Replies

Agreed. Ya know, we had a system like this, and it was even type accepted. Called it the XM8, "Armoured Gun System". It was small/light enough to be carried in a C130, then when it was on the ground, you bolted on the supplimental armor. Had the advanced fire-control system of a M1, with the 105mm gun from the M60 (which let you fire more/different ammo for missions besides killing tanks).
Heck, build a bunch of them, and pre-position extra armor around the world in appropriate places..
It was diesel powered, and even had the 5 hp aux. engine, so you could keep up your hydraulics/commo/power, without consuming a gallon a minute at idle.
Why are we wasting $$$ on the Stryker, when we accepted this back in the early 90s?!?

Why are we wasting $$$ on the Stryker, when we accepted this back in the early 90s?!?

This is one I don't know enough details on to add anything to the discussion, other to say that by the time things get to procurement decisions, politics plays a big role.

Also, one point, the wheel is constantly reinvented. But I always had a fond liking for the AGS concept of bolt-on armor, though I'm guessing it boosted the overall system weight by not being integral. That is, the bolt on armor (by the nature of being bolt on) could not contribute to the flexural stiffness of the overall structure, and so the base structure had to be built stiff enough on its own to handle vehicle frame requirements. This chews up a lot of thickness, because plate thickness, more than weight or strength, contribute to flexural stiffness (thickness goes as the cube of plate thickness)