Spectre04 wrote: As far as Pilots, Japan, Germany, Britain,and even Russia had very good pilots.
This link gives you a list of WWII aces, sorted by number of victories. The top non-German ace on that list is Ilmari Juutilainen of Finland, with 94 victories. Juutilainen is pilot #122 on that list: there are 121 Germans in front of him. The top 200 contains four non-Germans: two pilots from Finland (including Juutilainen) and two from Japan.
To return to the subject of the OP: one way of measuring infantry training levels is combat effectiveness. According to a study done by the U.S. military, American infantry were 80 - 100% as combat-effective as their German counterparts. Another study performed by the U.S. military suggests that may have been an overestimate; and that American infantry were no more effective than British infantry. The latter were 50% as combat-effective as the Germans. Soviet infantry were 20 - 33% as combat-effective as the Germans, with the higher number being the more likely. The study suggested that Italian infantry may have been less combat-effective than the Soviets, but did not go into detail. Unfortunately, the study did not examine the combat-effectiveness of Finnish, Canadian, Australian, or Japanese infantry.
The U.S. typically achieved a 2:1 - 4:1 exchange ratio in its land battles against Japan. A large part of that was undoubtedly due to America’s superior industrial strength. For example, Japan produced 7,000 artillery pieces during WWII, compared to 257,000 artillery pieces for the U.S.. But those favorable (for the Americans) exchange ratios may not have been based on industrial production alone. Japanese banzai attacks were very similar in philosophy and execution to French “elan” style bayonet attacks used in 1914. During WWI, the French painfully learned that it does not make sense to issue bayonets to your own soldiers, and ask them to charge enemy machine guns. The Japanese use of such tactics during WWII suggests they were less advanced in their understanding of land war (and hence, probably had less advanced training techniques) than most other major powers of the era. Japanese understanding of land war became more sophisticated as the war progressed.