both types have had victories on one another and I'm very curious what type is the preffered to all of you guys.
Here's mine - the small but elite force for it's been always nice concept to me that one man can take over a lot
I hope you also share your oppinion on the pluses and the minuses of both concepts.

Originally Posted by xopxe1

both types have had victories on one another and I'm very curious what type is the preffered to all of you guys.
Here's mine - the small but elite force for it's been always nice concept to me that one man can take over a lot
I hope you also share your oppinion on the pluses and the minuses of both concepts.

I like the idea of a profesionaly trained group of volenteers as in the mold of the BEF (british expeditionary force). they fought well above there weight in ww1. And they used their knowledge of musketry tactics to even the odds when faced with larger armys.

I guess if I had to admire a small quality based force...Id have to admire the group known as the 1st Special Service Force or the "Devils Brigade"

The Devils Brigade" -- a combined Canadian-American Force, constituted 5 July 1942 in the Army of the United States as Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment,1st Battalion, Third Regiment,1st Special Service Force. The unit participated in the Italian campaign and saw additional action in France.

The unit was disbanded in France on 6 February 1945.

It was the grandfather to what later became the US Army Special Forces. A very special little unit.

Quality of unuts is much more important than quantity on my point of view

I once seen this bumper sticker that said "IRA Undefeated Army" LOL

I guess a small group of highly trained guys probably stands a good chance of defeating a large group of average trained guys...

Well, lets look at my favorit example: The Middle East. The arabs were and are superior in noumbers, but Israel has a much better trained and armed force. Maybe a force of 100000 untrained man can puch back a force of 5000 trained man, but the casualties would be high, and after that battle is over, the large force would be tired and disorgenaized. Look at 1973. The Egyptian Army crossed the Suez Canal with amazing noumbers, but took high casualties from the small regular IDF units. A few days later, the Egyptian force met the IDF reserves with much less force at its dispanse. The trained and highly experienced reserves pushed the Egyptians back across the canal, cut-off 2 egyptian Armies, and were ready o charge deep into Egypt and take Cairo if needed.
Also in the same war, but a diffrent front, the 77th Regiment of the 7th Armored brigade held on against the entire Syrian northern effort, fighting forces 15 times its own size. The 77th held on untill the Syrians gave up. Many of the Regiments man were killed and wounded, but half of the Syrian army was stopped at its tracks, and the Syrians lost thousends of men and houndreds of Tanks and AFVs.

SO, as I see it quality is superior to quantity.

Nice example sherman with the 77th -very impressive
still consider what the chinese said even if we have to lose 10million people each day we will win the war - so could we draw a line in what conditions the one type takes over the other - I see all of you share my liking of quality armies but consider the thought that kept drilling my brain - the loses of the quality personel are not easy to replace while the numbers aren't so difficult to.

I also would prefer a quality over a high quantity army, aside from the reasons others have laid out, on a personal note, a smaller, more highly trained military has a much smaller chance of getting me killed.

I think that just about everyone would say quality, I for one do. All the numbers in the world will not help if you arre not trained well enough to use the things you are given.

Lets say it this way you one have a fire arm,your enemy is 15 guys with poles whos gonna win