Same! I will let you know if i find anything of interest once they arrive
3 Likes
If possible, could you confirm or deny the missing spall liner covering the small plate into the fighting compartment from the engine room.
Right side of fighting compartment, in front of the gunner. Seems extremely strange that plate is left out.
And in game the 10mm RHA plate that exists there serves only to create additional spalling into the fighting compartment.
Where are you referring to on this image of the liner:
Well, by that very lonely bit side by side by the drivers viewport, seems like such an odd layout. why would you put a liner the size of a glove right there and not actually encase the fighting compartment.
Still, even without spall liner, lining the that part the 10MM rha plate doubles the spall into the fighting compartment.
New bug report on the front plate being incorrectly positioned.
The front plate on the CV90 MKIV is incorrectly positioned // Gaijin.net // Issues
This one was already accepted but has also yet to be fixed yet.
2 Likes
i will take a look once i have them
Thank you, It just does not seem to make any sense to me, perhaps it is as such because they believe the engine + the plate that seperates the two compartments would be enough to stop any rounds/shrapnel entering the fighting compartment.
I believe a round through the glaci plate, engine block + the RHA wall would be enough to severly deteriorate the punching power of any round going through all of that, but that might be just me.
1 Like
The CV 90 Photo Guide book was sold out and is very VERY difficult to get a hold of, there are only a handfull left out in physical museums for sale, i have e-mailed a few of them but we will see, in the mean time i ordered these two as complementary:
CV 90 Swedish Infantry Combat Vehicle - www.stenvalls.com
CV 90 Swedish Infantry Combat Vehicle - Tankograd International Nr. 3
CV 90 International - Tankograd International Nr. 4
There were more on the website but January is the “poor” month here so i better hold on to my wallet abit :D, will probably order two more next month or so.
2 Likes
Very understandable, and again i must say, your efforts have not gone unnoticed and it’s highly appreciated.
Hopefully the decision makers will act upon all the information provided here sooner rather than later.
2 Likes
Hello, just discussion … the name CV90 mk. IV is so universal name … I think come in future maybe upgrade for this vehicle 35mm gun or something and player can choose what want 30mm with more ammunition in belt or 35 with less ammunition in belt … with no BR change… or something more crazy upgrade to 50mm … with BR change … what do you think about this idea ? I know this mechanic is not right now in the game … thanks … and one more this is just idea
Unsure of quite exactly what you’re asking but if it is something akin to renaming the current Cv90 MK IV to something like the “CV9030 Mk.iv” this idea has already been proposed.
But I think most of us agree this would be proper for a few a reasons.
- It follows the naming convention of previous Swedish armoured fighting vehicles.
- It allows for others in the Mk.iv family to be introduced as their own vehicles with all turret and/or caliber variations without having to share the exact name.
- It is more visible and easily recognizable to which variant is being referred.
Yes you are right… is much easier change the name 😂
I don’t know if it would be classed as “official”, but Gszabi is calling it the “CV90 MkIV (E30)” in his latest datamine suggesting that that’s the name it has in the files if that would perhaps clear things up in which exact model we have in game.
I’ve never heard of a Mk4 with that sort of designation, but I guess it’s at least something?
2 Likes
Well, that would make sense as it uses the E-series turret with a 30MM cannon instead of the newer D-series turrets. so thats good.
That should also mean it is a confirmation that gaijin realises themselves this is not the only variant of the Mk.iv and we will possibly in the future get something like a MK.iv D35,D40 or D50.
Yeah but the problem is will they also be broken beyond belief? I have no interest in the D model turret with the 50mm if its going to be a broken and buggy mess. Again they have yet to fix a single thing and the weight. Do we even need to talk that they are willing to die on the hill that their weight idea of 37t is correct. Its actual clown balancing at its finest.
1 Like
Could you please not post these types of messages?
It’s fine if you complain about specific things that are the current subject but this post for example just answers another without actually answering anything they said at all and is just 100% negative.
It adds nothing to the conversation and just brings down the mood (i will add that i can’t in any way force you to not post these, i’m just simply asking kindly as one player to another).
4 Likes
Yeah sure it is broken right now. That’s why we’re here trying to bring enough information rmation to make those changes and “unbreak” it.
But this is at least a step in the right direction and that’s something, so while I share your worry they might do this to the rest of the CV90 family but if we can make a case for the Mk.IV here, we know this new chassis is the base of all Mk.IV variants and as such. This is ground zero for the rest of em.
So yeah, right now I’m more hopeful than I was a week ago, and sure they left some projects in the bin but mate, they have fixed some too.
And right now I’m quite certain that the flagship of the update takes priority (eurofighter)
Long post more so discussing the position and rank of the MK.IV 9030 and future variants and where they would go, additionally also talking about foldering of these models. (This is mainly near the mid way point.)
Spoiler
My gripe isn’t just the MK.IV, but look at both 9035’s over a year and they still haven’t been fixed to have ABM. Its a reoccurring problem and to me the MK.IV will be another in the line of things that either wont be fixed or will take years. I mean Gripen C is still missing its 5th bomb pylon and thats been acknowledged for over a year now yet no fixes? Again stuff like that which have been proven and are fairly simple shouldn’t take over a year to fix. It doesn’t mean i wont stop bug reporting for these vehicles but it does kill my will to bother writing them. If we could see a small change to the MK.IV within the next week it would be a huge boost to morale imo but the problems with the MK.IV aren’t small, they are huge, again it would be nice if Smin could explain why the devs chose the heaviest model of the 30mm turret and then decided that ammo and crew equals 2ts more than what is brochured. If anything it just seems strange to choose this model and not the most advanced version so that you can skip all the problem the weight would cause.
It also makes me wonder how gaijin will warrant balancing them in the future, do they think the 30mm in its current state on the MK.IV is on par with the Namer Tsrikhon? Add the APS and LWS and i still dont see them being balanced. Additionally where would the other Models go. Again, this vehicle just seems like such a strange choice especially considering its rank 8. Like what makes it Rank 8 worthy? Comparing it to the other 10.7 IFV’s why is it rank 8? These are all questions id like to have answered and if anyone can explain in a way that isnt just they wanted a new rank 8 vehicle than by all means go ahead.
Yes, the vehicle has problems and yes Smin was hear and revealed where gaijin got their idea for the weight but it didn’t really answer a lot of the questions as to why it was added in its state.
My biggest question is why this model and why rank 8. Assuming gaijin didn’t know its armor was rated for Stanag level 6 what warrants this model being 10.7 aside from spikes. We’ve seen gaijin choose what models get what considering the KV-1A has a machine gun it never had in finnish service, so why was the LWS and APS not chosen if they planned on making a rank 8 ifv. Comparing it to the other 11.0 IFV’s that being the Narmer it may have been gaijin wanted to just further expand the vehicles in the ranks? Seems strange considering the Puma VTFJ is foldered with the 10.3 Puma. Now had the Namer Tsrikhon been foldered with the Rank 7 Namer that would have made sense. Again the CV9030 MK.IV should have been the most advanced model of the 9030/E turret and been rank 8 with the D turret on the MK.IV chassis being foldered as a 11.3 vehicle Assuming the gun in exchange for the APS unless they decide they want to add APS to it and for it to be 11.7
Again just the way they went about adding these new rank 8 ifvs is strange to me and id love to know what the reasoning was considering to me the current MK.IV would be best added foldered with the BILL as its more or less a side grade at a higher BR. Similarly to the Udes and PBV 302.
7 Likes
Interesting new development Sweden buys German battle tanks for billions | Sweden Herald, its focused on the new MBT but they will also renovate the existing CV90 fleet, what this means is yet unclear and may not have any impact on the game but in the future perhaps.
2 Likes
So they’re buying 2A8’s alongside upgrading their 122’s. Nice ^^.
Here is the Swedish defence material suppliers news about it:
(https://www.fmv.se/aktuellt--press/aktuella-handelser/fmv-uppgraderar-och-nyanskaffar-stridsvagnar/)
4 Likes