> in europe, the vast quantities of geman infantry being slowly chewed up in russia were not nearly as significant as the much smaller numbers of mechanised and anti-aircraft troops and planes being slowly chewed up by the western allies. the infantry were of little value, and could be replaced by all sides, in numbers which put the great war to shame. it was the mechanised forces which broke the budget. similarly in the east the vast number of japanese troops sitting around in china were of less significance than the dozen crack divisions and thousands of aircraft being chewed up by the british and australian armies and the us navy respectively. > the most significant fact of the second world war was that numbers always collapsed in the face of technology. it took six to nine sherman tanks - sometimes more - to have a hope of beating a tiger tank; but six to nine low quality french or russian or italian or chinese infantry divisions had little chance of stopping a good armoured division. put elite troops against elite troops, or cheap infantry against cheap infantry, and you get stalemate and attrition. put elites against cheap, and you get blitzkrieg.
United Kingdom