Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hitler Vs Patton (A What If)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hitler Vs Patton (A What If)

    just A bit of fun


    If Hitler and Patton both were political leaders of an equal country with full control an desire to command there armies themselves an they battled it out who would win?



    the better Politician or the better general
    You better drop your flag an withdraw.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Blakdust View Post
    just A bit of fun


    If Hitler and Patton both were political leaders of an equal country with full control an desire to command there armies themselves an they battled it out who would win?



    the better Politician or the better general
    Struggling through the Queensland version of English that you have posted, I have broken the answer down as follows:

    Political leaders
    If Hitler and Patton were restricted to making political decisions during their conflict, I pick Hitler. Patton was passed over for promotion in favour of Eisenhower. Hitler, on the other hand, joined a party, became its leader, enjoyed a brief spell in prison to reflect on political style, and then led his party to electoral success, finally securing the chancellorship.

    Commander in Chief
    This depends on who has what sort of weapons, and what year they're fighting. Up to the end of 1942, I'm backing a "German" Hitler over an "American" Patton, if only because Hitler's generals have better weapons, and he hasn't gone ga-ga yet. After the end of 1943, I'm picking Patton as he still has all (or more of) his marbles.

    Just plain General
    They're leading the men, they meet on the field of battle: I'm picking Patton - he got trained to fight battles. If they have to go head-to-head at sea, then all bets are off.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hitler would win with little or no effort.

      Patton had absolutely no skill as a politician, he even said as much himself.

      Hitler at least knew how to 'use' subordinates, so he scores well as the politician, and likely wouldn't be as incapable as Patton who was never better than an Army/Corps level general. He made a great land commander, but had no skill with Air or Naval forces.
      Life is change. Built models for decades.
      Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
      I didn't for a long time either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Alternate Timelines would be a better home for this.

        Regards,
        Dennis
        If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

        Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
          Alternate Timelines would be a better home for this.

          Regards,
          Dennis
          Moved.
          "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
          Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

          Comment


          • #6
            the better Politician or the better general
            How would you know that Hitler won't make a good General?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Heidi View Post
              How would you know that Hitler won't make a good General?
              If there are any surviving members of Paulus 6th Army left you could ask them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
                Struggling through the Queensland version of English that you have posted, I have broken the answer down as follows:

                Political leaders
                If Hitler and Patton were restricted to making political decisions during their conflict, I pick Hitler. Patton was passed over for promotion in favour of Eisenhower. Hitler, on the other hand, joined a party, became its leader, enjoyed a brief spell in prison to reflect on political style, and then led his party to electoral success, finally securing the chancellorship.

                Commander in Chief
                This depends on who has what sort of weapons, and what year they're fighting. Up to the end of 1942, I'm backing a "German" Hitler over an "American" Patton, if only because Hitler's generals have better weapons, and he hasn't gone ga-ga yet. After the end of 1943, I'm picking Patton as he still has all (or more of) his marbles.

                Just plain General
                They're leading the men, they meet on the field of battle: I'm picking Patton - he got trained to fight battles. If they have to go head-to-head at sea, then all bets are off.
                I dunno if you really need to break it down if someone doesn't know what a "political leader" or "general" are there on the wrong forum i cant dumb it down any further. and if that's a jab at Queensland you can stick it buddy



                An remember I said EQUAL country


                and Heidi Hitler would not make a good general because he showed that he wasn't, I not gonna go into it

                could go either way but here my guess
                I think Hitler would build a stronger country with technically better equipment and more money but Patton would be a %100 military country with most men mobilized. then Hitler tries a surprise blitz but gets stalled an it turns into a slogging match, Hitler makes some dumb decisions an loses
                You better drop your flag an withdraw.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Blakdust View Post
                  I dunno if you really need to break it down if someone doesn't know what a "political leader" or "general" are there on the wrong forum i cant dumb it down any further. and if that's a jab at Queensland you can stick it buddy
                  [grammarnazi mode on]The English in your original question was so shite that interpreting the question was next to impossible. The italicised and underlined word above should be they're.[grammarnazi mode off] I don't need to take jabs at Queensland - I leave that to the NSWelsh.

                  Originally posted by Blakdust View Post
                  An remember I said EQUAL country
                  They're sharing?

                  Originally posted by Blakdust View Post
                  and Heidi Hitler would not make a good general because he showed that he wasn't, I not gonna go into it

                  could go either way but here my guess
                  I think Hitler would build a stronger country with technically better equipment and more money but Patton would be a %100 military country with most men mobilized. then Hitler tries a surprise blitz but gets stalled an it turns into a slogging match, Hitler makes some dumb decisions an loses
                  Let's run this again: if they are both behaving as the CiCs of their respective nations, I would pick Dolf. He and the Wehrmacht learnt a lot about logistics leading up to WW2. Georgie only got one shot, during the 1939 Louisiana manoeuvres.

                  In a winner-take-all, one-off battle, I'm going with Georgie, as he's more aggressive and (supposedly) has a trained military mind. Dolf only made it to corporal. Translate this in to a longer campaign and Dolf would probably frustrate Georgie into doing something stupid (Dolf did learn something about infantry tactics by direct experience).

                  As to how either would develop their nations, I'm not sure your own analysis holds: what evidence have you that Georgie was a screaming militarist, or that Dolf could inspire technical excellence?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by les Brains View Post
                    Hitler at least knew how to 'use' subordinates, so he scores well as the politician,
                    The German generals would be included as subordinates. Hitler may have 'used' subordinates, but if he had heeded their advice more instead of just dictating strategy, he may have had more success.

                    Philip
                    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."— Bertrand Russell

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hitler at least knew how to 'use' subordinates, so he scores well as the politician, and likely wouldn't be as incapable as Patton who was never better than an Army/Corps level general. He made a great land commander, but had no skill with Air or Naval forces.
                      I think Hitler is overrated as a land commander and HE had no skill with Air or Naval forces. Hitler never made it past corporal, Army/Corps level is way above that.
                      "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
                      — Groucho Marx

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Are we assuming that George is going to charge in all aggressive like with his tanks. Well if the Germans are at full strength with their defense in depth and 88's at the ready. Doesnt look too good that one.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Heidi View Post
                          How would you know that Hitler won't make a good General?
                          When all was said and done, Hitler didn't even make a very good politician either - once others stopped expecting him to play 'by the rules.' Events prooved he was a political and militart pygmay.
                          HONNEUR ET FIDÉLITÉ

                          "Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Heidi View Post
                            How would you know that Hitler won't make a good General?
                            Well, we have Stalingrad as copenhagen pointed out. Throw in Kursk and appointing Himmler the chicken farmer as an army commander charged with keeping the Soviets from Berlin.

                            Toss in the alliance with the Italians which you yourself dislike too!

                            The man was the leader of the government and supreme commander of the military.

                            We know he wasn't a good general because he proved it!

                            Dennis
                            If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

                            Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dogsbody67 View Post
                              When all was said and done, Hitler didn't even make a very good politician either - once others stopped expecting him to play 'by the rules.' Events proved he was a political and militart pygmay.
                              Oops - just looked at my posts terrible spelling.
                              I meant of course that Grofaz was a 'political and military pygmy.'

                              Heidi - Hitler was probably over promoted when he made Corporal. He was worth at least a dozen army groups to the Allies, thanks to the decisions he took.

                              Mind you, the hair curls at the thought of Patton being in charge of the war effort and I doubt he would have taken the position even if it had been offered.
                              HONNEUR ET FIDÉLITÉ

                              "Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." - Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X