Ollie Garchy said:
After reading some of the answers to the question, and being in agreement with most of them, I think it is time to give the problem a little twist and some spice. Did American industrial production give the United States government and military a "get out of jail free card". That is, did industrial output minimize serious mistakes that would have crippled other states?
Well in a word, yes. One obvious example is the M-4 Sherman tank. Servicable to begin with, it gradually become further and further outclassed as the war went on. One only has to look at the accepted tactics of both the British and American armoured formations when fighting German panzer units. Up to 6 Shermans were often needed to deal with a single Panther or Tiger, with several Shermans as bait while the rest attempted to get round to the rear of the German tank where the armour was obviously thinner. Although this tactic often resulted in the German tank being knocked out, it came at the expense of several of the Shermans. This tactic was only possible because of:
1) The mobility of the Sherman (one of the few good things about it)
2) The ability of the Allies, in particular the US, to churn out thousands of them
3) The logistical ability of the US forces in general
The fact that the Western Allies had virtual Air Supremacy for long periods, partly as as result of German mistakes and most certainly as a result of US industrial might being applied, also was a major factor in Western Allied success.
So to paraphrase what you said, yes the Sherman was "doomed" to succeed. Compared to the later German tanks it was poor but it didn't matter. Rather like say a human can kill many wasps before succuming to the accumalation of stings so thousands of Shermans could be knocked out but that the end result would be that there would still be more Shermans than Panthers or Tigers left operational on the battlefield.
Coming back to your comment regarding the outcome of battles it's a truism that the victor writes history. Anyone delving deeper into the actual details will see that the Western Allies fought a shell of the Wehrmacht that had marched into Russia 3 years earlier. Mainly because the Wehrmacht facing the Western Allies at this time had:
1) Very little air support
2) Very poor mobility due to lack of fuel and a deeper problem regarding the mechanisation, or lack thereof, of panzergrenadier formations
3) Combat replacements usually comprising green troops who sometimes had as little as one weeks basic training, ex training personnel, men who previously were deemed too young or too old for service, men previously deemed unfit for military service and ex Luftwaffe pilots who no longer had planes to fly
Given the above its clear that the Wehrmacht was an army whose combat abilities were in serious decline.
This was no fault of the Western Allies though and they fought what was in front of them. However, any achievements lauded upon US and UK commanders need to take all the facts into consideration. US servicemen had on average about 6 months basic training before being assigned to combat units and whilst I don't quite agree that their performance was as bad as Ollie is suggesting it's definately true that their advantages in logistics, industrial output and air cover did save them from what otherwise might have been humiliating reverses.