Standardization is beneficial in achieving interoperability, ensuring products meet certain requirements, commonality, reliability, total cost of ownership, compatibility with logistics systems, and similar defense-related objectives.
In the late 18th century and throughout the 19th, the American and French militaries were early adopters and longtime developmental sponsors and advocates of interchangeability and standardization.
By World War II (1939–1945), virtually all national militaries and trans-national alliances of the same (Allied Forces, Axis powers) were busy standardizing and cataloguing.
For example, due to differences in dimensional tolerances, in World War II American screws, bolts, and nuts did not fit British equipment properly and were not fully interchangeable.
Responding to increasing criticism, Secretary of Defense William J. Perry issued a memorandum in 1994 that prohibited the use of most military specifications and standards without a waiver.
According to a 2003 issue of Gateway, published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center,[10] the number of defense standards and specifications have been reduced from 45,500 to 28,300.
Another potential drawback of thorough standardization is a threat analogous to monoculture (where lack of biodiversity creates higher risk of pandemic disease) or a ship without bulkhead compartmentalization (where even a small hull leak threatens the whole vessel).