Started By
Message
re: Rommel Vs Patton
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:53 pm to Cheese Grits
Posted on 11/12/14 at 11:53 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
If his superior officers had let him run the show we would all be speaking German now.
I disagree.
Hitler was not Rommel's superior officer ... he was his dictator, and an insane dictator at that.
If you are referring specifically to possibly moving a million German solders from Calais down to Normandy in short order ... perhaps that might have changed the tide of the war, but probably not. The allies were determined to gain a toe hold in Europe one way or the other and their resources were far superior to the Axis powers by that time in the war. It would have only delayed the inevitable or, at most, caused a more amiable conclusion to be drawn in favor of the Germans.
The Germans had Rommel and Von Rundstedt. The allies had a half dozen generals who could out maneuver, outwit and out fight those two had the war gone to 1950 even.
Hitler made two great mistakes during the course of the war that really cost him. Well, three really.
1 - Declaring war on the U.S. which allowed Roosevelt to declare war on Germany and send the first troops to Europe. Otherwise, Roosevelt would have concentrated on The Pacific and revenge on Japan. Roosevelt had a reason to rush to the aid of Europe once Hitler declared war on the U.S.
2 - Invading Russia. Total fricktard move. Had Hitler stayed out of Russia and saved those three Armies of his from annihilation there would have been a drastically different outcome.
3 - Not moving a million German soldiers from Calais down to Normandy once the D-Day invasion had begun. Hilter was too egocentric to admit he had been tricked by Patton's faux army just southeast of London across the channel from Calais. It cost him big. Patton won strictly by reputation alone.
Now, look at #3 and ask yourself again who was the better General?
1
Posted on 11/13/14 at 6:57 am to scrooster
quote:
Hitler made two great mistakes during the course of the war that really cost him. Well, three really.
He made way more than 2 or 3.
#1 Not utilizing the correct technology in war. One of the most glaring examples was using the ME 262 as a tactical bomber - as replacement for the Ju 87 - or recon instead of primary fighter. Another glaring example was Kursk which was pretty much the beginning of the end for Germany. German armor was the best of the war and the American was the worst. Russia understood you could make the T34 at maybe 70% of the german armor but then make so many of them they could stream like rabid rats once a hole was punched in the line.
#2 Picking a fight with Russia before finishing the other fights. Stalingrad and Kursk are glaring examples of splitting forces instead of waiting to concentrate 100% on the Russians. Not knocking the run through Italy or D Day and beyond but facing at best 40% of the German army or much less it did make progress much easier. Once Hitler went after Russia and opened up that front the Germans never had less than 60% of their forces on this front. While landing in France was a huge deal from the American side of the history books it certainly helped when they did not meet 100% of the German Army in resistance.
#3 Not understanding the real value of the American Army. While I love America it does not blind me to the real success of her forces in the field and the beauty of secondary assets in resupply and rebuilding behind the primary line. Imagine the value of getting an airfield pounded in both land, material, and assets behind the lines at night and having it up and running at near full strength by the next day. If you really want to demoralize your opponents making their attacks look that ineffective and you know you have the far better support system.
Somewhere, long before the internet, I seem to remember seeing a startling number like 20 for 1 for the American Army in WWII. Basically this means for every soldier you have in the field there are 20 folks behind him in support and supply. That alone is a pretty glaring competitive advantage. As for the overall issue of WWII, it is hard to sustain a primary war when you do not posses the primary energy source of that war to sustain it.
WWII was a war of oil and neither Germany or Japan had the primary resources inside their home borders to fight with advantage if their remote supplies were threatened. In the 1940's both Russian and America were flush in natural oil resources in their primary footprint. Perhaps the greatest contribution of Churchill was converting the British Navy from coal to oil prior to WWII and securing the British oil franchise in the middle east to supply that Navy.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News