Culmination Point

[wm]

The outcomes of battles are difficult to predict: wars, not so much. When both sides have a strategy of chewing up the other side's planes, tanks and infantry, (WWII) Hitler's chances of victory became pretty slim once the US fired up its factories.

You've already skewed the analysis. It was not at all clear in 1940 that the US would become the arsenal of democracy. The US might also have changed its plan in 1943 and elected to negotiate with the Germans. (I suspect we were in a fight to the end with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but that same level of animosity was not as present WRT Germany--ulike in WWI.)

Despite Hannibal's tactical brilliance at killing roman soldiers, the fact that both sides had the same strategy - kill the other sides soldiers - and the fact that Italy had so many more people than Carthage made an Italian victory almost inevitable.

Again this only became inevitable after the end of the period of Fabian delay, and the Roman decision to invade Tunisia. After Cannhae or Lake Trasimene, I do not think the outcome was so inevitable.

I will agree, however, that inevitable is a word that can only be used in hindsight. Just because Hitler never had an atomic bomb, doesn't mean that in 1943 it was possible to say that he never would. And I'm sure that if Hannibal had gotten his hands on gunpowder he would've figured out how to use it effectively. You can never assume that the playing field won't change.

Nor can you assume that the aims of those on either side of the playing field won't also change, in either a rational or less than rational way. This latter was my main point.