[Darksheare]

The Stryker is NOT the answer.
It cannot protect from even minor MG fire.
It cannot manuever worth beans.
The turning radius is that of a greyhound bus.
An Abrams can out turn that thing.

Armor development will ALWAYS progress.
Your argument is that the tank is finished, and you are wrong for the same reason that the argument that artillery is finished is wrong.
But, I doubt you'll get it.
I've heard too many Shinseki apologists and Strykerphilic zombies saying the same thing.
And they are wrong to the point that it will kill people.
That is irresponsible and reprehensible.
Having less armor and wheels doesn't make a soldier anymore elite than wearing a beret makes him a better soldier and improves morale.
If we're going to field soldiers, we better darn well give him the best equipment we can produce, not a horse designed by a commitee to do the work of a jackdaw.
"If you send a soldier to battle with nothing but a pile of rocks, you owe him every rock in the pile"
Have a nice day.

[tortoise]

Armor development will ALWAYS progress.

Pray tell, how do you build armor that can withstand anti-armor weapons that breach the physical limits of molecular materials? That can breach several meters of the strongest molecular materials known to science? Armor development is over until we can make shielding that doesn't rely on normal molecular materials. That doesn't mean we should abandon armor where it makes sense, but the days of heavy armor are over.

The idea that we can always build better impervious armor is wishful thinking; we are up against the basic laws of physics. We've reached the limits of what can be done with conventional physical engineering. We should still use armor to protect against incidental crap flying around (like bullets), but trying to stop dedicated anti-armor weapons is a futile exercise. As a country on the forefront of military technological development, we are well aware of this fact since we were the first country to develop anti-armor systems capable of this.