> I don't think wars drive any revolutionary development: the time constrains are too pressing I'd disagree there. Look at the development of tanks during WW2

> I don't think wars drive any revolutionary development: the time constrains are too pressing I'd disagree there. Look at the development of tanks during WW2 as an example. Multiple generations of tanks were developed, became obsolete, and were either upgraded or replaced. At the beginning of the war in 1939 the panzer III F and G variants were some of the best in the world, but by 1941/42 they were effectively obsolete due to the introduction of the T-34 and the M4. And while the T-34 and M4 remained very good and effective tanks (with upgrades) throughout the war, the Panther tank introduced in 1943 was superior in all ways except reliability/maintainability. During WW2, the entire armored doctrine had solidified. The war began with lots of differing ideas about the roles of tanks and tank classification, the nature of combined operations, etc. But by the end of the war there was a strong development of combined arms and the emergence of the main battle tank concept (though that term wouldn't really be used until right after the war ended). You could argue so much development happened in armored warfare because at the time the role of tanks wasn't fully fleshed out, but I think you'd see something similar in a modern total war conflict, perhaps in the field of unmanned vehicles. And changes in doctrine and the understanding of the roles and uses of weaponry informs better designs.