Are good-enough numbers better than a few perfect platforms?

Is it better to have many adequate platforms than only a few very good ones?

Often, yes. A larger adequate force can absorb losses far better than a small elite force and is more likely to be available in useful numbers.

The answer concerns resilience as much as individual combat quality. In the illustrative arithmetic, losing two platforms removes forty percent of a five-unit elite force, while losing several platforms from a much larger adequate force leaves most of it available. Numbers create operational depth and reduce the strategic cost of each casualty, although numerical strength still depends on investment in supporting infrastructure. Second World War mass production provides the comparison: the Tiger is famous, while the Sherman was the more consequential war-winning system. The T-55 is another numbers-oriented design, with the caveat that it was a capable tank in its own time. Quality still matters, but a small force built around perfection can become brittle.