PDA

View Full Version : Who was better, Monty or Rommel?



chase
11-17-2005, 05:27 PM
I know Monty triumphed over Rommel's Afrika Corps in the end, but if odds were even, who would have won?

it's very strange how Rommel and Monty were very similar in many aspects.

Hosenfield
11-17-2005, 05:36 PM
afrika korps, without a doubt.

PzKpfw VI Tiger
11-17-2005, 07:38 PM
afrika korps, without a doubt.

I definately agree.

chase
11-17-2005, 08:12 PM
I don't doubt the superiourity of the Afrika Corps over the 8th army, especially Rommels armored brigades.

I'm talking about the commanders. Rommel v.s Monty. Who was the better commander?

Crab_to_be
11-18-2005, 02:28 AM
Who was better? The only test available of who is the better commander is when their forces fight each other. It's an unscientific and statistically insignificant sample of one campaign, but Montgomery's forces won.

In short, both commanders used the forces and support available to fight against each other and Montgomery's forces prevailed. There is no such thing as a fair fight in war and the commander's job is to exploit all the advantages that he has. Remember - "Tactics are for amateurs. Professionals use logistics." It's no coincidence that Montgomery's logistic support was rather better than Rommels. This was exploited to the full and Rommel was defeated.

Firefly
11-18-2005, 02:29 AM
I know Monty triumphed over Rommel's Afrika Corps in the end, but if odds were even, who would have won?

it's very strange how Rommel and Monty were very similar in many aspects.

If odds were even, it wouldnt be war, it would be chess. Im not sure who would have won a chess game between them.

Crab_to_be
11-18-2005, 02:29 AM
Who was better? The only test available of who is the better commander is when their forces fight each other. It's an unscientific and statistically insignificant sample of one campaign, but Montgomery's forces won.

In short, both commanders used the forces and support available to fight against each other and Montgomery's forces prevailed. There is no such thing as a fair fight in war and the commander's job is to exploit all the advantages that he has. Remember - "Tactics are for amateurs. Professionals use logistics." It's no coincidence that Montgomery's logistic support was rather better than Rommels. This was exploited to the full and Rommel was defeated.

pdf27
11-18-2005, 07:19 AM
It's an unscientific and statistically insignificant sample of one campaign, but Montgomery's forces won.
Two surely? North Africa and (admittedly only for a while) Normandy.

Firefly
11-18-2005, 11:05 AM
Well yes Monty planned and commanded the Normandy campaign.

Hosenfield
11-18-2005, 04:30 PM
the english suffered much higher losses then the afrika korps in the desert war. If you gave rommell 400 tanks and 20,000 men and monty the same, I think Rommell will win.

Firefly
11-18-2005, 04:42 PM
Hosie, its British not English. However I do agree with your supposition, but the fact is that they didnt I suppose.

As a Scotsman I really hate it when people say England when they mean the UK :D

BDL
11-18-2005, 04:50 PM
the english suffered much higher losses then the afrika korps in the desert war. If you gave rommell 400 tanks and 20,000 men and monty the same, I think Rommell will win.

Don't forget how technically more advanced the Afrika Korps were over the Eighth Army, which undoubtedly contributed to the losses suffered by the British and Commonwealth Troops, particularly in terms of tank losses. Give Monty a force of P-IIIs, P-IVs and Tigers against Rommel with Crusaders, Matildas, Grants etc, what would have happened then?

Hosenfield
11-18-2005, 11:12 PM
true. The 8th army did not possess the potent 88mm FLAK, which caused much distress to british armour. And Rommell's tendencies to lead british formations into insanely camoflauged 88mm FLAK traps.

However, the panzer III was the mainstray of the Afrika korps, and was not that superior I believe. Its long 50mm gun was not that impressive. And the MARk IV specials were limited in numbers. The tiger tanks were even worse, available in extermely small numbers.

pdf27
11-19-2005, 02:48 AM
It's also worth noting that Rommel was frequently saved from disaster by his staff officers. He had a habit of charging off into the desert and ignoring his supply lines, and but for a hell of a lot of work done by his staff (and a fair bit of luck) would have been completely cut off on more than one occasion. Montgomery never (IIRC) made the same mistake.

Firefly
11-19-2005, 04:58 AM
true. The 8th army did not possess the potent 88mm FLAK, which caused much distress to british armour. And Rommell's tendencies to lead british formations into insanely camoflauged 88mm FLAK traps.

However, the panzer III was the mainstray of the Afrika korps, and was not that superior I believe. Its long 50mm gun was not that impressive. And the MARk IV specials were limited in numbers. The tiger tanks were even worse, available in extermely small numbers.

Just a quick info burst.

The 50mm L60 Panzer III was called the special, only by the Allies and was an example of Hitler being right for a change. He ordered production of the Long 60, but the Germans never went ahead with it until he noticed at a parade, went mad at his Generals and in no uncertain words said he wanted the new Gun.

The 1st long barrelled PzIV was the F2 which saw service from 1942.

Here is a site for a not too in-depth overview of german tanks:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Panzer%20III

chase
11-19-2005, 10:13 PM
He had a habit of charging off into the desert and ignoring his supply lines, and but for a hell of a lot of work done by his staff (and a fair bit of luck) would have been completely cut off on more than one occasion. Montgomery never (IIRC) made the same mistake.


Thats what makes Rommel so great! He was a true soldier. He didn't apply to the new rules of commanding that forced commanders to stay away from the fighting.

Remember back when generals met face to face before battle?

If a general showed his face now, he'd be dead right quick.

Gen. Sandworm
11-20-2005, 02:24 AM
the english suffered much higher losses then the afrika korps in the desert war. If you gave rommell 400 tanks and 20,000 men and monty the same, I think Rommell will win.


Hosie, its British not English. However I do agree with your supposition, but the fact is that they didnt I suppose.

As a Scotsman I really hate it when people say England when they mean the UK :D

Pardon me guys but I think it was a commonwealth (+ americans towards the end) coalition that defeated Rommel in N. Africa. They were lead by a Brit.

IMO its hard to say who was better between Rommel and Monty. However I can say that the conbined Allied navies did a better job than the Axis navies. Hence a major part of the victory in N. Africa.

BDL
11-20-2005, 03:13 AM
Thats what makes Rommel so great! He was a true soldier. He didn't apply to the new rules of commanding that forced commanders to stay away from the fighting.

Remember back when generals met face to face before battle?

If a general showed his face now, he'd be dead right quick.

Rommel was a great General because he couldn't look after his supply lines, needed his staff officers to drag him out of the shit and often went missing from HQ for hours at a time when decisions needed making?

Hosenfield
11-20-2005, 03:53 PM
rommel was the greatest general because herr goebbals said so!

chase
11-20-2005, 04:37 PM
Rommel was a great General because he couldn't look after his supply lines, needed his staff officers to drag him out of the shit and often went missing from HQ for hours at a time when decisions needed making?

You can make anybody sound bad if you focus only on what they messed up at! :x

Just look at what people think of president Bush.

Gen. Sandworm
11-20-2005, 06:06 PM
Rommel was a great General because he couldn't look after his supply lines, needed his staff officers to drag him out of the shit and often went missing from HQ for hours at a time when decisions needed making?

You can make anybody sound bad if you focus only on what they messed up at! :x

Just look at what people think of president Bush.

Ya but Bush ****s things up on a regular basis.

pdf27
11-20-2005, 06:18 PM
You can make anybody sound bad if you focus only on what they messed up at! :x
Since these were all fundamental to the success of any WW2 general (see the exploits of Slim in Burma for someone who really, really understood logistics and was phenomenally successful as a result), anyone lacking them cannot be considered a great general.

As for Bush, he's highly successful as a politician but I have grave reservations about his ability as a statesman. I am less and less convinced over time that he actually has a plan for Iraq.

Gen. Sandworm
11-21-2005, 01:19 AM
As for Bush, he's highly successful as a politician but I have grave reservations about his ability as a statesman. I am less and less convinced over time that he actually has a plan for Iraq.

Ill just say one more thing and then if we want to continue the bush discussion we can do is somewhere else. The only smart thing ive seen him do about Iraq lately is not give a time table on the pull out. It would be nice to have one but would only strenghten the insurgency. Glad he's not so stupid. However I seriously doubt that he has some kind of withdrawal plan. Lets hope its better than "we stay and shoot untill they dont be coming no more"

76cj5
11-21-2005, 02:12 AM
I think Rommel was better because of his ability to show up anywhere kept Monty guessing and as we know the element of surprise is a tactical advantage

As for Bush....Here i set cheeks a flexin,givin birth to another Texan

BDL
11-21-2005, 04:41 AM
I think Rommel was better because of his ability to show up anywhere kept Monty guessing and as we know the element of surprise is a tactical advantage

Monty could bang out the surprises when he needed to as well - El Alemain and Arnhem both had a fair element of surprise to them.

2nd of foot
11-21-2005, 08:45 AM
With bush it may be the case of;

Every one may think you’re an idiot, why open your mouth and prove it! :D

76cj5
11-21-2005, 11:13 PM
BDL good point

chase
11-22-2005, 02:07 PM
Monty could bang out the surprises when he needed to as well - El Alemain and Arnhem both had a fair element of surprise to them.

So back to the original question. Are we saying that Monty is the better general?

Firefly
11-22-2005, 02:28 PM
Well I think that Monty beat Rommel every time they met. Is that a good judge of who used their tools better?