Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!cwjcc!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM
From: ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rick O'Brien)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Quantity versus Quality
Summary: Strong argument on both sides
Message-ID: <3240@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 89 22:34:15 GMT
References: <2950@cbnews.ATT.COM> <3139@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 14
Approved: military@att.att.com



There are several historical examples of well trained troops using
'inferior' equipment to defeat troops with 'superior' equipment.
The US Army in WWII with the Sherman tank is a prime example. The 
various German models were better armored and armed.  In fact there
were more Allied tanks destroyed on the western front than German
dued to tank action, not air action.  I don't recall the books I read
this in but it was in more than one.  Also, the Sherman tank in the
hands of the Israelis soundly defeated the Arab forces, equipped with
more modern Soviet tanks, in the '67 wars.  (The background write up
in 'Arab-Israeli Wars' war game from, I think, Avalon-Hill gives a 
good summary of this entire discussion of 'Quality vs. Quantity')
The whole key seems to be well trained and motivated troops.