Yes the edit is more correct based on the old version. But you are forgetting that the weight mentioned is MAX. This I have also Said in my report. The Max weight is with the massive 50 cal gun on top and also with the heavy extra armor on the sides.
You’re not thinking of all the optional addons and hull versions (the listed newest versions are using the heavier MK.IV hull, the in-game version is still using the MK.I same as CV9040B that is 23.1 t in-game). Optional choices: extra armor addons, bigger engine (1000hp instead of 800hp), commander periscope, hard kill APS, remote weapon station, adaptiv cloaking armor, etc, and those are just the heaviest ones save for the hull.
( https://www.baesystems.com/dam/jcr:f65468c8-d17d-47c6-b32b-ff2dd33ad578 )
As with any CV90 it depends on what the buyer chooses, its the “build a bear” of IFV’s.
5 Likes
It’s just like the issues we were just having with the CV90MK4, they are trying to use max possible weight instead of actual weight
A potential issue is bug reporters not knowing what they’re reading before reporting.
Part of it is Gaijin’s methods, and part of it is bug reporters reading something and thinking that’s how incorrect the vehicle is in-game [looks at the incorrect M41 turret traverse].
Innocent mistakes IMO, but lead to annoying consequences.
I think if such a large change is going to be made there should be more research done, it’s a bit lazy to just see a number and assume it’s right
(Also kinda weird that they take this brochure with no second thought but when it comes to buffing a vehicle with the same source they fight it with their lives)
I don’t think 27 tons was ever correct, but 35 I cannot know.
What I do know is we get 2 tons from fuel, ammo, and crew.
500 - 1200kg more from the 120mm gun over the 105.
The increased strengthening for the recoil adds an unknown.
The FCS that adds LWS, improved sighting, etc another unknown.
Then you have the fact a number [some to most] Strf/CVs are under-weight in-game… it’s hard to tell if the 35 tons is incorrect.
Cause is the CV90105 a correct weight?
Is the Strf Mk4 a correct weight?
Pretty sure they are trying to use the CV90120-T max weight as the weight for the one we have in game, issue with that is the Cv90120-T has a bunch of upgrades that add weight
2 Likes
If we’re going of the CV9040B which has a combat weight of 23.1 t (as stated by the Swedish defence forces material supplier, FMV - Fordonsvarianter levererade till Försvarsmakten , click the variants for more information on them) as well as comparing to the CV9040C that has all the addon armor, mine protection, spall liners, air-conditioning, etc at 28.5 t (same source as above).
Taking the CV9040B and changing to the 120mm turret, changing the 550hp engine for a 800hp one as well as adding the LWS system then 27.7 is a lot closer than the 35 t they changed to. I could even accept 30 t if we’re stretching it a bit. But 35 isn’t reasonable, as if just changing engine and turret would add 12 t to the vehicle.
~4 tons for the 120mm gun system vs 550kg of 40mm gun. The turret itself is itself multiple tons, and adds mass due to more steel used for ammo storage and other reasons.
Then you have 900kg of ammo instead of ~150kg for the 40mm ammo.
The new powerpack that probably adds up to another ton.
Of the known changes, 23.1 going to at least 29 tons makes sense. Note that’s at-least and not taking into account other factors, especially the new turret.
The fact you post that picture and dont even read the picture its self…
I guess the part where it clearly states:
CV90120 MkIV
ATGM-in bore with 10,000 meter range
APS
The 90120 we have in game doesnt have ATGM capabilities, doesnt have APS and isnt the MkIV variant.
That is why its listed as “up to 38 tonnes” and also conveniently lists “up to 1000 horsepower”
the CV90 family has multiple variants, will multiple kits installed, thats why when you search for the MkIV CV90120 you get stuff like this:
notice the APS installed on the skirts, its same APS kit the KF uses for Italy. now do you see why it states “up to 38 tonnes”
I don’t think the new turret adds much more compared to the old one (but would add some for sure) and the CV9040B ammo is more like 2.3x240=550kg so changing to the ~900kg for the 120mm isn’t as much of an addition of weight. Otherwise i agree with the rest.
I forgot it’s 240 rounds. However, they were <1kg each on last lookup.
The RH-120 L/55 weighs ~4000kg mounted, and the recoiling needs a turret that can handle stresses let alone ammo storage for the autoloader which itself likely adds a lot.
Without BAE telling us the CV90120 turret mass, I can’t know for certain.
Compact 120 Tank Gun Brochure | PDF | Tanks | Gun Barrel if we go of this link, it does give us other specifications for gun weight and states:
“The required weight and space of the weapon system is almost equal to the 105mm”
Which I assume is in reference to the 90105 variant as that uses the L/50 gun which they do reference further down when talking about muzzle velocity and use the L/50 as comparison
The projectile is 0.5kg but the total weight is 2.3kg (APFSDS-T) , the programmable is slightly heavier.
( CV9040A and B - Tank Encyclopedia )
Isn’t the gun a RUAG CTG 120/L50? I think the later T varriant has a Rheinmetall 120 LLR/47 (Edit: LLR – Light, Low Recoil) due to the RUAG gun stopped being produced.
As far as i know the gun assembly has self contained hydropneumatic or hydraulic recoil dampeners, I’m a bit uncertain though.
Edit2:
found this on the forum as well:
( Compact 120 Tank Gun Brochure | PDF | Tanks | Gun Barrel )
2 Likes
If they increase weight should give it the 1000HP engine AMAP ADS, the MAW,RWS, and we get the 35 ton nerf acceptable, right now the nerf makes no sense andpretty much a fairy tale nerf
The version of the vehicle that is represented ingame was clarified in an older bug-report;
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/tHQ7lbtm1VJD?comment=veghxQlNsIzOjTzifpY4uv7v
It’s the 2006 CV90120-T variant in its’ base configuration.
Now it does have “up to 35t” listed, however the vehicle we have doesnt feature any of the upgrades (e.g. AMAP APS. thicker composite screens, RC .50cal etc.)
Such version was presented at expos in the same year as the related brochure was published (2006)
What the 35t variant looks like;
Note: This is from an 2007 MSPO expo, however the weight and engine are the same as listed in the 2006 brochure, so is the vehicle compared to the variant shown at a 2006 expo (minus the RC .50cal)
A report on the matter was accepted already and there (imo) is sufficient evidence to prove that the vehicle we have modeled in game should not have a weight of 35t but be a lot closer to the 28t max. figure of the 2002 variant (which seemingly only differs in the hull, having a worse engine)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XIoLM8N4zyZc
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.