Actually Strykers have less suceptibility in the urban and semi-urban context than tanks. For instance, tanks are more vulnerable to most everything above the 50cal range on any aspect other than the frontal arc.

For the Stryker, the armor distribution is a lot more even and it can withstand higher kinetic trauma over a larger azimuth. Also, a tank in an urban zone is also very vulnerable to losing its treads. A tank without treads is a dead tank. That is why the Stryker has wheels. The odds of one hit taking out all four wheels on one side is much much lower than a hit taking out the treads on a side of the tank.

The Stryker is specifically designed for the situations like the kind in Iraq. There will be teething troubles for sure but the Stryker is the better vehicle for the job in Iraq than the Abrams. A Bradley and a Stryker doing combat patrols in Iraq is a lot more useful than an Abrams.

It’s a riced up Honda Civic with two hood scoops, spoilers, neon lights, and those cool LEDs on the wind shield washer fluid squirter. Oh, forgot the 17″ rims, wicked paint job, and the four 15″ subs. Man, no room in the back seat at all.

I wasn’t suggesting copying in either direction but the similarity b/w the two struck me. Dats all.

Since we’re talking about French anecdotes, the best Euro-dissing statement I’ve heard was regarding the recent Iraq war.

An American had commented “… that it is ironic that the French are criticizing the US for being arrogant and the Germans are criticizing the US for being militaristic…” 😀

Awesomest line ever!

What part of the GDP does Britain spend on its military?

Ja, this board needs some humor, please release the flood gates.