CV 90-40 Demo Video

Sent in by MO’s Canadian correspondent:

This video is from 2000 and the Canadians don’t have any CV 90s. However, Canadian Forces looks at CV90 for new Close Combat Vehicle.

Murdoc continues to be a fan of the 40mm Bofors. A while back I noted the Danes were ordering more CV 90-35 (with a 35mm/50 Bushmaster cannon) IFVs. The CV 90 series has really caught on and looks to be a solid design.

A 35mm or 40mm gunned version of something like this might make a good support platform for airmoble forces, but the CV 90s weigh in at 20-35 tons. By comparison, the M551 Sheridan light tank was around 15 tons and the LAV is around 12 tons. Even the Stryker MGS with a 105mm tank gun is has a base weight of under 19 tons.

Also of note up north: Canada is buying $66 million worth of add-on armor for its fleet of 700 LAV III 8×8 wheeled armored vehicles.

Comments

  1. The greater weight allows for more armor. A CV90 can take a 30mm hit, a stryker, sheridan or LAV cannot. Personally I can see a role for a light tank in our forces.

  2. So I guess this would be classed as an IFV? Kind of like a Bradley without the quasi-APC capability.

    I remember reading that during Gulf War Episode I (The Saddam Menace), Bradleys were often able to destroy or disable the Soviet-made tanks with 40mm hits which penetrated the frontal armour (probably at weak points like the turret ring). This could mean that IFVs like this could have a potent role on a traditional battlefield as a “jack of all trades” – engaging infantry, armour and low flying aircraft.

  3. I think the weight reflects the Swedes intent to use the vehicle in a homeland defense role. If you’re not concerned with flying the darned thing to some distant place prior to using it, weight isn’t an issue, and the extra armor hit absorbtion capacity becomes a plus.

    I agree we (the US) need to look at upgunning to a 30 or 35mm on our IFVs (to stay ahead of the curve).

  4. That gun would tear up a T-62/72 easy. Their turrent armor is about the same as those armor targets it was punching holes in.

  5. Bram, plus I guess the 40mm gun can defeat reactive armour pretty easily by firing enough shots that triggers all the reactive plates in that area, and then there are none left to protect against the follow up shots. That’s if ERA is even capable of defeating AP rounds…

  6. Nicholas: Bradleys have 25mm guns. I noted an interview on CNN during the initial invasion (4 April 2003) in which a 3rd ID captain claimed that his Bradley “wiped out” a bunch of dug in T-72s with its 25mm gun. Not sure if that was joshing the reporter or what.

    As for the weight of the CV 90, I would guess that this makes an excellent light tank. The 40mm is still a great weapon. I just suspect that it’s too heavy for the airmobile tank role.

    Can’t C-130 it in, even with basic armor and a light combat load. If you’re going to C-17 armor in, why not go for the biggies?

  7. I saw Marine LAV’s tangle with Iraqi armor in 1991. I talked to some of the guys in 1st LAI afterward – they were killing APC’s no problem with the Bushmaster. It didn’t sound like the 25mm were penetrating the tanks armor. Instead they just shot up the spare fuel tanks the Iraqis were too lazy to remove, thereby setting the tanks on fire.

  8. Yeah, you’re right, I realized it is a 25mm a while after I posted that.

    I’m pretty sure I read that when they inspected the destroyed T-72s and such after the battle, they found 25mm size holes in the turret which had penetrated all the way through. If a 25mm can do that, I imagine a 40mm will turn it into Swiss (or is that Swedish?) cheese.

    Of course there are times when 40mm isn’t going to be good enough, but I have a feeling that a mix of tanks with 120mm and 40mm guns could provide some significant advantages. The 120mm guns can deliver maximum fire power but the 40mm has the advantage of almost instantaneous follow-up and quicker area suppression.

    Murdoc, as for why you’d airlift in medium tanks if you could airlift heavies, I suspect there are some advantages. For example you can probably fit several CVS 90-40s into a C-17 whereas I think you can only fit a single Abrams due to weight, and they could probably roll off the ramp and straight into combat. I’m not sure if a C-17 can carry an Abrams combat-ready, it might.

Comments are closed