So. I've been trying to figure out how the CV90 actually rates against other IFVs, but I can only really find sponsored articles trying to either sell it, or competitors.
Is it actually good? From what comments I can find it looks pretty mediocre, but there's some folks praising it to high heaven. Are they just fanboys?
So. I've been trying to figure out how the CV90 actually rates against other IFVs, but I can only really find sponsored articles trying to either sell it, or competitors.
>From what comments I can find it looks pretty mediocre, but there's some folks praising it to high heaven
So tell us about what you've read, anon
>So tell us about what you've read, anon
Folks on twitter, mostly, and it's vague terms about how it's "the best". Which feels like people who, yeah, either unlocked in War Thunder, or want to be contrarian and like something that isn't yankshit or russian.
So your research consists of twitter opinions?
To be fair to him, thats more than most here
I wouldn't call it research. I was curious and googled about. But the options really are articles put out by people trying to either market the CV90 or competitors, and the other is random loudmouths on twitter and reddit.
So now I'm coming here to add more random loudmouths from PrepHole for a wider base of loudmouths.
>6-8 dismounts depending on variant
>All cannon variations are good
>Decent top speed
>Has seen abit of combat faired well
>Regular upgrades keeps it up to date
Probably the best IFV out there until the Lynx comes into full production.
>Probably the best IFV out there until the Lynx comes into full production.
I genuinely disagree with this assessment, because any IFV which lacks an ATGM is at a major disadvantage when compared to those IFVs which do have this capability when conducting operations against a mechanized near-peer force. Your points are generally good, but the lack of ATGM immediately removes the CV90 variants from the discussion of capable IFVs in my opinion. Before anyone comments that there are variants with an ATGM, I do know about this but those variants are not the standard. Hopefully the successor to the CV90 will have native ATGM support
It doesn't lack an ATGM though. Infact it can have probably the best ATGM out there. Have you been listening to the warriortard shill?
Anon "it can" does not mean that it does have this capability across the fleet right now
What kind of retarded comment is that? The CV90s customer base is HUGE the biggest one out there, they buy and add on what they deem fit.
Again there is not a single nation which has equipped its entire fleet of CV90s with an ATGM. Prove me wrong.
>protip: you can't
Dutch CV9035 with the MLU being delivered now.
because all want the atgm with the dismounts
>They all want to cope
I doubt it
>The Dutch CV9035 vehicles have been equipped with several enhanced capabilities such as an Active Protection System (APS), an Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), and a new Electro-Optic Aiming System (EOPS), which provides additional situational awareness.
The Slovakian MkIv's will be with ATGM
CZ ones too.
The RB56 version of the CV9040 never entered serial production. There were difficulties integrating Bill 2 into the existing sight and a dismount would handle guidance rather than the gunner. CV90MKIV is much better anyways.
BILL-2 integration was more of a "look what we can do if you want" project done inhouse by Hegglunds. Neither Sweden, Norway or Finland sees (at the time at least) integrated ATGM as worth the cost and complexity, given their terrain and doctrine. The closest have been Norway with the CROWS/Jav combo, but they generally feel that the CROWS have been pushed on them without benefit and probably wont pursue it further.
The MkIV turret is a lot better because BAE has identified growth such as ATGM and APS as highly relevant for central european customers and worked this into the turret from the start.
>What kind of retarded comment is that? The CV90s customer base is HUGE the biggest one out there, they buy and add on what they deem fit.
The CV 90 is a vehicle typical of peacetime armies, it has good mobility, light weight and is comparatively cheap to use. In a wartime army, it would be considered catastrophically underarmored and seriously underarmed due to lack of a fire and forget atgm.
What? Isn’t the CV90 with upgrades quite heavy and well-protected? I don’t know enough about its armaments to comment.
>What? Isn’t the CV90 with upgrades quite heavy and well-protected? I don’t know enough about its armaments to comment.
If it doesnt have modern composite armor its going to get holed by any kind of fossile ATGMs from the cold war. The CV 90 has a centimeter or two more steel armor than the BMP-2, it doesnt make it more survivable against a shaped charge. The american experience with the Bradley should be enough proof of the failure of the IFV concept, but fanboys insist that it isnt valid becuase the Bradley is a completely different vehicle than the CV90.
Literally the same or even better armour than the bradley depending on what you put on it, as has been said before in the thread.
It's very well armoured for an IFV and they offer ATGMs as an option, but none of the customers seem to be interested in having their ATGMs bolted to a vehicle.
It’s armor isn’t that good
>In a wartime army, it would be considered catastrophically underarmored and seriously underarmed due to lack of a fire and forget atgm
Is that why the US is working so hard to replace the Bradley?
There are two types of ATGM available the Spike LR in your image and the Akeron MP.
Another addition to
post is that the newer model has its own drone launched from the turret.
>any IFV which lacks an ATGM is at a major disadvantage when compared to those IFVs which do have this capability
I would honestly prefer an IFV with Trophy and softkill APS over an IFV with ATGM but no APS, all else being equal. The former is more survivable while the latter has (usually) two shots and that's it, before both go back to a gun duel. Pitting one against the other, my money's on the former.
CV90MKIV fixes that by adding an integrated ATGM
They're not standard because Nordics doctrine was always dismounted atgms because of the limited terrain.
Now that exports have expanded outside it's original design environment, the option exists.
The CV90 can fire ATGMs. The Swedish military simply does not use IFV mounted ATGM as part of their doctrine.
Most CV90s can’t fire atgms. It isn’t standard like on the Bradley. Any vehicle can fire ATGMs if they are fitted with ATGMs
Atgms aren't like legos that you can just bolt on. Integration of systems is surprisingly complex and time consuming so that you can use the vehicles sighting and fire control systems basically with just an extra addon.
The CV90 has this integration ready and if a user wishes atgms can be installed very quickly. Like has been said numerous times the nordics don't have integrated atgms as part of their doctrine because they believe that in the heavily wooded environments that dominate their landscape, they are better placed with the dismounts. The Dutch, Slovaks and Czechs to my knowledge have chosen to go with the integrated atgms but the vast majority of the existing fleet is with the nordics that don't want that.
>our doctrine is to cuck ourselves
I'm going to place more faith on the military planning of several nations than the ramblings of anonymous people on mongolian throat singing forums.
Several irrelevant militaries. Let’s not forget not a single military powerhouse has adopted the CV-90
Because military powerhouses generally design and build their own shit for obvious reasons. The fact that Sweden went with the effort to build and design their own ones was a much more expensive choice than just buying say bradleys, meaning they probably had a good reason for it and believed it was worth the effort. And a good reminder that most of the countries that have adopted the CV has had them go against other competitors like the bradley with the Norwegian tender.
And if you're seriously saying that Finland and Sweden are irrelevant then you're clearly uninformed or just trolling.
It’s not military planning it’s cope. They simply didn’t have the budget to integrate atgms so they relied primarily on unguided dismount AT for decades. there is no reason beyond budget not to have an integrated ATGM on an IFV
I'll agree so long as it's like the soviet design of just having one atgm on the vehicle. But even the CV90s missile packet takes away one stowage bin which is a change especially for the crew of the vehicle. If you have several ones and a whole reloading system then that takes away precious space that could have been used for more infantry or ammo for the main gun.
Integrated atgms are fantastic on an open plain, but on forest roads with short to medium engagement distances and readily available cover everywhere there isn't really all that many probable scenarios where an integrated atgm would decisively win over a dismount one. Now granted if I was a tanker then I sure has hell wouldn't say no to having a atgm or two with me but I also recognize that a well trained crew working with it's dismounts can still get the job done.
> Surprise head meeting with the enemy
It's faster to just shoot with the main gun to get immediate effect on the enemy and reverse fast to cover
> You're on the defense
Dismounts have time to set up and you have the added flexibility of having your IFV and it's extremely good anti-infantry capability separate from the atgms. Though if you do need to get out the infantry will need like 20 seconds more time to pick up the atgm before getting inside.
>You're on the offense
Blast through anything light enough and the back off to cover to let the infantry dismount when reaching heavier resistance and continue on with the atgms now in play with the dismounts
IFVs also don't work alone or even just with their dismounts. They're just one part of the whole system so they'll have MBTs, artillery and air support there with them.
This doctrine is born out of cost cutting directives, nothing else.
moron your argument is defeating itself
I’m saying any vehicle can mount and fire atgms if the vehicle is equipped with them. My point is most CV-90s in existence don’t have atgms
Sweden is gay for 40mm right?
How much ammo can they carry?
Why do you always post multiple replies Warriortard it's cringe and doesn't help your argument at all. The door looks wider on the Bradley which is another reason it's super vulnerable and not very safe.
But you concede that it’s more spacious inside. It’s wider and taller but somehow smaller in your eyes?
Kek the door being wider doesn't mean the room Inside bigger. Do you have dimensions of the Bradley and CV90?
I have eyes
Just stop it's cringe.
>Huge profile but worse protection
>Weighs 5 tons more but worse protection
>Huge profile but is similar size in the rear
I get it now, the Bradley is designed for fat people.
Why do you keep saying it’s worse protection? They’re both rated to 30mm all around with add on. And both 14.5 as base models
cv90 armour is classified.
Open source info says 30mm all around. And even if it were classified than why should I trust you when you say it’s better protected?
>They are the same protected
How can one be so ridiculously heavy and slow then? Let's get real it's a much much worse vehicle and protection wise...let's not go there with the sheer amount of wasted Bradley's out there from such low tier opponents too.
>How can one be so ridiculously heavy and slow then?
Much larger internal volume.
>inb4 cv90 is better protected it’s just classified bro
>Inb4 I don't know the actual size
Photographic evidence posted itt. Haven’t seen any armor rating comparisons to argue your point tho
But you said it could store lots of atgms plus dismounts all you proved was it had to remove 3 seats to do so? Sad.
Photographic kek let's get some figures Jose. Armor ratings are a given. The Bradley has shit armor the CV90 doesn't this is common knowledge.
Sadly very true even the training ranges are very dangerous to Bradley crews given there horrible optics and awareness.
>The Bradley has shit armor the CV90 doesn't this is common knowledge.
May I see a source. Open sources say they have the same protection rating
There is no such thing as “protection rating” outside of world of tanks
Yes. Armor is rated for a certain protection. For example, open sources claim Bradley and CV-90 are rated against 30mm all around
There are NATO standard protection ratings for vehicles.
All western production vehicles are certified within that framework.
Its not a protection level, it’s a standardization of threat levels for testing.
Can you source that claim
My friend, it’s even in the fucking NAME of the standard.
The CV-90 is more protected because it just is ok
>But you said it could store lots of atgms plus dismounts all you proved was it had to remove 3 seats to do so?
The M3 Bradley with fewer seats is the cavalry varient. It carries more of everything except dismounts because its a scout vehicle, not an IFV.
The protection levels of any armoured vehicle are fairly easy to calculate from its weight budget and dimensions. If you have X tons left after you've counted the weight of the gun, engine, tracks, etc. and you have to cover Y square meters of area with it, you get a certain level of protection. Your armour is of course not uniformly thick, but the basic principle remains the same. Even if the exact protection levels are classified, we can tell from weight, outer dimensions and armament that the CV90 has better levels of protection than most IFVs. Certainly better levels of protection than the tall and spacious Bradley with all the area it needs to cover with armour.
May I see the source? Everything online says 30mm all around. Can you do these calculations for us to see
30 what? Russian? NATO? AP? APCR? APDS? APFSDS? Vhit? Azimuth? Elevation?
Point blank nato APFSDS, like all other armor rating protections
You've never worked with 4569, have you?
This is a good point. Actually as far as I'm aware Soviet/Russian IFVs didn't have apfsds rounds for their autocannons which would mean they have a significantly lower armor penetration capabilities, particularly at any kind of range.
>lower armor penetration capabilities, particularly at any kind of range.
Oh but it gets way more fun than that.
Certain types or armor, plating and backings, say ceramics, polymers or even different variants of steel will handle different types of threats. So when designing a composite armor package, you may end up maxing it against one type of threat, say 30x173 APFSDS going 1100m/s, which for some reason makes it less optimal against something like a 30x165 APDS due to the different penetration characteristics between a full dart and a subcaliber penetrator. And thats before you get into ricochets vs normalization, behind-armor effects and whatnot.
I got to watch one test where an armor package was fired on by a 30x173 APFSDS from two different producers, and one would consistently ricochet when fired at an angle, while the other would normalize and penetrate.
30 mm conventional AP, not APDS or APFSDS.
I will not. I have spoken with engineers at Hägglunds who assured me that such was the case and that was good enough for me. Whether it's good enough for you is up to you.
Ohhhh your dad works at Nintendo I see
modern cv90 has Stanag 4569 with level 4 (14.5 at 200m) as a base and level 6+ (30mm apfsds at 500m) for applique armor versions. At least thats according to hägglunds themselfes
>nooooooooo you can’t just understand that there’s more room in the larger vehicle. You need to post unobtainable dimensions or I win!!
>that god damn muzzle
While your points are valid, the tradeoff for thick armor is that it's a god damn midget wagon, riding in it for a few hours must be fucking miserable.
Same with the Lynx though.
Weird how you never hear this from it's users then
I simply don’t believe that guy has ever spent any time at all in a CV-90 and is just saying that to further his argument. We can use our eyes to see pictures of
How cramped the CV-90 is
Photos generally really don't give a good idea of space, and the picture in that quote honestly didn't look all that bad to me. Like the back seat of a normal car. Maybe a bit of bending in the knees but seeing as it's an open space you can probably move your legs around a fair bit so long as you work with your buddies.
Look at this picture. Use objects for scale. Particularly the rifle. It’s already pretty crowded and there is no AT, no comms gear, not even daypacks.
Ok that certainly does look a little cramped but is that even a CV? looks pretty different from the other one plus germans don't operate them.
Yeah pretty sure that's Puma from some quick googling pic related
vs the CV90
Sure as fuck looks bigger than a puma at least.
This is an m1113
Nope got the picture from this site
And Pic related is an m113, completely different looking.
BTW I like the surround AC ports with adjustable jets. So everyone can get cold air just where they want it.
God that’s short
Doesn't really look like that much shorter, just a lot wider. Another picture that looks rather comfortable.
Could you regale us with some details of what you've read and WHY you feel it is merely shilling, rather than give us a vague feeling and expect us to do all the work for you?
to date you still haven't posted anything that makes me think "hm this guy has read up"
>hm this guy has read up"
Fuck, I haven't. Its a quarter past two, I'm half drunk and I was thinking of the shit being sent to Ukraine, and I'm bored of googling, so I wanted to see if I could make other people do my job for me.
>I'm half drunk
Is this a cry for help?
Yeah, I'm out of tequila. Send help.
CV90 appears pretty cool. The 9040 has a Bofors 40mm gun with 72 + 168 rounds, but it can be fitted with 35mm Bushmaster if that's more your thing. 3rd gen thermal sights, stabilisation and fully-networked up-to-date FCS. The sights have an armoured shutter, which is nifty.
Protection ranges from 30mm (front) to 20mm (sides) which is quite nice.
Turret options include remote turret, 120mm compact gun, and one with a Spike NLOS ATGM.
Speed is 70kph forward 40kph reverse. The Mk IV has a more powerful transmission.
All in all, it's hard to say no. The only issue is lack of APS and I don't see an RWR, though I may be mistaken.
Dutch CV90s have the Iron Fist APS can't find any examples with an RWR though.
Fairly sure he mean LWR and not RWR, which is included in the EO&radar sensors for the APS.
Can't deny that. Thanks for the answer though.
>Folks on twitter
As far as I can tell, the shilling for it here most likely came from some goober who unlocked it on War Thunder and really liked it.
It's kind of like how you suddenly love AKs if you get a non-piece of shit AK.
Seems okay, 35 and 30mm models with increased ammo capacity seems to fit its customers needs. 40mm seem the most potent but suffer from ammo supply in longer engagements, then again the payload of the 40mm should counter some of that.
mobility seem to be the key to the platform and given the terrain (or lack thereof aka mud) in ukraine it will be interesting to see how it fares.
>mobility seem to be the key to the platform and given the terrain (or lack thereof aka mud) in ukraine it will be interesting to see how it fares.
it will get eaten at range by any ATGM in the russian arsenal. I've told this to swedes and they refuse to believe it. They think it is as well armored as a strv 122. Swedish doctrine even have these thin cans following directly behind the infantry, just like the ukie and russian BMPs. They wont fare any better because to an anti tank missile they all have about the same level of protection. Once images of wrecked CV90s are spammed across the world, the sales of this colonial policing shitbox will plunge, and swedes blame the ukies for wasting it using monkey tactics. The truth is that it was a shitty budget vehicle from the start made by pinetree monkeys.
>So. I've been trying to figure out how the CV90 actually rates against other IFV
>Is it actually good?
Describe to us what your operational doctrine is, where/how you want to use it, and your preference regarding mobility, firepower and protection. Then you will get an idea if it is "good".
It's getting sent to Ukraine, basically, wanna know if it'll do well there.
well then you'll have a vehicle with good protection, high mobility, a good autocannon with an effective HE shell but somewhat low ammo count, and room for 8 dismounts (maybe 7 depending on which version sweden sends).
Compared to something like the Bradley, it will be lacking in the ATGM-department, something that would have been relevant to have in terrain like Ukraine, but probably somewhat higher mobility.
>It's getting sent to Ukraine, basically, wanna know if it'll do well there
Hmm let's see
Sweden operates ~350 CV9040 and 54 CV90 command types, 42 artillery observer, 40 mortar, and ~27 SPAAG and ~21 recovery variants - exact numbers are hard to reconcile.
Sweden said they'd send 50 CV90s. Conjecturally, this may be 44 IFV and command variants plus 6 others - likely to be the SPAA and recovery varients.
Giving us a notional Ukrainian CV90 mechanised infantry battlegroup comprising 3 companies, each
>3 platoons x 4 IFVs
>2 company CO + XO IFVs
>1 recovery vehicle
>1 SPAAG vehicle
and 2 battalion CO + XO vehicles.
There is actually a significant difference between the early 90s CV9040A and a new-build Mk IV.
>Sweden said they'd send 50 CV90s. Conjecturally, this may be 44 IFV and command variants plus 6 others - likely to be the SPAA and recovery varients.
I kinda expect them to be only IFV version for simplicity, but i would like to see them put together a complete mech inf group like you described.
>only IFV version for simplicity
you'll find chassis-specific recovery vehicles being included in some of the NATO stuff being sent, because you know for sure that if a CV90 is damaged, a CV90 ARV is able to recover it. (The US ran into this problem in Desert Storm; the M60-based M88 couldn't recover M1 Abrams.) The Swedes designed the CV90 ARV to operate with their IFV units so it's likely they will send some. no point keeping the excess ARVs anyway.
That is how the British are doing it, sending complete "battalion sets" of the right variants in the right proportions per doctrine, and probably training the Ukrainian crews on the same vehicles as well. They're sending 14 Challenger 2s, because that's what a British armoured battlegroup has.
The US however is sending 31 Abrams - because Ukraine operates 31 tanks in one tank battalion.
Similarly, Poland first delivered 30 PT-91s, then 14 Leopards.
so back to the CV90s, it's entirely possible that Sweden may choose to send some other combination. say, 48 IFVs and 2 recovery types, to outfit 4 full companies of mechanised infantry. it's purely my conjecture.
>the M60-based M88 couldn't recover M1 Abrams.
That must be why US Army last ordered new M88's in 2017.
of the more powerful M88A2 model, smartarse.
M88A1s will in future be used for IFV recovery.
>the Norwegians for example use Leo 1 ARV's for the CV90
because they had the Leo 1 ARVs around and sufficient for the job. Also the reason why a Bradley recovery variant doesn't exist, see above.
Other armies without pre-existing buying newer chassis will usually buy the recovery variant as well for this reason. E.g. UK ASCOD, Australia Boxer, etc
>because they had the Leo 1 ARVs around and sufficient for the job. Also the reason why a Bradley recovery variant doesn't exist, see above.
Yes, but my point was that while the swedes use CV90-based ARV's, that might not be included in the delivery for Ukraine if they have other recovery assets, one of which being the Leo 1 ARV being delivered.
It's already been officially stated that sweden is sending 50 strf9040C. So no recovery vehicles.
>Leo 1 ARV
Ukraine is getting Leo 1 ARVs?
12 Bergepanzer 2 was delivered by germany in december, and some more are expected as part of the MBT deliveries that are coming from other NATO nations
They might be needed for current equipment, particularly tanks.
But yeah that's 1 possibility.
Yes, all the cv9040c are going to Ukraine. Although, due to the most recent upgrade package, it was my understanding that the upgraded c variants would be designated as the e variant.
A 2nd time, I ask for source
Was on the press conference when it was announced, they explicitly said it’s the variants designed for and previously used in international operations (ie. C variant). It’s also the variant that currently doesn’t have a use in the armed forces
Does it have an ATGM?
>the variants designed for and previously used in international operations (ie. C variant)
Were I them I would have saved those in particular for the Swedish Army, in case of a future commitment.
The C standard also include the SPAAG, ARV and other variants. It's possible the 50 will be:
>42 infantry variant
Well the army is modernising the cv90s, and I guess that the c variants are different enough to be a bit of a hassle to upgrade in parallel
in my mind, all the more reason to keep 1 battalion set around at least
what if another conflict kicks off somewhere hot and the Swedes need to deploy again? they'd have to mod new C variants right?
>you'll find chassis-specific recovery vehicles being included in some of the NATO stuff being sent, because you know for sure that if a CV90 is damaged, a CV90 ARV is able to recover it.
Thats the swedish approach, the Norwegians for example use Leo 1 ARV's for the CV90 for the extra winch and crane capability, with Leo 2 ARV for the mbt.
They're sending 28 challengers, they recently doubled it. I imagine for the reason you stated.
Reportedly, they will equip two Ukrainian battlegroups. We are seeing a shift away from Russian fighting doctrine to NATO; previously, the complement for a Soviet-style BTG would be 10 tanks.
Maximum elevation of the gun is limited to 55 degrees due to lack of money to design a proper AAA turret. If you look under the hood, the swedish armed forces are a clownshow of low IQ people at all levels.
they're all pretty much the same, like all military equipment. the differences exist between generations, not within generations.
anon will chime in saying >ackshually there's a huge difference between 20mm autocannon and 90mm cannon, and he will be correct. but the areas in which X is worse are generally offset by the areas in which X is better, or offset enough to be close enough to parity that it's much of a muchness.
Does it sport the infamous 40mm Bofors, loaded from a CLIP?
Ah as expected this thread is a thinly veiled Warriortard sperg
Did you know CV90 is now available in 50mm flavour?
My favorite thing about the 40mm is that the spent casing gets launched damn near into the stratosphere
Nice digits. Have a 40mm video you have probably seen before. I like to skip to the 5:50 mark.
Im just going to say it, Bradley looks straight up like a tall fat retard with a pencil dick
I don't get how they made it so big but so weak at the same time? Like I thought the trade off of being a huge target would be great armor buts it's not the case infact it has terrible protection.
It's also slow as fuck, it's slower than every western MBT.
>Did you know CV90 is now available in 50mm flavour?
Is the 50mm two or three rounds per clip? Don't tell me they load each 50mm round individually
Yeah that's it spot on then we rolled off a bridge because our situational awareness is so bad...wait, my bad that's the bradley
Accidents happen when sleep-deprived in war, which is something you treehugging yuros will never understand
>sleep-deprived in war
It was in training and it was decided the Bradleys optics were at fault. Its OK your education is to blame for your retardedness, you are but a chubby American.
>N-no I will not provide a s-source!!! You j-just have to believe m-me ok?!?!!?!
It's all so tiresome on nu-/k/. This shit wouldn't have been happening in 2010
>spergs about source
You claimed it was in a war, accepting you had some idea of what I was talking about when in reality you haven't a clue because it was in training so why would you need a source for something you already thought you knew?
American education at its finest.
>B-b-back in my day...
It did happen during the push to Baghdad in 2003. Never happened in training like you said hence your lack of source.
I'll be forever more ripped than you can imagine Sven. Try not to get killed in a Malmo no-go zone today
Kek how wrong you are see
I wasn't aware they fell off another bridge how fucking bad must the situational awareness be.
>b-but it was Baghdad
No it was in 2019 USA
>3 Fort Stewart soldiers died when vehicle fell from bridge during training, general says
Now stfu you fat misinformed idiot
Kekt and rekt
Finally a source. I'll concede the point about training. Though it must be said that one (1) training accident does not make a vehicle useless. You would see the same in Sweden if your army actually trained instead of collecting handouts
Go back to your nafo discord newfag
>Not long after the decision was made to turn off lights and drive using optics, a Bradley crew flipped off a bridge they didn’t even know they were crossing, according to an investigation into the fatal mishap obtained by Army Times through the Freedom of Information Act.
>Jenkins made a radio call to relay the problem, saying the optics inside their Bradley weren’t working.
>The issue wasn’t unique to them. Before the fatal roll over, another Bradley crew, also experiencing troubles with their optics, accidentally drove into the woods. Multiple troops reported that their vehicle optics were “flaring out" and “fogging up,” or simply “going out," according to summaries of witness interviews.
>Not being able to cross a bridge in 2019 with night optics
To simplify yes but turned upside down and loaded from below through 3 sliders for different ammo
in case of ammo problems it can still be hand-fed through a panel in the top of the gun.
Sweden makes good shit
>my atgm bait shitbox is better than your atgm bait shitbox
I fucked a chick in the back of a cv90 one time. Its really roomy but the anti-slip mat on the floor really fucks up your knees. The fabric seats only works for reverse cowgirl, but its not perfect.
This is the only way to rate these vehicles
stridsfordon deployed to Poltava...
ivvagine... once avain figvting alonvside ovr cossack allies... vgh...
its the best selling western ifv of modern times. This thing is a bigger export sucess than anything else on the market since the german marder and in the cv90's case the exports have all been new producttion.
Also has 7 current operators with another 3 on the way. Compare this with any of the other western ifv's which has at most 4 operators.
Point is regardless of if you think its mediocre or not clearly the market has overwhelmingly chosen the cv90 over the other alternatives
except mig 21 was bought because it was the only thing the eastern block could get.
Yea and the CV-90 is only bought by neighbors. No one outside of the very specific Northern European environment wants them. It’s a regional platform
Canda, the Uk, and Poland evaluated it at one time and all of them passed on it. The US was also looking at it for a now cancelled program.
>bigger export sucess than anything else on the market since the german marder
Only 5 countries bought the Marder, two of them in tiny numbers (<50).
The Mowag Piranha is probably the most successful Western IFV.
passed only because BAE was in their bad books, and may well end up buying CV90 or a derivative in future to replace Warrior
was never going to buy many
was never going to buy
>has 7 current operators with another 3 on the way
They're all Nordic-Baltic mini-states.
It IS regional; most of them are on or very near to the Baltic Sea.
>Compare this with any of the other western ifv's
Most major nations buy their own IFVs, or sell to their particular client states (eg Arabs).
I like CV90, don't get me wrong, and it seems to be successful, but it's not "best selling". Call me when a major army forgoes its own national manufacturer for the CV90.
>but it's not "best selling"
In the export market it sure is. Disregarding sales to the nation that developed it (which will always put the US on top simply because they have the largest military) the cv90 has more sales than anything else western be it bradley, ascod, lynx etc
>Disregarding sales to the nation that developed it
kek why would we disregard that? How many units exist is incredibly relevant
anon's right though, US and USSR designs will mog everyone else's otherwise
That’s because the US mogs anyway.
>you have to cripple the US to make it fair
you just love to see it
For now, Italy should stop dragging their feet
how are Switzerland, slovakia and the czech republic "Nordic-Baltic mini-states"?
Because we are talking about exports? aka what the market is willing to buy/actually looking for.
Not counting sweden since its the nation that developed it or estonia since they purchased 2nd hand from other users CV90 has 1052 units exported, for some perspective using the samee criteria (just exported units).
* BMP-3 caveat here is that some were inherited from the ussr so its not actually this much of an export sucess
You are talking about exports. Number of total vehicles is more relevant than # of customers. Especially when the larger number also has the most capabilities
Nta but what your saying is retarded.
X nation develops Y produced 6000 sells 1000 keeps 5000.
Z nation develops Q produces 6000 sells 5000 keeps 1000
Z nations product is a much bigger success.
>Has better capabilities
Kekekek hi warriortard, no the Bradley is not more capable than the CV90 it's much much worse in every possible metric.
There aren’t 6000 CV90s tho. And yea the Bradley has capabilities the CV-90 doesn’t have. Such as the entire fleet has integrated ATGMs while only a small fraction of the already much less produced CV-90 has atgms. That’s a huge capability right there that Bradley mogs in. Modern variants have better armor protection with 30mm all around.
>And yea the Bradley has capabilities the CV-90 doesn’t have
Correct. And if your doctrine requires you to have a mounted ATGM capability, the Bradley meets this better than a legacy Cv.
If your doctrine requires you to have greater mobility in difficult terrain and a Hispanicy HE round, the Cv meets this better than a Brad. "Best" comes down to what fullfils your requirements
No there are 1280 total with 731 sold to customers who wanted that specific vehicle
Bradley has 6780 total with 520 sold. 400 to Saudi Arabia that just wanted to buy into the US's country club. The 89 for Croatia and 32 for Lebanon aren't even new just old used Bradley's.
You can buy the CV90 with an ATGM just like you can choose the cannons calibre nations not choosing that moots your retarded point. Bradleys armor is dogshit and needs HUGE add on pieces to make it barely to standard.
The CV90 is better protected, faster, lighter, more lethal, better optics, has a better capability, smaller profile and a better export success.
Step outside of your echo chamber the Bradley is a pos.
>Bradleys armor is dogshit and needs HUGE add on pieces to make it barely to standard
Both Bradley and cv90 base models are 14.5 rated all around. Both are 30mm protected with add on armor.
Amazing the CV90 manages this while being 5 tons lighter and 20kmh faster. The Bradley is a piece of shit.
Yea the integrated atgms add a ton of extra weight. Compare that to CV90 armed with 2 ATGMs and integrated launcher not the base model. It’s coming off as a bad faith argument
Kek you think a dual atgm launcher and 7 TOWs weights 5 tons?? Get this man a hospital he's got a severe lack of reality lmao
What does it weigh?
You made the claim "atgms add a ton of extra weight" you source it.
I'll help you abit though a single tow weighs 18kgx10 =180kg a tow launcher weighs 100kgx2 = 200kg. Let's add in a fancy motor that makes it fold and a box for it to sit in do you really think that adds another 4600kg lmao.
NTA but internal volume is much larger. That’s how the Bradley can carry so many extra TOWs
Way more internal volume in the Bradley. Spacier for troops and able to carry a lot more ATGMs for the integrated launchers standard across the fleet
kek why did you imply the CV90 has the same amount of hulls as the Bradley?
Damn, i guess the bmp1 is the best ifv of all time then by leaps and bounds
If the BMP1 had any relevant capabilities than yes it would have been. Unfortunately it’s slavshit
Well I mean the BMP1 is credited with killing Bradley's so...
a bmp1 can destroy a cv90 too you know? i wouldnt want to try that if i was in a bmp1 but its totally possible.
But it never has despite the CV90 seeing the same amount of combat as the Bradley. Both were in afghanistan
The Bradley was in Iraq gulf war 91 for and Iraq 2003 for a short period until it was removed from theatre due to numerous incidents were it was blown to shit due to inadequate protection.
Correct. You entering every IFV thread shilling the Bradley is an obsession, I could understand if you picked a decent IFV.
Yea it dominated the gulf. It was smart to witch’s them out with MRAPs during the counterinsurgency too. Mine protected vehicles will always be better than IFVs for COIN
if you bothered to read the criteria was exports only. 2nd that number is wrong im gonna guess by BFV you mean bradley? if so the US made 6230 units for itself and exported 521 meaning a total of 6751 were produced. Sweden made 569 Cv90's for itself and exported 1052 for a total of 1621 units produced.
the point is though that the us could build literally anything and as long as they adopted it themselfes they would oputproduce anyone. that does not mean their equipment is automatically the best as
was pointing out
Yes but the export criteria is yours and not as relevant as number of units produced.
>that does not mean their equipment is automatically the best as
Damn, i guess the bmp1 is the best ifv of all time then by leaps and bounds was pointing out
It doesn’t mean that but it doesn’t change the fact that neither vehicle being discussed is “better”. Both are good at what they were designed to do.
>may well end up buying CV90 or a derivative in future to replace Warrior
Keep up. They already bought Boxer to fill that roll.
They might scrap for cv-90 tho
Boxer, not CV90, dipshit
>Wheeled and tracked ifvs are different enough that one can't really replace the other.
I agree, but UK is in a shit position so it seems they had to make that choice
Wheeled and tracked ifvs are different enough that one can't really replace the other.
With wheels you get better on road speed and a larger operational radius. With tracks you get much better offroad mobility with the difference growing much faster depending on the terrain and some being completely of limits to wheels. Also tracks are mandatory once you go past a certain weight.
Ahh yes the Nordic countries that are Czechia and Slovakia.
It’s decent to good. Probably going to be outmatched by newer IFVs coming online
I don’t like it because the entire fleet doesn’t have integrated atgms.
Western IFVs of that generation are for the most part functionally identical. Autists will tell you about minor design details and how they totally change everything, they really don’t. As long as it has 2nd/3rd gen thermals and BMS integration, it performs quasi identically. It’s way more important how they are integrated into combined arms formations than how their gun performs at 2km vs RHA targets.
The only downside of the CV90 is that it is not HK capable, but that is a rather new development in the IVF world.
/k/'s inability to understand how different national and doctrinal factors influence vehicle designs continue to baffle me.
Im surprised the F-35 project didnt straight up make the place implode
Not him but the requirements for the CV90 was different from the requirements for the marder.
It’s ok. It has the 2nd largest vehicle fleet out of all western IFVs so that counts for something
APS seems better than ATGMs for an IFV imo, your dismounts can provide ATGM protection
Both is better. Plus the dismounts can also carry an ATGM.
>The US Army recently completed rigorous testing on the Iron Fist Active Protection System (APS) that showed significantly improved results over previous tests. The testing completed in October 2022 of the Iron Fist Light Decoupled (IFLD) system demonstrated improvements in both durability and system effectiveness, compared to the previous testing on the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
>In 2016, the Army chose to test the Iron Fist Lightweight Decoupled System to protect its medium- and light-armored vehicles. Initial testing in 2018 was set to validate the vendor’s (General Dynamics and Elbit Systems, Inc.) performance claims. The US Congress provided additional funding in the fiscal year 2022, toward the goal of equipping an entire Army brigade of Bradley vehicles in 2025 with continued funding.
>warriortard has joined the chat
And there it goes
in trials the cv90 has shown that it is actually very good and reliable.
but all modern in service IFVs are good.
No most are. The Bradley is terrible
This is becoming an obsession
Even the most modern bradleys are Africa tier
Matsimus loves it and I'd say he knows a little bit more about armored vehicles than your average PrepHole-tard
That retard shills the warrior because he was a mechanic
Ok warriortard we heard you the first time now.
This bro does nothing but read off Wikipedia pages
He went to a CV-90 live demo and even got to fire some rounds. Other than that he isn’t an authority on anything.
Alot more room in the Bradley for the same amount of protection all around. That’s important when you have an intergrated ATGM and value crew comfort
Looks like there's more in the cv90. Also storing 10+ atgms in a badly armored vehicle seems like a recipe for disaster, are they stored in armored compartments? That top image doesn't even have 6 seats maybe you got confused and they compromise seats for storage.
The Bradley one is much larger and looks much larger in these pictures.
So it compromises seats for storage.
But the ATGMs aren't stored in armored boxes? It doesn't look bigger.
So to sum up
The Bradley has a huge profile, shit armor slow as fuck can't carry much unless it gets rid of dismounts. That sounds terrible.
Yea the Bradley is noticebly bigger. Here’s the seats you’re hung up on. Why choose this hill to die on?
Thats not a CV90, anon.
This is the CV-90
That’s not the CV-90
>isn’t the argument that the CV90s dismounts will just carry atgms? How is that different than atgms stored in the Bradley?
Yea the m2 and m3 have a much larger internal compartment at the expense of being much taller.
This is an m3 for carrying 10 TOWs. This is what the m2 comparment looks like. It’s much roomier than the CV-90
Sorry doesn't look roomier at all, just old and out dated like the inside of a soviet era mig... same colour too.
But thanks for correcting the retard that thought it could carry 12 ATGMs plus 6 dismounts kek what a clown.
>needs a wide angle lense to make it look bigger
That's not an M3 Bradley.
M3 Bradley doesn't have two benches for seating on each side of the hull, only 1 bench the other is where the extra ATGMs are stored
Other m2 layout
Damn that looks comfy. The CV-90 looks so small in comparison
Not as bad as soviet compartments but holy shit that’s miserable
That’s not a CV-90 retard
No shortage of space in the brad.
Yep she’s designed to fight righ along with the infantry. From the perfect cannon for suppressing infantry, to the tank busting capability of the TOW, right down to the large amount of gear it can carry into a fight. That’s food, water, ammo, and supplies space
the argument that the CV90 isnt comfortable or is too small is just retarded. the average person in my team in the back of the CV90 was 190cm and weighed around 100kg. no one complained and you who have never been in the back of one have no reason to either.
It started sometime around the latest Cv-contracts for Slovakia i think.
Its like Warriortard, but somehow more retarded
That’s really cramped
Yeah its warrior tard alright. You can see here
He posts twice after a comment he doesn't like or when he feels threatened. He's harmless to everyone but his own mind. Spare a thought for his family.
I don’t believe you
Warriortard is mad he got BTFO in the falklands thread. He really hates how small of a conflict the falklands was and tried to shoehorn the opinion that it was PrepHoleino
I immediately knew it was him once he started talking about armor protection ratings.
Anyone who says "terrible" and "piece of shit" referring to any of the Western tracked IFVs currently in service is probably being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith
Those words are for describing real pieces of shit like the BMD and BMP-2, not anything with thermals and cannon-resistant armour
>IFV with a bore evacuator
Is this some mobile gun system type of variant?
RUAG 120mm compact tank gun
>it's only a model
The CV90 has plenty of room.
Just pointing out that no CV-90s were lost in the gulf war or the 2003 war in iraq
The same can’t be said for the Bradley. It really is a deathtrap piece of shit
didnt one blow up in afghanistan
Kek that warrior got wrecked
not a Warrior, a Cv9030 Mk1 that hit a 25kg IED under the left front roadwheel
how do they know how much a ied weighed?
Bomb techs look at crater size, damage to vehicle, blast-power from how far shit has flown etc. Its still an estimate because its an IED and everyone will be different, but still
And its not the actual weight of the IED, but the equivalent weight in TNT that one uses to estimate the blast
thanks for a real answer. i honestly didnt know how they did that.
CV90 was behind the Bradley for ~10 years. It sold well because it was cheap in a time after the Cold war when budgets were going down.
Looks to me like the CV90 is superior in every way why would you post this self own?
Why is some freak show having a meltdown in the CV90 thread about the Brapley no one cares, it's trash.
>Retarded ESL screeching because he can't read
>looks to me like
>ESL confused by basic English phrases
Paint scheme looks really gay. Why do manufacturers across the west love this tacky pattern
Because it works really well in any kind of distance and it's easy to paint for a different occasion, just pick one color and change that, for example the light green to white for winter.
What about this type of textured pattern
>that optics suite
>that 50mm cannon
These things are going to be great paired with brads
They aren't pairing, they're replacing. That is the GDLS Griffin 3, competing for the Bradley replacement program (OMFV).
They are the replacement but it’s incredibly naive for you to think the Bradley won’t also stay in service. They absolutely will and that’s why they have upgrades scheduled out to 2028
I never implied the Bradley wouldn't continue being used. Do you honestly think they can replace a vehicle, that has hundreds of units in service, overnight? No. Don't be silly.
A fleet of vehicles that large can take several years to be replaced.
There are thousands of bradleys in service
It’s also got a multi mission launcher for atgms and drones
So in summary
>Has a Drone
>Looks the best
>Multiple choice variants depending on user
Wow no wonder its the best IFV right now and has been for some time.
>ATGMs not standard
>none equipped with APS compared to Bradley’s having a full regiment by 2025
It’s easy to see why you’re the first person in history to call the CV-90 the best ifv
Probably the best IFV available currently with tons of customizability to make it fit for your doctrine.
The most notable thing about in comparison to other ifvs is it's mobility, video related. You'll also see a bradley get completely mogged in the snow.
>replies to OP
>post count remains the same
This is me. That is as far along the thread I got before replying and going back to answer the op before continuing on, still catching up.
Though I gotta say I love your attentiveness.
Here it killing snipers in iraq. Supporting troops like it was designed to do
Here it is lighting up insurgents with 7.62
Here it is destroying enemies hidden in a building using its TOW.
There’s plenty more just like those
It’s awesome that these videos exist. To see the IFV concept come to life by watching the Bradley support it’s own infantry is awesome
>look it can blow up someone's living room
yeah sure, but even a BMP-1 can do all that
CV90 also sounds like pure sex.
>Another IFV thread ends in warriortard sperging about the Bradley
I wish this guy would just get banned already
You are the only poster who ever talks about warriortard.
It’s pretty good. Better situational awareness than the warrior that’s for sure. Driver of a warrior collided with another soldier and killed him instantly. The accident rate seems to be super high on warrior for some reason despite not many units built.
> A 26-YEAR-OLD British soldier has died during a routing training exercise after a collision involving a Warrior Armoured Vehicle on Salisbury Plain.
The warrior is a deathtrap
> Two thirds of the army's Warrior armoured vehicles in Afghanistan still have not had crucial safety improvements made to them 18 months after six British soldiers were killed when theirs was turned into a fireball by a huge bomb
Wait. I could have sworn that the warrior has never been destroyed. That’s what warriortard is always claiming
>By a HUGE bomb
Is that what it takes to defeat the warrior? I'm aware only 5 have been destroyed 2 by A10 1 by Challenger 2. Amazing only 2 have been destroyed to enemy fire. Makes you appreciate how tough they are, maybe not as lethal as the CV90 but definitely protected well.
Huge bombs. The exact same things that kill Bradley
You have been called out for double posting wtf is wrong with you are you actually mentally ill? Or seriously autistic?
And no Bradley's got fucked by basic RPG were the Warrior tanks them for fun.
Not many have been deployed so those are pretty bad numbers
I was aware of the other obvious flaws of the warrior like the clip feed system and unstabilized gun but I hadn’t realized the armor protection had the same problems the Bradley had.
When are these going to be delivered to Ukraine? Any updates on training? Saw a clip yesterday of the ukies training on the Bradley.
look I just think its 40mm autocannon is neat
does it hurt if you get hit by that
Not if you've stretched enough.
It’s 54mm, fucking Burger can’t read a metric tape.
kek burgers can't handle not having the best toys and screeches like autistic 3 year olds
many such cases
I’ve always been fascinated with the CV90. It just looks like a man-sized, heavy-hitting, big tread real protection IFV, almost (or in reality) a light tank. The image of an army’s BIG TRUCK tickles me is all.
So what’s the latest package of these things?
The Mk4. Here's the promo video.
>light tank with an 120mm cannon
Das it meng.
It's the least modern of the modern IFVs. Better than old cold warriors like the Bradley, worse than newer things like the Griffin and Lynx
>My private venture be all-end all is way better then a proven platform which have been in use for +30 years.
Hard to say about the griffin since it's still in development but the Mk. 4 is practically an all new vehicle that is on par with the Lynx in terms of modernity.