@BusDespres and anyone else who thinks Canada hasn't influenced any wars. Let's look at them again shall we?
WWI: produced 1/3 of allied artillery shells, put in more man hours at the front than the US, were used as the British Empire's assult troops (along with the Australian's and Kiwi's) and took key positions in the German line (second battle of Ypres, the Somme, Passchendale, and Vimy are just examples where the Canadians held the hardest part of the line for all or part of the battle).
WWII: provided half the cover for convoys to Britain which kept Britain in the fight before the US even joined, again used as assult troops (Italty, and D-day being the best examples), after Dunkirk was the only fully armed division in the whole British Isles, provided many of the "so few" pilots during the Battle of Britain.
I'm not trying to nominate the Canadian armed forces (even though our joint task force is pretty amazing and holds all the in-combat sniping records, including shots over three kms), I'm just saying our own media knocks our armed forces enough so you don't need to start.
@warsprite. Although the US did produce huge amounts of war material in both wars, much of it wasn't used in the descive part of the wars. Most US divisions weren't fully armed or trained when they arrived in 1917-18, and by the time they were equiped and ready, the German army had already sustianed to many loses in the March Offensive (1918) and the "Black Day of the Germany Army". Essentially, I'm saying the US helped speed up the war, but Germany had already lost.
In the Second World War, the US admittedly did more, but wikipedia is wrong on this one. The USSR had more tanks than the US, but, I'll agree with your reasoning with the ships and trucks. Again however, as has already been pointed out Stalingrad was the black day of the Germany army in this war. It was the Russian tanks that took Berlin. You can argue that it was because Hilter had two fronts to defend, but the US only made up half of one front. Sure, we don't know how this war would have ended without the US, but you can't say they were the number one reason for allied victory in Europe. They did a lot in the Pacific, but I'd like to point out they refused British and other allied ships to help in large numbers, but I digress.
Essentually, why should the US be near the top of the greatest militaries of all time if they needed major help from their allies to defeat one country? Wouldn't that make the German military miles ahead for being able to last as long as they did massively undermanned and undersupplied?
I think that to be the greatest you have to do it alone, or be outmanned and outsupplied, to be truly the greatest.