The whole purpose of that "very common current weapon" just happens to be defeating MBT armor... to expect the armor of a glorified and highly modifiable APC to withstand such weapons would mean that you would have to equip said vehicle with better armor than an MBT.
I mean, really:
1) Tanks are invented.
2) Anti-tank weapons are invented.
3) People complain that tanks are a failure because they are vulnerable to anti-tank weapons.
Puh-leeeze!
EDIT: Now I'm not saying that the tank in the analogy shouldn't be improved simply because it was
defeated by something else that was made to defeat it, but there needs to be either a change in presentation of this Stryker vehicle, or a change in its composition.
Presentation: Public, this ain't a tank. It's supposed to provide mobility to ground forces and protection from anything from small arms fire to heavy machine-guns. If you want a vehicle that can withstand modern
anti-tank weaponry, go pour yourself a 10-meter thick wall of reinforced concrete and put wheels on it.
Composition: Due to the multiplicity of anti-tank weaponry among the enemy, the Stryker vehicle as originally concieved is ill-suited to the modern battlefield. In its current state, it can fulfill the role of infantry transport to the front-lines exceedingly well, as well as various other duties that do not involve intentional front-lines combat. The alternative is to redesign the vehicle to be 5 meters wide, 10 meters long, and 3 meters tall. The internal space will not increase; all this extra space will be devoted to additional armor to withstand even the fiercest barrage of weaponry concievable.
