Note: The astute reader already knows that materiel is different from material. Why military organizations couldn't just settle on the word "equipment" is quite simple: civilians use "equipment," therefore it must not be good enough for soldiers.

This is a curious distinction. Comparing military "materiel" to civilian "equipment," we find that materiel costs more, is almost always manufactured by the lowest bidder, and someone is much more likely to get killed if it fails -- even in the case of seemingly trivial materiel, like insect repellant (which almost certainly will not work as a combat herbicide, but don't try to convince Nick of that.)