Military Power

Which do you think is more important? Quality or Quantity?

Quality is obviously the choice most people would think is correct. However Quality requires more time, money, maintence, and man-power...for anything. Quantity requires quick, cost-effective mass-production. Of course, you can have both at the same time. Take plastic for example. You have a material that can be easily changed on the molecular scale to be strong or weak. This can then be made in massive quantities which are high quality.

Well, WWII showed Quantity over Quality as the U.S. Tanks were honestly a P.O.S. where the German's tanks were high quality. However the U.S. pumped so many out that they just overwhelmed the Germans

I think that it depends. I mean, the Germans in WW2 no doubt had the most superb weaponry on the planet, yet overwhelming allied numbers simply acted as a deluge that couldn't be held back.

Then you have Operation Desert Storm, where allied forces were outnumber by Iraqi forces...but the allied forces possessed a much higher quality, and in the end...inflicted unimaginable losses to the enemy for an unimaginably small toll.

When technology advances, quality will always out-match quantity.

General Forestry wrote:When technology advances, quality will always out-match quantity.

emphasis added

We seem to keep forgetting German Tanks in WWII. Technologically they were superior to the Allied tanks in every way (They could blow a hole through a Sherman, the most common allied tank of the war, from distances where Sherman shells couldn't even hit them, let alone do any damage to their much thicker armor), but the allies still won.

Quality. In many historical battles, outnumbered forces have triumphed due to the quality of both their equipment and their tactics.

Deimenried wrote:Quality. In many historical battles, outnumbered forces have triumphed due to the quality of both their equipment and their tactics.

interesting. I hadn't thought about this until you said that, but could "Quantity" be a part of "Quality" of tactics?

I believe so. Quantity has it's uses tactically (it's good for "phsyching out" the enemy, distraction etc.), the real trick being in tactics to make a small force seem larger than it actually is. So in a sense, Quantity is useful, but if you're smart enough you can achieve the same effect with a far smaller force.

Hope that makes sense. It's about 4am and my brain is almost in shutdown

Well,
Quantity is harder to manage and sustain, because the more the troops, the bigger difficulties arise in coordinating them.
However, qualified troops are hard to replace.

I usually have opinions on such matters, but here I have to say that it all depends on how we employ the élite troops and the ordinary troops.

What I like to do is use cheap troops as a meat shield for the quality units. For example, when I play a LotR strategy, I take lots of Orcs and add a champion or two. This way I can retreat the nazgul or whichever if things go bad.

Similarly, the taking of the walls of Constantinople is another example of how both types of armies work. When the Ottomans started their final assault on the walls, Mehmet (their sultan)
first sent forth the "azabs" - the light, poorly equipped Ottoman cannon-fodder - in order to exhaust the defenders. Only after that did he send the better trained and equipped soldiers, who faced less resistance.
Which basically summarizes my opinion.