Who was the better general?
The one that wasn't a drunk and a stain on his country's bezel
>>51575
>Valid question
>Stormshit
:^)
But this man was pretty good too OP.
>>51564
Pic related was better than them both.
>>51575
>stormshit
w-what?
Is there some connection I'm not aware of? Is it Rommel or Sherman?
>>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.
How do you define better or best?
Sherman actually won the war he was fighting, where as Rommel lost.
On a tactical level it's hard to judge due to the time period difference, although I'd say Rommel, working with what he had which was the best of a bad bunch.
>>51590
Sherman was objectively more effective.
>>51564
One that won shit.
Rommel by a mile.
>>51575
>hurr durr stormshit back to /pol/!
>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.
We sure starting well, /his/.
>>51752
Care to justify or explain more?
>>51564
They're both aesthetic as fuck.
>>51850
Rommel managed to push the British to el alamein with a paultry expeditionary force and some italians. He made north Africa very difficult for the allies
Sherman fought for the side that would have won inevitably due to manpower and industrialisation compared with the south, even though he is clearly a fantastic commander.
>>51564
I don't know, but Sherman looks more alpha.
>>51993
looks are definitely deceiving then
>>51564
Sherman. He fought against evil and did what he had to do as well as he could.
>>52038
they're not both alpha?
>>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.
>>51564
Sherman was definitely the more innovative.
>>51720
Rommel did an incredible job with what he had.
The North in civil war had a large logistical advantage over the south.
Sherman's famed "march to the sea", which culminated in the burning of Atlanta, went along mostly unopposed.
How fucking hard is it to command a bunch of drunk, unhappy soldiers to fuck shit up along a few hundred mile stretch of the south?
"hey boys, fuck shit up and kill whatever. Just keep on marching east and fucking shit up till you reach the Atlantic."
That said, I would rather buttblast Sherman than Rommel.
>>52797
>That said, I would rather buttblast Sherman than Rommel.
w-why?
Sherman has better quotes.
>>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.
>>52174
Some examples?
>>53114
The Sherman-Johnston flanking duel in 1864 always fascinated me.
>>53201
Operating deep in enemy territory without supply or reinforcement.
>>53201
His use of specialized groups of what I guess you would call engineers to rebuild rail lines very rapidly after raids by the likes of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
>>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
>>53949
Lots of things were Panzer killers
Do you meant Panther/Tiger killers (not exactly an exclusive club either)?
>>53949
He never killed himself, he simply took off his people costume and became a fox again.
>>53949
wat
>>53980
The Sherman "Firefly", was a British conversion of the Sherman Tank, giving it a 17pdr gun. It was specifically designed to take out enemy tanks, or panzers.
Tanks are generally not meant to engage other tanks.
Wait up Rommel did have a tank named after him the "Fuchs"
>>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.
burning down the Confederacy means you win all contests by default
>>54108
Certainly, I was merely saying. Tanks frequently engaged tanks, but why waste tanks when you can use AT-guns which are cheaper and more effective?
In an alternate universe Erwin Rommel
Creates "Fox" news. A secret front to undermine the Third Reich
>>54196
In fact, Rommel would use tanks to bait British tanks into charging into his 88's.
Union military uniforms look cooler so Sherman wins
>>54233
Wait...have you seen German uniforms?
>>51564
Sherman looks like Jack Nicholson
>>54262
Pfff they're all black or grey, I don't like em
Union ones were blue and had all the buttons, I like them.
>>54307
Yeah...they did have buttons. Sweet, sweet buttons...I'm sold.
When you find out Argentina is Secretly the Fourth Reich
More proof
>>51564
Stonewall Jackson was better than both.
>>51564
Rommel's tactical brilliance amounted to using materiel in slightly unorthodox ways and executing tried and true tactics well.
Sherman burned and scorched his way across a beaten rebellious territory, doing untold economic damage to what was essentially his own country.
Rommel - B+
Sherman - C-
They're both overblown as fuck. People like Richard the Lionheart were pound for pound far more impressive.
>>54437
Jackson was erratic. Sometimes great, sometimes not. During the 7 Days Lee couldn't get him to engage the enemy. To be fair, Jackson's men were tired, but that never stopped him before.
>>54540
You are completely ignoring Sherman pre March to the Sea.
Rommel was a shit general
Sherman was a war criminal
![resizedimage212299-SirArthurCurrie[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KJRoTRk.jpg "resizedimage212299-SirArthurCurrie[1].jpg")
>>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.
>>54844
>single-handedly turn any battles
Fighting such battles seems like an error if you don't have to.
>>54844
Actually, the idea to abandon supply trains and support an offensive with looting was actually pretty innovative and useful.
I'd say he had a hell of a lot more impact on the Civil War than Rommel did on WW2.
>>54885
He who dares, wins.
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.
I'm Canadian too, actually.
>>54995
That's just the natural waffling between offensive and defensive styles of warfare we've seen forever. Supporting an advancing army via pillaging isn't exactly innovative thinking.
>>54995
>more impact on the Civil War than Rommel did on WW2
Most would agree I think
>>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.
>tfw people still butthurt about Sherman in my hometown
Opinions on Grant?
(As a military leader, his presidency is a whole can of worms.)
>>51564
They've both been talked about and documented so much that it's boring at this point to learn about either of them.
>>55376
He knew what needed to be done, and did it. He bled the south white. Also, made some pretty ballsy moves during the Vicksburg Campaign.
>>53949
You do realize that Rommel committed suicide so that the nazis wouldn't kill his family
>>55850
what a fag
>>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.
>>51575
Every goddamned thread I've gone into on /his/ that has any semblance of being controversial, guaranteed, the first post is always "hurr go back to /pol/"
It's blatant shitposting.
>>51564
Rommel was a good tactician, Sherman was a good strategist.
>>51564
The victorious one.
>>56678
/thread
>>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?
>>58072
This.
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"
>>59932
>muh rommel
>muh noble nazi
>>59968
? is there something wrong with you?
he just proved his was noble.
>>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
>>60027
>muh rommel
>muh noble nazi
I bet you think Shindler's list was a documentary.
>>51564
Drunk or not, Sherman looks like a hard motherfucker. Rommel has that refined noble look.
Regardless we can all agree it's a good thing Sherman didn't live in the era of nuclear weapons
the absolute madman probably would have nuked all of Georgia without hesitation
Hitler did give Rommel a nice mansion for his service.
It was a orphanage for jewish children
The Rommel senpai still own it.
>>60074
That'd be a great series, Dicks with Time Machines and Nukes!
>>60117
>The Rommel senpai
heh
