What would you rather have in field?
Great technological capability, with unexpected downtime?
Limited technological capability, but with reliable availability?
Sound off in the comments with your thoughts!
By: Brant
22 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I just want it to work, whatever "it" is!!!
I'll take reliability over technology any day of the week. It is also my experience that equipment with "great technological capability" usually translates into "harder or impossible to repair" when it does break down.
Field expedient repairs would be very difficult if you rapidly ran out of parts because they kept failing.
I want something that is reliable, but easily fixed with chewing gum and bailing wire when it does break down.
Reliability, every time. Granted, you can always pick up a thing and smash someone in the head with it, but it's better to have toys that don't break as soon as they come out of the box (or, indeed, arrive broken).
http://joshreads.com/images/11/03/i110323bb.jpg
Reliability, reliability, reliability. Beside that, i'm sick of humping batteries up and down mountainsides.
You've got troops that can push buttons with the best of them, but can't zero iron sights. Troops that can read ten digit grids from an LCD screen, but can't find themselves on a map.
Technology is for the boys and girls that are masters of the basics.
I'm voting with Matt. I'm sick of people that can't read a map and just say "It's OK, I've got a GPS"... grrrr....
Post a Comment