Started By
Message
re: Rommel Vs Patton
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:27 pm to antibarner
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:27 pm to antibarner
quote:
I often wonder had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg and outflanked the Federals instead of throwing away men in attacks that could not possibly succeed what might have been.
1
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:31 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
Lee might have won at Gettysburg, or the battle might not have been fought there at all.
I think the Union wins the war eventually, the numbers and industrial capacity were too much. The South's only chance was to break the Northern voters will and have them force the politicians to seek a peace settlement.
I think the Union wins the war eventually, the numbers and industrial capacity were too much. The South's only chance was to break the Northern voters will and have them force the politicians to seek a peace settlement.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:36 pm to antibarner
Having Special Order 191 retrieved by a Union enlisted man did not help the ANOVA, either.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 3:31 pm to HempHead
quote:
Patton would go all in on the turn with a jack high flush draw, Rommel would slow play a full house and take everybody's money.
You might have been joking, but this is actually 110% accurate about the character of both of them. Rommell was a smart mofo and if Berlin just listened to him on strategy, we would have been painting a different picture about how WW2 played out. We would have won eventually anyway.... but it definitely would have been different. Longer and bloodier, no doubt. Patton had the right attitude, at the right time but his way of thinking against a more formidable, stronger opponent would've been risky. But he saw weakness in his counterparts and followed through with sheer force and brutality.
It's too bad Mike Sherman didn't study Patton before the 2011 campaign tsk tsk.... lol
Posted on 11/14/14 at 7:52 am to antibarner
quote:
I think the Union wins the war eventually, the numbers and industrial capacity were too much. The South's only chance was to break the Northern voters will and have them force the politicians to seek a peace settlement.
Which is exactly what the Southern leadership was trying to accomplish. The Army of the Potomac had been thoroughly whipped throughout the war, save at Antietam. War fatigue in the North was widespread and Lincoln was facing a tough challenge from McClellan for the White House; McClellan was running on a peace ticket. You had Vicksburg fall and the victory at Gettysburg sealed on consecutive days, the 3rd and 4th of July. It was a MAJOR boost to Northern morale and essentially won Lincoln another term.
From a tactical standpoint, Gettysburg was a battle that NEVER should have happened. Heath marched division towards the town to seize a shipment of shoes and met a Union screening force of cavalry. Without any reconnaissance (due to Stuart out gallivanting around), Lee threw his army towards the town, as Meade raced his forces there, as well. Lee (1) lost sight of his mission objective, destroying large Union supply caches in PA (2) allowed himself to be bogged down in a large battle that was not necessary to achieve victory (3) gave very vague orders to his subordinates such as telling Ewell to "attack when prudent" up Culps hill. The order should have been to take Culps Hill immediately; this was a case when Jackson was sorely missed. (4) He attacked an entrenched enemy who held the high ground when he could have simply out maneuvered them and found a battlefield that played favorably into his own hands. Lee simply thought his army to be unstoppable and his troops paid a dear price for his hubris.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 7:53 am to Wtodd
We weren't talking about stars though.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 7:57 am to trickydick12
I went to Army Flight School with Patton's son, who was a Full Bird Colonel at the time and later was promoted to General.
He would stand up in class at times strongly state the need to destroy the enemy. We were 19 years old, he was old, like in his 50's and we were in awe and shock all at the same time
He would stand up in class at times strongly state the need to destroy the enemy. We were 19 years old, he was old, like in his 50's and we were in awe and shock all at the same time
Posted on 11/14/14 at 11:57 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
You remember that thing we had about 60 years ago, called the Korean conflict? Yeah, and how we failed to achieve victory. How come we didn't cross the 38th Parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China, then take the fricking wall apart BRICK BY BRICK and NUKE THEM BACK INTO THE frickING STONE AGE FOREVER! Tell me why, how come, SAY IT! SAY IT!
Alright. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a pussy wimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those commie bastards!
This post was edited on 11/14/14 at 11:58 am
Posted on 11/14/14 at 1:11 pm to Bama2018
Patton, Tiger>>>>Panzer>>>>>Sherman. Erwin Rommel had far superior technology
Absolutely false. The "Easy 8" Sherman was every bit the match of the PzKw IV's that made up the majority of German tanks in '44-'45. Plus, the overwhelming superiority Patton had in the air and artillery.
This does not even count the fact the Germans had very limited field repair facilities and depots to repair their AFVs. This was another area that Patton had an overwhelming advantage that no one talks about.
But, the biggest edge Patton had (by far) was mastery of the air.
Absolutely false. The "Easy 8" Sherman was every bit the match of the PzKw IV's that made up the majority of German tanks in '44-'45. Plus, the overwhelming superiority Patton had in the air and artillery.
This does not even count the fact the Germans had very limited field repair facilities and depots to repair their AFVs. This was another area that Patton had an overwhelming advantage that no one talks about.
But, the biggest edge Patton had (by far) was mastery of the air.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 1:14 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
The Army of the Potomac had been thoroughly whipped throughout the war, save at Antietam. War fatigue in the North was widespread and Lincoln was facing a tough challenge from McClellan for the White House; McClellan was running on a peace ticket. You had Vicksburg fall and the victory at Gettysburg sealed on consecutive days, the 3rd and 4th of July. It was a MAJOR boost to Northern morale and essentially won Lincoln another term.
From a tactical standpoint, Gettysburg was a battle that NEVER should have happened. Heath marched division towards the town to seize a shipment of shoes and met a Union screening force of cavalry. Without any reconnaissance (due to Stuart out gallivanting around), Lee threw his army towards the town, as Meade raced his forces there, as well. Lee (1) lost sight of his mission objective, destroying large Union supply caches in PA (2) allowed himself to be bogged down in a large battle that was not necessary to achieve victory (3) gave very vague orders to his subordinates such as telling Ewell to "attack when prudent" up Culps hill. The order should have been to take Culps Hill immediately; this was a case when Jackson was sorely missed. (4) He attacked an entrenched enemy who held the high ground when he could have simply out maneuvered them and found a battlefield that played favorably into his own hands. Lee simply thought his army to be unstoppable and his troops paid a dear price for his hubris.
You were doing so well and then ... that last sentence went so wrong.
Still, I gave you an upvote, reluctantly. It was a noble, almost astute, effort.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 1:31 pm to crispyUGA
Grant knew his advantages over Lee and used them properly to achieve victory. He could suffer losses and replace them, Lee could not. He was not afraid to take casualties if it was a means to an end. He was what the Union needed to bring an end to the conflict. From the standpoint of a battlefield tactician, however, he was very much outclassed by Lee. Earlier in the war Lee also had very capable corps commander in A.P. Hill, Longstreet, and Jackson which were a great benefit to him, too. His major blunder was Gettysburg, a tactical blunder of epic proportions, but it was an outlier to a very good military record.
It surprises me that the "Grant the Butcher" reputation still exists. Grant was a master of maneuver and achieved many victories with minimal expenditure of personnel. See his Vicksburg campaign as a classic example of whipping an opponent by maneuver and position.
He was stained with the reputation as being callous to his own men after Cold Harbor (which was a terrible mistake) by political opponents of Lincoln and the war. Even his Virginia campaign of '64 & '65 wasn't frontal assault after frontal assault against fixed position.
It's ironic that Lee* gets a pass in this regard when he could be as wasteful of his own men as Grant ever thought of (The Seven Days - Malvern Hill in particular, and Gettysburg - Pickett's Charge).
*Lee is my favorite historical figure (see my sig quote), but Grant gets a bad rap. He was every bit the tactical and strategic commander that Lee was.
It surprises me that the "Grant the Butcher" reputation still exists. Grant was a master of maneuver and achieved many victories with minimal expenditure of personnel. See his Vicksburg campaign as a classic example of whipping an opponent by maneuver and position.
He was stained with the reputation as being callous to his own men after Cold Harbor (which was a terrible mistake) by political opponents of Lincoln and the war. Even his Virginia campaign of '64 & '65 wasn't frontal assault after frontal assault against fixed position.
It's ironic that Lee* gets a pass in this regard when he could be as wasteful of his own men as Grant ever thought of (The Seven Days - Malvern Hill in particular, and Gettysburg - Pickett's Charge).
*Lee is my favorite historical figure (see my sig quote), but Grant gets a bad rap. He was every bit the tactical and strategic commander that Lee was.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 3:30 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
Absolutely false. The "Easy 8" Sherman was every bit the match of the PzKw IV's that made up the majority of German tanks in '44-'45.
In Africa, I believe, Rommel's tanks were mostly Mark I's and II's, outdated peashooters.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 3:49 pm to Tigerwaffe
By the time Torch took place, they were mostly up-gunned IIIs and IVs. But he was also down to less than 50 effective tanks much of the time.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 4:29 pm to Tigerwaffe
quote:
In Africa, I believe, Rommel's tanks were mostly Mark I's and II's, outdated peashooters.
Correct.
Germans were still using II's (20mm) and III's (50mm) while the Americans were using Stuarts (37mm but no armor) and Grants which were big high profile and had the side mounted short 75. (see pic below) and where the germans learned to use the 88's on allied armor. 88 cut through most allied armor like butter and at great range, but limited as artillery, was vulnerable once you got close. Not sure any German tank in Africa had the better 75 or lethal 88 that would later show up on Panther's and Tigers.
Probably the best tank in the desert was the British Matilda but it only had a 2 pounder for a gun, When it got boosted to a 6 pounder for a gun it could both kill enemy armor and take enemy hits. Germans used to say the only way to kill a Matilda was creep up behind and hit it point blank in the arse end.
As for the Sherman vs MKIV's, sure it was a better match but Sherman vs Panthers or Tigers and that was a losing bargain. Germans had best armor, just could not make enough of it. Russian T-34's were the best as they were less costly to produce than German armor, but had enough power in the gun to actually kill things. If memory serves they used a 76.2 that already had a solid history as an ATG.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 5:22 pm to trickydick12
if both were left alone and allowed to do their jobs (win wars) it would have been very interesting. Rommel still bit on the bait near Pas De Calais and left the majority of his tanks and veteran troops in that region of France for weeks after we invaded Normandy. Huge blunder right there…much more glaring then Pattons largest mistake (the Italian campaign). I would take patton tho into combat.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 10:50 pm to Jma313
Rommel actually studied Guderian anyway. He was a survivor in the North African Campaign in the compeittion for gaining a strong foothold and control for much of the world's oil. He was able to win in situations he was not supposed to win. The British Navy basically controlled the Mediterranean Sea and the German supply route to North Africa, destroying almost all of his German re-supplies.
He lived on the front with his soldiers who had to become a jack of all trades and innovate ways to keep his track armor vehicles running and protected all the while rationing water and food supplies. Capture british offices complained they were being mistreated because they were only give a liter a water a day at one point, the same amount he allocated to himself and his own soldiers. His use of anti-aircraft weapons decimated the allies armor vehicles some of which he captured and used against them. He was eventually driven out of North Africa once the British under Montgomery finally started to figure out his tactics.
He lived on the front with his soldiers who had to become a jack of all trades and innovate ways to keep his track armor vehicles running and protected all the while rationing water and food supplies. Capture british offices complained they were being mistreated because they were only give a liter a water a day at one point, the same amount he allocated to himself and his own soldiers. His use of anti-aircraft weapons decimated the allies armor vehicles some of which he captured and used against them. He was eventually driven out of North Africa once the British under Montgomery finally started to figure out his tactics.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 12:08 pm to trickydick12
The one who won
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News