When it comes to war, having more advanced technology isn't always an advantage.
This is true especially in cases of bad cost to effect ratio of advanced technology.
Take example of Nazi Germany. In WW2, Nazi Germany had best tanks. In any one on one scenario, Panther and Tiger II tanks of Nazi Germany would win almost always against any Soviet tank in Soviet arsenal.
So how did Soviets win the tank battle then???
Panther maybe was best tank 1 on 1, but that was also it's biggest weakness.
Panther, due to being very advanced technologically, took too long to produce, and it was expensive.
Because of that, by the time 1 panther arrived on battlefield, about 5 to 10 Soviet tanks would arrive.
And the same amount of money used to make 1 panther could make 10 soviet tanks.
Despite being better 1 on 1, the cost of production and low speed of production made it essentially guaranteed enemy will have far greater tank numbers on the battlefield.
Same applies to fighter planes. Nazi Germany had by far, and I do really mean by far, best fighter planes on battlefield.
They were the first to develop jet fighters, which outperformed any plane which was in existence back then.
Problem? They only had like 20 jet fighters going against thousands of enemy planes. Jet fighters didn't even have enough ammo to take out all the enemies.
Jet fighters were by far most superior 1 on 1 aircraft in existence, but they were also far more costly, far more difficult to produce, far slower to produce, far slower to actually be put on battlefield.
Because of this, they were very low in number when they appeared.
Nazi Germany likewise was first to develop long range rockets, rockets which could be fired from Germany and hit Britain.
Problem? The amount of rockets actually needed to make a difference was a lot greater than amount of rockets Germany actually had.
So despite having better technology in almost all areas of war at the time, Nazi Germany lost by far.
Maybe if Nazi Germany developed nuclear or atomic weapons, there would have been some bigger change.
However, the technology they were developing always had these characteristics:
1. It was expensive
2. It was slow to produce
3. It didn't have sufficient numbers
4. It didn't have sufficient impact on the battlefield
Despite being most advanced technology on the battlefield, at same time it was losing badly on that same battlefield, because enemy could simply outnumber it with cost-efficient technology.
And now we arrive to modern battlefield, where once again cost efficiency is one of most important things in question.
What is cost efficiency?
Cost efficiency is reducing the amount of resources and time needed to make same effect.
It is one of most important things, because if something is not cost efficient, it will be outnumbered and out sustained.
Best example of this are drones.
Drones by all standards are just smaller pilot-less versions of WW2 planes. They have propeller, they carry a bomb, they move slow, they are no match for modern jet fighters in any 1 vs 1 scenario.
So why are drones dominating the battlefield???
Because it's cheaper to produce 10000 drones than one modern jet fighter.
New generation jet fighters have their cost rise to billions.
Compared to that, drone can cost less than 10,000$.
So one could make 10000 drones before one makes just 1 jet fighter.
Also, the problem with modern jet fighters, and why they are being outperformed by WW2 style mini aircraft, is also effect.
Modern jet fighters don't have any big effect on the battlefield.
They carry few rockets and also a machine gun, and maybe few bombs.
By comparison, 10000 drones will always cause bigger damage to enemy than 1 modern jet fighter.
Cost is same, but effect favors 10000 drones over 1 jet.
This was maybe best displayed in case where North Korea sent a group of drones in South Korea. South Korea raised jets and helicopters who were shooting those drones for 5 hours. None of the drones were hit. All drones returned intact to North Korea. South Korea was embarrassed because it's entire advanced air superiority couldn't take out few small drones because the small size of drones made them difficult to hit.
Same applies to modern tanks and their counter - infantry small anti tank rocket launchers.
Modern tanks cost so much money to produce, that in comparison, one such tank would be met against about 4000 anti tank rocket launchers, who have way more damage potential.
Cost efficiency of effect is everything on the battlefield.
It's not the best tank that wins, but it's the tanks which are most cost efficient.
It's not the best aircraft which wins, but aircraft which is most cost efficient.