Oh gosh, in the same sentence you claim the presence of air support, then excuse the Germans because of the fog.
Guess what, fog = no air support.
The days there was air support the Germans got hammered, the days without for the variety of reasons (no recon elements, lack of fuel, lack of training, poor visibility etc.) the fog negated any advantages they had in equipment and amplified all the advantages of the defenders. So your point about no air support and Panthers meaning the Germans had an advantage in the situation was simply not true.
Yes, during the overall operation there were on-and-off air support, on good-weather days.
Indeed, but outside the area where there was good weather the Germans got hammered on the way to the battle and any cohesion for the 'army' disrupted. Then in the battle space the Germans were blinded by the bad weather and lack of recon elements, so were caught in multiple ambushes as a result.
On the key day, though, the one chosen by the Germans for their operation, there was no air support, and the Germans were pretty happy for the fog - they thought it favored them. Naturally today, after they were soundly beaten, it's a factor favoring the enemy.
Exactly, they were far too inexperienced to know better and thought that not having napalm and rockets dropped on them was the lesser evil. It is certainly debateable which was worse, because they got the worst of both worlds.
As to the Germans being badly trained and rather inexperienced troops - yes. Exactly. That's the point. By that time in the war, that German unit was close to representing the average of the German army, due to the casualties suffered. There were veteran units that fared better - and they were few and far in between, a minority. On the contrary, the US unit involved was experienced - and it was close to representing the average of the US armored units by that time. Winning helps in developing experience.
So what is the point then of this 'proving' the US was better? This was the point after the Germans fell off a cliff more than the Americans had come of age (though to some degree they had, but they really reached peak experience/skill in 1945).
Well, the Soviets had the T-34 and they did win...
Apart from that, I'm not the one glorifying hardware, ever. The point is that fans of Germany can't claim the poor Germans at Arracourt had inferior equipment. When the German tanks beat the much thicker French tanks in 1940, then that's all to the merit of German tankers. When the US tanks beat the much thicker German tanks in 1944, oh, it's because of air support and of the fog, at the same time. That, and the poor German tankers had the sun in their eyes too.
They didn't win in 1941, the survived and it wasn't because of the T-34. Actually a decent book on that exact argument was written relatively recently:
https://www.amazon.com/T-34-Mythical-Weapon-Robert-Michulec/dp/0978109104
You could certainly write the same book for the Panther.
You can't claim Arracourt is proof that the German equipment was poor because the weather negated the benefits of it as did the lack of training/experience of the formation, plus the lack of critical elements of combined arms within the German units. The thing with 1940 is that the Germans tankers didn't really beat the French tanks, it was air support, an operational plan that worked, 88mm guns, special AT units, etc. I wouldn't give the German tankers credit specifically, more like combined arms, massive operational/strategic luck due to the Allies walking into a trap perfectly as planned by the Germans to the point that Guderian was able to recycle training orders with dates and times changed, and a huge variety of French defects including in armor design. In fact if you look at the head-to-head engagements in Belgium French tanks, despite their deficiencies actually preformed really well all things considered. The French troops get too much shit IMHO for 1940 than they deserve, though their leadership deserves all the blame and more.
In the late 1944 situation the success of the Allies is as much to do with German attrition as Allied still by that point, for which most credit goes to the Soviets. In the air though the US really deserves a massive amount of credit for going head to head with the Luftwaffe and grinding it to pieces. Without a doubt in the air the USAAF was the best air force in the world by 1944 and it earned that title in brutal combat and took the belt from the shattered body of the Luftwaffe.
Yeah. So, do you remember what was the point I was objecting to? If you agree with me that for 1944, that defeat was normal given the shape of the German army, then you'll understand that point was simply wrong.
I assume this is the point you're referring to:
If we're judging armies, then if an army manages to force its enemy to fight on unequal, unfair terms, and wins thanks to that, that's the best army.
If that is the case then you should know that the reason battles like Arracourt were fought when and where they were in 1944 by the forces they were was because Hitler was pushing his forces to do incredibly dumb shit; that isn't the Americans forcing the Germans to fight there, that is higher command orders from a mentally deranged dictator ordering crazy plans and refusing the advice of his own generals (who had their share of flaws of course).