Who was better?

[krieg]

yes good question . they both had qood qualitys i nilly think if . rommel .
had been given full backing by hitler to start with
things may of been a lot diffrent in german favor
best krieg

[Wustenfuchs]

Originally Posted by Jim O

Were there any French heroes?

I'm not taking anyone to task here, I just want to add my two cents worth.

France lost 1,385,000 soldiers in WW1 with another 3,044,000 French wounded. In the battle of Verdun alone they lost 162,000 KIA or MIA and another 200,000 wounded. In other words they suffered three times as many casulaties in one battle than the US did in the entire Vietnam war, and all this loss to a population one sixth the size of the United States.

I'm pretty sure there were plenty of French heroes.

One also has to give credit to the Marquis De Lafayette who heroically fought for the United States' liberty.

The Marquis de Lafayette

Now as to the original question, who would you rather have served under, Monty or Rommel? Rommel by a long shot for me!

[Freightshaker]

Montgomery took a beaten army and transformed it into one that beat Rommel and chased him across the desert. Rommel was a great divisional and corps commander but Monty understood what needed to be done to defeat his adversary and how to do that with the forces he had at hand. I'd say Monty.

[Wustenfuchs]

Originally Posted by Freightshaker

Montgomery took a beaten army and transformed it into one that beat Rommel and chased him across the desert. Rommel was a great divisional and corps commander but Monty understood what needed to be done to defeat his adversary and how to do that with the forces he had at hand. I'd say Monty.

Got to figure in the fact Montgomery had near unlimited manpower and resources, and America had entered Africa (talk about unlimited resources!). Rommel did more with less IMO.

This is somewhat off topic, and has nothing to do with their command abilities, but it is part of why I would rather serve under Rommel:
Ever see that photo of Rommel helping to push his bogged down staff car out of the sand? I can't picture Monty doing that.

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by Wustenfuchs

Got to figure in the fact Montgomery had near unlimited manpower and resources, and America had entered Africa (talk about unlimited resources!). Rommel did more with less IMO.

This is somewhat off topic, and has nothing to do with their command abilities, but it is part of why I would rather serve under Rommel:
Ever see that photo of Rommel helping to push his bogged down staff car out of the sand? I can't picture Monty doing that.

America's entry into Africa had little to do with El Alamein and after. As for numerical superiority, both forces were about equal at the start of El Alamein.

I wonder what Rommel's staff is doing why he's stuck in the sand on the front.... Pulling their hair out probably. I'm no Rommel fanboy and feel he is highly over-rated and a product of his own, British, and Hitler's propaganda.

"More with less" is true. Sometimes he did too much with less. British manpower was far from unlimited and in the NW Europe campaign it greatly influenced his actions.

Monty had many flaws but his greatest strength was an understanding of the army he commanded and it's capabilities. Monty figured out how to beat the "Blitzkrieg".

[Wustenfuchs]

Great points Freightshaker. It's nice to be able to have different opinions without having all Hell break loose! Rommel overrated? Yes. Monty too.

[Freightshaker]

I should've read the whole thread first!!

Originally Posted by Helmut Von Moltke

Anyway, Montgomery only won El Alamein because he had more men and material. If it had been the other way round Monty would have his a** kicked.

K

Monty won at El Alamein because he made Rommel play by his rules. If Rommel had done the smart thing and pulled back into the open desert he would've shortened his supply lines, increased manuver room and forced Monty to play his game. Instead he took for granted that Monty was like every other British commander he had faced and ran head long into fixed fortifications. As I posted previously, 1st El Alamein was fought on almost equal terms.

Originally Posted by Rommel

Every one forgot someone by the name of George S. Patton Jr. he was better then monty

Yes, George. Given complete air superiority, massive supplies, numerical superiority, and a beaten and demoralized enemy, I can't think of anyone else who could do as well. The problem was when the enemy stopped to fight back. Take a look at the Lorraine campaign, particularly Metz.

When Allied generals come up, why does no one talk about Abrams, Gavin, Slim, Walker or Ridgeway?

[Wustenfuchs]

Monty won at El Alamein because he made Rommel play by his rules. If Rommel had done the smart thing and pulled back into the open desert he would've shortened his supply lines, increased manuver room and forced Monty to play his game. Instead he took for granted that Monty was like every other British commander he had faced and ran head long into fixed fortifications. As I posted previously, 1st El Alamein was fought on almost equal terms.


Montgomery won at El Alamein because he did have (slightly) superior numbers and was fighting in his own style. He wasn't about to go out on the open desert on equal terms, I can't blame him. Monty did best Rommel on that. Nevertheless, that's one battle.

[Wustenfuchs]

And by the way Freightshaker, thanks for mentioning "Slim", truely underated.

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by Wustenfuchs

Montgomery won at El Alamein because he did have (slightly) superior numbers and was fighting in his own style. He wasn't about to go out on the open desert on equal terms, I can't blame him. Monty did best Rommel on that. Nevertheless, that's one battle.

I wonder if Churchill would've forced Monty to advance on Rommel if he had pulled back. Both sides had sat for months building up and Britain needed a victory.

One battle that decided the campaign.