The very nature of such questions introduces so many imponderable and subjective ramifications that you begin to spin your wheels pretty quickly. At its most basic you are comparing strategies based on widely different levels of logistics and support. Air power is certainly the most important of these - with allied domination of the air everything from production to movement of troops and supplies to actual battlefield engagements changed. Knowing that, how would you compare German generals at any level with their allied counterparts? As for me, I still think the Germans were the snappiest dressers, but you have to admire the British for their wellies and casual pheasant hunting attire.
Love em mate...but I think I opened that one a few times in the past myself.... Monty by the way.... best General...
Whether McNair's views on tanks and anti tank guns/ tank destroyers detract from the massive organisational achievement is itself worthy of thread an its own. I have never under stood quite what was so distinctive about McNair's views or what was so different about the development of USA anti tank weapons. By the time the land war started in 1943-45 the US had pretty much the same sort of anti tank weapons and organisations as other combatant nations. The British Germans and Soviets all had some mix of towed and self propelled anti tank guns. Each army had some anti tank guns deployed to protect infantry at Regimental or Brigade level and independent anti tank units at Divisional and sometimes Corps level. Each had some SP anti-tank guns mounting better anti tank guns that wouldn't fit in standard tank turrets. Doctrinally the TD may have been muddled, but the mix of 3" 57mm and M10, M18 and M36, backed by 90mm AA guns gave US tactical commanders a good mix of anti tank weapons. Arracourt and the Bulge demonstrated how effective they were Is there a good biography of McMair? I have got Marshall's Lieutenants but haven't read it yet.