Alright, coming across some info recently about the efficacy of horse transports (hint: it is 80% less efficient than truck transport due to extra supplies needed for horses and their pulling abilities), in WW2 were fewer divisions better because they allowed for more concentration of scarce trucks/supplies? The British and Americans went with the 'less is more' philosophy so that they could have fully motorized/mechanized divisions and larger air forces, which the Germans and Soviets went with very large armies with limited and concentrated motorization/mechanization. The Soviets arguably showed that more divisions aren't necessarily bad, even if they were smaller, perhaps out of necessity due to the size of the front. The Germans seem to have gotten the worst of both worlds, having too many divisions they couldn't properly equipment/supply/man and not enough mobile divisions to meet needs, which sucked up the striking power of the army. Post-war when refounded they went for a smaller army with total mechanization.
So is the issue that fewer divisions are actually better or just not having more than you can support in general, with quantity 'having a quality all it's own' (plus a constant reserve due to having more all the time, even if low quality)? Arguably having lots of low quality divisions enabled the Soviets to absorb and wear down the higher quality and more brittle German divisions after all.