Originally Posted by sherman105

liked that last one...looks like a bradly equivilant.should put some ATGMs on that thing.....

It also come with a 120 mm tank gun (fire the same ammo as STRV122)

Seen here:

http://www.wendel.se/rswa/cv90derivat.htm

Scroll down

The whole point of a Stryker is to be C-130 transportable.

40 tons carriers cannot do this.

Great, an air-transportable coffin....

The Stryker isn't a good vehicle. But you can get a good protection package for a very light weight

Apparently the Brits have a prototype APC vehicle made of plastic that can withstand 30mm over the front and 14.5mm on the sides with a weight of 9 tons.

Yep, we use plastic on our tanks, only in peacetime though. The plastic used is actually extreemly strong, allmost like the real material which they replaced. (side panel armor that protects the tracks on the tank)

The conscripts soldiers kept destroying these armor side plates so they had to replace it with something about as tough but cheaper so they used plastic

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

The whole point of a Stryker is to be C-130 transportable.

40 tons carriers cannot do this.

That reqirement has been dropped.

It was not (surprise, surprise) considered feasible.

There is another issue regarding weight not linked to air-portability. 90% of the worlds bridges are classed as have load bearing capabilities of 35 tons or under. Therefore any troop carrier should ideally be under that wieght. This is an issue that we Brits are looking into, especially as we become a more expeditionary army, and it is where, hopefully, those clever bofins who meddle with plastics may be able to help out.

On the other hand, we are allready driveing 100+ tons (Trucks loaded with MBT tanks) trucks over these bridges without a problem, you just have to take it easy
Although they can handle probebly 50 tons weight, so 35 tons bridges might be a problem. But you can allways make another bridge

yes, what are engineers for?

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

That reqirement has been dropped.

It was not (surprise, surprise) considered feasible.

I haven't heard anything about this
The entire point of the IBCT is to go anywhere in the world in under 96 hours.