US M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle or Swedish CV90? Which is better suited for modern wars?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Thank you to Wondrium for sponsoring today’s video! Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here: ow.ly/CjlV50O5mMC
The M2 Bradley IFV is the main infantry fighting vehicle of the US army. While its production started in 1980, it’s been upgraded and kept still very relevant on today's battlefields.While the Bradley has gotten a lot of room in the media recently, another fighting vehicle was also mentioned. The Swedish made CV90. Being over a decade newer design, how does it compare to Bradley? And which vehicle is better for the European war theater?
00:00 - Video introduction
01:36 - CV90 and Bradley variants
02:37 - Weight and dimensions
02:57 - Armor
04:28 - 25mm and 40mm armament
04:47 - Penetration
05:50 - Ammo
06:29 - Rate of fire
06:38 - Traverse rate and gun elevation
07:'01 - Advanced capability munition
07:38 - CV90 export
07:59 - Bradley ATGM
08:52 - Thermal sights
09:20 - Troops carried
09:33 - Engines
09:58 - Tracks and ground pressure
10:26 - Autonomy
10:40 - Modernized variants
10:55 - Battlefield role
11:31 - Bradley modernization
12:10 - New versions comparison and weight
12:43 - New engines
13:01 - New autonomy
13:15 - New ground pressure
13:30 - New armor
14:11 - New CV90 features
15:02 - New CV90 35mm armament
15:18 - New sights and features
15:50 - Active protection system
16:38 - More 35mm gun specifics
17:29 - New CV90 ATGM
18:01 - Conclusion
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
If you want to buy a Binkov plush doll, get it here!
crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com - Zábava
One of the coolest things with the CV90 is that its a general platform to which you can mount all sorts of things like a 120mm tank gun, anti air, mortar, radar, armor recovery, etc. It is also designed to reduce sound / thermal profile.
It needs an ATGM.
@@chrishooge3442 If the automatic guidance is good enough why bother with a guided missile?
@@chrishooge3442 It already has those. The video even mentions it later on.
@@andersjjensen wire guided is from the days before javelin and NLAW. At the range a TOW could engage you needed constant manual guidance to hit a target that might try to evade or pop a smoke screen. There are a lot of TOWs in stocks that can still be used to great effect.
@@chrishooge3442 I know. But I was puzzled by your statement when the latest CV90s already feature self guided AT missiles.
The Swedish company BEA Haglund that build CV90 has annoced that they have increased the production by 600%.
*Hägglunds&Söner AB, now BAE Hägglunds is located in Örnsköldsvik, and have hit the production ceiling after increasing the work force by 800 and going to three shifts trying to fulfil the latest orders of CV90 from Slovakia and Czechia in parallel with the various orders of BvS10.
@@johanmetreus1268
Aw man, "Hägglund & Sons Ltd."
That's so humble and charming in comparison.
Russia has a strange way of motivating people to do all the things Russia doesn't want quickly and efficiently. Very rare skill. Not a particularly desirable skill, but rare none the less.
@@andersjjensen Meanwhile, Japan opens a NATO office. You may be accidentally joining POTATO rather than NATO if the European and Asian defense initiatives are combined under one banner.
👏👏
Latest CV90 will be equipped with ATGM, spikes LR and AKERON have been tested and are in competition
Slovakian version will have Spike LR2. Most likely other countries will have the ATGMs as well.
@@lr5037 It will be interesting to see what variant Sweden choses as it's expected to announce orders for a new generation of Cv90's this or next year along with new tanks.
Sweden ordered two more new build batches (20+20) of Grkpbv90 recently but they are still mk0 even if new builts so as to be fully compatible with Sweden's existing vehicles.
That’s great for the CV 90
Could you please leak... I mean proof it with some documents?😁
These new models look amazing. We may even see the US procure the CV-90 for the OMFV which would be cool as we would get to the CV-90 serve along side the Bradley.
The CV90 is probably the best, or at least top-3 IFVs in the world. It has great firepower, the ergonomics for the crew are excellent, and it's still a "relatively" small and light vehicle compared to its immediate contemporaries. The platform is mature and well-proven. And the Swedes have a history of making sensible weapons.
what are the other IFVs top-3 in your opinion ?
@@obi3kenobi Boxer and Merkava (lol)
What about the puma ?
@@hytraox Only 30mm and 1 less road wheel. But is probably better than mk1 CV90 at fighting.
@@OrIoN1989PUMA can also fire Spike ATGMs
The CV90 uses the SAAB UTAAS sight, which has 3rd gen thermals.
I love the CV-90. I had the honor of experiencing it on full speed in an army exchange program as my regular unit doesn't use them
i was a gunner on CV9030N. It was amazing to use
It is amazing that a small country like Sweden developed so many weapons that kick ass
It's not small, it's bigger than germany,norway, california etc and its 5th largest country in europe
@@mile_381 with our population we are like one of the US flyover states.
Only we build our own planes, tanka and missiles.
Sweden has easily one of the most capable industries on the planet. Only actual superpowers overmatch us.
Been like that since our "empire" days. We dropped our dreams of conquest and has reformed everything since then but we can still make world class weaponry hundreds of years later.
@@mile_381 I am talking about population....
Well when you're historically a neutral country without access to NATO war stock that is also a short hop from the USSR now Russia which is currently led by a guy that wants to revive that you better have a good defense plan and the weapons to back it up.
Both are excellent IFV's. Both have strenghts and weaknesses! The Bradley M2A4 (2018) and M2A5 (2022) is as good as the CV-90C/D, C90M35/M40 but the CV90A/B are a bit better than the older Bradley versions. You can't go wrong with neither IFVs in general! I want to see Sweden join NATO asap!! As an American, Sweden has always impressed me with their ability to punch way above their weight! For a country with 10/11 million people, they produce great medical devices, pharmaceuticals, the best Metal and EDM Music in the world, great military tech, great education, great healthcare, great social programs, etc, etc, etc. Sweden is great!!
What IFVs does Russia have in similar numbers?
@@christiandauz3742 BMP series - quite old, modernized but honestly, on the verge of being outdated
edit: the BMP itself is not bad, having sloped armor, an ATGM launcher, a 73mm main gun, a 30mm automatic grenade launcher and is amphibious (can float and traverse over calm waters), but in the end, it does have large drawbacks and once again, even modernized, it was first made in 1961 and is basically obsolete.
@@DanY-mj4gl Don't forget that they are probably poorly maintained too.
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding yeah
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding Sweden and Finland bought Soviet/Warsaw Pact BMP's in the nineties and the units that they bought had all been stored outdoors. When the Swedish BMP's were received, a large amount of the units had to be scrapped because they were in such a poor condition. Add another 20-30 years to that outdoor storage and you'll probably see that less than half of the units are in usable condition.
Regarding Protection.
The Cv90 A/B is much better in northern Sweden where swamps are plentiful than the heavier CV90 variants because they can drive in so many places they can't.
I'm not saying that more protection would be bad but mobility vs protection in northern Sweden is different from central Europe or for that matter southern Sweden.
Sweden did chose to send all it's CV90C's to Ukraine wich is an up armored vehicle built for international missions which means it has a spall liner and AC amongs other things.
The CV90 was originally not developed for the Mechanzied and Armored Brigades it was developed to partially mechanize the Arctic Infantry Brigades in northen Sweden. It was only with the massive cuts in the Swedish army that it started appearing in Armored and Mechanized brigades.
Edit:
The Cv90 used to be able to elevate to 85 degrees but that capability was lost when all vehicles where upgraded to at least the A variant which has limited three axis gun stabilization.
Not all CV90 40mm variant have the programmer for 3p ammunition that is limited to the Cv90B1 Cv90C and Lvkv90 A&C
The Cv90 was originally ordered on a budget which meant it was fitted for but noth with gun stabilization and 3p programmer. This was back in the days when Sweden had a massive army for it's size and it couldn't spend to much on individual weapons systems, it needed to be cost effective.
The CV90 Sight is called UTAAS
The upgraded version of the Norwegian CV9030N is 35 tons, but they give them over 900hp engines (at the most). But they also gave them a spaced armor plate (steal), for against 20mm. And have MEXAS-armor in stock, some are quite good against HEAT anti-tank weapons. With how Norway operate their CV90's together with Leopards and infantry and artillery, in a combined force, they relay are nasty for however is on the receiving end, specially with the digital network sharing system (the leopard don't need to see the target, if the CV90 sees it)
The reason for the 40mm gun is partially as stated, they had them already, but the main reason is that the APFSDS can penetrate the T-72 in the side, a very important capability for Sweden.
Problem for us in Sweden... After AWESOME Ukraine smack all the t72:s we really have not so much need of that anymore ;-) (But Ruzzians will come back sadly with more stuff so we still need stuff)
The 40mm Bofors also happens to be the biggest "sniper rifle" in the world. Not other cannon has as narrow a cone of fire compared to barrel length as the Bofors. And the 40mm APFSDS will pierce any concrete structure which is not a German WWII cost line bunker. You can easily hammer away a bridge pillar in a couple of seconds. And you can do it from really really far away.
The 25mm can handle T-72s from the flank as well, although it's definitely kind of sketchy and the range at which one can do so is limited. A number of T-72s were knocked out in Operation Desert Storm with short-range autocannon gunnery rather than missiles, often in abysmal visibility. A 40mm is definitely a better option for that, and for long-range fire support against fortifications.
@@crowe6961 could be correct, however the T-72s sold to Iraq, or other nations, had worse protection than Soviet ones.
@@MrFildur yah, I don't think there will be any t-72s left after Ukraine. I mean, Ukraine might have them, but I don't think Russia will.
Bradley is a Jack of all trades style vehicle that can reach out at range with its TOW missiles and deal with most every type of ground vehicle, but the CV90 can tear apart literally anything at close range, and has an AA function
For sure, much like the Sherman of WW2. Customizable and varied in firepower for the tasks at hand.
anything except an mbt
@@rajaydon1893 updated with anti tank missiles in latest version.
And troops with NLaw inside.
Newest version has Missiles 2 on the side if i member so thats ratified soon.
I feel like adding counter drone capabilities with the main gun is a big advantage for a new IFV.
Im a bit dissapointed that Binkov didnt mention the STRF/CV 90 BILL (Outfitted with two bill 2 atgms, or the current tests with spike and akeron mp atgms
Did he not mention this at the end?
@@pHpTjMoney the comment is talking about the Cv90B which is the first veichle compared to the bradley. And there blinkov says it doesnt have any atgms.
The Strf90/56, as it was called, was a failure because they couldn't get the Rbs 56 guidance system to work and the project was canned
He did…
iirc CV90 BILL wasnt a production model, only a prototype
For Europe, the cv 90 has won competition in most countries, Norway chose cv90, because Bradley got stuck in the snow all the time, while cv 90 had excellent mobility. And cv 90 looks much better.
True
From my experience military does not put much decision weight on good looks lol
Binkov did say the CV90 has lower groundpressure
Norge❤
Thats all and well yet between all the countries that use the CV90 there are less than 2 thousand total. US has more than 3x that amount in Bradleys.
The CV90 is protected all around against 14.5 mm armor-piercing rounds. The later version of the CV90 is protected against 30mm APFSDS. In option, the vehicle can be fitted with add-on armor to increase the protection against Improvised explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators and 30 mm caliber armor-piercing rounds. The CV9040 can be also fitted with cage armor, which provides protection against tandem-charge and shaped-charge warheads. So, basically same as Bradley, error 1.
The CV90 can shoot ATGMs. As they are modular, they can be fitted as needed. Error 2.
17:30 CV90 shooting Spike ATGM.
The CV-90 and the Bradley are only partially frontally protected against 30x173mm APFSDS rounds! The CV-90 is poorly protected compared to a real modern heavy IFV like the German Puma.
@@markschoning5581 the puma is FAMOUS FOR NOT USING AN APS AND BEING WAY TOO PRONE TO BREAKING DOWN ASK THE GERMANS 😂
he's using the puma as an example to compare protection, why are rounds it shoots and breaking down relevant?
Are these errors? Or just instances of someone not watching the entire video first?
I've got to say the CV-90. It's upgrade potential is very good given it's boxy and simple hull design.
There is version of it which is used as AA in the swedish army...with a 40 mm bofors
@@attilaabonyi8879 there are also several other variations that use mortars 120mmx2 and one that uses 81mm and Norway has one with a 90mm but only 24 and Sweden is still testing for the most part but the exact number varies depending on source but there are 19-27 believed to be complete
@@Idk-bx8qm i know
It’s amazing to think that Bradley is 43 years old this year
Almost 3 generations have used it
It replacement is in the works
Cv90 first models 1993, 30 years ago
its also amazing to think that the cv90 has been a bigger export succes
@@Tjalle The Cv90 was designed 20 years after the Bradley. I would hope that it's better, you have 2 decades newer technology to design it around. lol
And is still working. Watch the battle between a Bradley and a T-90
Lets just put this out there. The CV90, especially the later models are far more dangerous than the Lynx, Puma, Bradley or K21 fighting vehicles. They are more modern, the cannon is much larger (40mm) the types of ammunition 3p programmable ammunition is deadly as hell. It can air-burst at set ranges, it would annihilate every single Russian in ANY trench with ease from kilometers away.
The weight of this IFV is almost as much as the Russian MBT (main battle tanks). Close to 40 Ton.
The CV9040 is a highly aggressive vehicle, designed to control the initiative by staying mobile instead of slowing things down to a walk. Aggressive maneuvering is what the CV9040 is designed to do, outmaneuving vehicles and killing them in the flank and charging enemy positions to drop off soldiers right ontop of the enemy.
These tactics have been part of the Swedish doctrine since the late fifties as seen in vehicles like the PBV301 and PBV302. And it was directly copied from the German playbook of WW2, where the German panzergrenadiers/dismounts fought more often than not from their halftracks, allowing them to keep pace with the tanks and also maintain initiative through aggressive maneuvering.
A Bradley, Puma, K21 and so on is not designed for that type of combat. It's essentially an APC that drops off troops 100m from the fight. The CV9040 drops off troops within 0-50m from the enemy position, or simply drives up to it and let's the troops fight mounted.
In Afghanistan it was apparently tremendously deadly. The Danish or Norwegians were caught in some kind of fight/ambush and they annihilated the enemy.
P.S
1000 BHP in the high end version that is amphibic and extremely mobile in mudd and snow.
D.S
Word.
I remember the PBV302, engine oil in the gearbox and you needed to really punch that gearbox both in high and low gears even when you double clutched it (because the engine oil fucked up the synchro). It was FAST though. I remember running it across the field right out into the sea (you could do that, well most could do that but not that one where they forgot to put the drain plugs back in, I had to dive in and attatch the wire to a Stridsvagn S to get it out, everyone was safe though) and keep going, it wasn't fast in water and the steering was just not good at all but going over a lake was no problem what so ever.
A variant of it acted as a bridge builder for vehicles that could not go though water. Good times.
We in the US raise you bluff, the M10 Booker is a Bradley with an 105mm Cannon, 50 cal and a 240 all on a crow system, better armor, better engine, etc
@@ronniefairley2388 Yeah, so that's WAY too heavy for what we use the CV90 for, we have Leopard flanks that take care of anything bigger than the CV90 can easily handle.
I guess it's good for something, I just don't know what. Defending a desert?
@@ronniefairley2388 Nice try but no.
CV90 is a VERY varied and modular platform, it is kind of it's selling point aswell. There are multiple gun options, turret options, armor options, an AA variant, Forward command variant, Recovery vehicle, a 120mm gun tank hunter variant, and many more.
3p 40mm smart rounds are crazy underrated on paper but Saab Bofors were very modest about it's actual capability
As a Swede, I have to mention two additional advantages of the Bradley. First, it is combat tested to a much higher degree than the CV90, and secondly, there are a higher number of operators familiar with the Bradley. The Bradley is tried and tested and familiarized to a much higher level than the CV90.
On the other hand, real combat data and performance is less available for opponents when it comes to fighting the CV90 giving it an ”element of surprise” on the battlefield.
Overall they both seem to be tremendous pieces of hardware to have access to for any modern military force. Thanks a lot for this very informative video.
Good pronounciation on Stridsfordon 90 at 1:43. I've heard so many attempts where the letters are just all jumbled together. But this was a good one. (somewhat with a english accent, but that is acceptable)
the new dutch cv90"s also feature rubber tracks dramatically reducing vibrations and sound while also improving mileage
Isn't also the Dutch the most bicycling people on earth? Their next improvement package will be a quad bicycle with a turret in-between, throwing lettuce the invaders. Environment friendly defence! 😂
@@petergrandien1440unny.
But I do hope that engines capable of burning hydrogen might show up in vehicles like this with time.
Gasoline and diesel is probably going to be the main fuel still due to the need for longer range etc, but you can produce hydrogen in the field even if you're surrounded or the enemy have fire control over your supply line.
You just need electricity of some kind.
The increased environmentalism is just a bonus.
Also, multi fuel engines are just practical with regards to using resources you come by.
All rubber tracks?
@@alexanderbarkman7832 the have steel wire I think lust like tires but yeah there are no links no metal parts just a full rubber track
@@daanstam6697
We use rubber tracks on soft skin vehicles (Hägglunds, same company making CV90 chassi) but I never came across it on armour. Is it rubber links or a belt?
One great thing with tracks is you can easily repair them by changing links, but maybe a rubber belt is quick too.
No matter what the advantages of the cv90 or the bradley.
The cv90 and the M2 bradley will make a great duo on the Ukrainian battlefield.
This 👍
Indeed!
They are! Bradley is burning right now, cv90 will burn too!
@@ztashed6366 The only thing anyone can be absolutely certain of is that the old WWII tanks that Russia deploys these days are not going to be enough.
Also, Russia cannot win. That's a given, they will lose over a million men and destroy their economy for the next 50 years because Putin doesn't give a fuck about that at all but there is no scenario where Russia can win this war. In fact there is no scenario where Russia keeps even one inch and it's FAR more probable that a buffer zone on Russian territory will be set up and actively monitored by NATO.
All Russia has been able to do is to get Russians killed and their nation destroyed so congrats on that I guess.
Nice fairy-tale
Whether Bradley or CV90, the best one is whichever one Ukraine can get the most of. And even better would be Ukraine gets a lot of both, and then uses each to its best capabilities.
Nice flags
I think Bradleys and CV90 will complement each other nicely in Ukraine.
Considering the amount of T-72 and T-64/62s Russia is fielding in Ukraine (and the amount of trench warfare there is) I think specifically the Swedish 40mm variant, if accompanied with a wide selection of modern ammo, is the best choice. The ability to airburst above the head of the gopniks in the trenches, and having a good shot at piercing the tanks, if they just keep hammering on target, is going to pay off.... But at the end of the day: yes, more of everything is more better!
The modularity of cv90 beats out the bradley, you can have a 35,40,30mm auto cannon versions with missles, or a 6 barrel Mortar or even a 120mm gun, thats the kind of stuff US is going for in the next ifv, modularity and future upgrade capabilities
Swedish Defence Minister Pål Jonson stated in the press conference about the weapons package, that the versions sent to Ukraine have been used in international interventions. This points toward at least 9040C being sent, with extra armor, air conditioning and other improvements.
There is a turret for the CV-90, it has internally reloaded spike missiles to deal with MBTs if they encounter them. After firing, the missile launcher retracts for reload. Posted early, saw Binkov caught the new ATGM capable turre
CV90 easily , it comes in all forms , light tank with 105 or 120mm , APC with dedicated room for troops , engineering variant , command and control variant , true AA variant with much better elevation , 120mm mortar variant etc etc , the modularity is the winning concept. Need to go through swamps/snow - less armour. Need to go urban/thundra - more armour.
I do fundamentaly disagree however on who is better suited for urban warfare , having those hatches , the infantry is already up to speed on whats going on around them and can counter rpg teams with thier own equipment , not even dismounting if speed is needed.
The Bradley is a great, reliable IFV but I think that there is no question that the new CV-90 designs will continue to outclass the Bradley. In the future we will be comparing the US 'OMFV' with new CV-90 variants. The formidable Bradley will soldier on, but we have seen the end of its development cycle.
This is an important factor when comparing equipment. Saying that something old are bad because something new are more effective are sort of unfair. Even a cheap busted up AK-47 is a better choice today then a 200 year old musket even if the quality of the musket was top notch and the best avalible for its day. Obsolescence isn't a quality factor.
And comparing the OMFV with the Lynx
Bradley is probably the better vehicle for combat in an urban environment, like if you want to defend Manhattan och Huston, if you want to hold the line in downtown Berlin, Nimejgen or similar. It is also probably the better tool to combat swarms of smaller aerial drones. Anything more like regular combat in swamps or forests, amphibious landings or with 6 feet of snow you want the CV90. It is made for winter war in the nordic bogland forests.
@@andreassjoberg3145 or the vast grasslands of most of europe
The CV 90 has like, smaller logistical footprints. It's designed around the simple philosophy of using less to achieve more, and having the biggest gun.
Seems like it depends on the variants you compare though, with the newer models having more parts.
@@Jason-fm4my The chassis is the foundation of an entire family of special vehicles which gives lots of parts commonality. Russia chose to mount everything on a T-72 chassis, which turned out to be a less than ideal strategy because it gave them weight problems in situations where armour was of no concern (mobile bridges and AA systems don't really need that kind of heft), but Sweden was quick to adopt the basic concept and figured that it should be the IFV which served as the basis, so it can be up-armoured for specific roles, but left rather bare-bones in the chassis for rear echelon applications. There is even a completely "topless" variant for transport-only for when you absolutely positively need to get something somewhere or get someone OUT of somewhere despite horrible surface conditions.
Which one is best? Whichever one you can get. Both are excellent and the CV-90 is more modern and advanced because it's newer. The Bradley is an excellent IFV however. I think that either one are a good match for the BMPs of Russia and they are the most likely adversary for either.
The CV 90 allow you to flank enemies by using terrain that their tanks and IFVs can't traverse to surprise them.
Terrain that the Bradley can't traverse.
@@Luredreier excellent point. But I still stand by my earlier statement that both are good.
A forgotten strength of NATO and friends is the fact that different allies create similar but yet different weapons. Imagine in a conflict if it turns out the enemy finds a way to counter for example the F16, then NATO still have Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen etc. All eggs aren´t in one basket. This is a strength.
They both have their own Strenghs.
Bradley was both designed and shines on a more OPEN large area combat, with patches of cover, and with ground beeing more stable.
It actully destroyed MORE tanks then Abram tanks did during the Iraq War 2001, it's a Great weapon platform especially for most of the middle east OR American homeland type of areas of central and western USA and southern, less so with the Northerend & Eastern areas that are more forested & city scapes.
CV90 is the better option in more dense operation areas, Big Forests, villages/cities, and with ground beeing more slippery.
Bradleys tank capabilities in a city or Forest enviroment is worse then the CV90, because the ATGM can't work through light foliage or city scape debree, it needs clear line of sight, so if foliage blows back and fort a bit or the target getting obscured now and then by trees or rubble / buildings / walls thent he ATGM becomes useless.
Meanwhile the CV90 40mm armour piercing rounds become very devestating to most MBTs in a closer style combat where they don't lose as much power over distance, a CV 90 shooting at a MBT at 200 Meters away penetrate almost any MBT from the side / read, and will very likely damage equipment heavily at the front of the MBT, it can shoot through light rubble / Foliage or even trees in rapid succession, Also the ATGM can get countered by systems like the Russian anti missle system on certain tanks because it's not a TOP down attack missile, meanwhile the 40mm cannon on CV90 with modern armour piercing rounds cannot be countered by such meassures yet atleast.
The Modern CV90 also have front and side protection against 30mm, and front 35mm, The CV90 also have additonal modular armour you can load on similar to Bradley, It's not been as extensivly used so very few photos of it around.
The NEW unreleased CV90 also has a module you can add to the turren (and shown in almost all footage of it) for a new modern ATGM system, Alternativly it can have a module that adds a Survailence Drone for the commander, but I find that addition less likely to see actual combat anytime, as Drones in general tend to work better as a seperate Unit for information from latest doctrine reviews of Ukraine.
Another thing you might want to mention about the CV90 is the many variants of it, Recover viencle, 120mm Mortar (turrereted not open topped), 120mm Anti Tank cannon (Basically MBT cannon turren version put on it if need be, in case of lack of MBTs Roles in a desired mission), and quite a few more versions.
The Ukraine has 2 type of areas, the more south parts tend to be more Open, and the more north more forested, and ofcourse there will be city/village scapes in both.
Both Bradley & CV90 can work quite well for an army together, sending each one to a better suited enviroment for them, instead of each having to preform in both optimal and unoptimal situations they have.
Bradley is a fine workhorse, and generally a good piece of equipment. But CV90 takes this. I've been debating about this, and finally, soon in Ukraine we will see what I've been saying for long time. Many people will be surprised by just how much more advanced CV90 is on the battlefield. Extreme mobility, reliability, firepower and speed with fast-aimbotting fire control system etc. bigger and smaller things combined will have synergy, that translates to stellar performance in combat. It's smart, it's precise, and built with Saab&Volvo level premium sturdy quality.
Lets just put this out there. The CV90, especially the later models are far more dangerous than the Lynx, Puma, Bradley or K21 fighting vehicles. They are more modern, the cannon is much larger (40mm) the types of ammunition 3p programmable ammunition is deadly as hell. It can air-burst at set ranges, it would annihilate every single Russian in ANY trench with ease from kilometers away.
The weight of this IFV is almost as much as the Russian MBT (main battle tanks). Close to 40 Ton.
The CV9040 is a highly aggressive vehicle, designed to control the initiative by staying mobile instead of slowing things down to a walk. Aggressive maneuvering is what the CV9040 is designed to do, outmaneuving vehicles and killing them in the flank and charging enemy positions to drop off soldiers right ontop of the enemy.
These tactics have been part of the Swedish doctrine since the late fifties as seen in vehicles like the PBV301 and PBV302. And it was directly copied from the German playbook of WW2, where the German panzergrenadiers/dismounts fought more often than not from their halftracks, allowing them to keep pace with the tanks and also maintain initiative through aggressive maneuvering.
A Bradley, Puma, K21 and so on is not designed for that type of combat. It's essentially an APC that drops off troops 100m from the fight. The CV9040 drops off troops within 0-50m from the enemy position, or simply drives up to it and let's the troops fight mounted.
In Afghanistan it was apparently tremendously deadly. The Danish or Norwegians were caught in some kind of fight/ambush and they annihilated the enemy.
P.S
1000 BHP in the high end version that is amphibic and extremely mobile in mudd and snow.
D.S
Claiming the CV-90 is "much more advanced" than the Bradly is not factual. It has things it excels in but the Bradly is up to date, well armed, and good in mobility
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor It is very factual indeed. They have been rigorously tested. The performance is very different on paper than what it is in real battlefield situations, certain feats have a lot of synergy. If you look solely on specs on paper, then the Russian T-90 and even the most updated modernized variant of T-72 are better than any western tanks. In reality, they are just jack-in-the-boxes smoking on Ukrainian fields.
@@atklm1 alright, but American weapons have proven to be state of the art on the battlefield in Ukraine. The world knows HIMARS work and they work very well, we haven't heard any praises sung of swedish weapons
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Yes indeed, I'm a big fan of American weapons (especially fighters jets, hands down, no competition). Leopard 2 is said to be slightly better than Abrams, and especially engine, but I disagree. The Abrams gas turbine engine is more advanced in my opinion. It has digital diagnostics for easier maintenance unlike Leo's. I do need to point out, that the HIMARS new highly-praised higher-range GLSDB munition are Swedish, just like the NLAW anti-tank weapons, also very much praised.
You provide an excellent and thorough analysis.
I love your presentation style, Binkov. Thanks for your informative videos.
Bradleys are good enough and exist in large numbers. They also have a powerful anti-tank capability that is important.
But its biggest drawback is probably its thin tracks, heavy weight and tall profile that makes it badly suited for a muddy place called Ukraine. And its ability to deal with driving through snow is also a big problem. So for that reason is Stridsfordon 90 (CV-90) preferable. Especially if Stridsfordon 90 can add some anti-drone capabilities to Ukraine. They could be valueable to protect artillery.
hmm the CV90s i've seen had added armor on them and bill missile launchers even if they are commonly used without those
Yep. I've worked with them in the Dutch army and they had anti-tank missles adoptions
A crucial point to compare is cost... Swedish equipment always give you one hell of a bang for the buck! And you always want as many IFV's as possible to compliment your tanks. Lacking infantry protection of tanks has been one of Russia's biggest misstakes. It makes MBT's extremely vulnerable. Especially when Ukranian troops have Javelins and N-Laws. (N-LAWS are also Swedish design. Shorter range than Javelin, but does exactly the same thing, at a fraction of the cost. But they are perfectly complimenting missiles.)
I just finished watching your Kahn video and of course I had to do that out loud in the room
The Bradley has been a top tier ifv for a very long time but I am going to say that the late generation CV90’s are probably a bit better. The more recent upgrades to the Bradley are just a stop gap measure to stay effective while the army develops their next vehicle
Which may be a CV90 variant itself…
@@pieter-bashoogsteen2283 Not terribly likely in US armored procurement due to "Not Invented Here" syndrome, although as an American, I certainly won't object if a CV90 variant wins on its merits and the usual rule that they have to be built here applies. That's a strategic matter.
@@crowe6961 I am certain that BAE systems would not object to building CV90 variants in the United States if they must.
For combat the C version is actually worse than the B version.
The C version is designed for situations where the ROE states that you're only allowed to return fire, never shoot first. So it's capability to act aggressively has been reduced compared to the B (and earlier) versions.
@@pieter-bashoogsteen2283 unfortunately , that’s not how this works. The US military requires that 100% of production of high end weapon components, main components, frameworks and high tech components be produced solely in The US. While this doesn’t mean they can’t use a German gun for example, the main gun is the exception to this rule commonly using foreign weapons
This in practice means that the US wants and exclusive blueprints/schematics for any main battle vehicle that only they have, so no post prediction vehicles can really be used in practice, as that typically means someone else has blueprints/schematics for it.
Someone forgot that the strf9040B has a potent weapon against MBTs in the form of a 120mm tank gun on its accompanying strv122. (They always team up.)
Which vechicle is easier to maintain? Swedish vehicles in general are made for conscript users and generally simpler designs.
Congratulations 🇨🇿 for buying the CV90 🔥.
Cheers from 🇸🇪
Its literally called "combat vehicle". I like it. Simple and too the point (although i see how "combat vehicle" could refer to anything like the CV90 or the Bradley, to unarmoured jeeps and technicals with troops)
I would love to see the British Army adopt two variants of the CV90 the new Dutch CV90 35-MLU with two cheek launchers either side of the turret one with Javelin and the other with starstreak and the other having the same launchers but up gunned to 50mm.
You need smaller calibre too you can’t just have a 50mm all rounder
@@Fenrir.Gleipnir 50mm auto + 7,62 or 12/7
@@Fenrir.Gleipnir I said two variants the 35mm and a 50mm
@@Fenrir.Gleipnir plus these are IFVs specifically, APC will always be armed with 30mm.
I've been wanting an American configuration like that - anti-tank and anti-air together. Even throw out the infantry, use the compartment for more ammo storage, stick on in each mechanized company.
2:11 OOOOOHHHH ok, so the Bradleys that we sent Ukraine aren't ACTUALLY from Desert Storm they were just updated as a result of lessons learnt from that conflict. Gotcha.
No one seems to notice one very important capability on the ODS Bradley: a built-in MRE heater, allowing soldiers to always have hot meals. I don't know if such capabilities are present on newer Bradley's, or if it's present in the CV90 at all. Morale is important, and one such thing that can boost morale massively is a hot meal.
The CV 90 does have a boiler for water so you can make coffee and get hot water for MRE's
from a retired CV 90 mechanic
@@wartoilet9927 Thanks for telling me that!
Binkov fortgot to mention the mine protection underneath, the Scania engines with 1000hp, all around add ons, the infantrymen can be integrated with the vehicle when the roofhatches are open, the 90120 model with 120mm gun.. Bla Bla Bla...
For once dear Binkov the background check is very poor😉
So in all, the 51 models sent to Ukraine are all with the new upgraded armor around an mine protection underneath!!
The most modern cv 90 does also carry atgm. Just saying
Glad someone actually mentions the dismounts and how they’re accommodated, or not, people forget the dismounts exist
Biggest problem with soviet infantry vehicles
I think the biggest problem with Russian vehicles is their inability to depress the main gun, caused by their ridiculous small size, which forces them to expose the entire vehicle to fight, thereby neutralizing the fetish on small size
I love to see these videos since I was trained in the CV90 in the beginning of 2000'
I got the driver licens for it, but was stationed as the shooter.
It is a mighty machine.
Great overview...well done.
Both are amazing systems. They both have their own strengths.
both are overrated as fuck. Russians the other day shot cv90 from rpg7 which made a hole and killed the crew inside then they captured the vehicle. As for bradleys. Lol well they have own square now in ukraine.
total mass of carried ammunition might be a more apples to apples comparison of the total number of rounds carried, given that they are different caliber autocannons
CV9040: 2.3 kg/ cartridge * 234 rounds = 538 kg
M2 Bradley: 0.46 kg/ cartridge * 900 rounds = 414 kg ; )
I disagree.
I can't be bothered to check 800+ previous comments so this may have been mentioned earlier. If the later Bradleys (pretty much) only advantage is more ammo capacity over the CV35/CV40 the choice is simple. Unless you are only going to fight 50 cal equipped Toyota trucks I'd go with the CV every time. Having loads more ammo means nothing if you can't damage the target.
I remember the evaluation process when Norway decided to buy new IVF's. Bradley was selected as a candidate along with several others, from the UK, Germany, etc. It failed.
The CV90 came out on top by a good margin. One of the reasons the Bradley failed was it's poor off road capabilities, I think there is still a vid knocking around from the winter trials where the Bradley leaves the road and after only a few meters stops - stuck.
A few years down the line I was with my TOW troop in deep snow, in the mountains, well above the treeline, when we stumbled over 4 "enemy" CV90's. This was unpleasant. The Norwegian infantry was used to armour being lower down in the valleys - where they belong. Rough terrain and the mountains is our terrain ffs! We were very surprised to see armour on our turf in such terrain and in such conditions. We were also impressed. I really wanted to drive over in our BV 206s and have a chat with them about this. But...they were the "enemy", so I pulled back to a suitable distance and position, and killed them with my TOWs "that'll teach the buggers". The BN CP was also perturbed to hear about the CV90s and initially accused me of getting the grid ref wrong.
I also remember well them in Afghanistan. Good vehicles.
CV90 MK IV are far superior to the Bradley, with 16 different version, 800hp, ATGM's, a version with 120mm gun, modernized Modular armour (increased the weight to 37 tons), automatic protective systems. It's currently being tested by US as one of the alternatives to replace the Bradley.
I think you can get Spike and/or Brimstone missiles for the CV90 these days...
The cv90 can also carry ATGM Tow missiles as a module on the turret
AWSOME video as always comrade :D
It’s actually really cool that a country like USA can almost make as good battle vehicle like Sweden does, it speaks to the greatness of USA.
Bruh that comment aged like milk
It was a joke, could you tell me how our vehicles are doing compared to the US ones?
I am a swede but I am 100% pro USA, they are the only reason we have our liberal world now and I would gladly fight defending USA.@@UsudUsud-ly9qr
For Ukraine, the CV90 is better than the Bradley in nearly every measurable way except for the most important one: the number that can be given!
Lol. Guys the CV90 entered service in 1994. The Bradley M2 is a design from the 1960s that entered servixe in the early 80s. It is the USA equivalent of BMP2. And for the record USA troops use Bradley M3 which is far better. It has upgrades from the early 2000s and thing about USA tech is that you have to ask if it was built before or after 911.
The idea of sending Bradley M2 to Ukraine is that they exist in large numbers, many are around 40 years old, sourcing ammo and parts is easy, logistic lines already exist in Europe with technicians and facilities present. So its angood solid IFV that could be sent in a practical manner.
I would be surprised if the newer CV90 wasn't better. Maybe the M3 is more similar.
The CV-90 is the better platform/IFV but old is gold and the M2 Bradley is second to none. *Worldbeater intensifies*
Bradley has the stripes. Cv90 is the young private who's learning from the old sergeant Bradleys
Bradley: never thought I'd fight side by side with non-NATO vehicles
CV90: what about side by side with a friend?
BMP4: Aye, I could do that
A comparison with Lynx would be great cause they are the most likely rn for Bradley replacement
Why wont they just redesign a new based on all the jcurrent IFVs and their flaws?
@@OrIoN1989 Aside from it being too expensive and will take too much time... There's no need to, Lynx for example is already a very VERY new platform
Mjölner variant of CV90 rocks with it's twin barrel 120mm mortar and huge ready to go ammo racks ^^
Spike LR is way better than TOW. It doesn't only have fire and forget, but also fire and observe modes. You can fire the missile in the air and then use the missile's camera to find and lock on to target. You can use it indirectly. Problem with TOW is that you have to see the target to be able to hit it, and when you can see your target, your target can see you. If enemy tank sees your launch, you'll be dead long before the TOW reaches it: 120/125 mm round is much faster than a missile.
Surprised to see Binkov isn't quite up to date on the OSINT understanding of which Bradley variant is being sent: the M2A2 ODS-SA. While not officially confirmed (to my knowledge), photos of Bradleys sent seem to confirm this. The SA variant is practically the M2A3, sans Commander's Independent Viewer, but with all the networking capabilities. These I suspect will make the biggest difference in Ukraine, especially during complicated offensive maneuvers.
As a swede Im proud of what we are capable of producing.
But let's conclude, the Ukrainian Army are getting two of the best IFV in the world, and that's great news.
These two plus the German "Wiesel" would give the Ukrainians a huge advantage.
Hagglunds is British, not Swedish.
@@martinan22 owned by a british company but still it is a swedish IFV. located in sweden
@@martinan22 English isn't my first language, but I think it's Hägglund😉
@@Bloink Yes, British company Hägglund's. They kept the Swedish name just for show, after they bought it twenty years ago.
The newer genration MkIV CV90 family will include spike ATGM, aswell as other interesting features.
30mm Rated vs 14.5mm rated
I would choose CV90 everytime
Hell yes the CV90 is better by a mile
I'm not aware of the different types of spike missiles. However, something left unsaid about the TOW was the bunker buster rounds. These will be incredibly useful in defeating russian fortified positions during the counter offensive.
Think of the spike as a faster more anti tank oriented atgm but spikes act more like tow missiles and go 600mph but the heavier versions go around 580-550mph and the spike is fire and forget
@@Idk-bx8qm Is there an anti concrete round for the spike? Seems to me as though it is vehicle oriented. The TOW may be more useful as I said, in clearing fortified russian positions.
@@timbrwolf1121 there could be I have to do more research
Yes the lr2 and some earlier versions use a multi purpose warhead that can takeout buildings bunkers and has a air burst mode that can take out infantry
I sometimes find it hard to understand the obsesion of ATGM launchers on IFV as if they are some fundamental thing that is so important. CV90 is basically a manouver and assault vehicle. In Swedish doctrine it operate with tanks in chock and awe assault style in close coordination with light and heavy mortar fire. The CV90 does not need ATGM the way they are doctrinally meant to fight, they usually have a 60-70 ton tank available to take out any heavy targets during assaults.
The CV90 is buit to storm the enemy possitions and virtually drive OVER them and have the infantry able to fight both mounted and dismounted, sometimes at the same time. The Germans actually use a similar tactic with their Marders as well as this is also meant to fight while mounted to some degree. The Leopard tank is also meant to fight in more rapid high tempo operation and not used as a stationary artillery piece but in direct fire mode.
So Bradley and CV90 is meant for VERY different style of operation and to be honest Ukraine probably are better of with CV90 style of combat rather than the more slow and methodical style of the Bradley that require fire support that Ukraine might not have available such as effective close air support to take out entrenched enemies and such. The Bradley usually is more like a heavy support vehicle that need to dismount its infantry quite far from any possition it want to engage. The situational awarness of the infantry in a CV9040C is much better then in the Bradley for these reasons.
The Bradley is a very capable vehicle but I think the CV9040C they get from Sweden will suite the Ukrainian doctrine allot better as they assault Russian positions with mechanized assaults in a more agrressive style than what the US military is used to. The US simply use a different doctrine and their vehicles are designed accordingly.
This is why comparing vehicle like this make very little sense... they both are VERY effective vehicles when used in their proper elements and have the support that they need. No military equipment fight on its own, they are just one part of a bigger picture.
cv90 also has direct fire light tank variant with 120mm gun and a dedicated AAA variant with the 40mm and radar tracking with high elevation gun, cv 90 all the way
If Binkow think Ericsson Microwave cant supply CV90 with anything better then first gen thermals he is very, very wrong..
Please do IFV vilkas(Lithuanian boxer variant) vs IFV variant of the stryker!
The CV90 in Swedish military doctrine is not used on its own. It's a support vehicle in mechanized batallions consisting of the Swedish versions of the German Leopard Main Battle Tanks. You will rarely see the CV90 acting on its own, it teams up with MBT:s. That's one of the reasons why it doesn't have ATGM in the Swedish versions. They don't need it.
But one of the CV90:s biggest strengths is its modularity and flexibility. There are literally so many versions of the CV90. You can get anti-air, anti-tank, command, intelligence gathering, and so many other capabilities mounted on the CV90 platform. In Sweden we even have a 120mm Mortar system built on the CV90 platform. Called the Mjölner.
Comparing 2 IFV's designed for totally diffrent military doctrines... You love it
its simple, the swiss decided for the cv90, so its better 😁
and in my eyes, the bradley is just a m113 with a turret on top (obviously a joke, because its way more modernized, but now you also cant unsee it anymore, and tbf thr chassis really looks like a m113 😊)
The Bradley has been proven against almost every armored vehicle from the Warsaw Pact. If you're going up against an opponent using Warsaw Pact equipment then it should do very well in sufficiently trained hands.
Yeah but CV90 is better at dealing with especially warsaw pact IVFs, due to the 35-40mm cannon shredding straight through those even at angles.
Both are good IFVs, but the CV90 is made specifically for wars like that in Ukraine, or if Sweden got invaded.
The Bradley has requirements put upon it's design that were / are not important for warfare in northern or eastern europe.
I love how the comment section here for vids such as this is so much more laid back compared to whenever the slight mention of Ukraine and Russia is given even a passing mention.
I saw a blown-up tank in Ukraine in November. It was armored at 60mm of steel on the sides of the main hull. It had 20-30 meters of welds that had been ripped apart from the explosion, and the turret was laying next to the tank. I think those guys did not have time to think about what was going to happen. Locals said they were Russians, which brought some comfort to me. I i also saw another vehicle that had been blown apart, which was smaller than a tank. There are people in Ukraine who sadly will be blown up into pieces while they will be sitting in their fancy western IFV's. This war will not be won without sacrifice, tears and bravery. Glory to the heroes! May Ukraine get all the help it needs to once and for all end Russian oppression
Do you know what type of tank it was?
@@highjumpstudios2384 No. It looks like it didn't have a lot of added armour. It was burned out and everything inside of it was removed, only hull left.
Glory to RUSSIA URAH
@@lglubbock7593 why?
Russia is s great place to live for those who have a slave's mentality
My conclusion: If you're planning to storm some trenches secured by infantry, the CV90 may have a bit of an advantage with its bigger gun and ability to fire fragmentation rounds.
If the CV90 is the latest variant with Spike missiles, it may be better in open fields.
If you don't have the Spike missiles then I think the Bradleys would be better in open fields. Imagine if you're a T72 operator, and you're told over the radio that some Bradleys are approaching your position. What can you reasonably do if you know that the Bradley has TOW missiles with a range of 4.5km. Ukraine's Bradleys have the high-range TOWs. There is absolutely no way for the T72 to hit the Bradley until it gets within 4km. Even then, it's unlikely to hit the Bradley with conventional tank rounds until it's within 3KM. By that time, There is a very high chance that the T72 will be destroyed by a TOW. If the first TOW misses then there's always the second TOW.
If I were driving that T72, I'd retreat and tell my artillery to try to hit the advancing Bradleys. I'd hope that there's a crew nearby with a Kornet that could challenge the Bradley before it gets within TOW range. If the Bradley is still far away, maybe I'd ask a Lancet team to try to hit it, but I don't think this could be done very quickly unless the Lancet team was already set up in position and knew that the Bradleys were approaching.
I think the only way that Russia will be able to slow down approaching Bradleys and Leopards will be with mine fields, wide anti-tank trenches, significant artillery coverage and their best ATGMs. I'm hoping that Ukraine can spot the artillery from afar with aerial recon drones and then launch their own artillery and FPV drones to challenge Russian artillery from afar. If Ukraine can eliminate artillery coverage in some positions, Russia will struggle massively to hold back approaching Ukrainian mechanized forces operating along with mine-clearing equipment.
The reason that the US Army didn't have the Bradley armed with a 40mm autocannon was that 1) Bofors hadn't revealed their 40mm HEPF rounds when the program was started (that was during DIVAD, and why what would become the Sgt. York would be armed with 2x 40mm autocannon with a HEPF-heavy ammo load) and 2) before CTA casings were developed to a point it can be used, 40mm Bofors rounds were _massive_ and volume-hungry things.
You're forgetting that most of Russia's T72 variants can fire anti-tank guided missiles from their main gun. Svir/Refleks. With ranges up to 5km.
So it will mostly be a game of who spots and engages whom first.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir/Refleks
@@PietBuks From information online, the T72 can fire the 9K120 Svir. I believe the T90 fires the 9K119. The Svir's range is stated at 4000m. However, I generally expect that Russia overstates the capabilities of all of its systems. Therefore, I think that while a T72 could theoretically hit a Bradley at 4000m with a Svir, I think the probability is low. At a range of 4KM, I'd bet on the Bradley firing the TOW to win the duel.
@@clutteredchicagogarage2720 I would bet on the Bradley too. But not so much because of that little extra range. But because of the superior sensors (IR/NV).
That being said. If the T72's have good defensive positions, the Bradley's could get a nasty surprise.
One critical thing about the CV9040B/C not having a built in ATGM is that it's not really supposed to fight tanks with its troops mounted, but instead of course they would dismount and take up positions to use for example Javelin. It's of course a nice thing to have, and as such there are variants with ATGM being produced or being designed.
Dutch Army chose the 35mm variant because there was a lot of 35mm left over from the Gepard being phased out because of budget cuts (which is a shame at it is a great AA vehicle). That was the reason the 35 was chosen. BTW Denmark also uses the 35mm CV90.
For the older variants I would probably go for the Bradley. For the latest versions I would pick the CV90 over the Bradley.
Another advantage of the CV90 is that its chassis has a lot of variants. Including an air defense variant, self propelled mortar and 120mm light tank (and the Polish PL-01 is based on this). This makes maintenance easier.
Being Dutch I believe that apart from Leopard 2 and PzH2000 we should replace all our armored vehicles with CV90 versions. Getting rid of Boxer and Fennek (or give them to units currently using trucks and jeeps), as wheeled armor has a lot less mobility compared to tracks. Tracks allow you to go 70% of terrain but wheels only 40%. Wheeled vehicles are only useful for peacekeeping and support.
The CV90 can do pretty much every task apart from main battle tank and armored howitzer.
Although the main weakness of Dutch army is that we only have 18 main battle tanks (Leopard 2 A6). We urgently need new tanks. Leopard 2 would make most sense but I would personally prefer Abrams. K2 would also be a good choice.
I wish we didnt sell all those tanks in 2010
Im not sure the fennek (a light armored reconnaissance vehicle) can be substituted by the CV90 platform.
(Assuming the dutch are actually using it for reconnaissance and not just a light mechanised unit.)
The Boxer will never be replaced. Partially because it is a Dutch-German product. It quite literally is a domestic arms product. That is why it will have a proportionally large role within the military. They lucked out a bit by immediately creating the most capable wheeled APC/IFV there is.
So at least the backbone of their armored fleet will consist of highly advanced and capable wheeled APCs/IFVs. Another benefit of wheeled vehicles is that outside of very harsh terrains they are way quicker and more fuel efficient, so they have a greater operational range.
The Boxer could be outfitted with mortars, as IFV, engineering vehicle, logistics/cargo vehicle, anti-tank role, anti-air role, missile carrier, and even as 155mm howitzer. The Boxer can even be purchased as a tracked vehicle instead of wheeled. It also has armor packages going beyond Stanag Level 6, so it can be as armoured as the most heavily armoured CV90 (the Dutch MLU).
CV90 looks cooler, plus you get to snuggle your buds while tucked in the back.
Yeah but your legs instantly go to sleep lmao
$200 FPV destroys both
The reason CV90s thermal vision capabilities are not public knowledge, is because it isnt gen1. It is far superior.
Anyhow... These two vehicles would likely work fantastic teamed up, complementing each others.
Both the Bradley and the CV90 are products of their respective nations thinking and doctrine. Though the age of the Bradley certainly is a factor, as it is a Cold War era design and the CV90 is a Post Soviet design. One thing Binion didn't mention, in addition to CV90's new ATGM launcher, is that CV90 uses many additional foreign components in it's construction. Bradley, and successor, are required to have all components made "in house". Both modus have advantages and disadvantages, the CV90 gets to pick the best of French Optics, the best German ammunition carousels, the best Finnish ERA components, ect. while the US gets only what the US can produce. But by contrast, it also means if one or some of those countries can not longer trade said items, say a large and aggressive nation state live on their borders and say they have a claim to your country, or they just decide they are done with the EU, then your gonna have a hard time getting and maintaining those components. There's a lot more, but work calls.
Sources please.
If anything of that was true the Bradley would be an export success, while the CV90 (Like Gripen) would be hard to sell to other nations.
In the real world the Bradley has 4 operators while the CV90 has 10 operators (with more on the way). Thats 10 foreign nations that all decided that the CV90 with its quirks and export dependencies (Not really an issue) are well worth the risk.
Remember - The Bradley has the backing of the worlds largest aconomy (and defense spender), while the CV90 is made by fish eating peace-loving engineers who had politicians that actually thought Russia would be an economic partner and yet its such an success. You cant use the argument that the CV90 has access to beter equipment when the Bradley comes from a nation that spends 5 times the next 10 countries combined
The Cv90 has as many foreign components as the buyer wants.
The Netherlands CV90 has a Netherlands designed and built turret as well as the add on armor package.
The US could easilly get a very US centric CV90.
But the US is a big enough buyer they might want to develop something new but not like the Brits and Germans hopefully which has been hillariously unreliable.
@@SverkerSuper it would be the inverse, with so many possibilities of imports, customization of the CV90 is high, with the Bradley, it is meant to only take US production material, and not just because the US measures in Imperial while the rest of the world uses metric, it also means you have only a singular supplier. The point I wanted to highlight with the CV90 is that the buyer is spoiled for choice, but it also means importing a foreign systems carries the risk of the original manufacture turning hostile in some manner or form. Look at Ukraine with the Russian tech they are using, the main supplier and the associated maintenance updates, both hardware and software, isn't exactly willing to give them a hand in patching out the night vision glitches, or updating their software anti-virus.
Comparatively, when everything is built in house, you tend to have an easier time maintaining it, and you alone are responsible for all hardware and software updates.
Lets just put this out there. The CV90, especially the later models are far more dangerous than the Lynx, Puma, Bradley or K21 fighting vehicles. They are more modern, the cannon is much larger (40mm) the types of ammunition 3p programmable ammunition is deadly as hell. It can air-burst at set ranges, it would annihilate every single Russian in ANY trench with ease from kilometers away.
The weight of this IFV is almost as much as the Russian MBT (main battle tanks). Close to 40 Ton.
The CV9040 is a highly aggressive vehicle, designed to control the initiative by staying mobile instead of slowing things down to a walk. Aggressive maneuvering is what the CV9040 is designed to do, outmaneuving vehicles and killing them in the flank and charging enemy positions to drop off soldiers right ontop of the enemy.
These tactics have been part of the Swedish doctrine since the late fifties as seen in vehicles like the PBV301 and PBV302. And it was directly copied from the German playbook of WW2, where the German panzergrenadiers/dismounts fought more often than not from their halftracks, allowing them to keep pace with the tanks and also maintain initiative through aggressive maneuvering.
A Bradley, Puma, K21 and so on is not designed for that type of combat. It's essentially an APC that drops off troops 100m from the fight. The CV9040 drops off troops within 0-50m from the enemy position, or simply drives up to it and let's the troops fight mounted.
In Afghanistan it was apparently tremendously deadly. The Danish or Norwegians were caught in some kind of fight/ambush and they annihilated the enemy.
P.S
1000 BHP in the high end version that is amphibic and extremely mobile in mudd and snow.
D.S
I would love to see a squadron of the old Stridsvagn 103 (if available and upgraded) in action against the Russian T series tanks.
Update...Thanks for all the interest and comments everyone, I still think they are one of the coolest tank concepts ever.
That is one of my all time favourite tanks.
Are they still around? Be cool to see them used as they were designed but how many are even available?
@@lumenvitae4215 I heard there are few in museums in Sweden. The Tank Museum (Bovington) has a running model as well.
Not sure if the Swedish Army has any mothballed.
To be precise there was a modernisation kit introducing things like composite addon armor for it and other nice things. So afther reintroducing it the Strv 103 could be of use as a line holder while other MBT do the breakthrough.
@@lumenvitae4215The armor wouldn't stand a chance against modern 120mm+ main guns no matter how hard you angle.
The Brad is great and an OG but the CV90 is next level
Not sure why Binkov claims no information about the CV90. If Binkov invested in the latest edition of Janes armoured vehicles tracked he would find plenty of information.
Bradley is more versatile in a single configuration, but it’s more aged, and less effective compared to CVs with specialized roles.
The Bradley is being phased out, while the CV series is going through another evolution. Currently the modern CV is more capable.
The Bradley is a jack of all trades, while the CV can be molded to specialize in almost any combat role. Overall edge goes to CV.
Swedish engineering is insane, especially undert the 60s to the 90s
@@hzmt12 too sad they just thought 😢
I doubt it. Mostly paid advertisement. French are way more ahead, just see the mirage2000 series or the Mirage F1. Way ahead than ikea jets.
@@hzmt12 That is the bravest a swede will ever achieve.
"Swedish engineering is insane, especially undert the 60s to the 90s"
Definitely the highpoint of capability...
I am guessing that once Sweden is in NATO, I expect USA and Sweden co-design and manufacture something better than CV90 together. There is certainly a lot both sides can learn. With Finland in NATO, USA and Finland could co-design new artillery. I wonder what the United States Army would think about the Patria NEMO vehicle and would they be interested on giving it a go.
During the Norwegian tryouts the CV90 had to tow the Bradley during and back from terrain trials :P
I really like both but as an American I have to say the newer upgraded CV90s are on point. The Bradleys are really good but a little dated at this point decades after initial fielding. They have been modernized and are certainly one of the best but the base is just dated and I am glad they are developing a new IFV. I was never an IFV operator but I am sure someone who was can give more insight on the differences that matter. Either way, any army would be due well to have them. Good thing about Bradleys is that they are combat proven platforms having destroyed more tanks than the Abrams in Desert Storm. I believe the US is also almost done developing a new Javelin and TOW replacement?
Lets just put this out there. The CV90, especially the later models are far more dangerous than the Lynx, Puma, Bradley or K21 fighting vehicles. They are more modern, the cannon is much larger (40mm) the types of ammunition 3p programmable ammunition is deadly as hell. It can air-burst at set ranges, it would annihilate every single Russian in ANY trench with ease from kilometers away.
The weight of this IFV is almost as much as the Russian MBT (main battle tanks). Close to 40 Ton.
The CV9040 is a highly aggressive vehicle, designed to control the initiative by staying mobile instead of slowing things down to a walk. Aggressive maneuvering is what the CV9040 is designed to do, outmaneuving vehicles and killing them in the flank and charging enemy positions to drop off soldiers right ontop of the enemy.
These tactics have been part of the Swedish doctrine since the late fifties as seen in vehicles like the PBV301 and PBV302. And it was directly copied from the German playbook of WW2, where the German panzergrenadiers/dismounts fought more often than not from their halftracks, allowing them to keep pace with the tanks and also maintain initiative through aggressive maneuvering.
A Bradley, Puma, K21 and so on is not designed for that type of combat. It's essentially an APC that drops off troops 100m from the fight. The CV9040 drops off troops within 0-50m from the enemy position, or simply drives up to it and let's the troops fight mounted.
In Afghanistan it was apparently tremendously deadly. The Danish or Norwegians were caught in some kind of fight/ambush and they annihilated the enemy.
P.S
1000 BHP in the high end version that is amphibic and extremely mobile in mudd and snow.
D.S
@@tomeng9520 I agree on most, let's just hope the CV90 is finally proven in a conventional war (not sure if they have been). I don't remember if the CV90s the Ukrainians got had ATMGs but I hope they are proven combat effective. Can't speak to all the other systems it seems like they all have pros and cons. The real test in my opinion will be seen in Ukraine. Hopefully they aren't misused. Either way, there is no doubt they will be better then almost all the Russian equipment.