>>51575 But Rommel was pretty much the non-Nazi. Remember he was forced into suicide because he has knowledge of the assassination attempt on Hitler and did nothing. In response to OP's question I am inclined to say Sherman, but he was in a better strategic position for most of his military career if we're judging by Rommel's WW2 operations.
>a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
>>51564 Sherman was better with logistics, probably more suited to army command then Rommel.
Rommel was an excellent division commander, knew how to inspire his men. Always felt he was overblown, famous because of propaganda rather then actual achievements. His exploits with the 7th Panzer in France were fairly impressive, as was some of his work in North Africa. Very good tactically.
It depends what you mean by better general, I guess. They both fought in very different wars.
>>52797 The March to the Sea was more impressive for it's strategic insight then the tactics that went into accomplishing it. Tactically, Sherman was more interesting during the events leading up to the Battles of Atlanta, or earlier, when the South still had an army in the theater, rather then after Hood had thrown that army away.
>>51564 >Rommels tactics are tought at westpoint >Sherman has a tank named after him >Rommel doesnt >Sherman fireflies were panzer killers >Rommel commited suicide like Hilter >Sherman used sabotage >Rommel was right about Normandy >Rommel was a fox Rommel wins because he has secretly a fox A "Desert" Fox for shits and giigles so you know the Germans would have been pissed offif they found out one of their greatest generals was a Fucking Fox
>>54040 Yes, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective weapons. The T-34 could penetrate Panzer IVs just fine, and the IS-2 could punch through a Tiger as well. Granted TDs like the SU-100 were a lot better at the role.
>>54598 He didn't single-handedly turn any battles due to tactical genius like other historically celebrated leaders. As a non American, I'm just not impressed by him doing what he was told to do competently.
Our national military hero isn't much better, though. His one idea of "bomb everything flat before moving in to kill anything still moving" isn't exactly Caesar-tier shit either.
It's not like approval matters to a guy who's been dead for nearly 125 years. He just didn't do anything that makes him stand out as excellent, and also did some things that aren't very good at all. Not every national hero is an actual hero.
>>54844 No, he isn't famous for winning any battles by a slim margin, but I don't think that means he wasn't a good tactician. I dunno, this whole discussion is difficult, as both generals were good in a different sense. Both deserve praise.
>>55082 True, even Lee attempted to supply himself via pillaging (if memory serves me..) during his Pennsylvania campaign, and to a lesser extent during the Maryland Campaign. Sherman just took it to a whole other level.
>>55850 Rommel was connected to the plot to assassinate Hitler, and Hitler wanted him gone but couldn't kill him outright because he was a hero in Germany. So he got him to kill himself, and he even got a state funeral.
Rommel decided to launch a campaign any moron in his position would have known had no possibility of success. An Axis victory in North Africa without radical changes to port facilities in Libya and naval superiority in the Central Med is completely was completely impossible. How impressive a general's performance looks when faced with an impossible task tells us very little; their situations is radically different from the one face with generals whose performance might actually make the difference between victory and defeat so it makes little sense to compare the two as commanders.
>>54540 >People like Richard the Lionheart were pound for pound far more impressive. Had you said people like Napoleon, Alexander, Suvorov, Frederick the Great, Epaminondas, etc. - I would have said: okay - those had military genius. But Richard the Lionheart?
Rommel was top notch at the tactical level but he erred considerably when he dismissed the importance of Malta to the North African theater. Sherman wasn't an outstanding tactician but his entire campaign through the South was strategic in nature to destroy their will to fight on.
While we're playing this game, who was more overrated, Robert E. Lee or Bernard Montgomery
>Sherman >outnumbered the Confederates >outsupplied them >outgunned them technologically >blew up a bunch of civilian shit >"One of the greatest generals of all time"
>Rommel >Always outnumbered >running on scraps and whatever the Reich could spare from the meat grinder in USSR >less tanks >always running out of fuel >still managed to kick the Brit's asses for years until the Americans zerg rushed him, at a considerable loss of lives >killed himself to spare the lives of his family >the noblest motherfucker in all of WWII, even the Brits loved him >"hurr complete failure"
>>59968 >refused to execute commandos and Jewish POWs >defied Hitler on multiple occasions due to Lutheran sense of morals >Winston Churchill complimented him in Parliament >the only WWII general modern Germans still like
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.