Using LAV-25 for its actual purpose = l33t

[Happy]

Eddie Baker'] Both would have a tough time surviving the most modern rounds available for the RPG, hence the "light armored vehicle" designation.

Doesn't the slat armor protect Strykers from rpgs?

[NikovK]

RPG cages and applique armor improve the vehicles survivability, but can't do too much more. The LAV's protect the occupants from shell splinters, small arms and even .50 caliber rounds on the harder surfaces but do not defend against purpose-built antitank weapons or more powerful IED's. They were never intended to stand up against these threats and their best defense against them is a hull-down firing position or distance and mobility.

Personally I think the Stryker would be better if manufactured in the USA, because then every designer, contractor and assembler would be protecting his own countrymen through his work instead of earning a dozen bucks an hour. The whole mobile gun system is an example of the contractors abusing American taxpayer dollars to fit the M60's tank cannon (which they get at discount because they're being phased out) on a vehicle that weighs less than an M60's turret. It doesn't work and they're just bouncing from one expensive half-*** solution to another when they really need to develop the sort of low-velocity large-bore punting cannon they fielded on WWII assault guns. That would solve their recoil problem, lighten the whole vehicle and still give their mechanized infantrymen armored assault-gun carriers.

But why suggest a solution expensive to the Canadian company when they can take American dollars and blow it making the cheap surplus cannons "work"?

Sorry Canadians. You know I respect your bacon fetishes but this company is being rotten.