Who would win if Patton pit against Rommel?

Question

And can you tell me the strength of these 2 men?

Answer 1

interesting question. with everything being equal would agree with others answering the terrain would be the decisive " wild card " but personally feel Rommel would defeat Patton but a lot of death and destruction would take place first.

IF and I mean IF these two warriors could have been on the same side as allies there would be few to match this combination.

Answer 2

Both Generals were pure military and out to win, something unheard of today. The Middle East would be a footnote in the history books if the politicians would just hand it over to the generals.

Rommel's lifeline of diesel was discovered and his game was up. VII Panzer die Gespenster-Divisionen (the "Ghost Division") was making it through the dessert with equipment designed for Europe and without parts. Patton had the luxury of European terrain and plenty of parts.

Rommel had extensive military training and battlefield experience from WWI. Patton believed he was a reincarnated Roman. That would have been an interesting match-up. The Germans sure held their own against the Romans in history.

I have always thought it was Eisenhower that yanked the lease on an independent Patton. The German High Command couldn't dismiss nor replace Rommel.

If you put Patton in the dessert, he'd lose. Put Rommel in the Alps, he'd lose. Put the two into a computer game, Patton wins. Patton was a soldier's general. Rommel was an authoritarian manager that could not overlook character flaws.

I just wished it had been Patton at Korea instead of MacArthur.

Answer 3

Patton's greatest strengths were a bulldog persistence and an emphasis on speed. These served him well in WWII for the most part, although his units sometimes got ahead of their supply and support units and got in trouble by going too fast. Rommel was a master of stategy, and ingenious at surprising and confusing the enemy. In the final analysis, Patton's success in WWII was primarily becuase by that point the allies had an overwhelming force advantage. Given equal forces, I'd bet on Rommel.

Answer 4

That is a hard one, equally equiped, equally supplied, I think it would have been a very long battle.
Patton was the best Americna General since Grant. He used what he had to the best of his ability. The Germans alwasy put the best and heaviest unit against him and he would smash them. His men hated him but would follow him and would not want to fight with anyother general, per my Grand father who was in Pattons Army in Africa, Sicily and again from the Normandy breakout on. Rommel had 3 years to perfect his tatics in battle.
Both had the same ideas about battle, to smash through and not stop.
I think Patton would prevail in the end.

Answer 5

Considering the materials on the field at the time...Patton...

But if you had equal numbers of German Tiger 2 tanks and US Shermans....It would be Rommel....

A Sherman against a Tiger2...The Tiger would win every time.....But as it was the US could Field 20 Shermans for every Tiger2 in the field...

Credit the US factory workers with a lot of the battles won during WW2!!!

Answer 6

Patton would win only if he had the British and Canadians fighting for him, otherwise Rommel (with just 12,500 Germans and 27,000 Italian) would be an easy winner.

Answer 7

Rommel biggest problem was Hitler wanted to play god instead of winning the war. If Rommel would have gotten to defend nomandy the way he wanted too. we would have had harder time on the beach than we did. but Hitler wanted to conrol of everything and not let any General do what should've been done to win the war, you can't win a two front war you over load your supply and men more often than you should

Answer 8

I'd bet on Patton if it were a KY wrestling contest. But Rommel in a game of chess.

Answer 9

Given equal forces, equal equipment, equal terrain conditions, equal logistics, neither would win. A lot of tankers would get killed, a lot of tanks destroyed.

Rommel was probably better with armor tactics, had more experience, and had better equipment.

However, Patton did awfully welll with more, inferior equipment and better supply lines.

There's no honest answer to your question.

A person might as well ask, if the Japanese Kwantung army, a division of them, say, had ever encountered a division of the US Marine Corps on equal terrain, who'd have won.

One hell of a lot of Marines and Japanese would have lost, mostly.

Answer 10

Patton! Numbers over strength!!! It worked once it would work again!