Rectification, you want to steal Canadian stuff that we want to be in the UK tree since you guys refuse that we get our own
If Canada had its own tree, this subject would be useless
1 Like
Right, so LAV-25 (and its variants), LAV-AG, LAV-AT, and LAV-ATM. BAE systems is a British company, yet that doesn’t mean the British get all the Bradley’s. If the US had no connection to it (through operation, or testing) then it has no reason to get it. Ownership of a company is simply too much, what’s to stop us from saying certain nations shouldn’t get certain vehicles because the metal they used wasn’t theirs?
2 Likes
Bradleys were made by United Defence, which was acquired by BAE Inc. (BAE US), which has a special agreement that makes it more distinct from BAE UK than GDLS/GLDS-C. Most of what BAE Inc. makes is developments from the American companies its made of, like their American EW business and Lockheed Martin Sanders
we didnt operate the F-14AM or test it with its Iranian modifications, but it still went to the US since thats the right place for it
not the case though is it?
that because there is no other place for it to go. its simple
but there is a place for canadian stuff and it the uk tree, same as the f18/adats and many more
3 Likes
This is decision making you have to take up with Gaijin.
Not all Bradley’s were. BAE acquired United Defense in 2004 I believe, which would mean anything after the M3A3 or M2A3 would be in the British TT. Besides, Bradley’s were still produced after the acquisition by BAE, but I think we can agree that going the lengths to figure out what model was produced what year under what company would be excessive for proper placement of a vehicle. Bradley’s were never operated by Britain, so Britain doesn’t get them. The LAV 6 chassis, was never used by the US or even produced by them, so any vehicle using the LAV 6 chassis, will not go to US.
1 Like
no, because they still used the same factories, do you actually think they completely remade the production lines because BAE US had it?
also, there is still the special agreement, for which no equivalent exists between GDLS, GDLS-C, and the Canadian government afaik
Of course not! Because gaijin see people like you saying that Canada is useless and shouldn’t get a tree
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here, but you sort of prove my point. A US subsidiary of BAE produced the Bradley, so the US gets the Bradley. GLDS-C (the Canadian subsidiary of GLDS) produces the LAV 6 Chassis, so any vehicle based on the LAV 6, will only go to Canada (so long as it wasn’t operated by anyone else, specifically the US, since they didn’t).
2 Likes
Anyways, here are some more funky/interesting LAVs I found.
Cougar WFSV, I can find little on this vehicle, including a better photo. Is said to have a 90mm Cockrill Mk. 1; sadly, can’t confirm much of anything about this vehicle.
LAV Roadrunner/LAV Chapfire/CCSLEP. This vehicle also has very little on it, seem to be a project to keep the Chaparral turret alive. It’s got a Canadian-style name, which is interesting.
AVGP Wolvarine, some might know this from War Game: Red Dragon; however, info on the real deal is scarce to the point we might not even be able to call it real.
2014 Eurosatory Demonstrator, well, I have nothing to confirm or deny this, I do believe this vehicle is related to the LAV-700s at some point in development. I have also seen it called: “LAV 6.0 IFV (30)” likely do to the turret.
3 Likes
they are not comparable examples
i dont
not a tree or subtree, and if operating matter, the US has operated LAV’s very extensively (more than anyone else) while the UK has not
Theeeere, the American simp open his mouth on it again
1 Like
cant even state a fact anymore lol
1 Like
At least I don’t open it to say incorrect info or blocking people from having their nation in game.
Typical American reaction "you guys are bad, we did everything "
“Getting a Canadian tree? Nooooo you guys won’t have it”
2 Likes
Canada should get a tech tree and I don’t care about the others who want to steal our vehicles, we did WWI, WWII,Korea war and yet we are seeing as the weak nation with nothing! The fact that gaijin didn’t added us yet is an insult
1 Like
They are. BAE Systems Inc. is the US subsidiary for BAE, which is a British company. GDLS-C is the Canadian subsidiary for GDLS, which is an American company. They are in the same boat.
Canada is present in the game, through multiple nations mind you, but is still very much present (more so than even some sub trees). Again, Gaijin makes terrible decisions, so it isn’t an official sub tree or TT, but generally their content is spread between Germany and UK. Besides, the US doesn’t need anyone else’s tech, they have plenty of their own which would be pretty damn similar.
This is not an excuse to put the LAV’s that the US DID NOT operate in the US just because “they operate LAV’s more than others”. By this same logic, all vehicles utilizing the LAV chassis should be in the German TT, under the Swiss sub tree, because the LAV is based on the MOWAG Piranha.
2 Likes
did you not read the part about the special agreement that sets it apart?
Please provide me with this “special agreement” as I don’t even know where to begin looking for it, as I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Alright thank you for providing a source, but now I fail to see where this literally matters with anything we are discussing? Why does this “special security agreement” matter for what we are discussing? How does it change the fact that BAE Systems Inc. is a subsidiary to BAE?
1 Like
