Rank of the CV 90 MK IV

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1

This thing shouldn’t be at rank VIII. To proof this I will list some reasons here:

-The next highest vehicle at it’s rank in it’s tree is 11.7 and by this 1.0 br higher.
-The rest of the vehicles at it’s rank in it’s tree are 12.0.
-There are three vehicles at rank VII in it’s tree that are 10.7, four if you include the AB br of the strf 9040 bill.

Here is a list of other vehicles at rank VII with a higher br:
HSTVL, M1A1HC, M1A1, IPM1, M1A1AIM, M1A1 Click Bait, RDF/LT, TCM AGS, Merkava MK.3D, PUMA VJTF, Leopard 2A4M, Т-90А, T-72B3, T-80U, Т-80U-Е1, T-80UK, ␙T-80U, T-80UM2, Challenger 2, Challenger 3 TD, Challenger 2(2F), Challenger 2 OES, ␙Challenger 2, TKX (P), Type 81 (C), Type 90 (B) “Fuji”, Type 90, Type 90 (B), MBT-2000, ZTZ99-II, ZTZ99A, Al-Khalid-I, Centauro RGO, OTOMATIC, Centauro I 120, Ariete PSO, Ariete, KF41, Merkava Mk.3B, Merkava Mk.3C, Ra’am Sagol.

ALL of this vehicles have a higher br and a lower rank so the CV90 should be moved down in rank.

6 Likes
2

People forgetting the new Namer exists and yet only scream about the CV, also theres a thread for this, we dont need 80 million of these please.

Additionally want it to go down in rank, move it to a better BR since rn it has nothing aside from spike to even make it comparable to other IFV’s.

Its slower, weaker, cant lock aircraft, has no anti air ammo, no LWS, no spall liners. Again it realistically shouldve been maybe 10.0 with what it has going for it.

3 Likes
3

Also I must say that I am very disappointed with this vehicle in general. Basically removed all things that make the CV90 MKIV interesting. 35mm cannon, IronFist APS and Akeron missiles is what I expected and nothing was given.

5 Likes
4

copy pasting what I said in another thread comparing the CV9040 BILL at 10.3 to the CV90 MKIV at 10.7

-worse cannon
-slower fire rate
-no proxy rounds
-a unreliable missile
-less missiles then the CV9040 BILL
-No LWS )
-no tracking
-higher BR
-a bad commanders mast that’s height can’t be adjusted

7 Likes
5

Literally gaijin wanted a new ifv for rank 8 without any of the effort, they chose Literally the worst version and put it at a BR with nothing to warremt it existing above 10.0, it has a cannon which is useless past 9.0 with missiles that have no function with their current damage and tracking.

6 Likes
7

Before you deleted your question about other posts, you were literally there @Tagnoch

No offense my point was people start doing these types of posts and we slowly see more and more people making the same post over and over again

1 Like
8

I forgot about this one, but I still think this is the first one talking about the live server.

9

Some of the “advantages” that you list doesnt make any sense as:

Neither have LWS

Neither have tracking

Neither have adjustable comander sight

10

Hes more so comparing a 10.7 to other IFV’s at 10.7 and 11.0 the 9040 BILL has overall better advantages over the MK.IV since the MK.IV doesn’t match up with other ifvs of its “class”

1 Like
11

Well thats not what he says and all of the other points are related to the bill, not to mention that there aren’t any ajustable sights at 10.7 either.

12

Thats just how i interpreted it which to me makes more sense

13

like I said I had copy pasted it from another thread so it might not make the most sense but yes I was comparing the bill and its real life counterpart.

14

The RCV (P) has an adjustable commanders optic at 9.7 and so does the Object 775 at 9.3 br.

15

So there arent any ajustable comander sights at 10.7… Not to mention that neither of those are actually counterparts to the cv 90, they have completely different playstiles.

16

I don’t understand your point like what are you trying to get at here?

17

That your argument is all over the places, you start comparing the bill with the cv90 MK 4 (which is the one that matters for this thread), then you start comparing it with it’s “IRL counterparts” to the bill (which doesnt make sense either as you list things like not having proximity fuze, worse ROF and a worse canon which) and right after that you use the RCV and the object 775 as for evidece for advantage over the bill, when one is a tank destroyer and the other is a wheeled light tank, neither are counterpart in the real life, so the point stands that no other 10.7 or 11.0 ifv has retractable comander sights.

18

Welcome to:

Gaijin raises BRs of vehicles to a level that the nation has NO OTHER tanks at the same level.

The Puma VJTF and Boxer MGS send their regards.

19

I never said the RCV or the object 775 were counter parts of the cv90 I simply said they have adjustable commanders optics at a lower br which can be brought up in br to 10.7. My “argument” is not all over the place I copy pasted that from ANOTHER THREAD comparing the differences of the CV9040 BILL and the real CV90 MKIV. Comparing the two vehicles is completely valid as the CV90 MKIV is supposed to replace the BILL in a 10.7 line up but fails to even be a slight upgrade. you just seem to want to argue for no reason.

20

To be fair the MGS is better than its 10.0 counterpart so it wouldn’t make sense for them to be the same br. Same goes for the Puma, its bad but thank god it isnt MK.IV bad cause thats a fate i wouldn’t wish on another person

2 Likes
21

Im just meaning that at 10.3 there is maybe 1 other vehicle that also sits at 10.3, you would have to bring in under/over BR’d vehicles with it.

1 Like