[tortoise]

And reducing armor to nothing, as in the Stryker, is moronic and bordering on dereliction of duty.

I wasn't commenting on the Stryker, only on the fact that the next generation of anti-armor weapons breach the physical limits of molecular materials and therefore can't be shielded against for any practical purpose. Armor development is over for now.

That said, I will generally agree that the Stryker is a suboptimal platform. Heavy armor is no substitute for the Stryker, but there are a lot of things about it that could have been better designed. The issue of heavy armor and the design of the Stryker are independent issues that are being improperly conflated.

[Darksheare]

All they had to do with Stryker to make it a better platform was leave it as it's original design was.
It had tracks instead of wheels.
*snort*
Shinseki insisted it had to have wheels.

Silicon Nitride is used to produce ball bearings and small sheets that are unbreakable.
An unbreakable ceramic.
Development of any armor based off it, or anything similar, was killed back in the 80's.

The next generation of anti-armor weapons are still a generation or so away, the Russians are selling tube fired anti-tank missiles that can disable the M1A1 Abrams right now.

Congress played around with the military on several fronts, most being transportation of all kinds, and then killed most programs.
They killed any development of anything that could carry the Crusader, and then cited that there wasn't anything that could carry it as a reason for killing the program.

The Stryker was pawned off (as a selling point) as a one on one tank replacement.
And the article skirts that without saying it outright like they did last year.
The Stryker cannot hope to go toe to toe with tanks and win.
Ever.
Regardless of how many Burger King broiler grills they stick on it.
It's insane that there are those that think this vehicle is a good idea and can do tasks beyond it's capabilities.