Gunpower and decent armor protection were the hallmark of all the best WW2 tanks. A good, accurate gun, and mechanically sound.
Btw, the reason the French armored forces were defeated is well documented. Their armor was divided up amongst infantry divisions, not concentrated into a mass, as were the panzers. It had bupkiss to do with any "superiority" Most of their tanks were Panzer IIs with 20mm guns. They had better tactics, and a better strategy to employ mass armor penetrations. Its a complete myth that Germanys 1940 tanks were superior to British and French tanks, they were not.
Personally I think the idea of having glorified APCs with MBT guns is going to backfire at some point. Canada is also mothballing its MBT Leopards in favor of the Stryker. Looks good on paper untill an export T-90 starts shooting at you with a 125mm gun. I guess the idea is they wont ever have to actually go into combat? Or the air force is supposed to come in and save the day. Its amazing how armies forget all the hard lessons given time, to make the same mistakes over again.
As a defensive system, I think there is merit in a Stryker, but a fundamental rule of armor on the attack, is that you must expose yourself to enemy fire.
