What factor is NOT mentioned as contributing to military success?

The assertion that "Quality of logistics" is not mentioned as a contributing factor to military success reflects a focus on other elements that often take precedence in discussions about military effectiveness. Size of military refers to the sheer number of personnel and equipment available, which directly impacts a nation's capability to conduct sustained operations. Money per soldier indicates the resources allocated to personnel, affecting training, morale, and operational effectiveness.

Home field advantage encompasses the benefits that come from fighting on one's own territory, which can include familiarity with the terrain, logistical convenience, and local support. These aspects are frequently highlighted in military analyses due to their immediate and visible impact on success in conflict situations.

In contrast, while logistics is certainly a critical component of military operations, discussions and assessments often prioritize more tangible factors such as manpower, funding, and the strategic advantage of location in forming initial conclusions about military success. This does not diminish the significance of logistics, as it plays a vital role in sustaining military engagements, but it may not be as prominently featured in some analyses compared to the other options listed.