As I’ve said in other threads, the best Italian units were as good as any nation’s best units in WWII.
But Italy didn’t have a lot of such units.
I think that fighting in enclosed fortifications and hilly terrain does something to buck-up soldiers’ spirits and courage. Maybe because the battle is more personal and armies suffering from technological disadvantages can suddenly bring their enemies --enjoying a superiority in logistics, transport, and firepower-- down to their level…
I think this was a big part of the Japanese “third force” spiritual combat in WWII and one of the reasons they were so ferocious. I’m reading about Guadalcanal now, and it seems that when the marines landed initially near what would become Henderson Field, the Japanese Army and Korean laborers inexplicably fled so quickly that there was hot food, beer and Saki, and plenty of extra weapons and construction vehicles for the marines to later use. The later first major effort to evict the marines also was a complete disaster and the Japanese commanders realized, to their horror, that they could not overcome the US superiority in firepower in a straight up infantry attack in what they had previously dismissed as an American and Western weakness, or the over reliance on firepower. The US soldiers and marines also utilized their fortifications extremely well in a way they didn’t initially on Bataan and were not able too on Wake Island. The Americans began derisively described the Japanese Army, previously thought almost invincible, as prone to “dramatic” gestures of battlefield futility, although extremely disciplined and courageous…
I would opt for The North African Campaign with an armoured unit… maybe the 1st Armoured Division. Although I’m not a big fan of the desert, the cold European winter would have done me in long before the Germans could have a chance to.
Cryptography. Any theatre (Hawaii or London would do fine though!)
Deaf
High command in WWI, perhaps in place of Joffre. Because I wouldn’t be shot at, and I could make decisions that could save peoples’ lives… :mrgreen:
You would equally be making decisions that cost people’s lives.
I Cite Wilmott, who in “Crusade in Europe” cites/quotes Eisenhower (Admitted note: Ike’s version does differ from Wilmott’s in wording though the gist is the same): “In some ways, the man in combat has it easier, whereas staffs generally have to knowingly make decisions they are certain will result in the loss of lives. The only thing responsible staffs can do, is to (try to) minimise those losses.”
Regards, Uyraell.
If you’re talking about the Australian war correspondent Chester Wilmot, how he ended up in Europe and how good he was at military evaluations (which is part of the reason he ended up in Europe after being effectively banned in Australia) is a great but sad story.
If anyone is interested I’ll start a separate thread on it.
Ok, let me rephrase my last post’s reasoning: I could make decisions that cost less people their lives, and accomplish my goals quicker.
I am interested.
While I found Chester Wilmott’s style a strange mix between colloquial and dry, it was also a hell of an interest book to read. “Crusade in Europe” was one I kept as a “handy reference” for years, until my collection was broken up.
Regards, Uyraell.
Wisely said 
Though I meant no ill.
The ex Servicemen I knew, some of whom had been in mid-level command (Wing Commander, in one case, Destroyer First Officer in another) Squadron Adjutant in another) expressed in various ways the citation I quoted earlier. That is a lesson I have never forgotten, though I’m of the view that modern perspectives tend to overlook it.
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf gave a similar view as cited in his book, written after Gulf War 1.
Regards, Uyraell.