Quality vs Quantity

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The balance shifts depending on the quality and effect of what is fighting what.
      Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
      -Winston Churchill

      Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
      -George S. Patton

    • I think it is difficult if not impossible To give a straight on answer to this question , there are too many variables. Most important that i can think of is quality gap, another important one is how the quality gap is actually utilized in that specific case

      If using a specific amount of resources and time(not including technology, it is a variable here), without going deep into actual calculations, can get you either 1 Heavy tank or 3 light tanks , then a scenario where quantity could beat quality is when 1 or 2 LT is used to temporarily hold off the HT while others secure decisive victory ( eg : capture nearby capital) While the the 'stronger' unit (HT) would win if the superior quantity was used head on in a 3 vs 1 engagement.

      Comparing nukes to militia or guns to spears is unfair for the quality vs quanitiy comparison , need to keep resources and time relatively similar for a better ( and harder) comparison :)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by GeneralPhara ().

    • GeneralPhara wrote:

      I think it is difficult if not impossible To give a straight on answer to this question , there are too many variables. Most important that i can think of is quality gap, another important one is how the quality gap is actually utilized in that specific case

      If using a specific amount of resources and time, without going deep into actual calculations, can get you either 1 Heavy tank or 3 light tanks , then a scenario where quantity could beat quality is when 1 or 2 LT is used to temporarily hold off the HT while others secure decisive victory ( eg : capture nearby capital) While the the 'stronger' unit (HT) would win if the superior quantity was used head on in a 3 vs 1 engagement.

      Comparing nukes to militia or guns to spears is unfair for the quality vs quanitiy comparison , need to keep resources and time relatively similar for a better ( and harder) comparison :)

      In the late 1800s there were conflicts that involved machine guns vs spears.
      Forum Gang Premier

      you are a balls

    • GreatbigHippo wrote:

      GeneralPhara wrote:

      I think it is difficult if not impossible To give a straight on answer to this question , there are too many variables. Most important that i can think of is quality gap, another important one is how the quality gap is actually utilized in that specific case

      If using a specific amount of resources and time, without going deep into actual calculations, can get you either 1 Heavy tank or 3 light tanks , then a scenario where quantity could beat quality is when 1 or 2 LT is used to temporarily hold off the HT while others secure decisive victory ( eg : capture nearby capital) While the the 'stronger' unit (HT) would win if the superior quantity was used head on in a 3 vs 1 engagement.

      Comparing nukes to militia or guns to spears is unfair for the quality vs quanitiy comparison , need to keep resources and time relatively similar for a better ( and harder) comparison :)
      In the late 1800s there were conflicts that involved machine guns vs spears.
      Which makes the comparison unfair as i said ( quality gap variable too big) , and in most cases here ,in such comparison , quality edges quantity , Iam curious to find if spears won such battles though

      The post was edited 1 time, last by GeneralPhara ().

    • GeneralPhara wrote:

      can get you either 1 Heavy tank or 3 light tanks
      Well, the LT tank could be a Pz. I or it could be a Chaffee. Both are LT, yet one has a 7.92mm MG as its main gun, while the other has a 75mm cannon for its main gun.

      GreatbigHippo wrote:

      In the late 1800s there were conflicts that involved machine guns vs spears.
      Well, compare Mongol horseback archers vs people throwing pebbles by hand. Who is going to win, is it fair? No.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      GeneralPhara wrote:

      can get you either 1 Heavy tank or 3 light tanks
      Well, the LT tank could be a Pz. I or it could be a Chaffee. Both are LT, yet one has a 7.92mm MG as its main gun, while the other has a 75mm cannon for its main gun.

      GreatbigHippo wrote:

      In the late 1800s there were conflicts that involved machine guns vs spears.
      Well, compare Mongol horseback archers vs people throwing pebbles by hand. Who is going to win, is it fair? No.
      War isn't fair.
      Forum Gang Premier

      you are a balls

    • GreatbigHippo wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      GreatbigHippo wrote:

      It's a hypothetical war situation.
      War was actually never mentioned. Besides, it could be a border skirmish.
      Border Skirmishes aren't fair.
      Armed Conflicts aren't fair.

      Fights aren't fair.

      Nothing is fair.

      Happy?
      By your logic(unfair comparison) quality beats quantity because nukes beat militia(quality gap too big) ......... but also because one million spearman beat a machine gun ( quantity gap too big), quantity wins . so Still no decisive answer for the Quality vs Quantity topic ;)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by GeneralPhara ().