Clearly the guy is reading some revisionist history. Pound for pound actually the least effective fighting forces were the Soviets. But like Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own". So even though the Soviets took horrendous casualties, they managed to win anyway. The US fighting style was very different. We tended to make the enemy die more than us.
Take for example the battle of the bulge against "Germany's finest" elite picked troops. 75,000 American casualties and 100,000 German casualties.
Compare to the battle of Kursk. Soviet total casualties amounted to 685,456 men. German losses about 50,000 killed or missing and 134,000 wounded.
During the campaign to take Guadalcanal, the Allied losses numbered around 7,100 men, 29 ships, and 615 aircraft. Japanese casualties were approximately 31,000 killed, 1,000 captured, 38 ships, and 683-880 aircraft.
So "pound for pound" it is clear. The US forces were some of the best. Owing of course to equipment and supply mostly. But also to doctrinal differences.
Best way to describe it is that US troops were quite capable of turning and running away, regrouping and fighting again within minutes or hours, even when not rallied by a leader. Most other country's troops either had no retreat order like the Japanese, or when they did break, they stayed broke for days, weeks or even forever. So US troops ease for breaking is a bit unjustified. It was just a military doctrinal difference. And by the way a type of difference that resulted in the troops being near impossible to defeat. You could break the lines over and over and they would just reform. It's very difficult to defeat an enemy like that unless you have HUGE overwhelming superiority.
