I asked a question that I've since deleted, pending feedback here on meta, since it was heavily downvoted and received several votes to close.
I believe that the actual question was ok. My understanding was that the votes to close were because the question was opinion based. My further belief is that was true of the "real" question I wanted to ask, but not the question I actually asked.
The "real" question was if the American army of 1944 had stood in place of the French army of 1940, would the allies have still been defeated by the Germans? That goes into hypotheticals, alternate history, etc., which is why I didn't ask it that way.
The question I actually asked started something like the following: In 1940, the French army of 2.2 million men, x tanks, and y planes was defeated by the Germans. In 1944, the Americans fielded 2.5 million men, x1 tanks and y1 planes (I don't know the values for x1 and y1, except I'm pretty sure that they were larger than x and y.) The question then was how did the American army of 1944 stack up to the French army of 1940. The implication was that unless the American army of 1944 was much stronger than the French army of 1940, the allies would have been defeated. Probably it would have taken a combination of American, British, and French armies (all at peak strength) to beat the Germans in 1940.
There were some excellent comments about the fact that the German army of 1944 was a shadow of its 1940 self because most of it had been lost in Russia, and another that (allied) tank doctrine had improved after France 1940. Those were fine answers to my "real" question.
But to limit its scope, is a question about the ways the numerically equivalent American army of 1944 differed (presumably in a positive way) from the defeated French army of 1940 appropriate for the site?