>>4392This is called an ad hominum fallacy, attacking the source and not the argument. The fact remains that, regardless of your personal opinion on Sparks, he brings up valid criticism and examples of the Stryker being a failure. All you're doing is talking creative smack without a shred of actual argument.
>>4393 >the stryker was not fielded at that timeMy point is that the Stryker cannot be made for a hyper-specialized role like filling that "gap" only, it's far too much of an investment not have variable capabilities and applications.
>we needed a formation that was in air liftable vehicles Correct. And I'm explaining to you that the Stryker failed the task of filling said gap, even the Rand article - in spite of that site glowing - confirms that as of its publication, the US cannot deploy large heavy forces by air including Stryker formations making it a failure.
>its not a multi task vehicle its a troop carrier And yet it has several variants analogous with the M-113's variants the basically stick different shit onto the original vehicle. It doesn't matter if its a troop carrier, the military was and continues to use it in multiple roles, no matter how ill-suited it is. Also it's a shit troop carrier too.
>The M113 wasn't a multi task vehicle it was also a fucking troop carrier. Yeah see here's the problem - reality doesn't care, that's why the M-113 got upgraded repeatedly to improve its capabilities in offensive and defensive capacity, which leads to roles like recon, mortar-carrying, engineering support, fire support and Command, because regardless of its original designation, the Army needed such vehicles and the M-113 fit the bill to be modified into such configurations. The Stryker literally has the same sorts of variants too.
>the bradley is literally designed to carry troops and fightYeah, sort of like how its designation of IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) means such? Doesn't mean diddly squat even if the Bradley was labeled an APC. Hell the only reason the Bradley is called an IFV is its relatively heavy armament and slightly better armor compared to the M-113. It's not a multi-purpose vehicle either, however, by your own designation, as its role is that of troop-carrier + fire support, not recon or tank-hunting or anti-air or anything else, yet the military still did the same thing they did to the M-113; deploy it for various roles and upgrade/modify it to fit said roles, even if they don't fit the overloaded vehicle very well.
>Stuff like the M113 and the Bradley is literally how can I move a maneuver element faster than just walking and covering their heads from shrapnel. NO SHIT SHERLOCK! The Stryker is supposed to ALSO do this… and fails because its got shit armor, shit speed, shit maneuverability, shit cross-country capability, isn't very easily air-transportable, eats a shit-ton of fuel, carries a minimal group of troops and has shit armament to boot. So yes, the M-113 is superior to the Stryker in this case since the main idea behind the Stryker's creation - rapid deployment of armor support for troops - is failed.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/30/the-stryker-is-deathtrap-but-youre-paying-for-it-anyway/