The US Army ground forces available for expeditionary warfare in the ETO/MTO or Pacific in 1942-45 were greater and more capable than those of the rest of the Allies combined, of course, so it's unclear to me what your statement "US Army wasn't outstandingly large or good" is based upon. Compared to what, exactly?Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑20 Jan 2021 17:52Hi Counter,
I think the optimism of the Allies at the US joining the war was entirely justified, but less for the massive size or quality of the US Army than for other strategic factors.
Without the US in the war, Britain and the USSR were essentially on the defensive and could expect to remain so for the foreseeable future, if they survived at all.
With the resources of the US joining them in the war, they could look forward to going over to the offensive with some prospect of success.
The US Army wasn't outstandingly large or good, but it was quite a fast learner and it certainly became both large enough and good enough to complete the job the other Allies couldn't do on their own.
So, Go Yanks!
The same statement holds true for the Axis, as well, of course. By 1943, the US had an army group equivalent and multiple air forces deployed outside of North America; the Germans managed to put about a dozen men ashore in the U.S. and Canada during the course of the war, while the Japanese managed one aircraft sortie over the lower 48.