Why is it said that the technical potential of the army is relatively low?

After entering the modern war, it is rare and difficult for the world to have a major war between countries, so the role of the army is not very large, the US military now pays attention to the development of military technology of the navy, air force and space, and pays little attention to and takes care of the development of the army, when Bush Jr. was in office, he had the will to disband the existing part of the army to retain 1 to 20,000 special forces, but because of the Iran-Afghanistan war, this proposal was also abolished, and now from the United States into several local wars, the combat efficiency of the navy and air force is higher than that of the army, In the tactical scenario of using a combination of the Raptor and the B-2 to quickly strike at other countries in the "kicking the door" tactic proposed by the US Air Force, the Raptor will open the way to destroy the enemy's advanced third-generation aircraft and radar air defense system, and then the B-2 will strike at the enemy's important facilities. As the role has been shrunk again, the Army's R&D spending in the relative military spending cake has also decreased, and the same is true of the ratio of China's and the United States' military spending, with the Navy and Air Force accounting for the lion's share, while the Army can only pick up some foreign fish.

Land operations are seriously affected by terrain and climate, and have regional limitations.

Since the Pacific War in World War II, aircraft carriers have officially become the main force of the navy, and they also use the extremely strong damage and mobility of air strikes.

Therefore, no matter how good the army's technical potential is, it is still very difficult to encounter problems such as high-altitude bombing by the Air Force.

Vigorously developing the technological potential of the Air Force is a key task of the contemporary state. (Because the United States wants to launch a war of aggression, there is still a lot of room for the development of the army's potential.)

I think the Army is strong in two ways. First of all, if our country is attacked, then the strength of the army is a great advantage. After all, our country has a vast territory and complex terrain.

Moreover, our country itself is equipped with a number of missile defense systems and radar systems. In the event of an invasion by an enemy country, if the air force and navy are used to fight on the mainland, our defense system will be very advantageous. Moreover, the Air Force and Navy involve long-range supply, and it is unrealistic for enemy countries to use the Air Force and Navy on a large scale and on a large scale.

If it is a landing operation, then our army will definitely have an advantage in terms of numbers and quality. <>

On the other hand, it is also a place where military experts are not satisfied. Even though our army is very strong, it is still quite constrained if it encounters cross-sea operations and other situations. After all, we do not have such a strong long-range delivery capability for the army, which means that we cannot join the battle in a large number of land forces in a short period of time, so it will be difficult for the army to play its role.

At the same time, compared with the army, our air force and navy are relatively weak, and modern warfare relies on the coordinated operation of multiple arms, and a single army and a long board cannot represent our overall military strength.