Talk:Combat Vehicle 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced statement about Sweden wanting a mix of CV9030 and CV9040[edit]

I've been unable to find any sources to verify this. Could anyone provide more info, or should we just remove it from the article? --Edward Sandstig 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember Sweden studied three versions; 25mm 30mm and 40mm. In the mid 1980s they ordered prototypes for the 25mm and 40mm versions. Only the 40mm was adopted. 83.248.24.24 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checked with Hägglunds. They delivered one prototype with a 25 mm Bushmaster and three with the Bofors 40 mm. Thoughts about the armament changed over time, 25mm, 30mm, 40mm, 57mm and 60mm guns, but Sweden definitely had plans on acquiring vehicles with different guns. 83.248.24.24 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. :) Is it possible to get information like that openly through a press contact from Hägglunds? So, would it be more accurate if I changed "Sweden originally planned for a mix of CV9040 and CV9030 but finally decided on the 40 mm version, due to the much higher potential of the larger calibre." to "Sweden had considered various types of armament but finally settled on the CV9040 armed with the Bofors 40 mm L/70." then we could link it to an official source. I'm still trying to find a reference for the statement that E-0r made about the 30 mm Bushmaster being easier to maintain, would you happen to know if this is correct and would you happen to have a source we could use? --Edward Sandstig 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many in the Swedish Armed Forces wanted to equip the CV90 with a 57 mm cannon[edit]

I don't know if this is of any interest to the article: Many people in the military wanted to equip the CV90 with the bigger 57 mm Bofors gun because the ammo would have even greater development potential. They where forced however, to settle for "only" 40 mm because of budget restraints. This will probably not fit in the article since it is almost "what if?". My thought was that i may be of interest since most countries have 20 or 30 mm guns on their infantry fighting vehicles. --Mailerdaemon 16:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to note that, but it would be better if we also had either an official online or printed source that we could use as a reference. --Edward Sandstig 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a 57mm gun would be hard to fire automaticly, if you read the 40mm bofors article it explains why --RaDeus 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you couldn't use a fully automatic 57mm gun on the CV90. Where in the article about the 40mm does it say that a 57mm can not fire automatically? It's a fact that they never built a prototype of the CV90 with a 57mm gun, but on the other hand the 57mm had been thoroughly tested on a Marder several years earlier. From what I've read it worked just fine. 83.248.33.161 17:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Bofors responded with a gun that was, to some extent, a smaller version of a 57 mm (6-pounder) semi-automatic gun developed as an anti-torpedo boat weapon in the late 1800s by Finspong before Bofors drove them out of business."
and just a little further down:
"Testing of the prototype in 1929 demonstrated the major problem was feeding the weapon in order to maintain a reasonable rate of fire. A bolt that was heavy enough to handle the stresses of firing the large round was too heavy to move quickly enough to fire quickly" or in other words, it worked but it was heavy, unreliable and not worth the hazzle.--RaDeus 09:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you have misinterpreted the text about the Bofors 40 mm, "a smaller version of a 57 mm" means a 40 mm gun, and "problem was feeding the weapon in order to maintain a reasonable rate of fire" refers to experimental guns in 40 mm calibre. Beside that, Bofors have manufactured fully automatic guns in 57 mm since 1950. They have also manufactured fully automatic guns in 120 and 155 mm, so calibre is not a problem.
But I notice that there are some errors in the article about the 40 mm. There was no prototype in 1929 and the gun has no bolt. 83.248.102.230 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There most certainly was a prototype using a bolt, but that refers to the failed design prior to Krupp metallurgy expertise had been brought into AB Bofors. Also, the 57 mm autocannon consider is this one, which serves on naval vessels. Weighing in at 14 metric tonnes it simply proved too heavy even after modifications. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can it destroy a MBT[edit]

ive allways wondered if its really as threat to an MBT, the 40mm bofors article says that a bosnian 40mm bofors (probably in an AA mount) attacked a danish Leopard1 and just scratched it. can the sabot round really make such a dffrence ? id imagine it would take 2-3 CV90s to takeout one tank, and MBTs dont drive around alone, so it wouldnt be practical --RaDeus 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IFV isn't equipped with any missiles meant for destroying tanks and as such it's not meant for engaging MBTs. The ranges of the guns on the CV90 (with the exception of the 120 mm) are way shorter than that of most MBTs. The idea is to pair it up with MBTs (and other vehicles) in full scale warfare for mutual protection. It should be noted that the Leopard 1 had a weak armor and HE shrapnel grenades have penetrated the turret from the side, as has 12.7 mm BMG rounds. This problem has been fixed on the Leopard 2 and probably on later versions of Leopard 1 as well. Shorttail 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I agree with your assessment that it won't work as a tank destroyer, but it is not supposed to be. However: With APSFDS-T MkII (puh!) ammunition the cv9040 can penetrate 150mm armour with good effect inside. I do not know if any MBT have any side that is protected by so little armour, but now you have a figure to check against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.230.194 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering the RPG-30 offers 800mm RHA penetration, which is the standard when attacking heavy armored targets, 150mm penetration isn't nearly enough. It can safely engage other light armor and skin targets, which is what it's meant for. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was specifically stated that the CV-90 should NOT pose a threat to tanks, as to not become a prioritized target and thus endanger the mounted troop, even if it certainly isn't a healthy practice for a MBT to turn the rear to a CV-90 at close range. BP OMowe (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Version of the Danish Army[edit]

I've heard the Danish Army is planning on using the 30 mm Bushmaster II cannon. Currently they're testing CV90s borrowed from Sweden that are not identical to the model they're planning on adopting. The article from DR states that they bought CV9035. There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the matter and the Army Battle School and HOK aren't known to be particularly informative. Anyone know what they're actually doing? Shorttail 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The press release from BAE Systems says they went with CV9035. There's also a short new article indicating this on the Royal Danish Army's official website. --Edward Sandstig 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason they continue to claim it's CV9030. Typical. Shorttail 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean DR still claims it's CV9030? What is DR? --Edward Sandstig 10:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark's Radio. But it's not them. It's the inside of the military that claims it's a 30 mm gun that'll be mounted on the final version. Shorttail 15:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark went with the 35mm autocannon. The whole vehicle is designated CV9035DK. 83.90.61.99 (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cv90 8.jpg[edit]

Image:Cv90 8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Tank Missiles[edit]

Are there any plans to upgrade the CV90 with anti tank missiles in boxes on the side of the turret such as on the M2 Bradley and other IFVs to provide additional firepower when engaging armored vehicles?

Don't think there are any plans at the moment, but there have been trails. 83.248.108.152 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called CV90456 and is equipped with a BILL 2 system, also known as RBS56. Demonstrated on Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.219.250 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30 vs 40 mm cannon[edit]

The Bofors 40 mm has been in production since 1932 and is one of the most reliable guns on the market. Lack of reliability was not the reason why foreign customers went for a smaller cannon than the 40 mm. They just simply wanted higher rate of fire, continuous feed and a stabilized gun. 83.248.108.152 04:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they did not choose Bushmaster guns to get a higher rate of fire. The Bofors 40mm L70 has higher fire rate than any of the Bushmaster guns installed in CV90, it can fire at 300 rpm while the Bushmasters fire at 200 or 250 rpm(30mm version). But as the Bushmasters are belt-fed they can give longer continuous fire than the Bofors gun, as the Bofors gun has a 24(3x8) round magazine. 81.227.0.144 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a turreted weapon, magazine capacity doesn't matter as the crew is fully capable of keeping the magazines filled. There will be fewer rounds in total of the larger calibre though, and the total logistics has to be considered as to what other vehicles in service are using. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:2008 Badghis province operation 4.PNG[edit]

The image File:2008 Badghis province operation 4.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cage armour vs tandem warhead[edit]

The articles says: "The CV90 can be also fitted with cage armour, which provides protection against tandem-charge and shaped charge warheads". How can cage armour protect against a tandem-charge? The first charge would destroy the cage, the mayor charge would hit the vehicle. The first sentence of tandem-charge is: It is effective against cage armor as well as explosive reactive armor which is designed to protect an armored vehicle (mostly tanks) against anti-tank arsenal. It seems, that cage armour is not able to protect effectively against a tandem-charge. --Tim.vogt (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct that a cage armour alone isn't sufficient against a tandem warhead. I believe the principle is that the add-on armour is sufficient to defeat a shape-charged rocket like the RPG-7 of itself, the cage armour stand-alone can only take care of a single charge leaving the underlaying add-on to meet the remaining charge. Zilk8 (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But normally the second (i.e. the main) charge is the strongest, while the first charge is only capable of penetrating a very small amount (~slat armour, spaced armour, an ERA-tile). I've also read that the second warhead is forced to penetrate the remaining material of the first warhead, as long the first is not capable of pentrating the armour. I still doubt that slat armour is effective against tandem charges, you also say that it would only prevent the first charge to reach the main armour. --Tim.vogt (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cage armour is supposed to have the projectile destroy itself on impact without triggering the explosive charge ; against RPG-7, around 60% of the hits are defeated this way. If the charge indeed is triggered to least have it go off at a less than optimal distance, giving the main armour a better chance to withstand the penetrator. BP OMowe (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PL-01[edit]

Would like to know if the relation between the Polish tank and the CV-90 can be confirmed, and to what extent. Anyone have some light to shed? BP OMowe (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Combat Vehicle 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Combat Vehicle 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Combat Vehicle 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Combat Vehicle 90. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why rename?[edit]

Why has this article been renamed from Combat Vehicle 90 to Combat Vehicle 90 (CV90)? This adds nothing and only makes the title longer. Jurryaany (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the unexplained move. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 July 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Vehicle 90 → CV90 – Common name. "Combat Vehicle 90," if it is even spelled out in full, is most often used on second mention in most recent sources (Defense News, Janes, The Defense Post) and even the manufacturer. "CV90" more recognizable in non-English, and it's also the title spelling variant used on about half of other Wikipedias. Schierbecker (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose abbreviation jargon in titles. For information on best titling, one should look at first introductions, not repeated use within the same document. Accordingly, the spelled out full name belongs in the title, has the abbreviation defined in the first sentence, and is used abbreviated thereafter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on grounds of clarity in article title. Note that usage in other wikipedias is not a valid argument for English-language version. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You cannot carry dismounted troops.[edit]

When a vehicle carries troops, they are not dismounted. A passenger on a horse is not dismounted either. 82.73.179.97 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fixed. Schierbecker (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Specific than "Combat Vehicle"?[edit]

The article identifies the CV90 as a "tracked armored combat vehicle" and (naturally) links combat vehicle. But "combat vehicle" is a broad category, including all ground vehicles that fight, including tanks. I suggest something more specific. Infantry fight vehicle? Armored personnel carrier? I'm not enough of an armor nerd to have an opinion, but I do think we need to be more specific than "combat vehicle.' Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lede identifies the CV90 as "family of Swedish tracked armored combat vehicles" - which is specific enough, IMO. Stridsfordon 90 literally means "Battle vehicle" or "Combat vehicle" & there exist many variants, as described in the article. The IFV is the basic or best known variant of the CV90, but there's no need to reduce the lede definition just to it.--2A00:102A:4016:645F:B125:4752:2AC4:430E (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're right. Never mind. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps change it to more specific family of tracked armoured fighting vehicles - which is still rather broad, but at least it excludes unarmoured vehicles...--2A00:102A:4016:645F:B125:4752:2AC4:430E (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then arise the problem that the family includes non-fighting combat vehicles as well.... we just have to face the fact: when designing military vehicles, easy classification is seldom if ever on the specification list of requirements. BP OMowe (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Combat_Vehicle_90&oldid=1207065528"