What were the differences between national C2 systems and performances?
We all have been told that Germans were advanced. Everyone tells me that "Germans were better", "Germans were much faster", "It gave advantage to Germans". All sources of information also leave it on the same level. None seems to be able to give facts or numbers, not even academic guess. Don't understand me wrong, Germans definitely had an advantage but... How big was the advantage? Proofs? Studies? Statistics? Academic guess?
I understand that experience, nation, year, unit, formation, equipment had much to do with this. The list probably has more items. The question is vague and it is more like an interesting subject to have a chat.
I have not been able to find resources or don't know right keywords to search. It can be that the subject is well documented. In that case, if there are literature you know, videos, webpages, documents, resources of any kind, I would be interested for sure.
If I'm understanding your question clearly this sounds like you're wondering about Auftragstaktik or Mission-type tactics. This was a function and then a doctrine of the well organised and highly developed German officer corps.
This more or less encompasses a German doctrine of flexibility in command and control. In theory it meant that orders were secondary to explaining the ultimate aim and goal of a particular mission. Once both those things, the aim (maintain pressure on enemy forces and exploit opportunities) and the goal (capture enemy position on hill x and see what can be done from there to further campaign or operational objective). To do this it was determined to give the minimum possible orders to allow lower level officers, those with the most up to date information on their particular situation, to decide how to achieve the objective. If everyone knew the overall objective then junior officers and NCO's would be able to improvise and adapt a plan on the fly, secure in the knowledge that other units would understand and conform.
Alongside this the Germans, at least early in the war, had very good communication at most levels, especially on the battlefield. This allowed a much more adaptive and higher tempo kind of warfare that the Allies couldn't match.
So this is also sort of about how an army was built to fight during the inter-war years. Allied doctrine went in one direction when thinking about how to use new technology and what lessons it drew from WW1. The German army took a different direction with the same technology and also differed in what lessons it learnt from WW1. Questions of how to use tanks and planes, how they would work with or without infantry and artillery support, how the whole combined arms package did or sometimes didn't, work. The way that the Germans discovered or created, laid a successful groundwork which lead to victory in the first part of the war. But once fully applied the Allies did tend to learn from their mistakes and were able to forge their own successful warfighting techniques.
Have a look at some of the sources I've provided, but you'll also want to look into some of the inter-war theory that's going on which is what Germany partially builds from. So maybe also have a look at the creation of the German armies in the lead up to WW2 and you'll definitely find discussion of what they were doing. This is a very well studied area so I'm sure there's tons out there, you might just have to dig a bit harder as it's likely to be buried as a chapter in a larger book.
Sources:
David Stahel Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009
David Glantz When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, 1995
Larry Addington The Blitzkrieg Era and the German General Staff. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1971
Ben Shepherd In Hitler’s Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016