I am not talking about some sort of kill ratio based on bogus body counts. If the WP air forces have 2.5x the number of aircraft the NATO forces do and they lose aircraft at 3x (or greater) rate than NATO does, the NATO air forces are the last man standing. Likewise with tanks, soldiers etc. This is the whole essence of the quality versus quantity argument. The whole concept of NATO conventional defense was the ability to have a kill ratio such that the Soviets would not end up winning by sheer numbers and make using nukes a necessity - NATO had a use nukes quickly strategy early on but over time tried to be able to do well enough to avoid nukes.
You can argue that, in this specific example, that NATO air forces would not be able to put enough WP aircraft out of action (shot down, trashed on the ground, stuck on bases with trashed runways, or even grounded due to lack of fuel/munitions) to overcome the numerical advantage that the WP had. Saying that "kill ratios", as defined here, are not relevant is incorrect.
Let me emphasize that while the term "kill ratio" is used, this is somewhat inaccurate as troops that are captured, or troops isolated where they do no good (like Japanese garrisons on various islands in WWII), troops wounded or equipment severely damaged so as to be out of the fight either permanently or for a very long period of time are functionally "killed". This is important - just think of early on in Barbarossa where hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were captured and functionally "dead" as far as any use to the USSR, or the large number of British/Commonwealth troops taken at Singapore, or US forces in the PI. In these cases the ratio of actual dead is less impressive, but add in the number of forces permanently removed from the battlefield and the ratio is more impressive.
You can argue that, in this specific example, that NATO air forces would not be able to put enough WP aircraft out of action (shot down, trashed on the ground, stuck on bases with trashed runways, or even grounded due to lack of fuel/munitions) to overcome the numerical advantage that the WP had. Saying that "kill ratios", as defined here, are not relevant is incorrect.
Let me emphasize that while the term "kill ratio" is used, this is somewhat inaccurate as troops that are captured, or troops isolated where they do no good (like Japanese garrisons on various islands in WWII), troops wounded or equipment severely damaged so as to be out of the fight either permanently or for a very long period of time are functionally "killed". This is important - just think of early on in Barbarossa where hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were captured and functionally "dead" as far as any use to the USSR, or the large number of British/Commonwealth troops taken at Singapore, or US forces in the PI. In these cases the ratio of actual dead is less impressive, but add in the number of forces permanently removed from the battlefield and the ratio is more impressive.