Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[m kenny]

It was US production and manpower that made it possible for the allies to win. After all, if it was all that great, why did we have to give you the airplanes, ships and supply the troops?

Nobody gave the UK anything. It was all bought and paid for. Naturaly after all the UK assetts were depleted the lender kindly gave credit. It was all paid for in full.
It was nice of the UK to 'lend' you 500 Shermans in late 1944 when you ran out of replacements.

No US in the European war, no allied victory.

The same is true of 'no UK no Allied victory'.

I think its been fairly well proven by others that the Panther and Tiger were quite superior to their US/UK counterparts. And they were only defeated in the long run by superior US production.

And all those tanks and planes fought on their own without any crews?
Your house catches fire and the fire brigade come and put it out. Do you then say 'thanks guys for your help but the real credit belongs with those who made the fire engine'.
Why do some people try and grab the credit for everything?

Unfortunatly, your fighters didnt have the range necessary to get to where the LW was flying over. Namely Germany.

Like that great long range Mustang with its great US engine. Following your logic as it was a UK engine all the credit belongs to the UK.

Is that why you needed our B24's for sub patrols, our escort carriers, destroyers and escorts for convoy protection?

If it was payment on delivery you were only protecting your investment!

[syscom3]

Nobody gave the UK anything. It was all bought and paid for. Naturaly after all the UK assetts were depleted the lender kindly gave credit. It was all paid for in full.

Doesnt matter what the terms were. If the US didnt have the material on hand, you werent getting it at all.

It was nice of the UK to 'lend' you 500 Shermans in late 1944 when you ran out of replacements.

It must have been a week long shutdown of the Detroit arsenal. Yes, we were making that many tanks a week.

The same is true of 'no UK no Allied victory'.

Irrelevent to the discussion. The thread is if the Russians and Brits could have won in Europe without the US

And all those tanks and planes fought on their own without any crews?

Huh?

Your house catches fire and the fire brigade come and put it out. Do you then say 'thanks guys for your help but the real credit belongs with those who made the fire engine'.

Yes, we were the fire brigade who did put out the fire in Europe.

Why do some people try and grab the credit for everything?

Couldnt have won the battle in Europe without you, but we definatly came into the fight at the right time, with overwhelming industrial capabilities, manpower and resources.

Thought for the day when it came to the material production of the powers:

"The US did more by mistake than whole countries did by design and planning"

And that was said by a Hillbilly aircraft assembler at the big B29 plant at Marietta Georgia.

Like that great long range Mustang with its great US engine. Following your logic as it was a UK engine all the credit belongs to the UK.

Without the US being in the war in Europe, there is no need for us to have the P51. The PTO was "owned" by the P38, and then finally the P47N.

Again, no one has proven me wrong.

Without the US, the Europe would have been dominated by Germany or Russia!

[m kenny]

Doesnt matter what the terms were. If the US didnt have the material on hand, you werent getting it at all.

Anything bought and paid for belongs to the purchaser. 'You' never gave anything.

It must have been a week long shutdown of the Detroit arsenal. Yes, we were making that many tanks a week.

I presume that means you had no idea about the chronic US Sherman shortage. The UK managed to get the replacement rate right and bought and paid for enough tanks to cover its losses. Others made the wrong calculation andsuffered

Couldnt have won the battle in Europe without you, but we definatly came into the fight at the right time,

You mean when the Soviets broke the back of the Germany army?

Without the US being in the war in Europe, there is no need for us to have the P51. The PTO was "owned" by the P38, and then finally the P47N.

Nice swerve but you had no reply anyway.

no one has proven me wrong.

Yawn.........................yeah you are so good at this. How could anyone prove you wrong on anything.
Next you will be telling us that if it weren't for your locomotives Russia would have lost the war!

[lesofprimus]

You mean when the Soviets broke the back of the Germany army?

Without the USA getting involved, the might of the German Arm would have been unstoppable, what with all the resouces that can now be sent to the Russian Front instead of sitting in France...

[syscom3]

Anything bought and paid for belongs to the purchaser. 'You' never gave anything.

Its actually irrelevat to the discussion. It was US manpower and material wholelly owned by the US govt that provided the margin of victory.

I presume that means you had no idea about the chronic US Sherman shortage. The UK managed to get the replacement rate right and bought and paid for enough tanks to cover its losses. Others made the wrong calculation andsuffered

Building 50,000 tanks and we had a chronic shortage? Interesting fact you invented. But then again, it just proves my point that the German tanks were so superior to the allied designs that we could build them by the tens of thousands and still be short! By the way, how many armoured divisons did the BA use in France?

You mean when the Soviets broke the back of the Germany army?

Yes. And note that it was the Russians who did that, not the Commonwealth.

Nice swerve but you had no reply anyway.

Why would the US need a rolls royce powered fighter when there was no need for day light bombing over Germany? We had the P38 in the Pacific and it worked out fine there. Again you either have misread the whole premise of this thread, or youre embarresed you cant justify your arguments.

Yawn.........................yeah you are so good at this. How could anyone prove you wrong on anything.

No one has shown me the industrial capacity or the man power the commonwealth actually had available to win the war without the US.

Next you will be telling us that if it weren't for your locomotives Russia would have lost the war!

Those locomotives helped them to win the war.

[m kenny]

Without the USA getting involved, the might of the German Arm would have been unstoppable, what with all the resouces that can now be sent to the Russian Front instead of sitting in France...

The bulk of the German ground Army served in Russia. Over 75% of the German Army dead in WW2 were killed in Russia.
Sure any extra released from garrison duty in France would have HELPED but the other side of the coin is the 260000 men released from the Russian front would have made any invasion in the west impossible.. The true scale of the Soviet effort is often overlooked by Western protagonists.
The Allies in Normandy had a greater advantage in numbers that the Soviets in the East.

[m kenny]

Its actually irrelevat to the discussion. It was US manpower and material wholelly owned by the US govt that provided the margin of victory.

Yes the 800.000 GI's in France did all the work whilst the 650,000
Commonwealth ones sat around doing nothing.

Building 50,000 tanks and we had a chronic shortage? Interesting fact you invented.

If you have any information as to why the US had to ask for 500 Shermans from UK stocks please enlighten us. There was a shortage of medium tanks in US AD's and this was made worse by the serious losses suffered in the Bulge fighting. Clearly you are not as well informed as you would like to believe. Keep on digging.

But then again, it just proves my point that the German tanks were so superior to the allied designs that we could build them by the tens of thousands and still be short!

More T34's were produced than Shermans. Again you do not have a good enough grasp of the figures to be taken seriously.

By the way, how many armoured divisons did the BA use in France?

Are you on about the ones that took on the bulk of the German tank force in Normandy? All those Tigers/Tiger II and and Panthers you think so highly of?

Those locomotives helped them to win the war.

What? A small fraction of the total Soviet stock and all sent from mid '44 onwards when the war was won. How did they help in the overall picture

[syscom3]

Yes the 800.000 GI's in France did all the work whilst the 650,000 Commonwealth ones sat around doing nothing.

Those 800,000 troops are the numbers needed to win the war in favor of the allies. You proved my point, didnt you? 650,000 commonwealth troops couldn't do the job, but 1.5 million allied troops did.

If you have any information as to why the US had to ask for 500 Shermans from UK stocks please enlighten us. There was a shortage of medium tanks in US AD's and this was made worse by the serious losses suffered in the Bulge fighting. Clearly you are not as well informed as you would like to believe. Keep on digging.

Like I said, you again proved my point. You couldnt build enough tanks on your own, so we had to supply you. Then couple that fact with the German superiority in armour. So this little misdirection ploy of yours proves nothing.

More T34's were produced than Shermans. Again you do not have a good enough grasp of the figures to be taken seriously.

And once again you proved my point. Not only were the US and UK tanks inferior to the German types, but also inferior to the Russians! But then again, the T34 was in mass production a couple years earlier than the Sherman, so that type had a head start. But numbers dont lie, and I dont make excuses.

Are you on about the ones that took on the bulk of the German tank force in Normandy? All those Tigers/Tiger II and and Panthers you think so highly of?

Well, Monty wanted that objective in Normandy and you paid the price for it. And If the US had the objective, we would have been hammered just as hard.

But there was one difference between the Commonwealth army and the US 3rd army..... and that was of mobility and of a command structure (read Patton) that was intent on proving his own theories on how armies should run at full speed and not prod around.

What? A small fraction of the total Soviet stock and all sent from mid '44 onwards when the war was won. How did they help in the overall picture

The soviets were hard pressed in supply for a multitude of erasons, and this type of help was a force multiplier for them. Something had to pull the freight cars from their factories in the Urals!

Come on now.....be serious.

Show me some industrial stats to show how the commonwealth could have produced the ships, tanks and ariplnes needed to invade France in 1944?

If you didnt invade by then, Russian tanks were either going to be on the Rhine by spring '45 or German tanks were still going to be on the channel out to the Russian border.

[m kenny]

Those 800,000 troops are the numbers needed to win the war in favor of the allies. You proved my point, didnt you? 650,000 commonwealth troops couldn't do the job, but 1.5 million allied troops did.

Sorry but your point was without the US troops the Allies would not have won. It is certainly arguable that the Russian could have ended the war without US intervention. I have seen nothing that suggests the US could manage on its own. No one denies it was an ALLIED effort and it is jarring to hear the claim that steelworkers in the US 'won' the war and without their efforts the war was lost.

Like I said, you again proved my point. You couldnt build enough tanks on your own, so we had to supply you. Then couple that fact with the German superiority in armour. So this little misdirection ploy of yours proves nothing.

Oh it is not a ploy. You claimed that the US had tanks coming out of its ears and yet in Europe it struggled to run its Armored Division at there alloted strength. Worse still they had to borrow tanks because they got the figures/deliveries wrong. I would say my 'misdirection' illustrates a lack of any understanding of the reality. Strange coming from one who boasts 'no one has proven me wrong'

And once again you proved my point. Not only were the US and UK tanks inferior to the German types, but also inferior to the Russians! But then again, the T34 was in mass production a couple years earlier than the Sherman, so that type had a head start. But numbers dont lie, and I dont make excuses.

Not that much in it. In June 1941 less than 1000 T34's had been made and the first Sherman rolled out in January 1942.

But there was one difference between the Commonwealth army and the US 3rd army..... and that was of mobility and of a command structure (read Patton) that was intent on proving his own theories on how armies should run at full speed and not prod around.

Another difference would be the strength of the enemy facing you. Kicking in an open door is always easier than a barred, locked and heavily defended one.
Patton?
Would the book I should read be the one where it is claimed more Germans panzers were destroyed by 3rd Army than were actualy in the whole of western Europe?
Patton who was stopped from attacking the Germans at Falaise because his superior thought he would be flattened by the German riposte?
Metz anyone?

The soviets were hard pressed in supply for a multitude of erasons, and this type of help was a force multiplier for them. Something had to pull the freight cars from their factories in the Urals!

Maybe you are right. The 676,000 Soviet rail cars were not as important as the 11,075 supplied by the US.
The 25,000 Soviet Locos were outperformed by the 2000 US supplied ones.
Even though non of them were sent before 1944 they shipped all the goods from the Urals factories in 1941,1942,1943 and most of 1944.

[Hunter368]

Welcome back Kenny, I have not seen you around in a while.

[syscom3]

Sorry but your point was without the US troops the Allies would not have won. It is certainly arguable that the Russian could have ended the war without US intervention.

If that happens, then Europe speaks Russian.

I have seen nothing that suggests the US could manage on its own. No one denies it was an ALLIED effort and it is jarring to hear the claim that steelworkers in the US 'won' the war and without their efforts the war was lost.

I never claimed the US could single handidly win the war in Europe. But all the facts and figures are there, and they are undeniable..... US industrial supremecy ensured the alies had the materials needed to win the war.

Oh it is not a ploy. You claimed that the US had tanks coming out of its ears and yet in Europe it struggled to run its Armored Division at there alloted strength. Worse still they had to borrow tanks because they got the figures/deliveries wrong. I would say my 'misdirection' illustrates a lack of any understanding of the reality. Strange coming from one who boasts 'no one has proven me wrong'

Lets put it in a different perspective.

The UK tanks were not up to the task, and they never were built in numbers needed to offset the German qualitative supremecy. The US provided 10 armoured divisions to the fight in France, and even if they were understrength, they still were quite an impressive tally. Just enough were operational to defeat the Germans by numbers alone.

But it still goes back to one basic truth. The Commonwealth was incapable of building enough tanks, let alone find the crews for them, to defeat the Germans.

Not that much in it. In June 1941 less than 1000 T34's had been made and the first Sherman rolled out in January 1942.

Six month head start. Thats quite some time in the war.

Another difference would be the strength of the enemy facing you. Kicking in an open door is always easier than a barred, locked and heavily defended one.
Patton?

History has proven that Montgomery was incapable of fighting a fluid and mobile style of warfare. While its plausable that an invasion could be mounted in France, its totally implausable the BA had the eqmt and leadership to exploit it for victory.

Would the book I should read be the one where it is claimed more Germans panzers were destroyed by 3rd Army than were actualy in the whole of western Europe?
Patton who was stopped from attacking the Germans at Falaise because his superior thought he would be flattened by the German riposte?
Metz anyone?

And? Whats your point?

Maybe you are right. The 676,000 Soviet rail cars were not as important as the 11,075 supplied by the US.
The 25,000 Soviet Locos were outperformed by the 2000 US supplied ones.
Even though non of them were sent before 1944 they shipped all the goods from the Urals factories in 1941,1942,1943 and most of 1944.

Isnt it amazing the US produced so much, we had extra engines to give away?

Again you fail to show how the commonwealth alone could have defeated the Germans before the Russians could (and even that was arguable).

And none of this "The US needed us to win the war".

This thread is if the US stayed out of the fight in Europe and YOU were on your own.

[m kenny]

Isnt it amazing the US produced so much, we had extra engines to give away?

You keep saying it but it don't make it true. You gave nothing away. You sold it. At least you no longer claim the US supplied rail equipment won the war!

Again you fail to show how the commonwealth alone could have defeated the Germans before the Russians could (and even that was arguable).

And none of this "The US needed us to win the war".

The US helped win the war and it no more won it is no more than the Russians, The UK, France, Poland, ect did. What is dishonest is claiming that the US effort alone would have been enough. When added to all the other effort it was enough to make the odds overwhelming. It was never enough to ensure victory by itself. Russia winning on its own is at least arguable. US alone is hardly concievable. The UK has the distinction of actualy being' on its own' for at least a year so it did show that it could stand the pressure. Russia took on the overwhelming bulk of the German Army and beat it. It proved it could handle the Germans You can only say you think the US could have done it alone.

This thread is if the US stayed out of the fight in Europe and YOU were on your own.

Thats not how I read Did the US save Europe in WW2 I see nothing about being 'on your own'.
Not content with inflating your own nations efforts you continue by denigrating others. This is not the best way to garner support. Nothing but chauvinism I am afraid..

[plan_D]

I don't understand why you seem so certain that the war in the East would be wholly decided by 1944. Explain why, in your mind, there's no chance of the war dragging on beyond then.


"Your war economy had maxed out in 1943. Thats a fact. There was nothing the Commonwealth could do about it. Now lets hear about all the big industrial plants, steel mills and massive aircraft factories that existed in Australia, Canada, India and SA. Hardly any."

The British production increased throughout the entirety of the war; and the British Commonwealth production increased massively. Canadian Pacific Locomotive works in Montréal made thousands of tanks during World War II. India provided the majority of ammo used by Commonwealth forces in the CBI.

"You show a lack of understanding for the economic aspects or warfare. Prior to the US getting in the war, we had lots of economic potential and reserve capacity. Thats what the Germans and Japanese didnt quite understand. Plus we had the manpower available to not only raise large armies and navies, but also to have enough people at home to run the factories and farms."

I do not show a lack of understanding at all; I'm showing a perfect understanding of your nature. Your argument is based purely on that it didn't happen, not that it couldn't have happened.
The British Commonwealth had the factories, industry and know how to deploy in wartime which would over-whelm the German Wehrmacht - eventually. The Commonwealth had a manpower base larger than the U.S; which provided a work-force and a fighting-force.

The U.S intervention meant that the Commonwealth did not have to gear up to such a large extent but could concentrate on using its men to fight, while the U.S provided the economic muscle.

And there were many African troops in the British Army during World War II - in fact, there was no colony that didn't participate. So, it's pretty safe to say that the manpower was there to be used.

"And yet your production was well short of the production needed to build the air forces, supply the divisions and construct the navies needed to do the job. It was US production and manpower that made it possible for the allies to win. After all, if it was all that great, why did we have to give you the airplanes, ships and supply the troops?"

The production was enough to grind Germany into the ground; the only difference with reality is that it would have taken longer. The U.S.A provided a spurt of economic power that ended the war sooner.
And what is your infatuation with the navy? The Royal Navy was larger than the U.S Navy at the start of World War II - and was always big enough to handle the Kriegsmarine; as it mostly did during World War II anyway.

"I think its been fairly well proven by others that the Panther and Tiger were quite superior to their US/UK counterparts. And they were only defeated in the long run by superior US production."

syscom, I don't mean to offend (seriously) but I think it's recognised that I know a bit more than you about the AFVs of World War II. And since your first comment was along the lines of the Allies only matching the Germans in the last few months then you're still wrong.
The British tanks were equal or superior to the German AFVs in 1939-1940; the Russian T-34 was superior until the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 in 1941. The Panther didn't arrive until 1943 - and the Tiger late 1942.

The Tiger set the bench-mark three years after the war had started - and by 1943 the British were building the Cromwell and well on their way to deploying the Comet in 1944 - equal and superior to the Sherman respectively.


"Unfortunatly, your fighters didnt have the range necessary to get to where the LW was flying over. Namely Germany."

You best go tell the Whirlwind pilots they weren't flying over Germany. And since the Mustang was a British order - then it'd have soon been in RAF colours over Germany anyway.
On top of that, a lot of specialist German production was in Holland and France - ever heard of the Phillips Factory Raid in Holland ? Operation Oyster - or maybe the British raid on the Cologne power plant?


"Face it, Bomber Command was doing a great job at night, but it was not a credible threat at all during the day. It didnt do the deep penetration missions into Germany during the day untill well after the USAAF had cleared the skys of the LW. BC did a better job of attacking Germany's industries at night, but it was the USAAF that went in deep during the day and destroyed the LW."

Operation Pointblank was a combined offensive with the initial stages being handed to RAF 2 Group attacking airfields in France. Given the right equipment, the RAF would have been much more able during the day. The reality of it all is when the USAAF stepped for the daytime - the RAF concentrated on the night, and any day RAF raiders were left to their own devices. And were generally ill-equipped ; since they should have all been Mosquitos.


And the point of mentioning Operation Crossbow was obvious, but I'll explain - You talk about numbers all the time; Operation Crossbow is a perfect example where the RAF did better with less numbers. We didn't need the USAAF numbers, fact.


"Is that why you needed our B24's for sub patrols, our escort carriers, destroyers and escorts for convoy protection?"

Should I say; if the USAAF was so big - why did you borrow Spitfires off us?

[syscom3]

I don't understand why you seem so certain that the war in the East would be wholly decided by 1944. Explain why, in your mind, there's no chance of the war dragging on beyond then.

Because either the Germans marshall enough resources to stop the Russians from corssing into Poland, or the Russians are still strong enough to beat the Germans through sheer attrition.

If Germany had no fear of an allied invasion in France and Italy in 1943 and 1944, then more than a few dozen divisions could be moved eastwards. Plus, with no credible RAF day bombing capability, the daytime fighter force in Germany could also be redeployed.

The war cant drag on forever. 1944 would be the decisive year.

The British production increased throughout the entirety of the war; and the British Commonwealth production increased massively. Canadian Pacific Locomotive works in Montréal made thousands of tanks during World War II. India provided the majority of ammo used by Commonwealth forces in the CBI.

Wow.... a single facility in Montreal made thousands of tanks. How about needing to produce tens of thousands of tanks? Amd again, your economy was maxed out by 1943. Any gains made were incremental rather than exponential.

India.... CBI?....... backwaters in the war.

I do not show a lack of understanding at all; I'm showing a perfect understanding of your nature. Your argument is based purely on that it didn't happen, not that it couldn't have happened.
The British Commonwealth had the factories, industry and know how to deploy in wartime which would over-whelm the German Wehrmacht - eventually. The Commonwealth had a manpower base larger than the U.S; which provided a work-force and a fighting-force.

"Eventually" means an unlimited ammount of time, of which you didnt have. And how many years do you have to train, or transport these people to shipyards and factories that didnt exist?

The U.S intervention meant that the Commonwealth did not have to gear up to such a large extent but could concentrate on using its men to fight, while the U.S provided the economic muscle.

The US Army was far larger than the BA. We probivded lots of material AND men. BTW, did you know the the USAAF 8th/9th/12th/15th AF's were 3 times larger than the RAF?

And there were many African troops in the British Army during World War II - in fact, there was no colony that didn't participate. So, it's pretty safe to say that the manpower was there to be used.

Simply amazing they were there and never used, considering the dire manpower problems you had.

The production was enough to grind Germany into the ground; the only difference with reality is that it would have taken longer. The U.S.A provided a spurt of economic power that ended the war sooner.

Provided a spurt of economic power? Try a massive dose of industrial suprememcy that completely overwhelmed the axis in every single catagory.

And what is your infatuation with the navy? The Royal Navy was larger than the U.S Navy at the start of World War II - and was always big enough to handle the Kriegsmarine; as it mostly did during World War II anyway.

Is that why the KM nearly brought you to your knee's in 1941 and 1942?

Tell me about the size of the RN to the USN in 1944 and 1945.

syscom, I don't mean to offend (seriously) but I think it's recognised that I know a bit more than you about the AFVs of World War II. And since your first comment was along the lines of the Allies only matching the Germans in the last few months then you're still wrong.
The British tanks were equal or superior to the German AFVs in 1939-1940; the Russian T-34 was superior until the introduction of the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 in 1941. The Panther didn't arrive until 1943 - and the Tiger late 1942.

The Tiger set the bench-mark three years after the war had started - and by 1943 the British were building the Cromwell and well on their way to deploying the Comet in 1944 - equal and superior to the Sherman respectively.

The Comet was superior to the Sherman? Big deal. Compare it to the Tiger or Panther in 1944/45

You best go tell the Whirlwind pilots they weren't flying over Germany. And since the Mustang was a British order - then it'd have soon been in RAF colours over Germany anyway.

Whirlwind's? Obviously the greatest long range fighter of WW2!!!!!!!!!

Mustangs over germany in hardly enough numbers to be decisive, and probably not untill late 1944, right when an invasion of France was out of the order.

On top of that, a lot of specialist German production was in Holland and France - ever heard of the Phillips Factory Raid in Holland ? Operation Oyster - or maybe the British raid on the Cologne power plant?

Tell me about daytime 1000 bomber raids deep into Germany like to Leuna, Berlin, Vienna, blah, bah, blah.

Operation Pointblank was a combined offensive with the initial stages being handed to RAF 2 Group attacking airfields in France. Given the right equipment, the RAF would have been much more able during the day. The reality of it all is when the USAAF stepped for the daytime - the RAF concentrated on the night, and any day RAF raiders were left to their own devices. And were generally ill-equipped ; since they should have all been Mosquitos.

The B17 and B24 were vulnerable to German fighters. now take the lanc, which flew lower and had far less armor and firepower, then imagine the losses it was going to take.

The bombing campaign was quite clear....The RAF Bomber Command had the resources to fight at night, but didnt have the aircraft or material to fight during the day.

And the point of mentioning Operation Crossbow was obvious, but I'll explain - You talk about numbers all the time; Operation Crossbow is a perfect example where the RAF did better with less numbers. We didn't need the USAAF numbers, fact.

To fight at day and night you would need an additional 3000 heavy bombers. of which you had no capacity to produce, let alone find the crews and ground staff to support them. And that doesnt take into account the 3000 fighters you would need to protect them during the day.

I say; if the USAAF was so big - why did you borrow Spitfires off us?

Well duhhhhhhhh.......... it wasnt untill 1943 that the full force of the aircraft factories were felt. We did have to build and train an immense air force after all.

Again, Noone has offered proof that the Commonwelath had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone.

Again.....its quite evident, that the US provided the material and manpower to ensure an allied victory!

[m kenny]

Again, Noone has offered proof that the Commonwelath had the resources necessary to defeat the Germans alone.

It is your straw man argument Reverse it and it is equaly true that US resources could not defeat Germany alone. Note though that only you feel the need to puff out your chest and actively slight one of the other Allied powers.

]Again.....its quite evident, that the US provided the material and manpower to ensure an allied victory!

True the addition of the US made the scales tilt in the Allied direction but only because they were nearly in blance to begin with. The USSR gave more in % terms than the US. They and they (virtualy) alone destroyed the German Army.
Thus you can say is the US contribution finaly tipped the balance. Saying it could have done it unaided in just speculation.