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

Superior strategy will usually overwhelm superior force I think. Ask Troy.

Edit: But as far as training vs numbers. I think it depends on the degree of each.

Discipline is (nearly) everything. Ask the Romans.Cherokee_Jack

it has alot of factors, i think more of them would be better

wait better trained means they can be ninjas so yeah, they will kill all of them

[QUOTE="xromad01"]

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

th3warr1or

ground forward air control.

we call in air strikes,artillery,navalgunfire.

better training. think of the spartans. 300 vs who knows how many persians.

better training. think of the spartans. 300 vs who knows how many persians.

T_REX305

Yeah but they still lost in the end, so numbers beat training in that case :P.

EDIT: I mean the 300, not the 30,000 other trained Spartans that dominate the Persians at the end of the movie.

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]Discipline is (nearly) everything. Ask the Romans.grape_of_wrath

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"][QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]Discipline is (nearly) everything. Ask the Romans.Cherokee_Jack

Quality overquantityevery time.

Man the same thing I have been saying to the girls I date. Size does not matter its all about how you use it.

Training. A well prepared and well disciplined smaller group can always destroy a much larger group. This has been the underlying principle behind Guerrilla Warfare and Special Operations for a long time.Jaguar_Shade

Tell that to the People's Republic of China...

1,000 veterans of war with years of battle training and mastery vs. 5,000 fresh soldiers? I'll side with the veterans every time. If firepower is the same, a well-led group of veterans is usually going to win.

See also: 300

Size no matter what the situation is. n00bkid

An overwhelming presence of either one over the other can both result in victory. they are both effective. I personally believe that numbers are more important in a modern battlefield, where everyone can have a firearm. As long as there is a larger amount of people to hold and fire guns, they will also have an advantage in firepower as well as numbers, and numbers help them "soak" up more damage. As long as you have a steady supply of manpower, you can successfully wage war relying on numbers. (though it does definatly help to have better equipment ore training). However, it is always best to have balanced attributes rather than relying on only one.

I would have to say Training.

Neither. Throughout history, there's examples where greater numbers beats better training, and there's examples where better training beats greater numbers.

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

Tokugawa77

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

sSubZerOo

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

victories won 70 years agoare still recent enough to be relevant to today's tactics. If you think about it, nothing has really changed all that much since WW2 (tactics wise)

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

Tokugawa77

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

victories won 70 years agoare still recent enough to be relevant to today's tactics. If you think about it, nothing has really changed all that much since WW2 (tactics wise)

... Uh yeah it has, airforce and navy are many times more powerful.. A nation can strike another hundreds to thousands of miles a way.. We have stealth systems, we have missle defense systems now.. Helicopters did not exist during World War 2, they play a extremely important role in today's military.. Things have changed considerably... Spy satilites, spy planes.. Are another huge thing... Communications are much better.. While in World War 2, soldiers had communication by squad.. Now we hav ea communications network with each soldier with their own com system.. Things have radically changed..

I guess we'll find out if the Islamic nations ever attack Israel. Supposedly on average, Israeli soldiers are as badass as any in the world.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

sSubZerOo

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

Look at Israel. They are a tiny nation but have again and again beat the ****** out of their neighbors armies with their superior training and tactics.

Numbers < quality, though if there is a big enough gap numbers can be better.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

kuraimen

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

smaller trained units are the ones that are technologically superior.. It has always been that way.. Larger numbers outside of occupation do not work well.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Since this topic contains mostly American people, i can see why you all think that training is more important. But look at the USSR durring WW2, or modern day china. Numbers win in modern warfare, people.

Tokugawa77

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

victories won 70 years agoare still recent enough to be relevant to today's tactics. If you think about it, nothing has really changed all that much since WW2 (tactics wise)

Look at Israel. They are a tiny nation but have again and again beat the ****** out of their neighbors armies with their superior training and tactics.

Numbers < quality, though if there is a big enough gap numbers can be better.

dercoo

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

sSubZerOo

victories won 70 years agoare still recent enough to be relevant to today's tactics. If you think about it, nothing has really changed all that much since WW2 (tactics wise)

... Uh yeah it has, airforce and navy are many times more powerful.. A nation can strike another hundreds to thousands of miles a way.. We have stealth systems, we have missle defense systems now.. Helicopters did not exist during World War 2, they play a extremely important role in today's military.. Things have changed considerably...

While individual equipment has made significant advancements, the overall way that war is waged has not. We still use the same bltzkrieg tactics that the Germans perfected. We use air power to support the ground forces. If you take into account that in WW1 tanks and planes were new and rarely used and commanders still thought that human wave attacks were effective, no, war has not changed as much as it could have from WW2

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

World War 2 was 70 years ago.. Things change.. China has the numbers.. But they do not have the air force or the navy to rival countries like the United States..

sSubZerOo

smaller trained units are the ones that are technologically superior.. It has always been that way.. Larger numbers outside of occupation do not work well.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Look at Israel. They are a tiny nation but have again and again beat the ****** out of their neighbors armies with their superior training and tactics.

Numbers < quality, though if there is a big enough gap numbers can be better.

kuraimen

Plus isrealis are made to serve in the army at some point in their lives, and even then, they are kept on reserve. You can hardly say that Isreal's army is less trained.

If its only infantry vs infantry then a larger one will win. But if the small one has air suppport, tanks artillery etc then the small one might win. Just depends on who is hndleing their equipment better.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] That's not training, that's technology. Throughout history nations with more technology and people win. It's just how things go. Training could influence in one on one combat or some strategic situations but that's hardly decisive when facing a large army if you don't have a technological advantage. kuraimen

smaller trained units are the ones that are technologically superior.. It has always been that way.. Larger numbers outside of occupation do not work well.

Yes technology will always trump training. look at the Japanese army durring WW2. Most well trained army in the world but with weapons from WW1. We had freshly drafted soldiers and we still beat them because of our technology.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="dercoo"]

Look at Israel. They are a tiny nation but have again and again beat the ****** out of their neighbors armies with their superior training and tactics.

Numbers < quality, though if there is a big enough gap numbers can be better.

Tokugawa77

Plus isrealis are made to serve in the army at some point in their lives, and even then, they are kept on reserve. You can hardly say that Isreal's army is less trained.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Again, Israel had a considerable technological advantage.kuraimen

Plus isrealis are made to serve in the army at some point in their lives, and even then, they are kept on reserve. You can hardly say that Isreal's army is less trained.

I know I'm actually agreeing with you in that post; I'm adding as to why Isreal won.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

smaller trained units are the ones that are technologically superior.. It has always been that way.. Larger numbers outside of occupation do not work well.

Tokugawa77

Yes technology will always trump training. look at the Japanese army durring WW2. Most well trained army in the world but with weapons from WW1. We had freshly drafted soldiers and we still beat them because of our technology.

We bested them because we outnumbered them and the Japan Military was slowly bleeding to death.. Their technology was not lacking, for the longest time the Japanese fighter Zero was superior in every way to the US planes intil the Mustang.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] That's not training, that's technology. Throughout history nations with more technology and people win. It's just how things go. Training could influence in one on one combat or some strategic situations but that's hardly decisive when facing a large army if you don't have a technological advantage. kuraimen

smaller trained units are the ones that are technologically superior.. It has always been that way.. Larger numbers outside of occupation do not work well.

They go hand in hand.. The best trained militaries in the worlds are also the most technologically advanced..

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Plus isrealis are made to serve in the army at some point in their lives, and even then, they are kept on reserve. You can hardly say that Isreal's army is less trained.

Tokugawa77

I know I'm actually agreeing with you in that post; I'm adding as to why Isreal won.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

smaller trained units are the ones that are technologically superior.. It has always been that way.. Larger numbers outside of occupation do not work well.

sSubZerOo

They go hand in hand.. The best trained militaries in the worlds are also the most technologically advanced..

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Training and technology are two separate things. You can have small trained units with little to no technology or large amount of untrained people with a lot of technology. I think there's even an equation somewhere that considers technology and size as a measure of success for an army and the equation is never wrong. Technology and size are the decisive variables.sSubZerOo

Yes technology will always trump training. look at the Japanese army durring WW2. Most well trained army in the world but with weapons from WW1. We had freshly drafted soldiers and we still beat them because of our technology.

We bested them because we outnumbered them and the Japan Military was slowly bleeding to death.. Their technology was not lacking, for the longest time the Japanese fighter Zero was superior in every way to the US planes intil the Mustang.

Haha usually I'm the one defending the Japanese...no matter... The Japanese navy was by far the best in the world before 1942, amoung their accomplishments was perfecting attcks by carrier-borne aircraft on other ships, a torpedo that produced no stream of bubbles, and building the largest battleship in history. The Zero was the best fighter of its day, but towards the end of the war, began to be outpreformed by some allied aicraft, such as the mustang, as you mentioned. The japanese army howeverwas stuck behind the times (it's just as well, for the army commaders were the ones that dragged Japan into the war in the first place), with poorly armed and armored tanks, and no new advancements in small arms (most were dated back to the first world war). believe me, I am japanese and have studied the pacific war A LOT. You point out that we killed a lot of their soldiers- once again, poor tactics on the part of commanders who threw away crack troops on pointless missions.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Training and technology are two separate things. You can have small trained units with little to no technology or large amount of untrained people with a lot of technology. I think there's even an equation somewhere that considers technology and size as a measure of success for an army and the equation is never wrong. Technology and size are the decisive variables.kuraimen

They go hand in hand.. The best trained militaries in the worlds are also the most technologically advanced..

Some ofnot THE best trained warriors in the world.

their training was in itself, a way of life.

So were every knighthood in the European areas.. Samuria's didn't conquer much..

Yet when armies with guns came there was little chance for even the best trained samurai to go against a kid that learned how to target shoot from a good enough distance the past week.

That is incorrect.. Samurais may have been singularly trained well.. But they lacked unit discpline.. And we are talkinga bout 21st century warfare.. Not earlier periods.. Now a days the finest delta forces out there are also the most technologically advanced.