[BlueLancer]

"Modern airplains are fearsomely expensive and complex creatures to build. The higher tech a system becomes, the longer it takes to build."

Also, as I remember my reading, a single modern bomber can accomplish, with more accuracy and, as a result, more pin-point lethality, than a WWII bomber wing. High tech automatically results in requiring less quantity (although, as they say, quantity has a quality of its own). A modern rifle platoon can now cover the front of one or two old-style companies. Ships, planes, and armored vehicles take longer to build, are more difficult to maintain, are hideously more expensive, but are exponentially more effective and destructive than their counterparts from even the '60s and '70s.

I would much rather be buttoned up in an M1A2 Abrams than those motorized-zippo lighter Shermans or Stuarts. I would much rather have a single B-2 or A-10 overhead for fire support than a wing of Flying Fortresses or Liberators.

[AndrewSshi]

Also, as I remember my reading, a single modern bomber can accomplish, with more accuracy and, as a result, more pin-point lethality, than a WWII bomber wing. High tech automatically results in requiring less quantity (although, as they say, quantity has a quality of its own). A modern rifle platoon can now cover the front of one or two old-style companies. Ships, planes, and armored vehicles take longer to build, are more difficult to maintain, are hideously more expensive, but are exponentially more effective and destructive than their counterparts from even the '60s and '70s.

Thanks for bringing up that point as well (which I didn't think of having typed the thing on the fly on my way out the door). Hell, the weight of a single bomb carried on an F-117A is IIRC equivallent to the bombload of one of the WWII bombers.