What Matters more in an Army? Size in Numbers or Better Training?

Do you think that a bigger Army is better than an small that is highly trained? Or do you think that highly Trained small army is better than a large army?

Your sig actually answers that pretty well :P I would think size matters in an open field battle. th3warr1or

It depends how many more soldiers and/or how much better their training is.

It depends how many more soldiers and/or how much better their training is.

yabbicoke

Training. But size can also have a huge advantage. A la Soviet Union in WW2.

look what happened to russia in WW2

[QUOTE="yabbicoke"]

It depends how many more soldiers and/or how much better their training is.

Raiden004

This scenario means ntohing. What kind of environment would they be in? What kidn fow weapons are being used? In a huge open land area the 200 highly trained soldiers would be killed pretty quickly.

technology plays a much larger role than both of those option. The more advanced technology you have, the less soldiers and training you need.

one GFAC could take out an army if he is hidden.

Depends on many external factors, including the opposition, weapons, enviroment, support strength (air/navy) etc.

Depends.

The guys with better training, do they have enough pylons?

Unless it's capture the flag... better training but it depends.

whoever has more nuke.

The lethality of modern weapons means that training is much more important. Of course that assumes that you have the appropriate edge in weapons to go along with that training.

The movies 300, Taken, and Rambo answer this question. My favorite example though is the Punisher...

having the better balance between the two will always win.

I'd say quality matters far more.

History has proven you need a balance of both size and proper training.

Too large of army will be poorly trained and less efficient at accomplishing tasks on the battlefield. Where as an army with a small amount of highly trained soldiers will almost always find themselves fighting an uphill battle,never having the numbers needed to take ground and accomplish large objectives.

I think training is best. I'm in the USAF. Training is different, but I think it makes a more effective warfighter than expendable bullet sponges.

I think training is best. I'm in the USAF. Training is different, but I think it makes a more effective warfighter than expendable bullet sponges.

SickBoy724

Better trained infantry. Quality>>>>>>Quantity.

whoever has more nuke.

shadow13702

Wrong, big boys use biological warfare.

Why use nukes when a controlled virus could clean up an entire country while leaving its entire wealth intact.

[QUOTE="shadow13702"]

whoever has more nuke.

CosmicZombie

Wrong, big boys use biological warfare.

Why use nukes when a controlled virus could clean up an entire country while leaving its entire wealth intact.

And when the virus goes out of control...bummer.

I'd say whoever has the bigger guns. lilasianwonder

So we have a winner then?

[QUOTE="yabbicoke"]

It depends how many more soldiers and/or how much better their training is.

Raiden004

[QUOTE="CosmicZombie"]

[QUOTE="shadow13702"]

whoever has more nuke.

Desulated

Wrong, big boys use biological warfare.

Why use nukes when a controlled virus could clean up an entire country while leaving its entire wealth intact.

And when the virus goes out of control...bummer.

They dont just flip a coin you know.

training matters more, case in point the falkans in the 80's the british had less troops than the argentinian's and they won since they surrendered,

so while both have there advanteges, it always boils down to training

Well it's a tough call. They may not be elite but who's to say how well trained the soldiers are?

The question at hand is way too situational. It can go either way. Even so you cannot take for granted a typical soldier depending on what military he's from.

Provided that the quality of equipment per unit is roughly equal and that the terrain offers no advantage to either side, superior mobility and reaction speeds (gained through superior training) are more important in maneuver warfare, whereas superior numbers and supply capability (gained through superior industrial capacity) are more important in attrition warfare.

one GFAC could take out an army if he is hidden.

xromad01

The bigger they are, the harder they fall :P

I think 300 proves both can be right. Better trained soldiers can defeat armies even when vastly outnumbered, however, depending on how outnumbered you are, it can still come back to bite you in the end, no matter how well trained you are.

The artillery matters most. The infantry almost do nothing, most of the people die from artillery bombardments.Crimsader

Better trained soldiers...