Great summary, two comments, one minor, one less so.
First, the 17-pounder was a 76.2mm gun. 90mm guns weren't hitting the inventory until the M26 Pershing tank and M36 TD.
Second, in your artillery comparison, while the Soviets had a huge advantage in artillery tube count, it was the sophisticated U.S. fire control systems that really gave our artillery its advantage. This is a case where quality can be a big win over quantity, since you can get a similar effect with many fewer tubes, and not have the maneuver and logistical difficulties entailed with so many more tubes.
Otherwise, you're spot-on.
Thanks.
I was under the impression the 17-pounder was a 90mm, but I guess I'm wrong. My bad, and thanks for the correction.
I did mention the fire control superiority of American artillery, but followed up with the extreme ammunition shortages of late 44 into 45. My assertion was that while Patton would have enjoyed a wonderfully superior weapon in his artilelry, he would not have had sufficient ammo to make effective use of it, particularly against the huge, massed formations the Russians would have thrown at him, and that with such a material shortage, the Russian advantage in numbers would have conspired against him.
Any technically superior weapon (or system) can be overcome if there are simply more targets than they are capable of firing at, or, if there are more targets than can be engaged with insufficient ammo. Had that been the case, Patton's superior artillery would have been sitting ducks for Russian counterbattery fire supplied by all those numerically-superior (but technically inferior) Russian tubes.
As for the logistical problems, that works both ways. However, the Russians had the manpower to overcome many of them, and would have been operating with ridiculously short, interior supply lines, while Patton was still tethered to the factories of America over 4,000 miles away.