Again I ask, what army has better equipment?
The military development and procurement system takes time.
The M1 tank was developed in the 70s. The decision was made to go for it in 1972, contracts where awarded in 73, the XM-1 prototypes started testing in 76, finally entered service in 1980, and the Marines still had to use the older M-60s in the Gulf War in 1991, since they had not received a full compliment of M1s by the time the war started (the Army had replaced all the M-60s already).
Armored infantry transports aren't a lot less complex than tanks. It takes time to commit to, develop, test, train, and deploy when you are dealing with them as well.
As for body armor, sure it isn't as complex as tanks, but developing, testing, committing to and deploying a particular design still takes time, and not just a few months. In the mean time better armor can be invented, but if you drop the time and money spent on the older armor, and constantly start a new cycle of development and deployment, not only to use spend a ton of money, but you also may never get more than a small amount of armor actually in to the field where it can be used.
Could things have been done better and faster? Possibly. But the response, has been pretty normal. Can you legitimately be upset with normal, when you want excellence? Yes. But the disappointment should be kept in perspective. Normal does not equal unusually bad, or horrible, |
