Time to kick off a Quality vs quantity debate when it comes to weapons i.e Tanks, planes, guns ect in real life.
Forum Gang Divine Entity
Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
62 Replies
28 Jul 2016, 02:26
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
29 Jul 2016, 01:47 (edited)
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
29 Jul 2016, 02:17
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
29 Jul 2016, 03:40 (edited)
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
29 Jul 2016, 09:21
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.
29 Jul 2016, 16:38
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
29 Jul 2016, 19:48
GreatbigHippo wrote:
War isn't fair.
It isn't war, it is a hypothetical situation.
29 Jul 2016, 19:50
Quasi-duck wrote:
GreatbigHippo wrote:
War isn't fair.
It isn't war, it is a hypothetical situation.
It's a hypothetical war situation.
Forum Gang Premier you are a balls
29 Jul 2016, 19:53
GreatbigHippo wrote:
It's a hypothetical war situation.
War was actually never mentioned. Besides, it could be a border skirmish.
29 Jul 2016, 20:11
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?
Forum Gang Premier you are a balls
29 Jul 2016, 20:13
All is fair in love and war
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
29 Jul 2016, 20:15
GreatbigHippo wrote:
Border Skirmishes aren't fair.
Armed Conflicts aren't fair.
Fights aren't fair.
Nothing is fair.
Happy?
Lol no.
30 Jul 2016, 02:15 (edited)
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
30 Jul 2016, 03:19
Quasi-duck wrote:
War was actually never mentioned.
Well then, why the heck are we comparing army qualities anyway if this is the case? If the two aren't even going to fight each other there isn't any point.
30 Jul 2016, 16:09
purplepizza117 wrote:
why the heck are we comparing army qualities anyway if this is the case?
Somebody jumped to conclusions.
30 Jul 2016, 17:09
Quasi-duck wrote:
purplepizza117 wrote:
why the heck are we comparing army qualities anyway if this is the case?
Somebody jumped to conclusions.
No, I did not. If they are not going to fight in a war situation there isn't any point.
30 Jul 2016, 19:15
purplepizza117 wrote:
No, I did not.
I never said you did, I said somebody did....
30 Jul 2016, 20:15
Oh, well if this isn't about war, what the hell. What do you think hacks into, say, HSBC first? A Cray supercomputer or 1,000 normal laptops?
The past is a foreign country.
30 Jul 2016, 21:25
Quasi-duck wrote:
purplepizza117 wrote:
No, I did not.
I never said you did, I said somebody did....
Implying that I did. You quoted me and said "Somebody"... Who else could you be referring to if we are using understandable English?
30 Jul 2016, 21:40
purplepizza117 wrote:
Who else could you be referring to if we are using understandable English?
If we are using plain English, then somebody means that a person jumped to conclusions. If I wanted to say it was your fault, I would've said it.
