of pocket greasing) to name just a few. As a result, the weapons and
vehicles that give the most real-world bang per real-world buck for nation
A might not be cost-effective at all for nation B (if they're able to
operate it at all)!
Was it you that brought up the example once of a third world nation
wanting tanks and after some study it was determined that the T-55 was
the closest thing to cost-effective for them because of the nature of
their probably opposition and the logistical problems associated with
maintaining anything more sophisticated?