This is another picture from ’05 when I was the TC of a Stryker, one of those eight wheeled armored vehicles you used to see before the army started driving the so called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. I was surprised by the Stryker and fairly impressed with its performance while I felt the MRAP was a piece of crap. The MRAP might be great for swivel chair generals to tour the green zone while visiting from the Pentagon in a VIP convoy but the damn thing is to tall, loud, and constricting for combat troops to operate from.
I know I’m going to draw some fire from MRAP groupies who believe the propaganda that a MRAP chassis has never been penetrated by an IED, or that it’s okay to only have a couple hundred round ammo can for the Remote Weapon System (RWS) because according to the company, “Fire fights only last for thirty seconds” but having operated out of MRAPs, Strykers, GMV’s, and up-armored humvees, I was the least impressed with the MRAP. I could probably write a full blown essay about this stuff…
Reflexive Fire 
I’m now eagerly awaiting that essay…
Shit, now I actually have to write it… I’ll search around for some pictures and write something more detailed. Any specifics you think I should touch on?
Perhaps discuss it from two angles, which might be two separate articles?
1) The ROLE of an armored car or AFV in modern / urban warfare, vs. what gets determined as the perceived NEEDS that the vehicle must have. The old problem of mobility, protection, and firepower – you might be able to get two out of three, but that’s it, etc..
2) The use of AFV or armored car type vehicles in “military operations” vs. how up-armored SUVs, Humvees, and the like get used by private military contractors, since the two groups perform “similar but different” roles.
Good ideas, thanks JE. I think I am going to aim more towards number one for now. The video I posted today kind of speaks for itself but I will elaborate on that as well.