Oh, REALLY?!?
One point to consider, whether the discussion is about WWII Springfields, or Civil War Henrys. Your soldiers don't need a better weapon that the enemy has, they just need as good a one.
By THAT logic, the P-51 Mustang and F4U Corsair need never have been fielded. The Allies could have won the war by producing huge quantities of Supermarine Spitfires and P-40 Warhawks, and writing off downed airplanes as "acceptable losses". Wanna try and sell THAT to the troops?
The U.S. tried that philosophy with their tanks, producing almost 50,000 M3 Sherman tanks (Known to the armored units as Rossignols, b/c they "lit the first time, every time" when hit by enemy fire), well past their obsolescence. The result was a lot of U.S. tank crews killed by Germans (or Murdered by allied war-planners, take your pick) needlessly, because some desk-bound, pencil-pushing CHAIRborne commando in logistics decided that "good enough" should replace "BESt available", since the former could be made in wholesale quantities. Such a mentality borders on the criminal. If I recall correctly, U.S. tank crews expected to lose 2 M3s for each Panther, 3 M3s for every Tiger I, and FIVE M3s for every King Tiger they defeated. I'm not very sure that someone could get me inside an M3 tank AT GUNPOINT, with odds like that.
The U.S. Army Air Corps had that mindset when they flooded the skies over Germany with B-17s, and German Flak and Fighters sent them down in large numbers, making the "25 Mission Rule" obscenely laughable. If memory serves, it wasn't until Curtis LeMay revamped their bomber TACTICS (note that I did NOT say "LOGISTICS") that bomber crew losses dropped substantially. Further reductions were obtained when P-47s were equipped with drop-tanks, and when said P-47s were replaced with the P-51 Mustangs.
Perhaps professionals DO focus on logistics, but I suspect that none of them worth their pay IGNORES tactics. Not entirely, anyway.
Weren't the BRITS the best professional army in the world, when what would become the U.S.A. fielded a rag-tag unprofessional largely volunteer army against them and won?
Seems I ALSO remember hearing about a southeast asian conflict in which peasants and farmers, equipped with decidedly inferior arms and only the most rudimentary logistical structure sent a certain superpower packing with a focus on small-unit tactics (IN-theater) and propaganda strategy (In U.S.). I'm NOT seeing a great deal of logistical hedgemony attributed to the "comrades", when the conflict is discussed.
.44 AMP, I hope you'll rewatch "Saving Private Ryan" again, especially the part where Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) allegedly takes out the tank with a .45. If you look closely, you SHOULD see an allied fighter airplane soaring over the tank after it explodes, which suggests that the tank was taken out by an aerial bomb (Perhaps a 2.36" rocket? Can't remember).
Lastly, didn't SOME Marine units in the Pacific theater start the war with M1941 Johnson rifles and LMGs (belt-fed), which held 10 rounds of .30-06 in an en-bloc magazine which could be fed from Springfield '03 stripper clips? I've never shot a Johnson rifle, so there may be something I'm missing, but it sure seemed like a better system than the Garand and B.A.R., which shared ammunition and nothing else.