No.

It's funny how the author harps directly on the Battle of Hurtgen Forest as a "non-Hollywood friendly" battle, seeing as this particular battle was showcased in the Band of Brothers miniseries (episode 6, I believe). Regardless, this author backs up his argument against conscription with one thin, secondhand, anecdotal source that comes from a very specific era in time: the Vietnam War, when conscription became extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons, primarily the Education deferment and the faraway nature of an unending war. So let's examine the quoted argument, shall we?

It's funny that this author implies that conscription dragged forth the "unwilling and the weak" from American society when the supposedly "elite" Wehrmacht relied equally on conscription to fill its ranks. Indeed, by 1944 and 1945, the Wehrmacht was in large part made up of the the "unwilling and the weak" in order to fill the gaps inflicted by the obscenely large losses on the Eastern Front. But never mind that; obviously the Germans compensated for this somehow with their martial prowess and discipline, right?

Well, not really. In Studs Terkel's The Good War (and I'm quoting from memory here, so you'll forgive the vagueness of this quote), several U.S. soldiers remember being treated roughly as equals by the Germans, with the general feeling being that they gave as good as they got and regarded American and British soldiers in about the same way. Hardly the contempt one would expect of a supposedly far superior army, no? In fact, we have fantastic examples of how the Germans treated prisoners and soldiers of nations they held in contempt: look at how Red Army soldiers were treated upon capture. The disdain that courses through German accounts of defeating Soviet formations is palpable, often along the lines of "how pathetic, they gave up so easily". Nowhere have I come across equivalent sentiment directed at U.S. soldiers.

Consider, also, that the average U.S. soldier was better equipped, fed, and supported than the average German soldier. For instance, the standard issue rifle for G.I.s was the M1 Garand, which fired on semi-auto and could kick out an entire clip in the time it took for a German soldier to fire one or two rounds from his World War I vintage K98. American soldiers were given access to all the food that could be shipped across the Atlantic, as well, where the German infantryman had to rely on food coming from the increasingly choked rail lines of the Fatherland (a result of Allied bombings), assuming that the stores had not been diverted to the Eastern Front or to southern France or to the U-Boats or perhaps been overrun by the Russians. Most importantly of all, American infantrymen had access to tanks and artillery and air support that - even if they were unable to beat their German equivalents head-on - generally didn't have the problems of running out of fuel or shells or being irreplaceable once lost or destroyed.

Even discounting all of that, however, let me ask you one thing: if the German military was so much "better" than the U.S. Army, then how did we end up in control of half of Germany at the end of the war?

tl;dr: This author's definition of a "fair fight" is awfully selective, and he uses his factually unsupported opinion to advance a politically suspect ideology.

Edit: words are hard.

The US infantry in western Europe had a few problems, that is true. It consisted mostly of green troops that had not been in battle before. US infantry doctrine was over-reliant on the firepower of the individual infantryman and did not rely on machineguns. The US light machinegun, the BAR, did not have a rapidly interchangable barrel and were few in numbers. SMGs were used as a replacement for the pistol, mostly for rear echelon troops instead of a way to increase the firepower of the squad.

As a comparison, a US infantry battalion, June 1944, should have;

• 20 SMGs.

• 6 HMGs (.50).

• 14 GPMG (.30).

• 27 LMG (BAR, although this is not a true LMG, since it is uncapable of sustained fire).

• 81 Rifle grenade launchers.

• 6 Medium mortars (81mm).

• 9 Light mortars (60mm).

A German infantry battalion, June 1944, should have;

• 124 SMGs.

• 55 MGs (MG34 or MG42).

• 4 Heavy mortars (120mm).

• 6 Medium mortars (81mm).

The German battalion had dropped rifle grenade launchers and light mortars as too ineffective, and had increased the firepower by addind more MGs that could produce sustained covering fire and massive amounts of SMGs.

In General, the German infantry battalion, with auftragstaktik and usually a more solid training, often long experience and a stronger focus on MGs, heavy mortars and SMGs would be superior in a fight just between two infantry battalions, especially since the US battalion would most likely be green.

But, as has been stated earlier here, there's never a "fair" fight. The US had air superiority, one of the best logistics organisations in the world behind itself, superb (and I mean that it outclassed every other nation, with Finland and Britain as second a bit behind) artillery support.

In general, the US infantry man was better supplied, had not as good training, less experience and a doctrine that most likely was a dead end (rifle firepower instead of MG firepower - the US did add proper MG firepower after the war), had much, much, much better artillery support, had more tank and armoured vehicle support and much, much, much more air support than his German counterpart.