Don't know where to begin with Parsifal's specious reasoning
Not my reasoning, read Murray etal for the basis of the theory.
, except to say that the ultimate extension of such thinking would be to say that the Soviets would have won the war without the T-34 or KV or JS tanks, because they could have poured sufficient BT-7s and infantry into each attack, regardless of cost.
Ther is an obvious limit on obsolescence verus numbers. BT-7s were eventually used to good effet, once the tactical concepts that had led to their slaughter in the opening months had been worked out. The Romanians or the germans are perhaps a better example of how suposed obsolescence matters for little in winning battles. MkII and II tanks should have been slaughtered by T-34s, but were not. At Stalingrad, the Rumanian Mk 35 should have been wiped on the floor by the T-34/76s they faced, but were not. Why?. Because the tactical handling of those Axis formations was so superior.
WQith regard to the Russians, having settled on the T-34, for a while, the Russians enjoyed a technical superiority over their Axis counterparts. In that time they gained the necessary breathing space to gain experience and organaise and train competent mobile formations. by the time of Stalingrad that was generally the case, as the comments by manstein attest to. Then the Germans reacted, and introduced new and improved existing types that technically overtook the T-34 advantage. However, by that stage the Soviet formations were competent and the T-34 was good enough....a clear case of relying on numbers to achieve the desired outcome. If anything the examples you cite actually strengthen the case, that in the end its the numbers that count. sure you need equipment that is at least competitive, but when you start to chase the technology God at the expense of everything, you are on the clear road to defeat. Small to medium advantages in tech dont amount to much. It becomes a problem when the performance difference is so great that no amount of skill or numbers will win the day.
Why bother with the Yak-9 or La-5 7 because enough LaGG 3s would have eventually overwhelmed the German fighters?
In point of fact, the soviets never bested the German fighters, be they LAGG-3, Yak-9s or whatever. At an early stage the Soviets realized this, and also realized that gaining air superiority does not necessarily mean winning the fighter combats, or that air superiority is necessary to affect the outcome of the overall campaign. Particularly in the wide exapanses of the Eastern Front. Soviet Fighters were there for a dual primary purpose....to try and keep their Sturmoviks alive long enough to provide the decisive firepower at the point of breakthrough , and secondly to make it costly enough for the german strike aircraft to not make a difference. In this they were singulalry successful, which explains why LAGG-3 units were still extant in 1944, and I-16 units stil operating in 1943. With that philosophy it mattered not whether your people were flying the best, or the 2nd best, either approach would succeed if you had the numbers. and the Soviets, depite a weaker industrial base than the Germans always had the numbers.
Novikov, the head of the VVS during the war, incidentally agrees and subscribes to "my" theory.
Similarly all the Americans needed to do was churn out enough P-40s and F4Fs because it was too expensive to develop the P-51B/C series and the F6F.
P-51 is a different matter, because there were no long range escorts available to take the fight to Germany. If the technology doesnt exist, you need to invest the time and effort.
In the case of the F4F versus the F6f, there is a clear advantage of the F6f because of its enhanced ground strike capability and air combat capability...but otherwise you have to weigh up the obvious benefits of the F6F against its overall cost to the war effort. How much less capable was the f4F to the F6F at killing Japanese, or more pertinantly, defending the fleet from enemy attack. I again ask the hypothetical question, which none of you are willing to tackle....which is the better option...500 Hellcats or 900 Wildcats (hypothertical figures). I think the Wildcat was a good enough killing machine and its ability to be there in greater numbers will offset its lesser performance.
It would have meant accepting far higher casualties in trained pilots and aircrew
Absolutely no evidence to support that Im afraid. If the Wildcats are there in greater numbers, the japanese are going to be more worried than ever in tactical situations because they are still vulnerable to wildcats as they are to F6Fs, and there are likley to be more F4Fs in the "low tech" scenario.
- but eventually quantity would win and, hey, if it means more blood is spilled, at least you're saving money.
Absolutely not. Numbers save lives, not costs lives. Provided your equipment is competitive....and thats the great risk...if you languish at the bottom end of the tech tree, you risk outright obsolescence....then what do you do other than get yourself shot down and lose wars.
And in wars, the individuals survival counts for nothing sorry to say. its about national survival...how best to ensure the national interest....numbers or quality...forget the survival of the individual, they count for nothing in war
Thankfully for all of us America could afford both quantity and quality, and, thankfully for the USN, a mere 500 Hellcats were more than enough to destroy the JNAF at a low cost in casualties. I'll bet every USN fighter pilot thought the F6F was worth it.
Thankfully, wars are not run by pilots. unfair, but a cold reality. Wars are fought by the nations leaders and its generals and admirals. I think the war would have ended 6-12 months earlier without the Hellcat, if decisions in 1939-40 had been made to upgrade the Wildcat and build more carriers. Instead of a single fleet with 500 Hellcats in 1944 destroying the Japanese, the USN could well have had one fleet with 500 Wildcats in 1943, and another by early 1944. Thats the dividend. im not saying have the same number of Wildcats, Im saying from the savings made not designing and developing the Hellcat, one may well have 4 or 5 additional Carriers and a fully worked up attack fleet from the middle of 1943, instead of the end of 1943.
Its about building up momentum faster and in greater strength.