CV90 - How many dismounts?

[ZPB II]

I'm bored and can't get any sleep so I decided to feel like asking trivial questions.

I was browsing the manual and noticed that it says the CV9035 seats 7 dismounts, then checked Wikipedia and it says 7 there too, which I assume goes for the baseline 9040 model.

The 9030, on the other hand, seats 8 dismounts so where'd that extra seat go? Does the bigger gun require a bigger turret, or does the beefier ammo take more space? Perhaps it's a doctrinal thing? Maybe the Wiki supplies wrong information? :cool:

Yours truly, the Curious Beast

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Could it be that the vehicle commander dismounts?

[Battlefront.com]

Many times a vehicle has a soldier who performs the role of Vehicle Commander when mounted and dismounted leader (of some sort) when outside of the vehicle. The websites often do not make this distinction and instead include the Vehicle Commander as part of the crew count without mentioning the fact he dismounts. Which means many websites are a bit misleading because it looks like a dedicated crew of x and a dedicated passenger capacity of Y, when in fact there is one soldier who can be either depending on circumstances.

Steve

[Damian90]

Dismounting of vehicle commander is not good thing, Soviets new that (and changed that thing in BMP-2) and Yanks new that (in M2's commander is staing in vehicle), because without commander situationall awareness is smaller.

As for how many dismounts is in vehicle, it depends on turret (how big it is) and on calliber of main weapon, because if bigger calliber then bigger ammo that takes place.

Also remember that CV90 series are, hmmm, a bit smaller than M2 series for comparrision.

[Zipuli]

CV9030 has 8 seats in the back, the TC does not dismount. In 9040 and 9035 there is something taking up 1 seat place on the right side, in the rear of the compartment, depending on the model... Don't quote me on this, but IIRC for example the Swedish 9040 has some sort of cooking place there to make food inside the vehicle.

[ZPB II]

I find the idea of the vehicle commander dismounting a bit strange, considering the brilliant optics he has at his disposal, not to mention the support role the CV fills after the infantry has dismounted, which would become exponentially harder if the IFVs lack commanders. The doctrine here in Finland called for a strict 3 man crew in the CV and an 8 man Jaeger squad, both having their own leaders.

The CV has a "commander's cupola" for the dismount team leader on the rear deck, visible in this picture:

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/nl_ifv_cv9035-004.jpg

Is this modeled as a very slight spotting bonus? That position is pretty ergonomic, there's room for the dismount leader to stay in that cupola for a long time in reasonable comfort as opposed to normal prisms you would have. It can be opened fully, if he wants to stick his neck out.

Damien90, the CVs external dimensions are smaller indeed but I believe the crew compartment is a lot bigger than the Bradley's. It's pretty roomy and extremely comfortable, the seats are so nice you can easily fall asleep even when traversing rough terrain. We rigged a radio to the intercom and organised a small dance party inside, who knows how many people attended. Certainly it is much, much more better than the BMP-2s we tested at one point. Those things are claustrophobically small and you suffocate on exhaust fumes inside while munching on your own knees.

[Jaws]

Dismounting of vehicle commander is not good thing, Soviets new that (and changed that thing in BMP-2) and Yanks new that (in M2's commander is staing in vehicle), because without commander situationall awareness is smaller.

As for how many dismounts is in vehicle, it depends on turret (how big it is) and on calliber of main weapon, because if bigger calliber then bigger ammo that takes place.

Also remember that CV90 series are, hmmm, a bit smaller than M2 series for comparrision.

Thats why Dutch CV90/35 has an vehicle commmander and a squad commander. The squad commander dismounts.

[Damian90]

Damien90, the CVs external dimensions are smaller indeed but I believe the crew compartment is a lot bigger than the Bradley's. It's pretty roomy and extremely comfortable, the seats are so nice you can easily fall asleep even when traversing rough terrain.

Well M2 is a bit older and have really big turret with "insane" amount of ammo for M242. Besides this M2 got upper part of side armor angled so there is a bit less space than in CV90, I think that after redesign of seats in M2A2 (or this was on M2A2ODS/ODS-E?) with similiar shape of side hull armor as on CV90, M2 probably should got similiar internal volume. But we need to also remember that M2 have stored inside ATGM's, bot for vehicle launcher and Javelin (earlier Dragon) for infantry + M136's, nothing strange that it is a but cramped inside. But after adding one pair of wheels and lenghting hull there should be enough space for additional 2 dismounts giving it 9 man dismount squad, currently it is 7 man, 6 man are siting on seats on both sides of vehicle + one man seats in left hull side space between left hull bulkhead and turret basket.

Certainly it is much, much more better than the BMP-2s we tested at one point. Those things are claustrophobically small and you suffocate on exhaust fumes inside while munching on your own knees.

Soviets never took much attention to crew comfort.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

In Soviet Russia, vehicle comfort is using you!

[Sergei]

But a BMP can swim, try doing that with a CV90 and see how comfortable you are! CV9035 also weighs 35 tons, compared to BMP-2's 14 tons (or BMP-3's 18 tons) so it's in altogether different weight class.

I don't really understand the logic behind Finland buying CV90's when they can't even operate in most of the country (whereas a hypothetical invader most likely would have amphibious IFV's in abundance), but then I guess they're not meant to. Even the newer Pasi's can't swim any more.

[Damian90]

Swimming IFV for Land Army is BS, this is shock to me that Russians, nation where there were many genius AFV designers born can't understand something such simple!

Priority is to, protect precious crew and dismounts and provide them with enough support from vehicles firepower.

Let's compare something, BMP-2 is armed with 30mm automatic cannon and it's lightly armored, enough lightly armored that it can't survive firing from 25mm auto cannon of M2A2/A3 but latter can survive firing from BMP-2 main weapon over frontal and side aspects.

Obvious is that swimming is not good thing for AFV's that are intended to go head on head with enemy, such vehicles can be transported through rivers by pontoon brigdes, can do deep fording, forces can use bridgelayers etc.

On the other hand, APC's can be amphibious, but it is better when such vehicles are treated only as armored taxis that are not fighting head on head with enemy.

I wonder when Russians understand this and left behind swimming capabilities for IFV's for better crew and dismounts protection, especially that BMP-2 is geting older and older without any significant upgrade and BMP-3 is somewhat failure design, over complicated, with horrible ergonomics etc.