What exactly would the use of Strykers against asylum seekers? They are very expensive to run, and because of their weight, not the best all terrain vehicles. They are very good all terrain vehicles for their weight, but if you do not need that armor, then they are terrible. So what is the need for heavy armor?
Strykers are not "heavy armor", Salty Walty.
To determine whether Strykers qualify as "heavy armor," as claimed by Salty Walty on JustPlainPolitics.com, we need to clarify what "heavy armor" means in a military context and evaluate the Stryker's characteristics against that definition.
Since I don’t have direct access to Salty Walty’s specific claim on JustPlainPolitics.com, I’ll address the question based on the Stryker’s design, purpose, and how it’s classified by the U.S. Army and military experts.
"Heavy armor" typically refers to heavily protected, tracked vehicles like main battle tanks (e.g., the M1 Abrams) or infantry fighting vehicles (e.g., the M2 Bradley), designed to withstand significant enemy fire, including from large-caliber weapons and anti-tank munitions, while delivering substantial firepower. These vehicles often weigh 40–70 tons, have thick composite or reactive armor, and are built for direct, sustained combat against peer adversaries. In contrast, "light armor" prioritizes mobility and rapid deployment over protection, often using wheeled designs and lighter materials, while "medium armor" strikes a balance between the two.
The Stryker, an eight-wheeled armored vehicle developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, was introduced as part of the U.S. Army’s Interim Armored Vehicle program in the early 2000s. It was designed to equip Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs), which aimed to bridge the gap between heavy, slow-to-deploy armored units and light, vulnerable infantry units. Weighing 19–26 tons depending on the variant and add-ons (like slat armor or the Double-V Hull), the Stryker is significantly lighter than heavy armor like the Abrams (over 60 tons) or Bradley (around 30–40 tons). Its base armor protects against 14.5mm machine gun fire and 152mm artillery airbursts, but it relies on speed, mobility, and situational awareness rather than thick armor for survival. Variants range from the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) with a .50-caliber machine gun or 30mm cannon to specialized versions like the Mobile Gun System (MGS) with a 105mm gun, though the latter has been phased out.
The Army itself classifies the Stryker as a "medium-weight" vehicle, not heavy armor. It was conceived to be transportable by C-130 aircraft (though range and conditions limit this capability), emphasizing strategic mobility over the brute force of heavy armor. In combat, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, Strykers excelled in urban environments and rapid response roles but proved vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and anti-tank weapons without upgrades like the Double-V Hull or slat armor. Even with these enhancements, they don’t match the protection or firepower of tanks or heavy IFVs, which can engage enemy armor head-on with greater resilience.
Critics might argue the Stryker blurs lines—its weight and armament exceed traditional light armor like Humvees, and upgunned versions (e.g., the Stryker Dragoon with a 30mm cannon) pack a punch. But military doctrine and operational use consistently position it as a medium solution, not a heavy one. Heavy armor is about enduring prolonged, high-intensity engagements; the Stryker’s role is to get infantry to the fight quickly and support them, not to slug it out with tanks.
Without seeing Salty Walty’s exact phrasing, I can’t rule out a misunderstanding or exaggeration. If they called Strykers "heavy armor" to imply they’re tough or combat-proven, that’s a loose interpretation—Strykers are robust for their class but not in the league of heavy armor. Based on design, weight, armor, and Army intent, the Stryker isn’t "heavy armor" in any technical sense. It’s a medium-weight vehicle optimized for flexibility, not the brute strength Salty Walty might be suggesting.
So, no, Strykers aren’t "heavy armor"—they’re a middle ground, and the claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
@Grok
