World News

A thing I've noticed but haven't seen talked about a lot:

If you're a shitty government with shitty economics etc. you'll want to have more powerful weapons in the hands of less troops. It's easier to ensure the loyalty of a few thousand people with good pay, perks etc. compared to an army of several million. The more powerful the weapon, the more loyal you want its wielder. Definitely don't want an F-22 wandering across the border because a pilot's pay didn't go through.

Over time, this tendency seems to produce an over reliance on small numbers of technically complex weapons. During peacetime, these machines don't get pushed to the limit, so their actual combat efficacy is unknown (particularly compared to machines produced towards reliability and mass production).

A little example I remember is from Ukraine, where the Germans sent their modern howitzers. These howitzers could be extremely accurate, but with how much they got used and increased wear on the barrel, they rapidly became just another howitzer despite their increased cost and technical complexity.