Rommel or Monty whose better????

Question

Rommel or Monty whose better????

Answer 1

I think Rommel was a much more able general.  Monty was terribly cautious and was usually unable to make decisions on the fly, whereas Rommel was as good a planner as Monty, and was far better at adapting to changing situations.  

Yes, Rommel was on the losing end.  That had nothing to do with his capacity, however.  It had to do with his supply lines, an Italian command in North Africa that steadfastly refused to supply him with enough gasoline and a German command that refused to supply him with sufficient new equipment.  Montgomery was a fair general, and a meticulous planner, to be sure, but Rommel was by far the better general, in my humble opinion.

Oh, and just as an aside, remember the Rommel met his end because of his alleged involvement in the plot to kill Hitler.  

Answer 2

Rommel for me, yes we all know that Rommel pushed the British to Cairo and that Monty won in the end but it was the fact that Rommel had a fraction of men and equipment that Monty had, the British also had more or less control of the air in the middle east.Rommel also took the port of Tobruk more than once and inflicted heavy casualties on the allies at the Kassarene pass, so wither it was offensively or defensively Rommel exceled.

Answer 3

Monty  - he realised that attacking Rommel's armour with his own tanks when it was in defensive positions was the road to defeat .

His whole strategy was based on forcing Rommel to move his armour so it could be attacked in the open and also attacked from the air

Answer 4

Both of them were at their best in the Desert and were masters of Desert Warfare but what seperates them, what makes one more sucessful than the other, was the logistical situation.

When Rommel advanced in the Desert he paid little to no attention to the logistical situation.When his quartermaster told him of the difficulty in supplying the Afrika Korp if Rommel advanced into Egypt Rommel answered "your problem not mine". Rommel's focus was entirely on Tactics and one strategical goal, capturing Egypt and opening the way to the Middle East. However Rommel strategical goal was improbable at best due to the logistic problems and everybody except Rommel realised that and his direct superior in the area, Kesselring, told him such but Rommel ignored him and attacked anyway.

Monty on the other hand never let his Army do anything that wasn't militarilly sound and never let them overstecth his logistic chain. His idea of advancing was to build up his supply base until it was basically overflowing then strike out with a quick and rapid assault. He would advance until he reach a point he had mark on the map where he would pause and rebuild his supply base again before attacking again. By doing this he was the only General of WWII who was never forced to retreat when in command of an Army.

Between the two Monty was more likely to achieve overall sucess because his style of Generalship meant that he took strong, steady, deliberate steps to achieve overall victory while Rommel's style of Generalship was to work only in the moment and gamble on the slightest opportunity.

In tactics Rommel was superior to Monty but in logistics and strategy he was inferior.  

Answer 5

Rommel, no questions asked. He was able to push the British back and almost surround their entire army with no where near the material or the manpower of the British.

That being said, Patton was better than Monty but I wouldn't consider him better than Rommel because he would be a little unrealistic at times.

Answer 6

General Montgomery. He helped defeat Rommel at El Alamein.

Answer 7

Monty by a whisker - yes Rommel pushed Monty back almost to Cairo - but Monty won in the end & pushed him all the way back.

Answer 8

Rommel was a better field marshal but Montgomery had better support from his allies and leadership

Answer 9

General B.L. Montgomery, because he was on the winning side.

Answer 10

Rommel. Not that Monty wasn't good. But let us look at it pragmatically.

Monty had:

1) A h**l of a lot more men

2) He had air support

3) Better supplies

4) Continous supply lines offering reinforcements and fresh/new weapons

5) Arguably better troops. Monty's troops were expeditionary veterans. Rommel's Afrikakorps was an army that was drafted from fresh recruits with little to no experience.

Yet what was the result in the North Africa campaign? Rommel who was ordered to only attempt to hold onto Tunisia managed to push the British all the way to friggin Egypt...Even the German high command was surprised, they expected Rommel would have a very hard time just holding onto the small piece of land he was ordered to defend with his vastly inferior army. Not conquer most of North Africa.

It is because everyone was shocked sh*tless at that underdog winning result, that Rommel became so famous that people know his name even today.

What allowed Rommel to be so successful?

1) Dedication. He was a very charismatic and able leader. He was always right in the forefront of the battle (unlike many other officers who stayed back not wishing to put their lives in danger). This all gave the Afrikakorps a very high morale.

       Versus the British expeditionary force whose morale was pretty low and who were more likely at an upset to retreat or give up.

2) Innovativeness. Rommel knew he would never have an advantage. So he had to make advantages. Such as using his antiair guns as antitank guns in an ambush. He covered his flak cannons on hills with sand colored tarpets, he lured British tanks into an ambush by feigning retreat. The armor of the British tanks were ripped apart by the 88mm flak cannons.

   Or when he was stationed at Normandy. He looked at the beaches and was uneasy at how unprotected they were. He ordered their fortification. Two months later the Allied forces arrive, completely surprised that the beaches they thought undefended were armed to the teeth. So what was originally planned as a clean landing became one of the bloodier battles of the war.