A thing not mentioned is it's also very mobile. In terrain where most other IFVs get stuck, the CV90 carries on. It handles deep snow or sand with high reliability.
Hands down way better than Bradley. It is keeping up with the times. Great family of vehicles. Great easily upgradable electronics, power pack , firepower and protection. Lower silhouette than the super tall heavy less maneuverable bradley
It didn't came with active protection. But the british army is currently working together with Leonardo on the 'icarus' project to affordably fit APS, that are already on the market, onto their combat vehicles. So it won't take very long since they don't have to develop a APS on their own.
So it's an infantry fighting vehicle but the infantry can't fight from it, only get out? how many does it carry, or should it really be called a light tank?
They can fight from it. There are hatches ontop of the infantry compartment which can open up allowing the infantry to get up and shoot. Number of infantry carried depends on the variant but ranges from 6-8. This is definitely a IFV.
Sorry to say, but the Bradley was garbage from the beginning and all improvements could only cover up the worst design issues. Maybe with a new generation of MBT/APC/IFV the US will get a decent replacement for the Bradley too. I never understood why the Bradley wasn't thrown out of the window right away. It was ok for a stop gap measure, but nothing else.
CV90 mobility, footage from the Norwegian trials. The Bradley is featured about 1:15 into the clip. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HAsR7m1wXM0.html enjoy
The Bradley is garbage. Its amphibious has a auto cannon has missles and has a huge silhouette. In the end it only carries a few guys. Its pretty trash. Whats amazing is how effective it was against saddam Husseins forces. In battle the bradley wrecked the enemy. Makes you wonder if the bradley did so amazing what would have happened with a way better vehicle
The 40mm bofors was required on the CV90 to penetrate the sides of soviet tanks of that time, not for the anti-infantry purpose. The CTA APFSDS has a lower RHAe penetration.
Oh, sorry i though the CV90 in the video was a 40mm one. But i forgot only sweden uses them. For 30mm, yes and no. 40mm CTA has slightly better penetration and much higher airburst payload, but generally lower 'stored kills'. I recommend: below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2016/04/bigger-guns-are-not-always-better.html
40mm is better and what the original country that made this used. 40mm actually lets you go toe to toe with the big boys at least. honestly I think ifv are shitty. light tank with 105mm is better in every way. let the infantry ride in a apc. I don't understand the point of an ifv. the Bradley is supposed to suck but it actually seemed to perform good though I would rather not ride in it.
In comparison to entirely new platforms, the CV90 is outdated. It's being upgraded constantly, but you can only upgrade certain features, and only to a limited degree. We all agree that a entirely new platform is superior to a 20+ year old upgraded one.
Outdated *in comparison* to new platforms. The CV90 does quite well against the majority of IFVs in service, but if it meets a new vehicle, it shows its age (czech IFV test trials). See, you can upgrade armament, turret, FCS, powerpack and even armor modules, but you can't upgrade the basic features such as hull size/shape, internal volume, layout and the concept in itself. As example, the CV90 was initially designed to have a manned turret, but now, with unmanned turrets gaining popularity, internal volume can be drastically reduced due to the removal of a turret basket. Lower internal volume results in lower external surface that needs to be armored, thus less weight at equivalent protection, or better protection at equivalent weight. There are CV90 versions with unmanned turrets, but the hull size isn't changeable on a existing vehicle, thus the CV90 doesen't profit from unmanned turrets in the extent entirely new vehicles do.
I didn't backpaddle. If you compare the CV90 to a new platform (Puma IFV as example) in the three key characteristics for armored fighting vehicles (Protection, Lethality, Mobility) overall, not just for snowy, desert or wet enviroments, you'll find out the CV90 is performing much worse, thus is outated in comparison. Further, read up about the czech IFV test trials, Lynx KF31, ASCOD 2 and two different CV90 versions (manned and unmanned turret) got trashed by the Puma. It hit more than twice as much targets than the next best contender.
Newer CV90 versions have significantly increased weight (35 tons) over the earlier versions which were tested back then (23 tons), and the track width hasn't increased since then, so no. It's not even good in snow anymore. Puma would perform better nowadays, since it's build for international climate, logically including snowy and muddy terrain (just like the Leopard 2, which is in service in Norway, Sweden and Finland) the power/weight ratio is higher and the tracks are wider.
