GustavKuriga

While I don't agree with much of what Elrerune The Honorbound said and thus don't have an issue with most of your post; I will disagree with this statement, on multiple levels. A) They probably wouldn't have won the war regardless because of the sheer manufacturing capacity imbalance compared to the Allies+Soviet Union. Even if we assume the Allies only built the M3 Lee and nothing else for tanks, Germany would still have fallen. The Soviet Union had plenty of tanks just on their own. B ) A soldier is not a warrior. The very idea of "warriors" is at odds with how soldiers fight. Individual skill often matters little when so much of life or death comes down to chance, and that's ignoring how much more important the army and front level actions are to the squad level ones. Do not fall into the trap the French did with their "elan". Training and disciplined tactics will do far more than courage. Having a capable General Staff as well as good coordination of forces does far more than being "better fighters" will. C) The Germans were not inferior on the battlefield. It took the combined forces of France, the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union to defeat them. They were beat on the grand strategic level. This meaning both political decisions about what enemies to make, as well as the logistics and manufacturing to provide for their armies. These are the main areas they were lacking. Avoiding a war with the Soviet Union by holding to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would have secured the fuel they needed (the Soviets were basically fueling the Germans throughout 1940). They could also have attempted to activate one of the secret conditions of that Pact, which had the Soviets agreeing to help force an end to the war with Britain if they did not agree to a "reasonable peace". In addition, streamlining production by choosing a tank to focus their efforts on and attempting to aim for simpler to produce vehicles rather than over-engineered designs (looking at you Porsche) would have at least lengthened the war by providing a larger number of tanks for their divisions. For the most part German engagements against the Western Allies favored the Germans on at least the casualty side, though they had less available to lose. Against the Soviets it depends on the year we're talking about. Early on the Soviets took the brunt of casualties as they had both lost a good chunk of their officer corps, as well as not being prepared for the invasion. Later, the Soviets actually had the most effective strategic ground doctrine of the entire war, Deep Battle, which made it extremely difficult for the Germans to do anything besides retreat and reform their defensive line every time the Soviets pierced their lines with entire armies. I could go on about this, but it's already getting into a long read. Suffice it to say that the idea that ANY army had "inferior soldiers" is laughable. The issue was more about equipment procurement, leadership, and doctrine.