Quoted:
Stryker has better crew survivability than the [red]Bradley[/red] - let alone the M113.

Quoted:


Huh?
Please explain this one.

Quoted:
Interesting, but I've always heard that in Viet Nam the troops prefered to take their chances and ride on top of the APC's since they were so vulnerable to mines. Wouldn't this still be a problem with all the roadside bombs we are hearing about in Iraq?

Quoted:


Simple.  There are rounds that can penetrate and disable the M2 / kill its crew that WILL NOT do the same to the Stryker.  No, I don't have a link.  NO I absolutely will not give details.

Just take the actual serving soldiers there right now's response to the M113 crap as evidence that the war-geek naysayers have no clue what they are talking about.

Quoted:


WTF?
The Bradley's got thicker (and more) armor than the Stryker, EASILY.  Even with new ceramic bolt-on armor, which is available for the Bracley, the Bradley is easily more survivable than the Stryker.

Of course, you can't give details that don't exist, so I understand.

The M113 is another story.  A .50 will easily penetrate both sides of the standard M113.  The A3 version ups the ante without much additional bulk and can easily accept slat, applique and cage armor to catch up.

The Infantry Carrier Vehicle is swift, easily maintainable and most importantly includes features designed for the safety of soldiers. The LAV has armor protection all around, even on top. The armor will stop 50-caliber bullets and protect against 152mm airburst shells, and  the armor is twice as thick as original contract specifications called for. The tires of the LAV can be inflated or deflated from inside the vehicle to make it safer for different surfaces ranging from deep mud to hardtop, and the vehicle has run-flat tires. The LAV has a built-in fire suppression system and self-recovery winch.