Wouldn't the results of this be a bit skewed though? I mean, putting them in the 1.0 Version of a specific technology and asking them to do something and then comparing it to the years of training done another way doesn't seem like a very good test. It sounds like the soldiers would need to be brought up and trained using this kind of equipment for months and months to actually determine the viability of it. As a gamer, just think of a new UI when a familiar game releases a new title. It's a bit jarring and tough to get used to until you've immersed yourself in it over the course of months. Take that several levels forward and I can understand why doing it "the old way" would look superior.

In the article, they do go into this a bit but it seems the preference for the old equipment is likely rooted in the unfamiliarity of the new equipment, but also that the 1.0 equipment just isnt...where it needs to be. Which I suppose makes sense.

Though, I think that we should keep investing in the technology because eventually it will be where it needs to be and be a benefit.