rommel vs. patton and tiger tank vs. sherman tank?

Question

who would win between erwin rommel and george patton

who would win between the tiger and the sherman tanks?

Answer 1

Given equal numbers on both sides with equal air support, my pick would be rommel. His break through at Sedan in 1940 during the battle of france as the commander of 7th Panzer Division and, of course his exploits in the desert, but him above others in tactics.

Patton proved to be an unbeatable general as commander of the 3rd Army. Allied air superiority and overwhelming resources in men and material could make any allied general look good on the battlefield.

Regarding Tiger vs. Sherman, the only chance the Sherman's had were their overwhelming numbers and quicker response. As people mentioned above, it took at least 5 tommie cookers to beat a tiger, due to the tiger's slow traverse of its turret. Shermans were quick to get behind the Tiger and take em out at close range.....but only after the first two or three were taken out. In front of Caen, Michel Whitman's lone tiger stopped an entire Canadian division.

Of course the reality was far different, allied air superiority and overwhelming resources rolled over good tacticians like rommel and their far superior tanks.

Answer 2

My money would be on Rommel and the Tiger.

"The Desert Fox" Field Marshal General Erwin Rommel = brilliant tactician.
"Old Blood and Guts" General George S. Patton, Jr. = eccentric and colourful.

The Tiger was possibly the most sophisticated and best engineered tank of its time.

The Sherman was a poor match for any of the German tanks against which it fought. Even the Panzer IV, the weakest of its opponents, had a more powerful gun. Against the Panther and the Tiger, the Sherman was hopelessly outclassed.

Answer 3

Historically, Patton won, but the practical analysis is that he had some help. Montgomery and crew already had begun the route of Rommel's Eastern front. Patton was dealing with the rear guard. Still, the rear guard had already mopped up the first American drive against them, so they were hardly toothless.

Now as to the tiger and sherman tanks, it would be like a bet against a well-bred horse, versus a donkey. The tiger's were state of the art as far as armored vehicles of the day go. Still, everything has its weakness. Patton knew that indiscriminate shots from shermans would bounce off their sides, but there are places where tigers and most everyone else is vulnerable, tread and gear works, engine compartment, any external stores, especially fuel and ammo), and between the turrent and the body. It wasn't just enough to hit the tank, but the little extra target scrutiny for vulnerabilities was needed.

Then too, as with the first part, Patton never had to face Rommel when he was fully stocked and supplied. Even when he got into the game after D-Day, while the Germans were fully focused and armed, they had limited maneuverability (short on fuel). Ironicly, American command had to apply the same limits on Patton in order to keep him from going too far too fast (and embarrassing other units, I might add).

It would have been one heck of a bloody battle if the two brought their armies against each other fresh and fully prepared, but that never really happened.

Answer 4

IF your talking about 1 on 1 then the Tiger by a wide margin. Saw the movie 'Fury' and the part where 3 of the 4 Sherman's are knocked out while taking on 1 Tiger is probably pretty realistic. Its a good thing we built so many Sherman's during the war. Found this bit of info kind of depressing. The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. Thats an average of 3 destroyed/knocked out per day (11 months) for the entire European Campaign. This was a loss rate of 580 percent. And that was just one division! Plus the losses in tank crew must have been really high. Not all to Tiger's obviously but still says something about the Sherman's vulnerability to anti- tank weapons.

Answer 5

Rommel vs Patton I don't know...but a sherman tank against a tiger? I guess you never saw the clint eastwood movie 'Kelly's Heros". The americans in the sherman tanks would fire cans of white paint at the tiger tanks hoping to scare to scare the Germans, they didn't waste their time shooting real rounds because they just bounced off the tiger tanks. The only way the tiger could be knocked out was to hit it from behind at close range.

Later in the war the germans had the King Tiger tank, it was awesome. It could shoot further than any other tank and had super Armour. American forces were terrified of them, it was the most feared weapon of WW2.

Answer 6

Tough one. Rommel was more of a theoretician. He was a General Staff guy like Ike. Patton was a better hands on commander. If the tanks were the same, probably Patton. However the Tiger could've run over a Sherman and not even bothered to shoot it. Advantage Rommel.

Answer 7

Keep in mind that the Sherman was not designed to go directly against enemy tanks. The U.S. counted on speed and mobility using weapons like the 37mm Anti-tank cannon mounted on a 3/4 ton truck.

In a head-to-head battle the German Tiger would be a superior tank to the Sherman, even the later improved version.

There's no way to tell who could actually "out-general" the other between Patton and Rommel due to the differences in equipment, supplies and manpower available to both countries. However, strictly from a personal perception I've always admired Rommel's use of what he had, when he had it.

Answer 8

wikipeda Germany:
"Der Sherman war ab Ende 1943 den schwereren deutschen Panzern ( Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger, Königstiger, Jagdtiger ) im Gefecht deutlich unterlegen" Translation from me: The Sherman was in an signifantly inferior position in the killing fields to the heavy German tanks ( Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger, Königstiger, Jagdtiger ).
The tank which set new standarts was the Russian T34.
If you beliefe Montgommery, Rommel was very good in miltary theory and practise. The real question is, can 90 millions win a war against 2 billions, when the 90 millions have some good (???) ideas and the 2 billions with all resources. History says no. Who is the better general, that genious with some tanks and no gasoline or the average general ( I don't want to blame Mr. Patton) with a lots of tanks and much gasoline??? The genious General did know that he has lost and he shoot himself. That says history. The question is solved Patton won or was it Montgommery or Shukow or Butcher Harris ???

Greetings from Hamburg, Germany
Heinz

Answer 9

Rommel Tank

Answer 10

I was always under the impression that rommel was a better general than patton, but who knows...:/

tigers win, because they have more armor and heavier cannon...

I think sherman tanks had a lot of problems even penetrating the armor of the tiger. Ive heard that it ususally required at least two to shermans to defeat tigers, so that one could go around and get a rear hit.