That is the $64,000 question. The advocates of the tracked M-113A3 and M-8 Armored Gun System lost the argument. They had a pretty good argument, lots of facts on their side, more bang for the buck, but the wheels won.
Why did the wheels win?
Several reasons come to mind.
1. United Defense couldn't compete in the stock options and employment opportunities for retired generals arena.
2. The Airborne did not scream loud enough and long enough when the Sheridans were taken away from them and the M-8 was cancelled. The rationale for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams was to provide combat power to the 82nd and 173rd so they don't have to be just speed bumps. What they needed was a parachute-delivered BMD-type vehicle for paratroopers to ride in. That ain't what they got.
3. The army's decision-makers come from two seperate camps -- Peacekeeper vs Blitzkrieger. The Blitzkriegers commanded cav troops in Germany in the 70's and armor brigades in Desert Storm. The highlight of the Peacekeeper's careers was Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. I think we lost a lot of Blitzkriegers from 1993 to 2001. I think the Peacekeepers are in charge.
Stryker is a great vehicle for delivering the pizza in various Third-World sh*tholes. If you think peacekeeping and military operations other than war and low intensity conflict is all we are ever going to be faced with, you like wheels. If you look at Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian and other developments in Main Battle Tanks, and then you look at how many ragtag and bobtailed outfits have old Soviet tanks, the oldest and sorriest of which can eat a Stryker's lunch, you like tracks.
Unless the real idea is to use the Strykers for domestic purposes. In that event, minimal RPG protection is less important [unless Wal-Mart gets a shipment in from China in the near future!] and the .50/ Mk19 should be sufficient for crowd control and for keeping order in the Detention Camps, as per the 40mm Mk19 the FBI deployed at their WACO churchburning.
-archy-/-