The Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2

"M4 Sherman; it was outmatched by the Panther"The M4 Sherman had thinner armor. It was, however, a very mobile and mechanically reliable tank. The 75mm gun it was originally fitted with was a poor tank vs tank gun, however the British would begin mounting a much better 17 pounder gun, the 'firefly' varient in 1944, that could penerate German tank armor well. Most importantly, close to 45,000 Shermans would be produced during WWII compared to only 6,000 Panthers.While the shermans 1v1 were not as effective as the panther, their numbers gave them the ability to charge and overwhelm the enemy. Their only real weakness was armor. http://en.wikipedia.org..."Much more the Tiger." Only 1,369 tigers and 492 Tiger IIs were produced. The Tiger was a heavy tank and outclassed the sherman considerdably in both gun and armor. Although 1,500 of the new Tiger IIs were ordered, wikipedia explicity states allied bombing severely disurpted production: "1,500 Tiger IIs were ordered, but production was severely disrupted by Allied bombing.[23] Among others, five raids between 22 September and 7 October 1944 destroyed 95 percent of the floor area of the Henschel plant."From:http://en.wikipedia.org...So the soviets would have to face many more German tanks without the US, both because more would be produced without allied bombing and none would have to be sent to N. Africa, Italy, and the western front. Allied Counter to the Tigers:http://en.wikipedia.org...The M26 pershing was the allied heavy tank and superior to the Tigers in most ways. It would reach front front lines late in the war, however since D-day would be delayed and the war would be longer it would be able to play a much bigger part. If D-day was delayed one year the M26 would be there for it.Again, with allied air superiroirty Germany would have a much harder time using their tanks effecitvely against the allies than against the USSR. "the Germans had over 15, 000 88mm flak guns."It remains that bomber losses dropped considerably after 1943 once fighter cover had the range to support them. I've read books that state bomber losses dropped 75% with the introduction of the P-51. This suggests it was not flaks that were responsible for inflicting the majority of bomber losses.Those 88 mms were probably more effecitve as artillery, anti tank guns, and tank guns. "The P-51 was effectively countered by the German Me-262."Me 262 was not so much a counter to the P-51, but to allied bombers. The Me 262's 20 mms were best against slow armored targets like bomers.The Me 262 couldn't 'dog fight' P-51s either. While it was about 100 mph faster, it was far less manueverable and P-51s could escape it easily by turning if they saw it(it was loud, so they usually did). The Me 262s would typically use hit and run tactics against bombers avoiding the fighters. Me 262 also suffered from slow acceleration, and could be vulenrable if it lost its speed. Allied fighters could aslo match the Me 262s speed close enough to shoot them down if they dived from above, giving them a speed boost."by 1945 the war would be going on for several years and significant damage would be done to Ally air forces, and of course the production of the Me-262 would be increased."The most effective startegy used by the allies against the Me 262 and Luftwaffe was the 'rat catcher' strategy. It was because of this that ultimately defeat was inveitable for Germany against the US regardless of the Me-262. Long range allied planes would fly over German airfields and shoot down aircraft as they were landing or taking off. Sometimes P-51s would shoot down several Me-262s as they landed or took off. This is why the P-51 meant the death of the Luftwaffe, they could not hide or regroup and the allies could target them with a focused campaign when they were at their most vulnernable. In the meantime the bombings keep falling. Me 262 could go out to intercept, but everytime it did it ran the risk of being caught in in a vulnerable postion and shot down. 100s of Me-262s were shot down in this way. http://www.ww2f.com..."Although the Allies would defeat Germany's smaller allies, costing the Allies people, armor and most importantly, time. Time that Germany would very effectively use."Time is on the side of the allies, paticularly the US. Every month that passes means the disparity betweens the # of weapons the US has compared to Germans grows in the US's favor. The US has resources and means to build much more, Germany not nearly so much. German attempts to help their allies woud drain them of their much fewer resouces, deny them their allied support, and allow the US to threaten Germany itself from the south(Italy). Every extra front the US opens is fewer soldiers in France for an eventual D-day and liberation of France. (then free-french units added to the allies)"The US did help keep Japan off the USSR's back, but the opposite can be said as well."Not really, that happend so late in the war that it did not really affect any american efforts, and the pacific war was determined mostly by naval results. "The Germans weren't as against the Russians as the Russians were against the Germans."Arguably they were. Many Germans, espcially most in the army, were infleunced by Nazi ideology to see the Russians as sub-human, and under the control of an evil Jewish-bolshsevik conspiracy. The Nazis considered the USSR the ultimate evil. "Allies might want to just destroy Germany."Then that would leave a power vaccum for the USSR, which the allies did not want to see gain power. Conclusion:My arguement has sought to make it appear likely that the USSR would face defeat without other allies, paticularly the US, on which many allies depended on for aid. By doing so I hope to justifably take the postion that the USSR was not the 'decisive; settling the issue or deciding factor', country to the outcome of WWII. As the decisive country would imply it is the one whose particpation decides the outocme of the war over any other.To summarize the problems confronting the USSR without the US:-Lack of allies, without US aid UK and Chinese nationalist war efforts could crumble(freeing Japans armies), Italy would not be knocked out, USSR could possibly fight alone against a long list of Axis countries that surround it. -No USSR aid from US, without american aid USSR logistics would be reduced to horse drawn transport instead of modern motorized trucks(400,000 studebakers), the importance of this is massive as it allowed sustained large scale operations(like those that let them win at Stalingrad). Aid also included millions of tons of food that would prevent starving, clothes, and 1000s of tanks and warplanes and materials critical to the Soviet war effort. -Germany would not be strategically bombed, industrial output would be significantly higher and more German tanks, airplanes, guns for their war against the USSR. -Stronger German airforce as its majority is not being defeated in the west. Stronger air support for the Werhamct. Higher Soviet air losses. -Soviets would still have to fight to the gates of Moscow, lose over 4 million military casualties from Jun-Dec 1941 (barbarossa), and would lose most of the Soviet industiral areas. -Germany will fight to the death even more bitterly than it did. (no 8 million surrendering to the US for example)US had the follow advantages over Germany;-Naval superiority-Eventual air superiority, able to drop millions of bombs on Germany, blunt use of german armor and deny air support & recon. -Industry is 1,000s of miles away and out of reach of Axis.-Much higher manpower and #1 world indsutrial output (that was shared with china, Ussr, UK, France & other allies)-Atomic Bomb-Allies (UK, Chinese, most of S. America joins WWII alongside the US)-Less Enemies than USSR (no spain, finland etc), able to neutralize Italy(1944)-Germans will fight a less desperate war, more likely to surrender than vs USSR.