I hate to break this to you, pal, but back in the 80's many of us on the North German plain would have faced a massive Soviet military with thin-skinned vehicles with extremely limited cross-country mobility. No taxpayer (and certainly no Democrat congressperson) seemed to mind at that time, 'cause we were saving a whole lot of money by not buying armored support vehicles (even in the face of a substantial Soviet rear-area threat). Oh, and BTW, we didn't have head to toe body armor, either! That was the "army we had, not the army we wished for"!
Just to add the Navy's two cents - There were still some WWII vintage ships around into the late 80's. We were ready to backup the checks our President wrote when he said 'Tear down this Wall'.
Had your back pal. We would have kept the beans and bullets commin'.
You don't get to go shopping every time war is declared. Those who take offense at "the army you have," show their ignorance of the way the military (and the world) works.
BTW...those who are loudest about this, the Hillarys of the world, don't see this as a reason to increase defense spending, which would speed the replacement process. It's just a reason to never go to war in the first place.