I question the validity of the basic assumption here. Why would we assume that German generals were superior to their allied counterparts?

• [What did the Wehrmacht get wrong in WWII?] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ywuud/what_did_the_wehrmacht_get_wrong_in_ww2/)
• [Why did the Wehrmacht experience decline in 1944-45?] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3t5288/why_was_there_such_a_quick_decline_in_the/cx3v9xy)
• [The French Army in 1940] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3sc0tv/french_in_world_war_2/)
• [How was the Wehrmacht able to hold on for as long as it did in WWII?] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vfiln/german_military_wwii/)
• [The Myth of Blitzkrieg] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nq7y4/what_tacticsvehicle_designsideas_did_the_germans/)

I'm going to second /u/Superplaner here, and post some answers I've given in the past that suggest a very different conclusion than yours. While the Germans certainly had a lot to commend in their armed forces, I would hesitate to call their military tactics 'superior' to those of the allies, especially when tactics are only one part of war fighting.

Generals deal broadly in the Operational and strategic spheres. Tactics are usually left to local officers and NCO's.