» Fri May 27, 2011 2:20 pm
Another point, perhaps the armored doctrine of the US Army changed significantly, and with it came an emphasis on a more mobile armored force, rather than that of the "old standard"(ie: the MBT). With that being said, if we are to assume, that the United States moved away from using MBT's and instead relied upon a mixture of Light Armored Vehicles(with also a high reliance on both a strong anti-armor doctrine and air assets), then perhaps it would explain the need for power armor, since when the US went to war with Communist China, it would be safe to assume, that the PRC was still using some variation of the T-55, and with the US relying on a lighter/leaner armored force, it would make sense, that power armor would have been needed to give the "Mech. Cav." the extra punch they needed to go toe to toe with the PRC's rather large force of outdated MBT's.