Originally Posted by perseus

Regarding the lack of men and equipment, I am not so sure, although the lack of men is often quoted.

After the Mediterranean campaign in NW Europe the Allied armies were spoilt for equipment although the quality of the Armour and some firearms were inferior to the Germans. In terms of men it is said that the British held back because they could not afford to take the losses, hence the American army, being relatively fresh into the war, were more offensive in nature. This excuse is something I have never understood.

Compared to the Russians and Germans, Commonwealth forces never suffered proportionately very high casualties at any stage of WW2. Perhaps it was that many of their best men had been killed at that stage and the remaining ones had good hopes of getting back home alive? There also seemed to be a reluctance by the British to engage in a war of attrition,it must have seemed to be developing a bit like like WW1 during June 1944 in Normandy.

The Russians, and Germans were driven by hatred and desperation, whilst the Americans were highly self confident as many new armies are.