D-Day "myths". Actually not a bad article at all...

[Berkut]

I don't think the statement as presented is much argued outside Soviet historians.

Who could possibly claim to have better armed services in total?

The Mighty Canucks?

No matter how I turn this, numbers, training, equipment, chain of supply, quality of officers, I think the Americans come out on top in nearly every area in 1945.  Maybe the British had equivalent or superior training and better officers, but equipment-wise and chain of supply, the Americans would beat them.

The Brits were also exhausting their manpower.  U.S. commanders complained about manpower shortages, but that was mostly because U.S. commanders expected their units to be at 100% strength pretty much all the time (there was, arguably, a bit of a shortage of infantry, but that was mostly the result of conscious decisions about how manpower was allocated, rather than an actual shortage of manpower).

I think that man-for-man, the Canadian (and possibly Australian and New Zealand forces) were a bit better than the Americans (the Canadians, in particular, seem to have combined many of the best traits of U.S. and UK forces), but their populations were too small to support a lot of units.

I read a pretty good article about how much manpower was wasted in the US Navy. By the end of the war, the US Navy had some ridiculous number of fleet carriers, vastly more than what was necessary to deal with Japan. King was basically given an open checkbook after Pearl Harbor, and the US Navy radically over-built.

Just in crew alone, the estimate was that there were some 500,000 excess naval personnel that could have been used to much better effect in the army - who certainly was NOT given the Navy blank checkbook.

[derspiess]

So were they over-estimating carrier losses?  Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.

And the Army did alright.  They had the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards they were going up against.

[Admiral Yi]

As John Keegan wrote, the American style of war is figure out the maximum possible amount of equipment you could hypothetically need, double it, then bring some more.

[PDH]

Somewhere there is the story of the German who saw US soldiers cleaning engine parts in gasoline - if I remember rightly he figured then and there the war was over.

[Valmy]

They had the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. Why, by God, I actually pity these poor bastards they were going up against.

By God we murdered those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel.

[Malthus]

As John Keegan wrote, the American style of war is figure out the maximum possible amount of equipment you could hypothetically need, double it, then bring some more.

I can't remember where I read it, but someone described the US war plan as "a cunning strategy to crush the Axis under a gigantic mound of US equipment". 

All of which are but ways to say 'the Axis slightly underestimated the potential productivity of their new enemies'.

[The Minsky Moment]

As John Keegan wrote, the American style of war is figure out the maximum possible amount of equipment you could hypothetically need, double it, then bring some more.

There's two kinds of waste.  One kind is building lots of redundancy.  Another kind is building say a tank, spending all the resources to ship it overseas, train a crew, fill it with ammo and gas get it to the front, and then have the whole damn thing set idle because it throws a gasket and you don't have the exact right spare part for it on the front lines at the exact time you need it.  Waste in the first way - big redundancies in transport assets, parts and equipment -- can ameliorate waste in the second way.

[Razgovory]

It's rather stunning how badly German was outmatched in the war.  The US had an enormous reserve of manpower, the world's largest and most sophisticated industrial base, the most mechanized agricultural sector, and a highly skilled and educated population. It also had the benefit of a powerful navy two large oceans to protect it.

I do remember reading that German soldiers bitterly complained that every GI had a Jeep and a radio, which was only a slight exaggeration.  By D-Day every platoon had a radio and jeeps were plentiful.

[Valmy]

Germany didn't have a chance. I am always amazed by how determined they fought on given that fact. I mean I understand why the leadership didn't give up. I understand that their families were threatened back home etc...

But the fact that things occured like the garrison at Saint-Nazaire holding out until Germany surrendered when they just could have given up at any time just boggles the mind. I can get why they might put up a token resistance than give it up, but it was clearly more than that they fought like hell killing tons of Western Soldiers...and for what? I mean I can get resisting the Soviets but holding up the Western advance with such ferocity seems rather counter-productive to saving Germany from Soviet reprisals. And far from saving their families it just meant more of Germany got bombed to hell.

[grumbler]

I read a pretty good article about how much manpower was wasted in the US Navy. By the end of the war, the US Navy had some ridiculous number of fleet carriers, vastly more than what was necessary to deal with Japan. King was basically given an open checkbook after Pearl Harbor, and the US Navy radically over-built.

Remember that these carriers were, by and large, started long before anyone knew how many carriers would be needed.    I'd also argue with the idea that the USN "radically overbuilt," given the task of sweeping aside a powerful Japanese land-based air force using only sea-based air, and the huge need for amphibious shipping.  The USN certainly built some ships it didn't turn out to need (not carriers, but things like the Alaska class), and you can certainly make the case that King and company robbed the UK of support and merchant shipping that were fairly it's under the joint US-UK production quotas, but the complaints about "over-building" seem more revisionist than not.

Just in crew alone, the estimate was that there were some 500,000 excess naval personnel that could have been used to much better effect in the army - who certainly was NOT given the Navy blank checkbook.

The way that the Army used its personnel make the idea that 500,000 Navy crewmen were critical to the war effort laughable.  There were probably 500,000 US Army personnel lost in the bizarre repple-depple system at any given time.

If there is a myth about WW2 that deserves exploding, it is that candaians were pretty much fellow-riders on the UK.  In fact, Canada produced as much merchant and support shipping in WW2 (1939-1945) as Japan (a fact that astounded me when I found it out).

[grumbler]

Germany didn't have a chance. I am always amazed by how determined they fought on given that fact. I mean I understand why the leadership didn't give up. I understand that their families were threatened back home etc...

But the fact that things occured like the garrison at Saint-Nazaire holding out until Germany surrendered when they just could have given up at any time just boggles the mind. I can get why they might put up a token resistance than give it up, but it was clearly more than that they fought like hell killing tons of Western Soldiers...and for what? I mean I can get resisting the Soviets but holding up the Western advance with such ferocity seems rather counter-productive to saving Germany from Soviet reprisals. And far from saving their families it just meant more of Germany got bombed to hell.

Because they fought for their buddies, not Hitler's shiny Reich.  You can't give up because it fucks your buddy, your brother, whatever, who would otherwise have to face the forces you are tying down. The Germans at Stalingrad knew they were doomed, but knew that they were tying up forces that would otherwise have cut off Army Group A.

[dps]

If there is a myth about WW2 that deserves exploding, it is that candaians were pretty much fellow-riders on the UK.  In fact, Canada produced as much merchant and support shipping in WW2 (1939-1945) as Japan (a fact that astounded me when I found it out).

Though in some ways, that's as much a indictment of the Japanese as it is praise for the Canucks.  Even more than the Germans, the Japanese were trying to punch above their weight.

[Berkut]

Yeah, when you hear about how there were particular months of the war were the US produced more combat aircraft than Japan produced during the entire war...you realize how fucking stupid the entire thing was...

[Habbaku]

That seems a bit hard to believe.  The Japanese were certainly massively outproduced, but it sounds a little off that the USA ever produced in one month what the Japanese did during the entire war (and is that 39-45?  41-45? 37-45?).

[HisMajestyBOB]

There is an excellent website that I can't find that goes into details on US vs Japanese production (and provides what looked like reputable sources, as well). There were several categories where US production was much higher than Japanese - IIRC, the US produced more artillery and airframes (?) in 1944 than the Japanese did over the entire war.