I remember seeing film of PLA mounted units either conducting an NBC exercise or doing manuevers in conjunction with a nuclear test with the troops and horses equiped with gas masks. This was around the early or mid 60's. I know that on the Eastern Front there was a lot of cavalry/mounted troop action. I recall reading that in 1937 the Nationalist Army had a good size mounted force listed. Any idea how much they and any IJA mounted units butted heads?

The most telling things I've read regarding the attitude of the Germans to the T-34 was that when they first got the chance to send one back to Germany for examination, the engineers (and this may have been Dr. Porche) said that the beast wouldn't pass their quality control department. That being said, the Germans used as many of them that they could get their hands on and Dr. Porche's entry in the competition for what was to become the Panther looked like a squared/Teutonic T-34 up to including the placement of the turret.

Getting back to the original thread...I think we have had several Rommels. Patton did exceptionally well in Sicily and France, and not always because he had our fantastic logistics to back him up. Rommel would have admired and applauded Schwartzkopf's end-around in GW1. He also would have been quite satisfied with Franks' drive on Baghdad. What has happened since Baghdad fell is hardly Franks' fault...whose fault it is is best discussed in the Iraq thread. And if anyone cares--China has had its Rommel as well. I can't remember his name offhand, but he sent the 8th Army reeling back to South Korea and practically annihilated the 2nd Infantry Division at Kunu-ri in a space of two months. Rommel inflicted one--that's one--defeat on US forces at Kasserine.

The IJA had an actual cavalry force - about 8 brigades - one division (cavalry group) with two brigades and six independent brigades. These operated in Inner Mongolia and rural Manchukuo and Lioning, mainly. The Natinalists never did get up there in strength, so I doubt there was much interaction.

I think you mean Marshall Peng.

in a battle i would take Rommel, but in a war i would take Patton.....Rommel was effective at massing his troops where they needed to be, one can see this if they read his book ATTACKS about the first would war, he had a great feeling for the battlefield and how to engage, not only that he was loved by his men. however when one looks at his attack on tobrok (sorry for the spelling errors) i think it was the second time, he stretched his supply line to over 1500 miles and isloated himself against an ocean on his left flank and quick sand pits on his right, which stopped his from outflanking Montys forces in Eygept....this is a situation in which he was not able to adapt to the change in terrain and montys "not win the war now" idea paid off and he was defeated. but when you look at patton he was a hot head a sterotypical american, who had a few screws lose, i mean he thought he was reincarnated and fought with the greeks. one does not get the nick name "old-blood and guts" for no reason, he was agresive, but alot of his men hated him, knowing they where insignificant to the cause. but he surrounded himself with people like omar bradley who was a great organizer.....i think rommel had a good grasp on strtegy in war, but patton had a better understanding of grand strategy, and that is why i dont think one is better then the other......it is like picking between dan marino, and john elway.

Something no one's mentioned is how Patton was stalled at Lorraine during his push through Europe. he pushed ahead and the third completely ran out of fuel. And Rommel was promised a large reinforcement of tanks which never came, and that he would recieve a minimum amount of fuel to keep him moving. he knew the Brits had superior firepower mainly in sheer numbers, so standing still would have given up his main advantage in Africa, surprise. His goal was to try and push into the Middle East and use the large amount of oil they could capture from there then link up with more German Armor in Europe. Also it was Hitler responsibility for sending a commander who excelled excellently at rapidly pushing through and capturing enemy territory to defend land that wasn't considered of any significance, or worth resupplying.