Rommel vs. Montgomery
CoffeeCake
Rommel, IMO, is a good general. He did push through France at a fast rate in 1940, but did a poor job defending it in 1944.
Well he was absent on his two biggest days: El Alamein and D-day. A coincidence?
Actually had Rommel been allowed to command the forces in Normandy, the invasion may well have failed...imagine if the US soldiers on Omaha had been attacked by a panzer division?
Rommel, IMO, is a good general. He did push through France at a fast rate in 1940, but did a poor job defending it in 1944.
Well he was absent on his two biggest days: El Alamein and D-day. A coincidence?
Actually had Rommel been allowed to command the forces in Normandy, the invasion may well have failed...imagine if the US soldiers on Omaha had been attacked by a panzer division?
Yep, but most of the leading is made by division, batalion, etc commander anyway Even in NA, when Rommel usually lead from front he could only be one place at time. Other division had to fight wihtout of him that time. Most crusial was what Rommel had in big picture and different divisions followed it (and that he could make new plans, if sitatuation needed it).Andreas wrote:"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." Moltke the Elder (?)
In Caen it was not nesessary. Monty was stopped and there were no need for new plan. That original Rommel plan did "beat" Monty -> Rommel did beat Monty there. That if he was there when it happened is irrelevant.
The British/Canadian landings were met with much less opposition than that which the US forces on Omaha encountered...at leat in the initial phase.Andreas wrote:[Imagines] Errr...[/Imagines]
The same thing would have happened as with the British/Canuckian units that were attacked by a Panzer division?
I was talking about a panzer div attacking the troops on Omaha as they landed. Could D-Day have been a success if Omaha failed completely?
Xylitol
In Caen it was not nesessary. Monty was stopped and there were no need for new plan. That original Rommel plan did "beat" Monty -> Rommel did beat Monty there. That if he was there when it happened is irrelevant.
This concept is somewhat novel:
Rommel "beat" Montgomery from beyond the grave...
Actually it was never Rommel's plan to sit back and defend the Bocage and in any case Caen was taken and the forces that Rommel once commanded were utterly defeated.
D-Day was a success and that was essentially Monty's plan...Rommel was on leave on the 6th of June however - as he was at El Alamein.
So one could say that Monty beat Rommel twice - except for the fact that Rommel always seemed to be absent when Monty was detroying his forces.
In Caen it was not nesessary. Monty was stopped and there were no need for new plan. That original Rommel plan did "beat" Monty -> Rommel did beat Monty there. That if he was there when it happened is irrelevant.
This concept is somewhat novel:
Rommel "beat" Montgomery from beyond the grave...
Actually it was never Rommel's plan to sit back and defend the Bocage and in any case Caen was taken and the forces that Rommel once commanded were utterly defeated.
D-Day was a success and that was essentially Monty's plan...Rommel was on leave on the 6th of June however - as he was at El Alamein.
So one could say that Monty beat Rommel twice - except for the fact that Rommel always seemed to be absent when Monty was detroying his forces.
If you count El-Alamain as Montys credit you have to count Caen as Rommels. Both cases Rommel was absent... Do you really think that Rommel personally have to be there to count battles his victorys/defeats. I dont....Polynikes wrote:So one could say that Monty beat Rommel twice - except for the fact that Rommel always seemed to be absent when Monty was detroying his forces.
So Rommel did not lose El-alamein by your criteria as he was not there. So who did Monty beat there then? Or Who did beat Monty in Caen?Polynikes wrote:Yes.
A commander has to be present and making the battle decisions to take the credit for a victory.
This is because during a modern battle, a commander has to take many decisions that affect the outcome.
To me answers are quite clear...
Xylitol
So Rommel did not lose El-alamein by your criteria as he was not there. So who did Monty beat there then? Or Who did beat Monty in Caen?
To me answers are quite clear...
No, because Rommel missed the main part of the battle at El-Alamein. Montgomery's 8th Army beat the Axis forces (including the Africa Corps).
Nobody beat Monty at Caen. Allied forces defeated the German forces in Normandy.
I think you're making too much of an issue of personalities.
So Rommel did not lose El-alamein by your criteria as he was not there. So who did Monty beat there then? Or Who did beat Monty in Caen?
To me answers are quite clear...
No, because Rommel missed the main part of the battle at El-Alamein. Montgomery's 8th Army beat the Axis forces (including the Africa Corps).
Nobody beat Monty at Caen. Allied forces defeated the German forces in Normandy.
I think you're making too much of an issue of personalities.
So when rommels forces defeated 18. july Montys strategic breakout from Caen that is not defeat? By evening Eleventh Armored Division had suffered huge losses and offensive had been halted. Far short of its objectives at Falaise.Polynikes wrote: Nobody beat Monty at Caen. Allied forces defeated the German forces in Normandy.
That sound pretty much defeat to me. Now only thing is who you give credit of it. Rommels forces perhaps as you dont like to give credit to commanders...