My father fought in North Africa and never thought that Italian soldiers were individually poor opponents but lacked leadership and kit. The large numbers of prisoners was a function of their immobility leaving them stranded when Axis forces withdrew. The Germans always seemed to have lorries.
It is curious that the more powerful and accurate the long arm the more rounds are used to hit the enemy. In musket days it was a few hundred fired per casualty. As Mikewint says above this has gone up by a factor of hundreds today. But then you had to stand up to fight with a musket and you can fire them only so often. In the same vein bayonet charges rarely resulted in a bayonet fight. Usually the weaker or less determined side ran away. Nevertheless, in the days of standing up to musket fire, artillery and bayonets the vast proportion of military casualties were from disease.
We focus on the weapons but logistics and hygiene would win your period wars better than having the best weapons. You didn't have to outnumber your enemy. Only out survive him over the course of campaigns. Che Guevara was not caught and killed by better weapons. It was the US rations given to the Bolivian troops that made them able to pursue him continuously.
BTW, as an OT triviality: did you know that Che Guevara used his mother's name, as was often the custom there. His father's family came from Ireland so Ernesto Guevara in the usual naming custom would have been Ernie Lynch. I have a classic 'Che' T shirt I had made with 'Ernie Lynch' emblazoned as the name. Sadly so few people notice and fewer ask why.