I received an email from someone (whose name I will withhold) with a military rank as part of their sender name. The email read
The reason LAV IIIs and Strykers are often called Canadian is that the chassis are built in Canada, and much of the weapons installations are done at the factory, or by the purchasing country (ie Australia). As for how many bodies fit into a LAV III, see attached.
and he attached a pic. It appears to be an LAV III “Super Stryker” (I believe that is a totally unofficial nickname) similar to what New Zealand is planning to buy.
I’m not exactly sure what prompted the message, but I definitely appreciate the picture. Two things I immediately notice about the pic is the absence of a spare tire, which Marine LAVs carry but Army Strykers do not, and the presence of what appears to be a 25mm chain gun in a turret. I firmly believe that the Army should be buying Strykers equipped with the 25mm gun in a stabilized turret. The 105mm gun-equipped Stryker MGS will probably never be fielded, and the Stryker Brigades need more firepower. I don’t know if a 25mm turreted Stryker would fit in a C-130, but hell, I don’t know if any Strykers really fit in a C-130.
Also, there are ten men in the photo. The Stryker carries a crew of two plus nine dismounts. Maybe the weight and space requirements of the turret, mount, and ammunition eliminated the last trooper? I’d suggest that it’s worth it.
As for the Canadian-built issue, he’s right on. I’ve mentioned it before, even noting that New Zealand may find buying a Canadian-built vehicle more palatable than buying something made in the USA. (Also noted in that post are some discrepancies in the weight and manpower stats. The ten men pictured here seem to support the 3+7 crew+dismount figure.) As I said, I’m not sure why he contacted me. Maybe a comment I’ve left on another other site? In any event, thank-you very much.