Granted the German Army as a WHOLE was more effective then the Allied when compared over 6 years of war. The main reason for this was small unit leadership and adaptability. However we are talking 1944-45 when the quality of German units varied hugely. This image of them all being better than their opponents is quite simply BS.There is nothing fantasizing about attributing Germans with fighting harder than the Allies (probably equal to the British and Commonwealth). That was simply the impression that the commanders themselves recorded. The reasons for it? I'm not completely sure.
Whenever the Germans attacked they came off worse than Allied attacks - the Lorraine fighting and the destruction the Panzer Brigades in September 1944 illustrates this. The so-called past masters of armoured warfare were proved to be no such thing. Badly organised attacks, amateurish tactical errors, piece meal deployments lead to the complete destruction of some of the best equipped units on the Western Front at that time.
As previously discussed the Germans were for the most part defending and when they attacked they came off badly (Mortain, Caen, Lorraine, Ardennes). The Soviet army nearly always managed to put up 'quite a fight' when on the defensive. Do you think that they were better soldiers than the German counterparts becuase of this?But one thing we can't dismiss is that despite knowledge of the impending loss the Germans managed to pull off quite a fight. I believe your accusations are unfounded considering you already admit to the fighting skill of the average American GI.
And the comparison with the US Army vs the British is not down to 'fighting skill'. It's down to a more professional attitude, experience and fitness. However if both armies ever had to expand greatly in size they would begin to converge in terms of 'fighting skill'.