was american equipment superior or better thaught than the

yes, better thaught

positives: more emphasis on automatic and semiautomatic weapons
negatives: not embracing machine-gun doctrine

>>3107699

Overall yes. A breakdown, land/air equipment only.

Overwhelmingly better

> trucks
> air transport
> heavy bombers
> rations
> medical equipment
> radar
> radio
> construction/engineering equipment

Better
> fighters
> medium bombers
> armor
> artillery systems

Mixed bag
> small arms
> armored cars
> mortars
> uniforms

Worse
> helmets
> infantry anti-armor weapons
> anti tank guns

The US definitely had an advantage in air power, it's debatable whether their fighters were actually better, but they had a major advantage in strategic bombing capability, the Germans basically had only 2-engine bombers (limited in range and payload), with no 4-engine bombers seeing significant use, while America was mass producing multiple types of four-engine bombers throughout the war.

>>3107768
While the M4a3 is my favorite tank of the war, I think its excessive to say US armor was *better* than German armor overall. The delays in fielding a high velocity gun or a heavily armored tank in large numbers for the 44 campaign were not justifiable in hindsight and led to unnecessary losses and delays.

Yes, they had their reasons for it at the time, and the M4s and TDs pulled through, but they could have fielded a better answer to the Panther sooner without sacrificing the M4s advantages if they had known how prevalent the Big Cats were.

The serious shortcomings of the Panther at the operational/strategic level were no comfort to the M4 gunner bouncing 75s off its glacis at 500m, and this could have been avoided with more foresight.

>>3107768
Optics should be added to "worse", the Germans had notably superior quality glass for gunsights which provided higher visibility at greater magnification.