As I understand it with DIVAD, at the time they were trying to get some more modern mobile AA platform for the Army, which was lacking while the Soviets had several systems, among them the ZSU-23-4 for engaging low flying aircraft and helos. I remember at least a few reporters carping during Gulf War I at how the Iraqis had all these nasty mobile AA systems that would "tear apart" our A10's and helos, while we mostly had guys riding alongside the M1 tanks in humvees with Stingers.
I would say the "idea" of having a system like DIVAD wasn't necessarily bad at all, especially if they could've tweaked it to provide ground fire support in a pinch like the Russians did with the ZSU-23-4, though I heard the Russians lost a lot of ZSU's when they pressed them into that role. But once they started designing it with inferior components in a very sloppy and poor execution of said platform....ugh, yeah, enough said.
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David Drake
|