Concentrated fire makes quantity of soldiers beat individual weapon quality

Evidence

The genius of Lanchester’s models was his realization that the capacity to concentrate fire—to have multiple soldiers confronting a rival simultaneously—utterly changed the formula for victory. Based on his models, military strategists quickly recognized that investing substantially in the training and arming of individuals was not cost-effective, because the fighting effectiveness of each man was less likely to determine the outcome of battle than the numbers of men brought to the fight. Obviously, some training and equipment were needed, since soldiers armed more poorly than their opponents would be less effective. But given the choice of allocating resources to weapons and training, on the one hand, or to adding more soldiers on the other, the winning strategy was clear. Add more soldiers. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 236

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Concentrating simultaneous fire disfavors large weapons while duels favor them; Cheap weapons let untrained commoners overcome heavily armored elites; Concentrated longbow fire let outnumbered English forces defeat armored knights (+3 more)

Related

• Firearms made troop numbers count quadratically rather than linearly in battle (similarity 0.87)
• Concentrated longbow fire let outnumbered English forces defeat armored knights (similarity 0.86)
• Concentrating simultaneous fire disfavors large weapons while duels favor them (similarity 0.84)
• Group numbers can substitute for individual armament in warfare (similarity 0.84)
• Cheap weapons let untrained commoners overcome heavily armored elites (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Group numbers can substitute for individual armament in warfare #corroborates (0.85) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 969
• Releasing soldiers from other tasks lets weapons evolve to extremes #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 128