We are seeing some limitations in Iraq now after glowing initial reviews of Stryker performance:
A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.
All we are learning is that light armor cannot resist weapons of sufficient power. This is basic physics, folks. The only question raised is who really believed that heavy armor is obsolete?
I never thought the Stryker would be a wonder weapon. I admit it has survived better in Iraq than I thought it would--based on that slat add-on armor. So the Stryker has its place in bridging the gap between heavy forces and leg infantry.
But its place is not to replace the Abrams and Bradleys that are the core of our heavy forces. The Stryker is showing vulnerability against terrorism. Do we really think it could slug it out in high intensity major combat operations?
