This is pretty much the premise of "Brute Force" by John Ellis (1). It argues that Britain, Russia and especially America won the war by sheer industrial capacity, which vastly exceeded Germany's output. Their logistical advantage was reflected in their tactics. If I remember correctly, in the battle of El Alamein, Montgomery had vastly more equipment than Rommel, and won the battle through massive artillery bombardments and by numerical superiority in tanks. In the invasion of Normandy huge numbers of shells were fired, using carpet bombing which overpowered the Germans in the Falaise gap. Germany's "war of movement", with its aggressive advances, which had been so successful at the start of the war, sputtered to a halt before sheer quantity of materiel against both Russians and Americans.

The book also argues that the Allied "brute force" mentality worked against them at times. Patton used a dynamic war of movement against the Germans several times, but was often held back by the plodding methodical approach of his superiors.

1.http://www.amazon.com/Brute-Force-Allied-Strategy-Tactics/dp...