The battle of Conoco fields says you're wrong.
And we weren't talking about armor and tanks, we were talking about artillery.
That is why a single F35 can conduct a more effective bombing mission than 1000 WWII B17s
In fact, a single flight by a single F35 can do what would take all 1000 of those B17s flying half a dozen times to do.
Now, admittedly an F35 needs a lot more support than a B17, and it's pilot a lot more training than a B17 crewman.
But, not 6000 times as much.
So, you are out ahead.
People all seem to forget that modern warfare is all about logistics. Tactics and even strategy are solved problems.
So, if you are responsible for logistics, do you want to transport 100,000 artillery shells, or 50 smart munitions?
You're making a lot of correct points. I'm not disputing everything you say.
But to make the same WW2 comparison on another level, many instances of the military specifically not calling in airstrikes on things like machine gun nests because it was not an efficient use of air power it was cost prohibitive.
Fast forward to Ukraine are you going to waste a 1 million dollar smart munition to kill 4 guys in a trench bunker or are you going to lob a few cheap dumb artillery shells or a cheap 20k drone?
Atacms and smart munitions are great for targeting command and control centers and supply depots or armor but not the best usage for small units.
Who is building more of the cheap 20k$ drones?