Rommel vs. Montgomery

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#136

Post by JonS » 04 Feb 2005, 21:07

Shrek wrote: To the extent that O'Connor's plans weren't forgotten, the desert army at least could have expected that the inland short-cut could be used from the west too?
They did.

User avatar
Dietrich79
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 01:04
Location: Savannah, Georgia

#137

Post by Dietrich79 » 06 Feb 2005, 03:09

Has anyone else ever noticed the similarities between Montgomery in WW2 and McClellan in the Potomac Campaign in the American Civil War?The cautious attitude that wasted many opportunities?


The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#138

Post by The Argus » 07 Feb 2005, 03:15

Would you compare Patton to Custer?

shane

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#139

Post by Jon G. » 07 Feb 2005, 03:20

...how about comparing Rommel to J. E. B. Stuart then?

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#140

Post by The Argus » 07 Feb 2005, 15:09

Nah... Rommel's more like Burnside. :)

shane

User avatar
Lt.-Colonel
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: 24 Dec 2004, 00:24
Location: Croatia,Zagreb

#141

Post by Lt.-Colonel » 07 Feb 2005, 15:24

Nah... Rommel is more like Longstreet.

User avatar
Sidi Rezegh
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 15:31
Location: Medford, OR, USA

#142

Post by Sidi Rezegh » 07 Feb 2005, 19:02

The Argus wrote:Would you compare Patton to Custer?

shane
No; Patton was a glory hound but he wasn't a fool.

Glava
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Feb 2005, 01:07
Location: Zg, Croatia

Rommel uber alles

#143

Post by Glava » 07 Feb 2005, 19:19

I think that Rommel is better in any way than Monty... Yes Monty did well in N. Africa, and no wonder, because he had superior number of troops, better tanks (shermans & grant vs. panzer III & IV, Rommel had no tiger tanks although he was promised to get) better inteligence reports, and in the end Rommel was ill in that moment, and 2000 km from frontline.. So everything was set for a breakthrough which Monty did very well.. but his actions or better to say sacrifice of Canadians in the battle for Caen was stupid and not to mention his masterplan called "a bridge to far"...
Rommel on the other hand had less troops, less tanks and could make most of it... But he wasn't so lucky because he simply wasn't present...like later in Normandy when he was visiting Hitler trying to get panzers under his command, also his wife had a birthday on june 6 so he wanted to see her..
So overall, in my humble opinion R is better than M..

Pozdrav !!

User avatar
jclarke05
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Nov 2004, 05:53
Location: USA

#144

Post by jclarke05 » 08 Feb 2005, 01:43

A very interesting thread. Took me two hours to read it. Monty and Rommel, the debate never ends. I almost burst out laughing when I read that Andreas would prefer the 6-pounder to the 88mm. That's a joke, right?

And this: The Matilda out-classed anything the Germans had in Africa? What about the Tiger I Ausf. E? A Tiger could pick off a Matilda (or any Allied tank in the theatre) without being seen, for obvious reasons. Yes it had teething-problems, but so what? It had an 88mm. The M3 (Grants or Lees) had a limited-traverse 75mm, riveted armor, and looked like a house from a mile away (i.e., a great target). The M4 had a 75mm gun, but it was of lower-velocity than the German long-barreled 75mm on the PzKfw. IV, so was inferior, for lack of range and penetrating power. Most British (Allied) tanks sucked around '42-'43. No wait - they sucked almost the entire war.

Hitler considered Africa a side-show. Same with the Balkans-he detested the partisan problem there, considered it a nuisance. He felt that having to help out the Italians in Africa was a supreme pain in the ass. The Italians created a mess in Africa, and now Germany had to come to el Duce's rescue. Rommel of course was more seriously interested, wanting to drive up into the Middle Eastern oil-fields, and the Caucasus region; consider what he had at stake. But, Hitler refused to see Africa as anything much more...he was trying to regain and cosolidate what was lost by the Italian blunders...he had more important things to worry about at the time, like taking Moscow.

The problem with British soldiering in WWII was that they really weren't, on average, very good soldiers. The Germans had them out-classed at every step. Germans seemed to have more of a fighting spirit. I think Dunkirk had a lot to do with the attitude at the time. But, better training, better equipment, and better leadership on the German side helped greatly. This is why the British crept around, caution being worshipped, timidity getting the better of them most of the time. They had good reason. German soldiers were trained to exploit any breach; advance and exploit any weakness. Counter-attacks were automatic, and vigorous. These attitudes are exemplified in Rommel and Montgomery. Rommel: quick to attack, quick to exploit battle-field victories, and most of all, a tactical genius. Montgomery: cautious, calculating, deliberate. No tactical genius. Worthy, but not great.

And off-subject, as far as Operation Market-Garden: Aerial recon photographs showed elements (tanks!) of the 9th and 10th SS Panzer re-fitting about 15 km from Arnhem, but these reports were ignored ("those tanks are broken down!")...days before the operation was launched. And to make matters worse, the British Airborne troops in Arnhem had the wrong crytals in their radios. Also, XXX Corps stands accused of lolly-gagging because, true to the British cautionary spirit, night had fallen, and they weren't driving those dang tanks at night! Hey, they were on narrow roads. Which brings this to mind: where in the hell did Monty get THAT idea?

Just my thoughts on a great thread

JC

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#145

Post by Jon G. » 08 Feb 2005, 03:09

I am sure this one will generate a lot of infuriated replies. Just a few corrections on my part:
jclarke05 wrote:A very interesting thread. Took me two hours to read it. Monty and Rommel, the debate never ends. I almost burst out laughing when I read that Andreas would prefer the 6-pounder to the 88mm. That's a joke, right?
That obviously depends on what you want from your gun. If you want to knock out a Pz III or Pz IV at decent range ~800 yards or so, even a 2-pounder will do the job nicely. Conversely, if you want to knock out a Matilda, a 37mm PAK certainly won't do the job for you. You'd need to resort to an 88mm. I think Andreas' point related to the relative overkill factor; 'good enough is the enemy of perfect'
And this: The Matilda out-classed anything the Germans had in Africa? What about the Tiger I Ausf. E? A Tiger could pick off a Matilda (or any Allied tank in the theatre)
Rommel had no Tigers, period. They were only just being introduced by the time of Alamein. Arnim had Tigers with the 5th Panzer Army in Tunisia, but conversely there were very few if any Matildas around by then.
without being seen, for obvious reasons....
Without beeing seen?! Visibility is extraordinarily good in the desert. Even a few men walking can be seen from miles away. That's why fire was often opened at extreme range, and tank-on-tank engagements were actually comparatively rare.
...the German long-barreled 75mm on the PzKfw. IV
Rommel had just a handful of those at the time of El Alamein. By far most of his Pz IVs were with the short-barreled L24 gun, intended to serve as a support/artillery tank, not a tank killer.
(...)The problem with British soldiering in WWII was that they really weren't, on average, very good soldiers(...)


Ah, lions and donkeys all over again you mean? Many, many different nationalities fought on the British side in the desert. New Zealanders, Australians, Poles, Greeks, Indians, South Africans, not to mention Free French legionnaires with dozens of nationalities between them. Were they all bad soldiers?

User avatar
jclarke05
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Nov 2004, 05:53
Location: USA

#146

Post by jclarke05 » 08 Feb 2005, 08:20

Shrek -

What do I want from my gun? What a question. Well I'd like to be able to knock out your tank before you knock out mine. The 88mm had a farther range. How about this: you use 6-pounders for your anti-tank screen, and I'll use 88's, and we'll see who gets more tanks through the screen, O.K.?

Heres an example from this website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1124957


"...the 4th Indian Division rapidly took Fort Capuzzo and beat off a counter-attack, but elsewhere the news was bad. British tanks entering Halfaya Pass ran into a trap: a battery of 88mm anti-tank guns, dug into the sand and effectively invisible from a distance.

The advance into 'Hellfire Pass' was a disaster: all but one of the tanks were lost. Tanks approaching the Hafid Ridge fared little better, meeting anti tank artillery fire rather than the tank sortie they aimed to provoke. By midday on 16 June, three-quarters of the 200 British tanks deployed had been lost.

Rommel now launched a counter-offensive. The 15th Panzer Division attacked Fort Capuzzo from the north while the 5th Light Division drove eastward to encircle Beresford-Peirse's 7th Armoured Division. General Wavell, Commander-in-Chief Middle East, ordered an immediate retreat. Operation Battleaxe was an expensive failure..."

Would you still want 6-pounders, shrek? Or 88s? Be honest.


You ask who is the better commander (apples and oranges, anyone?). Well, in order to do this, lets reverse the situation. Lets say Rommel had the large amount of resources (men, equipment, etc.) that the Allies (and Montgomery) had at the time. I am sure, that had Rommel possesed the large amounts of men and material, and was allowed to do what he wanted to do, the BEF (and all Allied forces) in Africa would cease to exist. I am positive of that. Montgomery could never do what Rommel pulled off, time and again. He had the chance and didn't do it.

Tigers were in Africa possibly as early as October 1942, shrek. The 501st Bttn. was the first to arrive, definitely by November 1942. The 504th Bttn. arrived later. They were supported by PzKfw. III Ausf. N's. Tigers were used, among other places, at the battles of Faid Pass, in February 1943, and five days later on Feb 19 at the infamous Kasserine Pass. Rommel pretty much commanded the DAK, shrek. After Hitler, I mean.

As far as who is a good soldier, and who is not, of course there are examples on all sides of great tactical cunning, etc., leading to victory, when the odds are against you. But overall, I think it is a widely-held belief that as far as soldiering went, the Germans excelled. The British had to fight, and to a lesser extent the Americans also. The Italians, while usually getting a bum rap, had their high-points, but overall their record was pretty lousy, too. The collapse of the left flank at Stalingrad (leading to the encirclement), by Romanian and Italian troops, comes to mind. Lots of throwing guns down and running away with the Italians. Hitler liked the purely Fascist elements of the Italian forces, but he complained bitterly about the Italian involvement in Africa. Time and again, he was noted as saying how tired he was of rescuing Mussolini in that theatre. But as far as the British, I don't think they were particularly anxious about the idea of going to war against Hitler, but they had to do it. History shows many times when British hesitancy (and Allied for that matter), cautiousness, was proven to be detrimental; when the exploitation of battle-field developments could have led to a victorious out-come, but caution was chosen instead.

The Wermacht was the most modern, effective army from the start of the war, and everyone else was forced to play catch-up.

BTW shrek, I fail to see where you "corrected" me?

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#147

Post by Jon G. » 08 Feb 2005, 09:35

jclarke05 wrote:...Well I'd like to be able to knock out your tank before you knock out mine. The 88mm had a farther range. How about this: you use 6-pounders for your anti-tank screen, and I'll use 88's, and we'll see who gets more tanks through the screen, O.K.?
Well, it's not like we have to add up here. Just see which gun does the job in an AT role. It's not a race to see who does best, or who destroys the enemy tanks first. The 88 clearly has the advantage all-round, but then the 6-pounder (and even the 2-pounder, which was the gun I mentioned in my example) is also fully capable of stopping a tank - any tank - from the DAK's inventory. Also, the 2/6 pounders have the clear advantage of being standard part of British divisions' AT units, contrary to the 88s, which generally belonged to extra-divisional units. The 37mm PAKs that the Germans had in their divisional AT battalions were useless against Matildas.
...General Wavell, Commander-in-Chief Middle East, ordered an immediate retreat. Operation Battleaxe was an expensive failure..."
Absolutely. But this thread is about Rommel and Montgomery.
You ask who is the better commander (apples and oranges, anyone?).
Actually, I don't. Mea culpa for warping the thread :lol:
Well, in order to do this, lets reverse the situation. Lets say Rommel had the large amount of resources (men, equipment, etc.)...
...I believe this point is covered on page 1 of this thread. It's irrelevant.
Tigers were in Africa possibly as early as October 1942, shrek...
I am not too sure about the time you state, but I am not too hung up about it either. The Tigers in Tunisia were with the 5th Panzer Army, a formation that was commanded by von Arnim. 5th Panzer Army was not part of the formations commanded by Rommel.
Rommel pretty much commanded the DAK, shrek. After Hitler, I mean...
Yes, and von Arnim commanded the 5th Panzer Army. You may wish to refer to the title of this thread again. Maybe we could start a Clark vs. von Arnim thread?
BTW shrek, I fail to see where you "corrected" me?
With all respect, I think I just did again.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

#148

Post by David W » 08 Feb 2005, 10:01

Visibility is extraordinarily good in the desert.
Although visibility in the desert could be exceptional, due to the topography and air clarity, it rarely was. This was due in the main part to heat haze, which reduced visibility to a few hundred yards at most, except for a couple of hours just after dawn, and an hour or so before dusk.
Another big problem was dust. Any thing moving across the desert would create plumes of the stuff, especially vehicles. So what if you could see it five miles away? If you can't tell if it is them or us, much less make out individual targets amongst the haze.
Also worthy of mention are the "Ghiblis" (Sandstorms) which plagued the summer months, visibility measured in inches not miles & rainstorms in the winter as encountered during Operation Crusader.


If you want to knock out a Pz III or Pz IV at decent range ~800 yards or so, even a 2-pounder will do the job nicely.

Sorry! You could hit a III or IV at that range (with a bit of luck, given the poor sights) but it is doubtful whether you could really damage it or harm the crew, given it's solid shot ammunition.


HOWEVER Excluding the latter two points, I find myself more or less in complete agreement with you over the rest of the post! :)

Best wishes Dave.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

#149

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Feb 2005, 11:03

Quote:

"Tigers were in Africa possibly as early as October 1942"


first arrived in Tunisia on 23/11/42.
First action 1/12/42.

User avatar
jclarke05
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Nov 2004, 05:53
Location: USA

#150

Post by jclarke05 » 08 Feb 2005, 11:25

Shrek - you wrote this, very curious, as I thought the key to victory was this:

"It's not a race to see who does best, or who destroys the enemy tanks first."

Its not? Than what is the race for? Don't quite see the point in that statement. It is a race to see who does best, or who destroys the enemy tanks first. You also claim the 6-pounder could knock out ANY German tank they had in Africa. So Tigers were vulnerable to the dreaded 6-pounder, eh? O.K. Do you mean like at point-blank ranges through the back or the turret roof? A 6-pounder might be able to knock a track off. Oh, if you luck out and get one in the turret racing. I think the Tiger would probably turn the 6-pounder into so much assorted scrap metal, real fast. 88mm rounds went through Shermans (and ANY Allied tank) like butter, remember? And from very long ranges. Don't you mean the 17-pounder? Just fess up and admit you meant to say the 17-pounder, because your argument is slightly - no really - ridiculous. Yes, really funny. They had 17-pounders, right? Or 25-pounders? Surely you don't mean the 6-pounder.

Now the whole discussion is about who was a "better" commander. How am I warping it? I'm just stating my opinion. Simple. And Michael, I'm sure you mean Jan 12 1943. No biggie. Lastly - Rommel commanded the DAK. Stop saying Arnim did shrek. You are wrong. Rommel commanded Tigers. But it doesnt matter who commanded Tigers - the question was if the British Matilda out-classed anything the Germans had in Africa (Andreas brought it up), and I mentioned the Tiger as an excellent example of a German tank that I think out-classes the Matilda.

I stand by everything I said. Sorry, I'm not trying to do anything except state my opinion. It's just a thread, don't get bent out of shape. No flame war intended. No personal insults being hurled here. Just stating my opinion. Sorry if I offended anyone. But I don't see anyone contending my major points. And who amongst you thinks Monty the better commander? I just happen to think another way. No crime in that, is there?


So - my major points are thus: Rommel was clearly the better commander, through his display of ingenius application of battlefield tactics, his ability to achieve results and exploitation of the shifting battlefield, superior management of meager resources and supply lines, and having in his possesion true battlefield elan. He proved himself in other theatres as well as Africa. And lets not forget that it was Rommel who accurately predicted the invasion would come at Normandy, not the Pas De Calais. Rommel was a born leader. He was always one step ahead of the Allied thinking, until the very end. Montgomery, whilst worthy, never seemed to me to be of the caliber that Rommel was. The British (and sometimes American) attitude was always restrained, cautious, almost timid at times, which I do not prize as the proper attributes of a great leader. No guts, no glory.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”