ANSWERS: 38
  • A nicer arse
  • First it depends on the kind of war... here in the U.S. we don't do the whole kill the women and children of our enemies thing... But if in all out anarchy tell me if you would rather have 1 million people in your Army (like the chinese) or 5 100Megaton Nukes?
  • Personally I think superior numbers would be better than an arsenal of weapons. Look at China. They may not be technologically armed, but they have a MASSIVE army, which will do whatever it's government tell it to do. If you were bombing this army and they just kept coming and coming they would soon overwhelm you, IMHO
  • In this day and age, I would have to say better arsenal. That's why the US was so alarmed after reports came out about North Korea having missiles that could strike the US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2564241.stm
  • When you consider the story of the 300 Spartans who held of the gigantic Persian army, you have to pick a better arsenal. I mean if you have metal spears and the enemy is dressed in wicker, it just makes good sense.
  • well.ideally a bigger force with superior firepower is the best place to negotiate from. short of that...if you have a smaller force...youd better have a better firepower... putting the western allies and nato against china and its allies would be appxly 10 million vs 250 million. i wouldnt count on superior firepower against those odds..unless you are willing to nuke 300 to 400 million of them fairly quickly
  • Numbers and a better arsenal mean nothing without looking at other factors. Of course, in any fire fight the side that puts the most lead in the air will win. This answer of course,doesn't take into account other important factors. The question is much too vague to answer with any accuracy. Nathan Bedford Forrest said to win you need to "get there firstest with the mostest", meaning if one side has less resources but applies them in a tactically superior manner, they will win.
  • I beg your indulgence since my answer was not one of the choices you provided..superior intelligence is what wins wars..better planning, more strategic deployment, anticipation of the outcome of your decisions...more men and more weapons is irrelevant if the people who are at the top are stupid or short-sighted or narrow-minded or idealogues following by rote the will of others. Smart wins all contests..at least, that is my opinion! :)
  • Better arsenal because numbers means nothing if they are throwing rocks at each other.
  • You just have to wake up earlier
  • better planing
  • Better arsenal. Look at the Greeks. When they faught the Persians, they were out numbered, but had armor and better better weapons. They eventually drove the Persians away.
  • The side that has the ability to destroy enemy communications, supply lines, infrastructure and command first will usually win. Once that is done then a simple pincer attack will end the fight at the front of the battle. So the army with better more advanced weapons and training if used properly will win. As long as it doesn't go into a battle of attrition. If these weapons are not tactically used correctly it will go into a battle of attrition and that army will lose the war. The old win the battles but lose the war thing. Like the USA in Vietnam and now Iraq and Afgan.
  • Better arsenal is advantageous if your attacking the enemy stratigically. But in a war for attrition you need Superior numbers of Men.
  • Hard to say. History is full of battlefield contradictions. Superior numbers or technology can be affected by terrain and morale factors, intelligence and overall health status of the combatants.
  • a superior arsenal and better tactics will prove themselves against seemingly unsurmountable odds.
  • history shows both sides working in different circumstances
  • Well, Gandalf didn't get killed by Sauron with like, six thousand guys-- so I'm thinking "White Wizard with a Cool Staff" is the correct answer here.
  • it all depends on where the fight is. look at vietnam. the us had the most advance wepons at the time and were pushed around by the VC. the VC knew the land and had time to make changes to it. they were also soo far behind the time that many of the US counter measures would not work due to what was used to make the boobytraps
  • I'm pretty sure 500 musketeers can be easily taken out by a few well-placed explosive artillery shots... so my answer is a better arsenal.
  • In theory, you need to have more ammunition than bad guys.
  • You can overwhelm the other side with sheer numbers or you wait until you see the whites of their eyes. A good tactician can take out a better equipped and outnumbering opponent. I think it depends on who's leading your army.
  • Obliously a better arsenal, because a small tactical force with superior weapons can EASILY take out a massive lightly armed force.
  • It depends on the situation, really. Your strategic aim is to reduce the enemy potential to damage you. Numbers and arsenal are both only factors of your potential to achieve this aim. I don't think numbers and equpiment can be compared easily, since equipment/arsenal is a matter of technological innovation and funding, whereas manpower is determined by population size, political stability and a number of other factors. On a strategic scale, though, I think numbers are preferrable, since a number of self-sufficient strategic units, while inferior to the opponent's strategic units will be able to have a stronger effect on the opponent's strategic assets... Tactically, through, arsenal is preferrable, I agree with that.
  • The use of the Atom in Japan proved which is superior
  • Neither; it truly falls down to training and leadership. Think of it this way; one man with a 50 cal machine gun can take down 100 archers, 10 archers can hold kill 4 times their number of spearmen, but 10 men with rocks can easily kill 1 archer. Granted, in each of these cases, the minority with the superior fire power and technology will die, but at what cost to his enemy? If you have the man power, then you can crush your enemy under the weight of your dead and drown them in your soldier's blood, but if you have the technology and firepower, then you do not need to get close. At this point, the arguement becomes the old adage of unstoppable force versus immovable object; so what is the defining factor? In my opinion it's training and leadership.
  • Someone told me practice has made The US superior.
  • Doesn't matter what you actually have. What really matters is what the enemy THINKS you may or may not have.
  • just nuke them and you will win every time
  • The guys who did 9/11 were just a handful of people and their weapons were box cutters.
  • better arsenal. Machine guns and other weapons were invented to save the number of people to war. Better arsenal can crush an army a hundred times bigger than the current one. Example, the nuclear bomb and other explosives. bigger bombs, lesser people needed to sacrifice themself.
  • "A warrior's greatest weapon is and will always be, wisdom, therefore we should keep our minds even sharper than we keep our swords." Tokugawa. __________ ... a sufficiently wiser soldier with enough of the right training will win against even vast numbers of morons ... weapons will help, better weapons will help some more, but even the best weapon in the hands of a moron will not beat wisdom ...
  • better arsenal. Look what some air support did to Iraqi guard :)
  • A better arsenal. One gun can take out hundreds of men.
  • Strictly speaking, modern strategic doctrine would demand greater fire power. However, tactical doctrine requires fire superiority at the point of attack PLUS numbers to exploit the advantage.
  • Manpower and weaponry can both be useful, but I think the most important strategic advantage is a better plan.
  • Here's a thought. Two Air Craft+two crews+two weapons= end of WWII got to have a back up/
  • 20 guys with swords are no match from one Marine with a SAW.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy