Quantity vs quality

Quantity.

Logistics win.

>>32142978
yeah this look at black hawk down or vietnam usa got there ass handed back to them

it's the uk armys worst night mare is running out of ammo or being out numbered

File: 1376490706039.png (290KB, 400x522px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 400x522px

Both.

>>32142963
Have great quantities of sufficient quality stuff.

>>32143209
>usa got their ass handed back to them
>enemy casualties out number us casualties 10:1
Ivan plz go

File: eyebrows_proceeding_into_hairline_and_beyond.jpg (255KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1191x670px

>>32143209
>>32143255
It's sarcasm you chungus.

Quality. But only to a degree. If you gave every soldier a boutique quality m16 they wouldn't bw any better of than if Anderson was just shitting them out.


Germany alone held off Britain and her common wealth, russia, france, austria, every shirhole citystate country, and the americand before finally being zerged down. Their tanks could curb stomp the the opposition. They just made a long series of terrible choices to lose.

Japan is another example, they literally raped china, the king of mass produced garbage and only lost to the Americans who could shit out high quality rifles faster. Plus they also made a series of terrible choices.


America lost Korea and Vietnam, but it wasn't because they had low quality arms, the lopsided death ratios can confirm that, they just made a series of terrible decisions.

That being said the Sten is cosmetically low quality, but the metal and machine work is rather high quality that can be made in high quantity. If you want truly low quality arms you would have to be like iraq with their Berretta 92 aborted clone

>>32143347
>us lost korea and nam
top kek m8

Quantity, because it has a quality of its own ;^)

But seriously quantity because ease of replacement, and you're not eternally buttfucked if you lose your prized units to some Kursk tier attack

>>32143450
Quantity sure helped the norks and Chinese who sent multiple human waves against an entrenched enemy, didn't it?

>>32143398
You want say US won war in Vietnam?Are you retard?

America and the UN forces had both quality and quantity, nevermind their their competence in combined arms.

>>32143507
Didn't say we won, we left.

>>32143255
>Enemy casualties 10:1
>Still lost
Maybe quantity>quality

>>32143529
Forfeiting is losing, numbnuts. Name a single US goal that was accomplish in Vietnam other than lining LBJ's pockets.

>>32143543
domino theory: stopping the spread of communism

>>32143553
KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK
>more brilliant posts from faggot 3-1 fagtual

>>32143549
This is wrong, if anything it exacerbated the Sino-Soviet split by pitting Soviet backed Vietnam against China and Chinese backed Cambodia

we all know vietnam was "forfeited" or lost due to politics. the US couldve bombed the gooks back to the stone age if the military wasn't forced to fight with both hands tied behind their backs.

>>32143549
>Stopped the spread of communism
Then why did Laos and Cambodia become communist while Vietnam was being fought over? We lost in Vietnam, I don't understand why Americans have such a hard time admitting it.

>>32143580
Basically this. Troop morale had some to do with it as well.

>>32143590
>muh body count
To be fair we inherited a lost conflict from the French

>>32143602
That's what I hear a lot, that we won because the enemy had more killed. Conveniently forgetting how the Soviets won WWII.
"Inherited" isn't the best term. More like forced our way into a lost conflict.

>>32143615
Hitler lost WWII. The soviets won the eastern front, the Americans won the war in Europe and in the Pacific. People conveniently forget it wasn't a one theater war but truly a global conflict.

>>32143347
except this assessment is wrong

China wasnt the manufacturing king in the 30s and 40s, they were basically dirt farmer tier compared to an industrial power

Germany "held out" because they had a significant early lead in war time economy conversion; everyone else was woefully unprepared. even so, by 1943 the writing was on the wall, even if it was just the USSR vs Nazis in a vaccuum, it just would have been an extra year or two and another million + lives


>>32142963
OP you need enough "good enough" items. i'll take 1000 soldiers with M4s and mid tier aimpoints over 100 soldiers with SCARs and ACOGs. produce the best you can, as much as you can, for as long as your supply line will hold out.

>>32143656
This. Hitler began building his forces very early on in secret compared to the other powers.

>>32143347
No ofense but most enlisted men are dumb as fuck some are good but gving every one a boutque quality m16 would be a wastte of resources

>>32143656
Dont see the difference between the m4 and scar? Other then a slower fire rate scar seems pointless

>>32143630
That's true but it's not what I'm saying. They act like victory is purely by body count but conveniently forget that the Allies lost many more soldiers than the Axis (almost solely due to USSR and China, but still).

>>32142963
Quality enough to do the job but not so much that you can't mass-produce the shit out of it (massive reserves of resources and large populations help) or that it's too difficult to maintain.

>>32143230
A definition of milspec.

>>32142963
>Winter or Alaska, which is colder?

>>32142963
Quality wins battles, quantity wins wars.

>>32143347
>America lost Korea
Really ? Please anon, tell me more about this alternate history of yours

>>32144487
It's a myth that eurocucks propagate. Ask any South Korean who won the Korean War.

>>32144487
>>32144671
Even Wikipedia calls it "Military Stalemate". It's not a victory, but it's not a defeat.

File: WWII_Patriotic_Posters_Civilian_Jobs_10XLG.jpg (753KB, 1500x1119px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 1500x1119px

>>32142963

>>32144698
>2016
>Citing wikipedia as an accredited source