[Tailback]

It's too bad the web page ran out of bandwidth. Sorry, you are wrong on about every single point. The C17 can carry 2 Strykers or 5 M113's which means you get more vehicles per plane.

M8 AGS was cool, and MUCH of that legacy technology will find its way into the AT Stryker variant.

Why not just put the M8 into production? You're already admitting the Stryker isn't as capable as the M8.

Stryker will have growing pains and it will be frequently upgraded

Once again, you're admitting it has problems. Why not just add a low profile turret and powerpack upgrades to the M113 which is proven, dependable, and already in stock with DOD and already has spare parts available?

it will provide significant protection, mobility and firepower in a far more deployable package than current mech/armor platforms.

The M113 is vastly more mobile, it has a much lower profile, and firepower can be easily added to an existing reliable vehicle. M113 can be air dropped and you can carry more than twice as many in a C17.

[xsrdx]

You're already admitting the Stryker isn't as capable as the M8.

M8 is/was not an infantry carrier -it's a light armored gun platform. Apples and oranges. Stryker is vastly superior to M8 when it comes to transporting infantry.

The C17 can carry 2 Strykers or 5 M113's which means you get more vehicles per plane.

Source? That doesn't pass the smell test. Also, those M113s aren't configured with your handy turret.

Once again, you're admitting it has problems.

Every newly fielded system has problems - Abrams fans forget that platform was derided as another "death trap" when introduced, only later becoming the gold standard for armor. I don't disagree a modified 113A3 would have been an excellent choice - but Stryker was preferred for its superior mobility in urban/suburban terrain.