think Rommel would come out on top every time. Patton eventually learned the tactics for armored warfare but his arrogance could be used against him by someone like the Desrt Fox. Monty was too cautious and only won when he could muster superior numbers. He was the McClellan of WWII.

Answer 2

"Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery" Okay granted I'm Canadian so there may be an appearance of bias... so I'll admit that right off the top and let the chips fall where they may - I am being entirely detached however. Yes Patton was great, there is no way I can't deny his greatness or battlefield prowess and successes. There are two crucial 'buts' that in my humble opinion tip the balance. Montgomery was in the war commanding troops from the very beginning in the BEF before France etal fell when material, technology, so much was simply not available in Patton's time on the continent. The man went up against Blitzkrieg at it's fiercest, some say a truly great General is a man who can keep his Army intact and still fighting during a retreat - which Mongomery did successfully including albeit by minor miracles getting the BEF back to England. Much can be made of the Desert Fox Rommel, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery made him a cropper in Africa (the British did have the Afrika Korps pretty much a spent force incapable of mounting any significant offensive prior to Torch; and when the US Army stumbled at Kassarine the British 8th Army helped them out - this prior to Patton's command) Much is made of the US breakout from the Brittany beachhead which Patton fronted and definate hi5 for sure - but let's remember it was the British and Canadians attacking villages like Caen that pinned down five of the Panzer Divisions [out of eight] that were in France - the Canadians facing the 12th SS Panzer Division, the Brits facing 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler and 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich among others. That did a lot to pave Patton's way, ironic thing is the Brits and Canadians get flak for not being aggressive enough as a result. I just think Montgomery is entirely underrated - very unfairly and while admitting Patton was as good a General without doubt - Montgomery has more experience under his belt on the battlefield making him the better General. He wasn't put in charge of all the land forces for Operation Overlord without vaild reason - and Patton not. Montgomery brings more experience[s] to the table. "Sports Boxing" LOL just saw that. I'd like to see Goring and Stalin go a few rounds actually. GERRY'S MY HERO! *waves frantically with a huge smile*

Answer 3

Rommel was brilliant as a tactician he wrote a book on it. Patton admired Rommel's tactical force, but was definately his equal, and proved to be by beating his forces in battle after Rommel was stupid enough to tell it all in his book, Patton just studied it like a chess board and it was all over. The ego is mankinds undoing no matter how brilliant. Montgomery was an asset to the war, however tactical was dependent upon the ground forces and then Montgomery could plan better for his air strikes to be of useful service. We nearly lost in Africa because there was not enough back up for air strikes, however.

Answer 4

Patton was not the greatest general ever, though the Germans greatly feared him for one reason - he could get the job done. Patton often led men straight for the enemy and kept pushing, and this resulted in a lot of casualties. Rommel was tactically brilliant, but if you studied him enough and read his book, you could out-maneuver him. Montgomery, though, apparently wanted to create a bit too elaborate plans that would glorify him and in the end he too led to a lot of casualties.

Answer 5

Patton and Rommel are a bid off the same Principe = don't leave the enemy any time to take his positions attack as quickly as you can.
Montgomery is a more only attack as you have more troops and material then the enemy.
I prefer more Patton and Rommel because they are more fore the attack from the " saddle " Montgomery is a bid to predictable

Answer 6

Rommel was a good divisional commander who was promoted beyond his talents. Montgomery's eminence derives from the flatness of the surrounding territory. So I'd have to say Patton - though maybe the other two could have done just as well if they were supplied as lavishly as he was.

Answer 7

Rommel If he fought on the winning side the war would have been over by a few years

Answer 8

"hey magime"it was monty who beat rommel not patton,so on the thinking that rommel was a master then monty must have been better ,so monty is the better,

Answer 9

Montgomery

Answer 10

rommel probably,but imagine if scipio africanus of rome or alexander the great had had tanks,mortars and planes etc who would be best then any ideas?