It’s the right question, because its how the Russians eventually beat the Germans. The Russians churned out 1000’s of cheap tanks, while the Germans churned out dozens of very good, very expensive tanks with better range.
Quantity has a quality all its own. We’ve also made this aviation mistake before - eschewing dogfighting - thinking that dogfighting was a thing of the past.
The F-22 is a scary airplane. It can kill other aircraft before it shows up on the other guy’s radar. It’s a good weapon for what it does. Maybe it needs to be accompanied by cheaper dogfighters.
Thank you. Good point. Someone else mentioned B1-Bs, saying they carry up to 100 air to air missiles, that can be slaved. Now that’s an interesting option.
Actually, the Russkis had better tanks than the Germans, such as the KV-12 and the T-34. The German tank pitted against the T-34 was the PKW-III with a 37mm or 50mm main gun. They had to change the role of the PKW-IV and equip it with a “long” 75mm to match it.
The PKW-V Panther was an attempt to copy the T-34 but Germans screwed it up by making it over complicated. The T-34-85 was probably the best tank of the war, in terms of numbers and capabilities.
What the Germans had was a DOCTRINE that used tanks in a more effective way than any of of their opponents, not to mention a radio transceiver in every tank (In Soviet tanks, only the platoon leader had a transceiver - the rest had receivers only, if they had radios...). They were able mass their firepower against the “decisive point” better than anyone else. The Russians eventually put an end to this with superior quantities of equipment. German fuel shortages did not help, either.
I've seen it happen time and time again in business the same as in government: Managers just continue to look for the "one size fits all" solution, when what is needed is a balanced approach.
Life and conflict are very rarely "either/or" situations; rather, success comes from having combinations of both.