Replies

Maybe he means they are more maneuverable on paved surfaces and cause less road damage and get better mileage?
I think the Stryker has its place, but not as a replacement for the Abrams and the Bradley. I am reminded of some professors in collage who would only recognize one theory of social interaction. Only B.F.Skinner had it right, or only Radcliffe-Brown or some other well published and recognized expert had it right. There was no room for a mix of ideas, no room for compromise. It seems to be the same with the Stryker. It has to be all or nothing, no room for a mix.

It has it's place, but they could have done an honest development process for it, and been honest about it's place rather than, as Shinseki said it was, a one on one tank replacement.
That is extremely and grossly neglegent on the part of the brass, but I doubt anyone will seriously pay for it.

I doubt they meant paved surfaces, as the Stryker isn't being used on them alone despite it's restriction to such surfaces.
And it's inability to go cross country safely is a majorly negative point.
Not every country we will operate in has improved road surfaces.
But teh US has a huge network of them.
As a police vehicle to keep lightly armed civilians cowed, the Stryker would be great.