We cant report the weight since gaijin has their own belief already determined. Additionally work on a spall liner is something that was talked about but unsure currently as to whether the MK.IV has one.
The current reports are huge parts of the vehicle. Without a remote control turret and paper thin armor you are inferior to all other IFV’s. If the armor wasn’t broken then it wouldn’t be such a bad vehicle. Then the ABM is another huge part of the vehicle to be fixed. These two reports are not small they are huge and greatly affect how you play the vehicle.
Again major parts of the vehicle are broken and hamper its performance because gaijin didn’t bother to add them. But somehow they can argue the weight is 37t and call it a day.
Again explain the weight, guess the 20mm armor is made of tungsten.
34t weight of the CV9035NL addon armor thats found on the MK.IV same engine.
37t weight MK.IV, smaller gun (supposed to have stanag level 6 armor) is made of paper with tungsten weights same engine as the MK.III
Would it be possible to get those sources? I have personally not seen “operating weight” listed in anything i have found.
Hägglunds website for example list it as 37t gross (not operating):
(CV90)
And the Czech CV90 website (run by BAE) list it as maximum 38t:
(Specifikace | CV90)
Is that not the model with additional weight for additional systems like APS and such? Again how is that a valid source for the model without the add on features
If weight is such a problem why not just add the APS and call it a day. Especially since its been a requested feature since this turret can use it. Those bug reports were closed because the devs didn’t want it on this model since it doesn’t fit what they want.
I know, but it could receive it so why not just add it and add the 38t weight so that this problem is done with. Especially since most here would want the APS system.
So again why can we not get APS on the MK.IV when this model of CV9030 MK.IV can mount it. Makes more sense to say it can have it. Since it can mount it.
Reminds me of the KV-1A since it never mounted the machine gun on the roof but was added since it could.
There are many vehicles in game that can have APS modernization packages or upgrades, but do not in game. The CV 90 Mk IV is one of them that currently does not.
In game currently we have the base model without the APS modernisation.
So can we expect other CV9030 MK.IV models to be added with the only difference being the APS. Again it would be nice if you could explain why this vehicle shares only the chassis name and not a more generalized name to differentiate it from other MK.IV models.
We have only just added this version a few weeks ago. Currently we don’t have any announcements to make regarding future additions to the game. Its the holidays :)
Is it possible to get to know how the devs calculate the weight of the crew and ammo?
3 men at 100kg each (with clothes and gear accounted for).
and 234 rounds of 30mm at ~700g per cartridge (make it 800g to add linkage) makes it less than 200 kg for ammo.
so how does 35t become 37t with added crew and ammo?
That source isn’t even about the variant we have in game, but a more “complete” variant of the Mk4 with all the possible addons tacked-on (a whole APS, LWS, additional armour tiles and more) as seen in their graphics on that site. The entire purpose of the Mk4 is to be extremely modular depending on what the user nation wants, and gaijin chose to add the most bare-bones model possible, so why are you using one of the highest possible weights given by BAE for it? Using one of the lower end weights given would make way more sense.
Ammunition is calculated by all know weights of any particular type of shell, missile etc. This is then crossed over with any sources stating the operational weight of a given vehicle. Given there are sources stating 38,000 as the operational weight, 37,000 is used for combat weight in game.
The highest is 38,000. We have 37,000 in game. Weights from BAE range from 35-38,000. The game uses combat weights, which would not be at the lower end of the scale. Reports are welcome with definitive sources that clearly state figures for combat weights below 37,000.
