Originally Posted by Charge_7

"In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily."

That was exactly my point. I was disputing the idea that we never had faced serious German opposition from quality troops. My case was that we had indeed - in 1942 - and that we defeated these also. So we were capable of defeating either the best or the lesser quality troops. It was never my statement that it was done _easily_ in Italy.

What really told the difference wasn't even so much our skill in battle or the British skill in battle or the Russian skill or even the German skill. What told the difference was that Germany could not match the industrial might of the allies as a whole. The majority of which was borne by the Americans although the Soviets certainly did a great deal in that regards. The fact is that the Soviets as well as the British were dependant on Lend Lease while America was dependant on British intelligence work and Russian men at arms. The fact these were the main contribution for each of the Allies in no way lessens the value of the other contributions they made. American manpower and intelligence were essential, British industry and manpower were essential, and Russian industry and intelligence were essential. All three nations' contributions were essential to defeating the Third Reich and it is this truth more than any other that calibrates the power of the Wehrmacht.