I didnt say they made “A sherman”, i said they made it Based on sherman.
And what i ment is, they build the RAM using the parts of M3 Lee which were same as Sherman kept - the chassis.
So. As i said - them Canadians build RAM. And based on RAM there were some thins - the Sexton, the kangaroo (which is useless ingame but i ment that), the QF3.7
I managed to find sme picture with an MGs and autocannons on several different trucks, which would fit rank 1 AA. But then the tanks need to be discussed.
but it utilized shermans, stuarts and others. Yes, maybe more tanks were british. But then it makes it no different with british tree that is ingame. Thats a point for a different discussion.
So i’m all set here to hear them! Thats why we are here, to discuss that. Because i see you write “i can go on” but never going on.
which was british Humber? And again the Canadian one didnt even utilize the cannon. The Humber Mk3 variant.
it may come as the unique canadian AFV tho it was designed and produced by General Motors, so its also an american one. Same as Locust which was intended to be given to british. And the Cougar that is swiss? The Coyote that is LAV-25?
Idontknow
Would you kindly provide more info about them?
They still wont make an entire tree, but im interested in looking and listening about them anyway. THey still come to “mbt” era of the tree tho.
Respectfully, the Canadian AFV (AVGP / LAV I) was designed and manufactured by General Motors Diesel. A Canadian Subsidiary of General Motors Canada.
The following LAV II platform was designed and built by General Motors Diesel. USA licensed and contracted General Motors Diesel to build the LAV-25 for the USMC. Canada adopted the LAV-II platform itself shortly after, as the Bison and Coyote.
The LAV III platform was designed and built by General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (GDLS-C bought out GM Diesel in 2003). The USA, similar to their LAV-25, licensed and ordered some 4000 LAV III platforms from GDLS-C, which they’d later derive as their Stryker.
Finally, the LAV 6 was and is still designed and manufactured by GDLS-C, wherein Canada, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine are the only operators. (Saudi Arabia purchased 900~, Ukraine ordered some 90~)
Tldr: Canada designs and manufactures all LAV platforms through their own subsidiaries of GM and GDLS. Specifically, it’s more accurate to say the “Coyote and the LAV-25 are both equal developments branching from the Canadian-manufactured and designed LAV II platform.”
Right. A further example would be the British Ajax (as well as the ASCOD 2 and ASCOD). The Ajax was and is manufactured and designed by General Dynamics UK, the British Subsidiary of General Dynamics.
I heard recent rumours about the new British Ajax being added to the UK tree after the Desert Warrior…
If the logic (I recognize this isn’t your stance, this is just generally) was such that LAV I, II, III or 6 should go to the USA because General Dynamics-Canada is a subsidiary of General Dynamics, then so should the Ajax.
The LAV series is Canadian, as the Ajax is British.
Oi, Canada was not a small country during war, we did so much for everyone during the first and second world war! Building stuff for everyone, Juno Beach that was one of the most dangerous with Omaha Beach, helping in Italy and others place during WWII, Korean war too
We could at least have our own tech tree, if you don’t want that then just don’t play our tree but at least let us have the right to have it…
I don’t care about copy past…Canada did enough to be recognized and be added in war games…
Even if the Americans love saying they did everything… theirs allies helped too and there not enough Canadian recognition in war games…
Ps: hell let loose just announced that Canada will be playable so at least I know which game playing in 2026, we are not there to block holes in trees like gaijin said…
All i want is Canada to not be a subtree of Britain considering they already have South Africa and India as a subtree. A combined Australia and Canada tree would be better IMO
Oh, the “not showing a thread I followed has new messages” bug hit here. And that last message reminds me I need to finish that suggestion for the ground version of the CANZ tree.
Oh, there are plenty of others of us, also unhappy about that. I know I and a few ANZAC people I’m close with voice my dissatisfaction with the treatment.
That’s why some of us have begun the CANZ tree projects with an air tree already out and a ground one on its final steps. Or put renewed effort into suggestions.
