High versus Low Tech

I just love this subject, being discussed at DefenseTech:

On a night in early February, I'm standing on a berm at an Iraqi Army base with Army Sgt. Erik Morrow, watching a $4.5-million M-1A2 tank zero its machine gun in preparation for a mission. Tracers lance into the darkness, striking the target with perfect precision. The tank's accuracy is amazing, even at night. But Morrow just shrugs. Yeah, the A2 is the best tank in the world, hands-down. But, he says, for this war, he'd prefer an older, simpler model that's easier to maintain and starts up faster.
These days there's a lot of tension between proponents of the latest uber-lethal whiz-bang weapons and folks who say that modern conflict demands lots of grunts on the ground with simple tools applying smart tactics. Me? I love me some high-tech, but my experience in Iraq tells me the latter party is probably right.

I am a "low techie" and if more in the Pentagon were, our defense budget would be much smaller and our military equally effective. Yes!