> us troops were usually as highly mechanised as the british from when they entered the war (the lightweight marine division at guadalcanal being a possible exception  but then it was an elite force in its own right). while the germans could continue to find high quality units to deploy against them  which pretty much meant up until the collapse of the german armies in normandy  the americans found themselves, like the british, reduced to sheer attrition by numbers. only where they had the chance to sweep up large numbers of lower quality troops  as in the end in north africa and france and germany, did their ability to indulge in blitzkreig came into affect. (the same forces deployed on the eastern front would have been indulging in blitzkreigs much earlier.) > so the whole argument of comparing numbers becomes ridiculous. the vast japanese army in china was not held by massive chinese efforts, it was just an immobile mass in its own right. the vast hordes of infantry of either side wandering around the russian plains, were in fact little more than second rate garrisons waiting to be swept away by whichever side next concentrated a high tech strikeforce. the real count of what was going on, was where the elite were being engaged.
United Kingdom