Country Boganistan
Infantry - Australian
Armored divisions -German 1941 model with 1944 equipment and US manufacture capability and reliability
Air Force - US 1944 model
Navy- US 43\45 model
Artillery US-1944 model
Command model - British
Logistics US - 44' mode

Well yeah but along with the IJA troops you also get the IJA Officers and NCO's to lead them, as well as the IJA training and discipline practices. That makes the IJA Infantry what it is but it also gives it the tactical inflexibility that I mentioned earlier.

I say if you took an IJN infantryman gave him German weapons, conscripted him in numbers like the Russians and had him lead by an American they would be unstoppable. :O:

Fixed :woot:

I mean lead on the Squad Level. US NCOs and LTs were some of the most inventive leaders in the war. :03:

EDIT: Oh I see what you did... wasn't Rommel stopped one time? By an Englander at that!

I say that American and British Airborne Forces were the best Light Infantry of the war. Fact. :yep:

Sicily, Normandy, Burma, Holland, New Guinea, Bastogne, Corregidor. Both on the offense and defense they proved indomitable against opponents many times their size and strength.

What really stopped Rommel was a lack of supply and the Quattara depression. Not minimizing the part played by the Desert Rats at all, but Monty wasn't the greatest of the commanders, it was Auchinlek after all that picked the defensive position at El Alamein to halt the German advance. What Monty was good at was preparation before an attack, which is something he could only do with a static front which was the antithesis to Rommels wide flanking advances with the Afrika Korp, if the Quattara depression had not existed, and the Italian fleet had control of the Med, Rommel would have taken the Suez, although admittedly I must also give credit to the RAF for their attacks on the supply trains of the Afrika Korps.

The fact that the British Army seemed to implement a revolving door approach to commanders in the desert theatre indicates how desperate we were for some good news, for some victories in the only theatre we had left for our ground forces after France, it indicates that and the pressure those commanders were under. Some delivered, others could not. Monty was lucky to inherit a favourable static defence position, a tired enemy, and fresh new tanks and men. He built those up until he outnumbered the enemy and then struck, furthermore, he struck at a time when the hero of the Afrika Korps wasn't there, which hampered their decision making process. It took eleven days to create the breakthrough needed for the Eighth army to start its push westwards.
It was after El Alamein that Monty started to pick things up, flanking maneuvers and the like over at the Mareth Line, and he fared well at Medenine against the odds, and he managed to adapt at Caen, turning the British thrust into a lure to draw the German forces in and allow the US forces to flank them, likewise he was crucial at the Battle of the Bulge.
As a defensive commander, Monty excelled, but in large scale attacks...well...Market Garden. :damn:
But, he was a curious chap, and a recognisable figure, like Churchill, and he provided a victory in Africa...and that's what was required of him.

He was a fantastic detailed planner and really got into the low level detail of planning down to the number of shells and ration packs available. He always liked to make sure that he had an overwhelming advantage before attacking and even then was sometimes reluctant until his planning was complete.

To be fair to Monty, he was the 'Churchill' of the Desert, he was also good at making public appearances, doing talks, improving morale, with his trademark hats. He was a figure the forces could rally around. :yep:

He also took chances and appeared to care little for the consequences.

...when he moved at all.

:har:

I like the aggressive style of Rommel and Patton myself. Those were two men cut from the same tree.

Good point, he was usually stopped in his tracks...Operation Goodwood for example (well not stopped exactly but at great cost).