Is one in five such a bad ratio for useful innovation?
It might speak to there being some problems with state-side testing of devices for appropriateness on the battlefield but a 20% success rate of cutting edge equipment seems pretty good. Infantry folk are probably going to use the useful bits and pack away the useless ones - that feedback will eventually trickle back to fulfillment and the kit will be updated.
Also - I have a lot of faith in infantrymen finding really creative uses for tech that folks in the lab might disregard.
You make a good point. I don't know, it might be. I'm thinking of all the absolutely bonkers things that all sides in WWII came up with that were obviously expensive to develop but never really saw usefulness.
It might speak to there being some problems with state-side testing of devices for appropriateness on the battlefield but a 20% success rate of cutting edge equipment seems pretty good. Infantry folk are probably going to use the useful bits and pack away the useless ones - that feedback will eventually trickle back to fulfillment and the kit will be updated.
Also - I have a lot of faith in infantrymen finding really creative uses for tech that folks in the lab might disregard.