>>27745702This.
I don't care what rifle your soldiers are using during WWII unless its semiauto vs bolt action.
Caliber literally doesn't matter. What matters is that your side has plenty of bullets and the enemy doesn't have enough.
This applies to everything:
Tiger vs Sherman:
Clearly the Tiger is a better overall tank in every regard except maybe mechanical reliability (depends on who you ask).
Guess what? The Germans only had a few thousand tigers and thought the allies had a Gorillion shermans, unfortunately for them they miscounted because the allies had an ORANGUTAN DICK MILLION of them.
Planes:
Germany had some cutting edge designs and arguably some of the best planes.
The allies had more to throw at them. Particularly bombers equipped with you guessed it a shit ton of bombs.
Economies of scale trump most things in war.
Better men and equipment will win some battles, but eventually the country with more shit to throw at the fight and the willingness to throw it at it will win.
The counter example of Vietnam fits into this category:
The US had better equipment and certainly had more shit to throw at the conflict if we wanted, but we were not willing to sacrifice the level of men/equipment/money we would have had to to win.
If we really wanted to we could have just carpet bombed the country out of existence and claimed victory, but
1. it would not be politically/diplomatically advantageous in any way
2. We didn't want to waste the money and men to do it
