@ferdinand7004 What are you talking about.. Sweeden could take on the US anytime. If you take away air superiority. The machines, artillery terrain and professional independent soldiers would handle the rest. ;)
It's proven in many common training camps between Nordic countries and USA. If Nordic countries (I'd say any of them) would have same amount of guns, soldiers and shit, it would win easily. ie. 3 finnish pilots using Hawk training jet won 5 USAF pilots who used F-15 in dogfight training. In arctic warfare training norwegian infantry pwnd U.S. soldiers. Sweden has awesome weapon technology. Only problem is amount of men :D
The main armament of the original model M1 was the M68A1 105 mm rifled tank gun. This gun is a license-built version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 gun.
The main armament of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany, funny how some americans still think "their stuff is so advanced". ow wells we Europeans know where it comes from.
@ferdinand7004 if you're advanced, why did a bunch of arabs in four slow moving jet liners. manage to kick your arse and kill 3000 people. you are fine product of the american education system,
and another thing a disarmed iraq managed to kill over 4000 us soldiers. not a bad score by my account.
How did a terrorist attack "kick" our "arse"? You're one of those Brits who doesn't even know your country got attacked to. An attack on defenseless civilians is not the US getting its "arse" kicked. It could have happened anywhere, and the reason the US was attacked is because the Muslims, including the ones taking over your country as we speak, see the US as their biggest threat. We're the ONLY thing preventing a Muslim global caliphate.
@MrXclio You know what's funny? Brits had a higher casualty rate in Iraq despite running away from fighting. The US did way more in the invasion and occupied the most dangerous parts. Brits had the most peaceful area of Iraq (because there were no Sunnis, just Shiites) and you still fucking failed. You had 7000 troops in Iraq on average, suffering 200 casualties, despite never seeing real combat.
The US had 155,000 troops on average, suffering 4000 casualties.
@MercenarySlick yep you're a fucktard alright the only thing you yanks are good at is talking bullshit.
you need our help in everything iraq afghanistan and you can't even get that right btw tim berners lee came up with the internet, so without him you would,nt be able to talk shit over the net. and the first pc was invented in manchester you tard. and 200 is no were near 4000 fuckface. but continue dribbling bullshit like you do.
it's the only talent you have with that pee sized brain of yours
@MrXclio AHAHAHAH YOU FUCKING BRAINLESS LIMEY INBRED.
Every single thing you say is wrong. YOU lost in Iraq. YOU lost in Afghanistan. The US had to fix what you messed up. You retreated from Basrah in Iraq. We came in and did in 2 weeks what you couldn't do in 5 years. YOU fucked up in Helmand in Afghanistan. Now Americans had to come in and save you YET AGAIN. IT was so bad that British troops didn't leave their base a single time in 2 years.
Tim Berners Lee didn't invent the internet you uneducated inbred monkey. Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf invented the internet, they were Americans. The US had the internet before Tim Berners Lee even started his work. He invented the web, that is NOT THE SAME THING. The internet is the technology that actually transmits data. The web is just the code that the internet transmits that dictates how a page looks. It's the format.
Literally kill yourself. You and your country are so pathetic. You have to believe lies to have pride.
Fact is you're inferior to and dependent on the US in every way and you're jealous. You Brits are obsessed with America, that's ALL you fucking talk about.
We defeated your country.
You only exist today because we protected you in two world wars, both of which you were losing before the US joined,.
@MrXclio The funniest thing about you Brits is that your jealousy shows in every thing you say.
You have a long history of being humiliated by the US.
-We defeated your empire in the height of its power. American farmers and blacksmiths beat British Redcoats armed antique rifles, and sometimes with pitchforks and axes.
- It took you 1500 years to become a superpower. We did it in less than 200.
- We saved you in two world wars, despite your denial.
@MercenarySlick why would we be jealous of a bunch of fat retards,
and by the way go do some research usa saved no one. we did it our selves with russias help . you just joined in at the last minute. oh and france helped you in the rev war, or else you would still be our bitch.
in a way you still are. sept 11th does'nt seem so bad now. hope there's another one.
@MrXclio You're jealous because we're superior to you in EVERY SINGLE WAY. You Brits still think you're an empire even though you're our lapdog.
The US saved you in WWII you idiot. The allies especially the Brits were LOSING ON EVERY FRONT before the US resecued you. You say we joined at the last minute, actually we were in the war for the majority of it. WWII started in 1938, we came in in 1941. The war ended in 1945. If the US DIDN'T join, it would have lasted longer AND you would have lost.
Bradlys are just ONE BIG FUCKING TARGET! ITS LIKE BIG PUSSY! I would build something else lower , less of target, best to be low and wide vs tall and fat. The new ATGMs and RPG 40's blow Bradly to pieces.
@darksneaker2000 The US didn't lose a single battle in the entire Vietnam war.
The US military won that war, the US GOVERNMENT lost it. The US military killed 20 enemies for every 1 American that was killed, despite the fact that they were only permitted to strike North Vietnam with airstrikes in the last 2 years of the war. The US used 10% of our military strength only, still managed to do something that no country had ever done in Vietnam before.
@MrXclio British troops were part of a UN force in Vietnam after the First Indochina War. When the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War) started, British troops pulled out. American and Australian troops stayed.
Brits ran away.
And the funny thing about you even bringing up Vietnam is that your country wouldn't have lasted 1 week of fighting in Vietnam. The US did better than anyone else would have. 20 to 1 kill ratio, better than Brits have ever had.
@drfan2004 The US did not lose the Vietnam war militarily.
20 to 1 casualty rate proves you wrong. The US left because of political changes in the US, people didn't support the war. That is why the US "lost". The US military didn't lose a single engagement in the entire war, despite using only a tiny, tiny fraction of our power. The US fought a war against a Soviet-equipped land army that was the biggest in the world at the time, and still killed 20 enemies for every 1 American killed.
@javakris The US wasn't defeated in Vietnam. The US military was not outperformed and certainly didn't "lose" in the way that wars are lost. And I think it's funny hearing this from a British person because the French and British lost in the First Indochina War, their forces didn't leave with a peace treaty they were actually overrun and destroyed and the remaining troops were all captured. They capitulated. The US did not capitulate in Vietnam.
@MercenarySlick Well, yes, it might be... but, i'm not British, and I didn't even know the Brit's were in the first Indochina War. But, my point was, the US military wasn't defeated, but the NVA and Vietcong managed to still do enough damage to public opinion that the Americans failed to hold South Vietnam. The US failed to meet its starting objectives, and the NVA managed to meet there, therefore, by definition, the US lost. The US didn't lose in the battlefield, but the war was lost at home.
@MercenarySlick Actually, yes the US lost in Vietnam. The US went there with the clear objective of keeping South Vietnam from the communists, period.
The South finally became communist, so pray tell, how did the US win?
@Kojak0 The US military did not lose in Vietnam. Not a single battle was lost. The reason the war was "lost" was that the war ended with a peace treaty, that the communists later violated AFTER THE US LEFT. Two years after the Vietnam War ended, basically a new war started that didn't involve the US. It was only then that the Communists took South Vietnam. After having two years to rebuild their military and only the rag-tag South Vietnamese military as opponents.
@MercenarySlick And the US left because it was clear South Vietnam would never fall to the communists, right? Sorry, but you are grasping at straws. True, the US was never militarily defeated, but still lost the war because:
Wars are not won on the battlefield, but in the conference rooms.
@Kojak0 The US left because the US public didn't support the war anymore. And do you not know what a treaty is? The North Vietnamese signed a UN-brokered peace treaty where they stated they honored the sovereignty of South Vietnam and wouldn't show any further hostilities. The US left with a victory, but didn't enter a new war when the Communists invaded the South after the US was already gone.
There were only 20 US military personnel in Saigon when it fell.. they were all embassy staff.
@MrXclio EVERY SINGLE THING YOU EVER SAY is retarded. Your British view of the world is dominated by all these hypocritical, retarded, ignorant beliefs you have about the US that you need to cope with the fact that you're America's bitch. You're our lapdog, you're inferior to and dependent on the US for everything.
British troops fought in the First Indochina War and supported the French. Google it for fuck sake.
YOU lost in Vietnam before a single US soldier stepped foot in that country.
@MercenarySlick every word that comes out of your mouth is utter bulllshit. and you have the nerve to call someone else retarded, you actually believe the bile fed to you. more proof the yanks are idiots, if we are dependant why do you need us in the middle east? can't do trhe job youself eh? ten years in afghanistan and you still haven't defeated the taliban. it's another vietnam i think. by the way uk is not americas lapdog. USA dances to israels tune, israel says jump america says how high
@MrXclio We don't "need" you in the Middle East. You provide a token gesture because your country is our bitch and has to obey us. The funny thing is, you and France couldn't even do a no-fly zone over Libya without begging the US to come do it. You can't even send one single jet into a defended air space without them getting shot down. The US single-handedly destroyed Libya's air defenses, all while Brits and French people try to take credit for it.
@MrXclio You're so stupid it's hilarious. You are America's bitch. All smart Brits (maybe 1% of your population) admit that your country depends on the US for everything and takes orders from us.
It's funny you say we'll be China's bitch, when you're ALREADY our bitch. You're in far deeper debt than the US us. Your debt, which is mostly owed to the US, is 4 times larger than your GDP. The debt the US owes China is only 7% of our GDP.
@MrXclio Holy shit you're stupid. You also just make up lies off the top of your head. You only prove what I say right and prove that Brits are all idiotic liars who need to base their pride on fantasy.
The UK is in deeper debt than the US.
US GDP: $14.14 trillion
UK GDP: $2.12 trillion
US external debt: $13.92 trillion
UK external debt: $9.12 trillion
Our external debt is 98% of our GDP. Your debt is 429% of your GDP. You're FOUR TIMES DEEPER IN DEBT THAN THE US. You stupid limey.
You're probably only thinking public debt, which is different, and less relevant. Public debt can be owed to parties inside of the country, external debt is purely to outside parties.
The UK is over 4 times deeper in debt than the US. In fact, every major country in Europe is in deeper debt than the US. The UK and the Republic Ireland are the worst though.
@MercenarySlick Ah, even so it's about the "sustainability of external debt".
UK have an Net international investment position (NiiP) of -4.1% of GDP.
USA have an Niip of -24.3% of GDP.
So even if the external debt by UK sits at 400% they can sustain it better than USA can sustain theirs.
Take Luxemburg, they have over 4000% external debt, yes thousand. Yet they sit in plus over in NIIP of their GDP, which mean they have MORE investments than owing.
@Swecan76 Another thing you don't seem to get is external debt is attributed to ANYONE residing in a country, including NON-citizens. So to explain even if Luxembourg has a huge debt externally, they have more international investments (external) than they owe, so they are in the plus statistic.
I am not an economist, but clearly you are kidding yourself if you think it is all about external debt.
Clearly the assets outweigh the debt or something like that.
Another example is Hong Kong, they have external debt of 233% but their NIIP (net international investment position) is 309% PLUS in statistic.
They might owe more money than the have each year in GDP, but what they actually have in investments and own around the world and domestic covers said debt.
"The difference between a country's external financial assets and liabilities is the net international investment position (NIIP)". IS what matters.
@MrXclio 1) I already proved you're in deeper debt than the US.
2) The Challenger never faced real combat. The Challenger didn't come up against a single enemy tank in Iraq in 2003. The US destroyed 17,000 Iraqi armored vehicles (including 9000 tanks) with only 4 Abrams being disabled. Brits only destroyed 100 light armored vehicles, with 1 challenger disabled and 1 destroyed by another British thank.
@MrXclio It's really funny how your little Abrams vs Challenger comparison just proves that you lack simple math skills and logic.
Comparing the Abrams which has actually seen REAL combat, to the challenger which never even came up against enemy tanks... you idiot. Brits never went against armoured divisions of the Iraqi Army. The most heavily defended area of Iraq was Baghdad and the surrounding cities in the Sunni Triangle. British forces only went to the undefended south city of Basrah.
@MercenarySlick Well I wouldnt count the abrams as if it's proved itself.Fighting against far less advanced tanks and less trained crews.Most tanks would do that.
@MercenarySlick busting some ancient Iraqi t-55 and downgraded export-model t-72s is hardly "real" combat experience and there is no reason to presume that Leo2, Challenger 2 or T 90 could not have performed the same tasks. I also really doubt your figure of "17.000 iraqi armored vehicles", sounds like hype.
@MrXclio You're militarily, economically, technologically, and even culturally dependent on the US. Your military can't even leave your borders without tapping into the US communications and logistics network. Your economy is dominated by companies and industries dominated by American companies. All your technology comes from the US. Look at you right now you dumb cunt.
You're using an American computer, running an American OS, on the internet the US invented, and on an American website.
You actually think you outclass the US in military technology? We've had stealth aircraft for years. Your best fighter, the Gripen, uses an American-copy engine and the airframe itself is based on the old American F-5 Freedom Fighter.
While it is true that about 50 % of the Gripen engine is American the same cannot be said about the airframe. How could that be based on the F-5? Are you saying that SAAB took the F-5, changed EVERYTHING and then made it the Gripen? Please, the wing configuration is different, as are the number of engines, the tail and the nose. The only thing remotely similar is the placement of the air intakes and that they both are slender and good looking aircraft.
@Katjing More than 50% of the Gripen's engine is American. The entire core design is American, it was designed for the US F18 Hornet by General Electric. The only modifications made by SAAB are slight and don't affect the function of the engine in any way, they were just modifications to make it compatible with the electronics in the Gripen, and to fit the airframe.
And yes, the Gripen's air frame is based on the F-5 Freedom Fighter, although it's heavily modified.
@MercenarySlick RM12, developed from F404 by Volvo Aero (which supplies parts for the engine of the JSF), has higher thrust, bird resistance and a redesigned afterburner amongst other things. The changes were not slight.
And no, the Gripen's airframe is not in any way based on the F-5. It's a ridiculous claim without any grounds whatsoever. The only thing similar is size, if you can't see that you are truly stupid.
@Katjing You're in denial. What you're doing is resorting to mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that your beloved plane that you think is so great actually owes its existence to technology handouts from the US. Typical small country inferiority complex, nothing too bizarre but still pretty stupid. If it weren't for the fact that I find you Swedes and your naivety so cute, I'd probably by offended by your ingratitude and the lies and distortions you make to rob Americans of credit.
@MercenarySlick I'd be the first to acknowledge that the Gripen is to a large extent built with American Parts, because it is.
I do however dispute that the airframe would be based on the F-5, because it's obvious that it isn't. I challenge you to present a source that says that it is.
@MercenarySlick Trying to win the Hearts and Minds. That is common trait of ours is to insult others. I yelled Redneck at Mud derby one time and had the whole crowd look at me. Every Body Loves are kindness.
@ferdinand7004 If there's one thing Eurotrash are good at, it's criticizing Americans for things Europeans are ALWAYS worse at.
What's hilarious is that insanely idiotic people like you can't even accept the most basic facts that are pretty much indisputable. The US has a gigantic edge over Europe in military technology and has for a long time. There is no way in hell that Sweden is more advanced than the US in military technology. We're literally decades ahead of you.
According to the press both Sweden, Norway and Denmark are deploying cv90 in Afghanistan. Though not anywhere near any snow. Since a Danish Leopard 2A5 driver has been killed from an IED, the CV90 is not a guarantee to troop safety, just somewhat better than softskins.
No wonder the bradley gets stuck, the CV90 was made to handle these things. I Whish they could send the cv90 (or the SISU) to afghanistan instead of the lousy armoured trucks our troops has to cope with now. Swedish troops have had a few IED casualties, totally unneccesary. I guess the cv90 is far too imposing for a peace-keeping mission... Too bad.
I wish the Bundeswehr would use these. This beast is exactly what we need in Afghanistan. A CV9040 and a CV90 AMOS would deliver the Talis some serious hell!
Nah. Even the old Marder is some serious overkill in Afghanistan. Up north, we're not seeing the kind of heavy combat that needs heavy armor to deal with.
@HGRadetzki I agree. The small caliber means that the shell doesn't have much of a lethal radius and severely reduced possibility of having programmable fuzes. In the type of terrain you'll find in Afghanistan, airburst-capable ammunition would be a huge asset, but unfortunately, it's currently not possible to make that sort of ammunition smaller than 40mm without losing a lot of effectiveness.
EFV is vastly different from the CV90. The CV90 was conceived as a family of vehicles on a modular chassis. The EFV has so far only 1 variant and is a dedicated assault vehicle for a "over the horizon" capability. M2 Bradley was also featured in the film as getting stuck. What is odd is that the Bradley is also a BAE product along with the Bvs 10 shown later in the clip pulling the CV90 out of mud.
I thought the EFV had been canceled a long time ago. If it is the vehicle I´m thinking of, no they are not comparable. The EFV is more like an huge APC that intended for marines and carries like a half of a platoon. The CV 90 (in this version) is an IFV more intended for mechanized armored troops and carries a squad....
"Sweds deliberately did some thing to him to weaken him so it could stuck in the snow " lol say what? the bradeley get stuck end of story its nothing the swedes have done its becouse of the snow and the bradley beeing 10 tones hevier then the cv90...
Jag minns när prototypen visades upp för oss vid kråks sjutfält runt året 1986, det sas att den var byggd från IKV91 plattan som jag själv utbildades på. Inget jag minns från den tiden kunde mäta sig med IKV91's framkomlighet så det stämmer säkert också för likheten syns tydligt!
Stridsfordon 90/CV90 har ingenting gemensamt med IKV91!
IKV91 utvecklades under 60-talet och tillverkades 1975-78.
Vagnen har vissa gemensamma design på chassits utformning och konstruktion som PBV 302.
PBV 302 hade två typer av band, varav åtminstonde den ena typen var gemensam med IKV91 och den andra typen gemensam med Strf 90. Jag är osäker på om IKV91 hade båda typerna.
The CV90 uses the Bofor. It was one of the most popular AA guns of WW2. It was used by France and Poland and then the Germans when they captured them. It was even used by the Japs after it fell into their hands in Singapore.
What do you mean apparently not? Where is your evidence that this is not the case?
The US military has arctic warfare proving grounds in which every single vehicle model and piece of equipment that it plans on fielding is tested. Everything is required to function well in winter environments otherwise they wouldn't ever be deployed to US combat units.
Yes, the CV90 is newer than the original Bradley, but new Bradleys have been built, and they all get upgraded constantly. The electronics, communications and fire control on the Bradley is state of the art. The US has always had an edge in that department.
There's no programable ammunition for Bradley today. And its armour is also inferior to that on the a CV90. Especially the new CV9035 is way ahead of Bradley in almost every aspect. Check it out yourself.
The French currently have the best fire control systems in the world. The Leclerc is second to none, and the Burst system on French mobile artillery is superb.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh the silly swedes. Of course all CV9030FIN:s should have a swedish flag, all Finnish Leo2:s should have German flags, all Finnish Hornets should sport the star spangled banner. (ie. the US flag). every Finnish bmp2 should have the russian flag.
"Combat Vehicle 90 represents a family of armoured combat vehicles developed by BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds (formerly Alvis Hägglunds) of Örnsköldsvik and Saab Bofors Dynamics of Karlskoga, Sweden. Land Systems Hägglunds builds the chassis and Saab Bofors supplies the turret."
Det är bara de svenska vagnarna som har Boforstorn. Alla andra länder har andra torn tillverkade av andra företag. Bara chassiet som är i stora drag samma som våra vagnar.
I don't know why you replied in Swedish when everyone else is talking English, but whatever.. I were replying to the guy saying that the CV90 is Finish, though it clearly is a Swedish vehicle through and through.
Jag kanske inte kan engelska? Ja det är ett svenskt fordon, men allt är inte så självklart som du får det att vara, då det bara är chassiet vi exporterar.
Ohh, the love of my life, so fun to drive, the traction in the winters are amazing, pretty good to drift with aswell. think i was made for the winters? :] Driver Nilsson.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
wtf we need Leopard 2, not any shitty infantry 40mm tank!!!!!!!!!!!!!! more Leopard 2 to Sweden!! And also, we should get nuclear weapons, it's about time!!
Why a nuclear bomb when we can use viral or chemical weapons. It´ll be fun to watch the enemy die from terrible deaseases or chemicals. No seriously, why in the world should we have nuclear devices. There is no tactical use in them. And about the leopards I think we should get rid of them. To heavy and big for our terrain. Get more lighter tanks with bigger guns instead. It´s easier to hide if your small.
lol i must have been drunk when i made that comment :D anyways, you're right, Leopard is in need of infantery support and support from smaller tanks.. also very bad in urban terrain. Biological weapons sounds fun tho ;) And we could have tactical nukes, that kind that can take out a whole battalion lol
If we could remove the problem with nuclear fallout that nukes comes with it would not be such a bad idea. To nuke tactical positions were the troops can´t hold should buy the time needed to regroup and counter attack the enemy as they have becomed much weaker of the blast. With the enemy infantry disintegrated by the blast and the machinery immobilized by the EMP it would be a nice target for the counter attack.
You are the biggest pipshit I've ever met. NUCLEAR ARMAMENT, ARE YOU ALRIGHT IN THE HEAD?!
Nuclear weaponry need total disarmament by all nations worldwide.
And you know nothing of warfare, do you. Ever heard of the Panzerfaust? It was a German weapon that oblitiated tanks on a close distance during World War II. And do you know why? Because they didn't have any IFVs!
I have not. But since that is they are being sent to Afghanistan by Denmark and have already been deployed by the Norwegians there, i think it is as relevant to show how they perform there.
Now THAT is a nice piece of kit. V impressive x country ability.
stubbostubbs 1 month ago
Gotta love the Bofors 40mm.
drbackjack 1 month ago 5
it is overlight armors. will be destroyed by any antimaterial rifles ^)))
RobotN001 2 months ago
@ferdinand7004 What are you talking about.. Sweeden could take on the US anytime. If you take away air superiority. The machines, artillery terrain and professional independent soldiers would handle the rest. ;)
Im just kidding...
Peabush 4 months ago
@Peabush You actually have a point there :D
It's proven in many common training camps between Nordic countries and USA. If Nordic countries (I'd say any of them) would have same amount of guns, soldiers and shit, it would win easily. ie. 3 finnish pilots using Hawk training jet won 5 USAF pilots who used F-15 in dogfight training. In arctic warfare training norwegian infantry pwnd U.S. soldiers. Sweden has awesome weapon technology. Only problem is amount of men :D
Zuomigundi 3 months ago
The main armament of the original model M1 was the M68A1 105 mm rifled tank gun. This gun is a license-built version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 gun.
The main armament of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany, funny how some americans still think "their stuff is so advanced". ow wells we Europeans know where it comes from.
RzzRBladez 7 months ago
Nine people are Bradley fans.
tommyzDad 8 months ago
CV90 is basically the best IFV out there today.
So versatile and mobile, can be outfitted as almost any fighting platform from tank to IFV to anti-air and so on.
Swecan76 8 months ago
this is the new tank of the netherlands
siperdellyeer 9 months ago
God God what a piss fest. Mind taking your quarrels private loverboys? I don't think anyone else i interested.
ThisSpitefulSnake 9 months ago
@ferdinand7004 if you're advanced, why did a bunch of arabs in four slow moving jet liners. manage to kick your arse and kill 3000 people. you are fine product of the american education system,
and another thing a disarmed iraq managed to kill over 4000 us soldiers. not a bad score by my account.
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio You're so stupid it's hilarious.
How did a terrorist attack "kick" our "arse"? You're one of those Brits who doesn't even know your country got attacked to. An attack on defenseless civilians is not the US getting its "arse" kicked. It could have happened anywhere, and the reason the US was attacked is because the Muslims, including the ones taking over your country as we speak, see the US as their biggest threat. We're the ONLY thing preventing a Muslim global caliphate.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MrXclio You know what's funny? Brits had a higher casualty rate in Iraq despite running away from fighting. The US did way more in the invasion and occupied the most dangerous parts. Brits had the most peaceful area of Iraq (because there were no Sunnis, just Shiites) and you still fucking failed. You had 7000 troops in Iraq on average, suffering 200 casualties, despite never seeing real combat.
The US had 155,000 troops on average, suffering 4000 casualties.
Do the math, you dumb limey.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick yep you're a fucktard alright the only thing you yanks are good at is talking bullshit.
you need our help in everything iraq afghanistan and you can't even get that right btw tim berners lee came up with the internet, so without him you would,nt be able to talk shit over the net. and the first pc was invented in manchester you tard. and 200 is no were near 4000 fuckface. but continue dribbling bullshit like you do.
it's the only talent you have with that pee sized brain of yours
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio AHAHAHAH YOU FUCKING BRAINLESS LIMEY INBRED.
Every single thing you say is wrong. YOU lost in Iraq. YOU lost in Afghanistan. The US had to fix what you messed up. You retreated from Basrah in Iraq. We came in and did in 2 weeks what you couldn't do in 5 years. YOU fucked up in Helmand in Afghanistan. Now Americans had to come in and save you YET AGAIN. IT was so bad that British troops didn't leave their base a single time in 2 years.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MrXclio AHAHAAHA
Tim Berners Lee didn't invent the internet you uneducated inbred monkey. Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf invented the internet, they were Americans. The US had the internet before Tim Berners Lee even started his work. He invented the web, that is NOT THE SAME THING. The internet is the technology that actually transmits data. The web is just the code that the internet transmits that dictates how a page looks. It's the format.
For fuck sake do some research you slimy twat.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MrXclio AHAHAHAHA
Literally kill yourself. You and your country are so pathetic. You have to believe lies to have pride.
Fact is you're inferior to and dependent on the US in every way and you're jealous. You Brits are obsessed with America, that's ALL you fucking talk about.
We defeated your country.
You only exist today because we protected you in two world wars, both of which you were losing before the US joined,.
Today your country is owned by the US.
Go cry about it some more faggot.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MrXclio The funniest thing about you Brits is that your jealousy shows in every thing you say.
You have a long history of being humiliated by the US.
-We defeated your empire in the height of its power. American farmers and blacksmiths beat British Redcoats armed antique rifles, and sometimes with pitchforks and axes.
- It took you 1500 years to become a superpower. We did it in less than 200.
- We saved you in two world wars, despite your denial.
- Today you're universally known as our bitch
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick why would we be jealous of a bunch of fat retards,
and by the way go do some research usa saved no one. we did it our selves with russias help . you just joined in at the last minute. oh and france helped you in the rev war, or else you would still be our bitch.
in a way you still are. sept 11th does'nt seem so bad now. hope there's another one.
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio You're jealous because we're superior to you in EVERY SINGLE WAY. You Brits still think you're an empire even though you're our lapdog.
The US saved you in WWII you idiot. The allies especially the Brits were LOSING ON EVERY FRONT before the US resecued you. You say we joined at the last minute, actually we were in the war for the majority of it. WWII started in 1938, we came in in 1941. The war ended in 1945. If the US DIDN'T join, it would have lasted longer AND you would have lost.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
Man these look like they are a blast to drive.
needsbeer 11 months ago
Bradlys are just ONE BIG FUCKING TARGET! ITS LIKE BIG PUSSY! I would build something else lower , less of target, best to be low and wide vs tall and fat. The new ATGMs and RPG 40's blow Bradly to pieces.
TheManfromNibiru 1 year ago
1:17-2:06
This is what our tax money goes to. Machines that are high-tech, state of the art, expensive as fuck.....and which get stuck in snow.
Props to Sweden for building one tuff little tank.
Thesterness 1 year ago
US Army may be much more advanced then the armies of Europe but in Europe we use things that works not the ones that are expensive
TheNeefen 1 year ago 34
@TheNeefen Lol europe has more advanced weapons then USA. .
unknowna2 1 month ago
@ferdinand7004 Well, that would be contrary to what I heard about Swedes when I was in Finland.
They say you're pussies.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
@MercenarySlick So does the Vietnamise people tell us about American peoples ;)
darksneaker2000 1 year ago
@darksneaker2000 The US didn't lose a single battle in the entire Vietnam war.
The US military won that war, the US GOVERNMENT lost it. The US military killed 20 enemies for every 1 American that was killed, despite the fact that they were only permitted to strike North Vietnam with airstrikes in the last 2 years of the war. The US used 10% of our military strength only, still managed to do something that no country had ever done in Vietnam before.
Russia would have lasted 2 days there.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
@MercenarySlick how do you call running away winning?
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio It's actually Brits that ran away you dumb pommie.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick britain wasn't involved in vietnam. another fail,
btw i you've got big ballls.......hiding your channel.
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio British troops were part of a UN force in Vietnam after the First Indochina War. When the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War) started, British troops pulled out. American and Australian troops stayed.
Brits ran away.
And the funny thing about you even bringing up Vietnam is that your country wouldn't have lasted 1 week of fighting in Vietnam. The US did better than anyone else would have. 20 to 1 kill ratio, better than Brits have ever had.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick but you lost the Vietnam war,with your 'technological edge'
drfan2004 8 months ago
@drfan2004 The US did not lose the Vietnam war militarily.
20 to 1 casualty rate proves you wrong. The US left because of political changes in the US, people didn't support the war. That is why the US "lost". The US military didn't lose a single engagement in the entire war, despite using only a tiny, tiny fraction of our power. The US fought a war against a Soviet-equipped land army that was the biggest in the world at the time, and still killed 20 enemies for every 1 American killed.
MercenarySlick 8 months ago
@MercenarySlick Public opinion is still part of a war.
javakris 8 months ago
@javakris The US wasn't defeated in Vietnam. The US military was not outperformed and certainly didn't "lose" in the way that wars are lost. And I think it's funny hearing this from a British person because the French and British lost in the First Indochina War, their forces didn't leave with a peace treaty they were actually overrun and destroyed and the remaining troops were all captured. They capitulated. The US did not capitulate in Vietnam.
MercenarySlick 8 months ago
@MercenarySlick Well, yes, it might be... but, i'm not British, and I didn't even know the Brit's were in the first Indochina War. But, my point was, the US military wasn't defeated, but the NVA and Vietcong managed to still do enough damage to public opinion that the Americans failed to hold South Vietnam. The US failed to meet its starting objectives, and the NVA managed to meet there, therefore, by definition, the US lost. The US didn't lose in the battlefield, but the war was lost at home.
javakris 8 months ago
@MercenarySlick Actually, yes the US lost in Vietnam. The US went there with the clear objective of keeping South Vietnam from the communists, period.
The South finally became communist, so pray tell, how did the US win?
Kojak0 7 months ago
@Kojak0 The US military did not lose in Vietnam. Not a single battle was lost. The reason the war was "lost" was that the war ended with a peace treaty, that the communists later violated AFTER THE US LEFT. Two years after the Vietnam War ended, basically a new war started that didn't involve the US. It was only then that the Communists took South Vietnam. After having two years to rebuild their military and only the rag-tag South Vietnamese military as opponents.
MercenarySlick 7 months ago
@MercenarySlick And the US left because it was clear South Vietnam would never fall to the communists, right? Sorry, but you are grasping at straws. True, the US was never militarily defeated, but still lost the war because:
Wars are not won on the battlefield, but in the conference rooms.
Kojak0 7 months ago
@Kojak0 The US left because the US public didn't support the war anymore. And do you not know what a treaty is? The North Vietnamese signed a UN-brokered peace treaty where they stated they honored the sovereignty of South Vietnam and wouldn't show any further hostilities. The US left with a victory, but didn't enter a new war when the Communists invaded the South after the US was already gone.
There were only 20 US military personnel in Saigon when it fell.. they were all embassy staff.
MercenarySlick 7 months ago
@Kojak0
"Wars are not won on the battlefield, but in the conference rooms."
Yeah... right! Go tell that to anyone actually fought in a real war.
sierra190MK 4 months ago
@sierra190MK Did I slate the people actually doing the fighting? You think of combat; I think of war as the violent extension of politics.
Kojak0 4 months ago
@MrXclio Oh and another thing... Brits lost in the First Indochina War.
That's what's funny. You say we lost to the Vietnamese yet you and the French lost to them first.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick What a fucking dumbass......britain was never in indo china, still pulling facts out of your arse. fucktard yank
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio EVERY SINGLE THING YOU EVER SAY is retarded. Your British view of the world is dominated by all these hypocritical, retarded, ignorant beliefs you have about the US that you need to cope with the fact that you're America's bitch. You're our lapdog, you're inferior to and dependent on the US for everything.
British troops fought in the First Indochina War and supported the French. Google it for fuck sake.
YOU lost in Vietnam before a single US soldier stepped foot in that country.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick every word that comes out of your mouth is utter bulllshit. and you have the nerve to call someone else retarded, you actually believe the bile fed to you. more proof the yanks are idiots, if we are dependant why do you need us in the middle east? can't do trhe job youself eh? ten years in afghanistan and you still haven't defeated the taliban. it's another vietnam i think. by the way uk is not americas lapdog. USA dances to israels tune, israel says jump america says how high
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio We don't "need" you in the Middle East. You provide a token gesture because your country is our bitch and has to obey us. The funny thing is, you and France couldn't even do a no-fly zone over Libya without begging the US to come do it. You can't even send one single jet into a defended air space without them getting shot down. The US single-handedly destroyed Libya's air defenses, all while Brits and French people try to take credit for it.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick blah blah blah. still thinking like a 5 year old. go lick a window it's something you excell at.
i love meeting wankers like you you're so funny. we are no ones bitch. unlike america, will be chinas bitch soon. with all the debt you owe them lol
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio You're so stupid it's hilarious. You are America's bitch. All smart Brits (maybe 1% of your population) admit that your country depends on the US for everything and takes orders from us.
It's funny you say we'll be China's bitch, when you're ALREADY our bitch. You're in far deeper debt than the US us. Your debt, which is mostly owed to the US, is 4 times larger than your GDP. The debt the US owes China is only 7% of our GDP.
Owned.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick just what expect from an uneducated brainless retard.
14 trillion compared to 890 billion. lol typical americunt trash talkers.
you can't even fly planes in libya without crashing, m1 abrams pile of junk 300 lost in iraq,
number of challengers lost.... 1 to friendly fire. stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
i think you've got some insecurity issues to deal with my fat friend, enjoy the hamburger and high cholesterol intake DDDD
MrXclio 10 months ago
@MrXclio Holy shit you're stupid. You also just make up lies off the top of your head. You only prove what I say right and prove that Brits are all idiotic liars who need to base their pride on fantasy.
The UK is in deeper debt than the US.
US GDP: $14.14 trillion
UK GDP: $2.12 trillion
US external debt: $13.92 trillion
UK external debt: $9.12 trillion
Our external debt is 98% of our GDP. Your debt is 429% of your GDP. You're FOUR TIMES DEEPER IN DEBT THAN THE US. You stupid limey.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick How about no.
UK debt is about 76% of it's GDP.
1.1 Trillion
USA has 98% of it's GDP in debt at over 14 Trillion.
Where the fuck did you come up with UK having a debt of 9.1 Trillion, lol.
Swecan76 8 months ago
@Swecan76 You have no clue.
US external debt is equal to 98.4% of our GDP
UK external debt is equal to 428.8% of their GDP.
You're probably only thinking public debt, which is different, and less relevant. Public debt can be owed to parties inside of the country, external debt is purely to outside parties.
The UK is over 4 times deeper in debt than the US. In fact, every major country in Europe is in deeper debt than the US. The UK and the Republic Ireland are the worst though.
MercenarySlick 8 months ago
@MercenarySlick Ah, even so it's about the "sustainability of external debt".
UK have an Net international investment position (NiiP) of -4.1% of GDP.
USA have an Niip of -24.3% of GDP.
So even if the external debt by UK sits at 400% they can sustain it better than USA can sustain theirs.
Take Luxemburg, they have over 4000% external debt, yes thousand. Yet they sit in plus over in NIIP of their GDP, which mean they have MORE investments than owing.
Otherwise they 4000% would mean collapse
Swecan76 8 months ago
@Swecan76 Another thing you don't seem to get is external debt is attributed to ANYONE residing in a country, including NON-citizens. So to explain even if Luxembourg has a huge debt externally, they have more international investments (external) than they owe, so they are in the plus statistic.
I am not an economist, but clearly you are kidding yourself if you think it is all about external debt.
Clearly the assets outweigh the debt or something like that.
Swecan76 8 months ago
@Swecan76
Another example is Hong Kong, they have external debt of 233% but their NIIP (net international investment position) is 309% PLUS in statistic.
They might owe more money than the have each year in GDP, but what they actually have in investments and own around the world and domestic covers said debt.
"The difference between a country's external financial assets and liabilities is the net international investment position (NIIP)". IS what matters.
USA is worse off compared to UK.
Swecan76 8 months ago
@MrXclio 1) I already proved you're in deeper debt than the US.
2) The Challenger never faced real combat. The Challenger didn't come up against a single enemy tank in Iraq in 2003. The US destroyed 17,000 Iraqi armored vehicles (including 9000 tanks) with only 4 Abrams being disabled. Brits only destroyed 100 light armored vehicles, with 1 challenger disabled and 1 destroyed by another British thank.
The Abrams has a better track record.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MrXclio It's really funny how your little Abrams vs Challenger comparison just proves that you lack simple math skills and logic.
Comparing the Abrams which has actually seen REAL combat, to the challenger which never even came up against enemy tanks... you idiot. Brits never went against armoured divisions of the Iraqi Army. The most heavily defended area of Iraq was Baghdad and the surrounding cities in the Sunni Triangle. British forces only went to the undefended south city of Basrah.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick Well I wouldnt count the abrams as if it's proved itself.Fighting against far less advanced tanks and less trained crews.Most tanks would do that.
naaruu111 9 months ago
@MercenarySlick busting some ancient Iraqi t-55 and downgraded export-model t-72s is hardly "real" combat experience and there is no reason to presume that Leo2, Challenger 2 or T 90 could not have performed the same tasks. I also really doubt your figure of "17.000 iraqi armored vehicles", sounds like hype.
TheTokkin 2 months ago
@MrXclio You're militarily, economically, technologically, and even culturally dependent on the US. Your military can't even leave your borders without tapping into the US communications and logistics network. Your economy is dominated by companies and industries dominated by American companies. All your technology comes from the US. Look at you right now you dumb cunt.
You're using an American computer, running an American OS, on the internet the US invented, and on an American website.
MercenarySlick 10 months ago
@MercenarySlick Hahaha. That show how much intelligence you have. Asking what somebodys enemy thinks of him. The answer will always be the same.
vnano 1 year ago
@ferdinand7004 Seriously, you Swedes are hilarious.
You actually think you outclass the US in military technology? We've had stealth aircraft for years. Your best fighter, the Gripen, uses an American-copy engine and the airframe itself is based on the old American F-5 Freedom Fighter.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
@MercenarySlick
While it is true that about 50 % of the Gripen engine is American the same cannot be said about the airframe. How could that be based on the F-5? Are you saying that SAAB took the F-5, changed EVERYTHING and then made it the Gripen? Please, the wing configuration is different, as are the number of engines, the tail and the nose. The only thing remotely similar is the placement of the air intakes and that they both are slender and good looking aircraft.
Katjing 1 year ago
@Katjing More than 50% of the Gripen's engine is American. The entire core design is American, it was designed for the US F18 Hornet by General Electric. The only modifications made by SAAB are slight and don't affect the function of the engine in any way, they were just modifications to make it compatible with the electronics in the Gripen, and to fit the airframe.
And yes, the Gripen's air frame is based on the F-5 Freedom Fighter, although it's heavily modified.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
@MercenarySlick RM12, developed from F404 by Volvo Aero (which supplies parts for the engine of the JSF), has higher thrust, bird resistance and a redesigned afterburner amongst other things. The changes were not slight.
And no, the Gripen's airframe is not in any way based on the F-5. It's a ridiculous claim without any grounds whatsoever. The only thing similar is size, if you can't see that you are truly stupid.
Katjing 1 year ago
@Katjing You're in denial. What you're doing is resorting to mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that your beloved plane that you think is so great actually owes its existence to technology handouts from the US. Typical small country inferiority complex, nothing too bizarre but still pretty stupid. If it weren't for the fact that I find you Swedes and your naivety so cute, I'd probably by offended by your ingratitude and the lies and distortions you make to rob Americans of credit.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
@MercenarySlick I'd be the first to acknowledge that the Gripen is to a large extent built with American Parts, because it is.
I do however dispute that the airframe would be based on the F-5, because it's obvious that it isn't. I challenge you to present a source that says that it is.
Katjing 1 year ago
@MercenarySlick Trying to win the Hearts and Minds. That is common trait of ours is to insult others. I yelled Redneck at Mud derby one time and had the whole crowd look at me. Every Body Loves are kindness.
TheManfromNibiru 1 year ago
@TheManfromNibiru You should probably learn to speak English properly before making a Youtube account and pretending to be an American.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
@ferdinand7004 If there's one thing Eurotrash are good at, it's criticizing Americans for things Europeans are ALWAYS worse at.
What's hilarious is that insanely idiotic people like you can't even accept the most basic facts that are pretty much indisputable. The US has a gigantic edge over Europe in military technology and has for a long time. There is no way in hell that Sweden is more advanced than the US in military technology. We're literally decades ahead of you.
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
4:00 oh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
skaaltel 1 year ago
this video sums up exaclty why the Finnish version is with the lighter 30mm Bushmaster cannon. Almost the same hitting power but a LOT lighter.
KekkonenKalasti 1 year ago
@KekkonenKalasti
Bushmaster is also easier to maintain.
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
The most widely sold Western IFV since M113. BAe/Hagglund must have one helluva marketing team.
milvipes 1 year ago
@milvipes
...and a great vehicle to market!
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
Oersterkschot Machinne
TheNewGenration 1 year ago
@TheNewGenration Leopard Driver
TheNewGenration 1 year ago
Comment removed
OFFMayonaise 1 year ago
According to the press both Sweden, Norway and Denmark are deploying cv90 in Afghanistan. Though not anywhere near any snow. Since a Danish Leopard 2A5 driver has been killed from an IED, the CV90 is not a guarantee to troop safety, just somewhat better than softskins.
OFFMayonaise 1 year ago
once again swedish armor 1 usa 0 lol
MrGoldenRaven 1 year ago
Trust me when I say: The Bradley can't go in deep snow.
Halalhyndan 1 year ago
No wonder the bradley gets stuck, the CV90 was made to handle these things. I Whish they could send the cv90 (or the SISU) to afghanistan instead of the lousy armoured trucks our troops has to cope with now. Swedish troops have had a few IED casualties, totally unneccesary. I guess the cv90 is far too imposing for a peace-keeping mission... Too bad.
snelhestkuk 2 years ago
they have the cv90 in afghanistan haha
s3rius90 1 year ago
I wish the Bundeswehr would use these. This beast is exactly what we need in Afghanistan. A CV9040 and a CV90 AMOS would deliver the Talis some serious hell!
Damn politics!
HGRadetzki 2 years ago
Nah. Even the old Marder is some serious overkill in Afghanistan. Up north, we're not seeing the kind of heavy combat that needs heavy armor to deal with.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56:
Okay I guess you have a point there concerning the fighting. But I don't think a 20mm Cannon is a serious overkill.
HGRadetzki 1 year ago
@HGRadetzki I agree. The small caliber means that the shell doesn't have much of a lethal radius and severely reduced possibility of having programmable fuzes. In the type of terrain you'll find in Afghanistan, airburst-capable ammunition would be a huge asset, but unfortunately, it's currently not possible to make that sort of ammunition smaller than 40mm without losing a lot of effectiveness.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
Far way better than a Bradley!
Dongskie2 2 years ago
I am impressed with the CV90 performance. I wish Canada bought a few, our LAV IIs are good but not as good as the CV90.
rubberduckytank 2 years ago 4
The canadian armed forces are at least thinking about it apparently.
According to wikipedia Canada has a number of CV90's for evaluation purposes.
Ze3g0 2 years ago 2
fuck up he is not pushing at 2:47 thease machine i great
dalakungen2 2 years ago 2
loltard
ArghBlahr 2 years ago
No wonder it wont get stuck in the snow, theres a guy constantly pushing, just watch at 2:47
ArghBlahr 2 years ago
@ArghBlahr
He's not pushing, he wouldn't be able to.
The CV90 weighs almost thirty tons so it would be pretty useless for one person to push it :P
hevehoc 2 years ago 2
You have to be borderline retarded not to understand this was a joke. Pretty obvious... lol
ArghBlahr 2 years ago
EFV is vastly different from the CV90. The CV90 was conceived as a family of vehicles on a modular chassis. The EFV has so far only 1 variant and is a dedicated assault vehicle for a "over the horizon" capability. M2 Bradley was also featured in the film as getting stuck. What is odd is that the Bradley is also a BAE product along with the Bvs 10 shown later in the clip pulling the CV90 out of mud.
steel21 2 years ago
At the time this was recorded I don´t think Bradley was a part of BAE. And it´s not a Bvs 10 pulling that CV 90 out of the mud, it´s two Bv 206...
(And it´s not that odd considering Bv 206 is the main terrain vehicle of both the armies of Sweden and Norway)
nudeheaven 2 years ago 17
is the cv-90 compareble with the efv(us)beside the fact the efv is a amfibious vehikle?
res30bat 2 years ago
I thought the EFV had been canceled a long time ago. If it is the vehicle I´m thinking of, no they are not comparable. The EFV is more like an huge APC that intended for marines and carries like a half of a platoon. The CV 90 (in this version) is an IFV more intended for mechanized armored troops and carries a squad....
nudeheaven 2 years ago
The Bradley has inferior armor for the record
oxtwin586 2 years ago
"Sweds deliberately did some thing to him to weaken him so it could stuck in the snow " lol say what? the bradeley get stuck end of story its nothing the swedes have done its becouse of the snow and the bradley beeing 10 tones hevier then the cv90...
Nylander88 2 years ago 8
Jag minns när prototypen visades upp för oss vid kråks sjutfält runt året 1986, det sas att den var byggd från IKV91 plattan som jag själv utbildades på. Inget jag minns från den tiden kunde mäta sig med IKV91's framkomlighet så det stämmer säkert också för likheten syns tydligt!
postakeriet 2 years ago
Comment removed
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
@postakeriet
Motorn i Strf 90 är en Scania V8, turbo-diesel på 14 liter och 550 hk.
Motorn i IKV91 är en 12 liters-/330 hk version på samma Volvosexa som i PBV 302.
Motorn i PBV 302 är en 9,6 liters Volvo, rak sexcylindrig, turbo-diesel på 270 hk.
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
@postakeriet
Stridsfordon 90/CV90 har ingenting gemensamt med IKV91!
IKV91 utvecklades under 60-talet och tillverkades 1975-78.
Vagnen har vissa gemensamma design på chassits utformning och konstruktion som PBV 302.
PBV 302 hade två typer av band, varav åtminstonde den ena typen var gemensam med IKV91 och den andra typen gemensam med Strf 90. Jag är osäker på om IKV91 hade båda typerna.
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
@satanihelvetet
Fel av mig:
Strf 90 har inte banden gemensamt med något i Svenska försvarsmakten tidigare använt fordon.
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
LOL 3:30 Papamobile
dragonzmaj1 2 years ago
It depends whether you're talking about the CV9030NO, CV9030FIN or CV9030CH
Hairysteed 2 years ago
WTF i want one!
janipt 2 years ago
love it!!!!!!!
SVERIGE ÄR BÄST!!!!
gripenfreak 2 years ago
The CV90 uses the Bofor. It was one of the most popular AA guns of WW2. It was used by France and Poland and then the Germans when they captured them. It was even used by the Japs after it fell into their hands in Singapore.
I love Swedish technology. : )
azz578 2 years ago 20
switzerland has these :D
SwissPyro 2 years ago 2
You should have put in the Mr.Plow song by Homer Simpsons XD Tung tank.
TheBeautyfulBeast 2 years ago
Bad-ass little tank!
katey1dog 2 years ago 4
This is why the american's will never poke their nose into russia. Equipment meant to be shown on tv.
Supafly1st 2 years ago
Russia? Russia has no CV90!
Mustang1204 2 years ago 3
I was making a point that american equipment is no good for winter environments (like Russia).
Supafly1st 2 years ago
Oh.
Well.
Point noticed and confirmed.
Mustang1204 2 years ago
American equipment has to be good for winter environments to be fielded.
MercenarySlick 2 years ago
Aparently not
Lennholm89 2 years ago 2
What do you mean apparently not? Where is your evidence that this is not the case?
The US military has arctic warfare proving grounds in which every single vehicle model and piece of equipment that it plans on fielding is tested. Everything is required to function well in winter environments otherwise they wouldn't ever be deployed to US combat units.
MercenarySlick 2 years ago
lol, then why did it get stuck in the snow, like on this movie ?
Lennholm89 2 years ago 6
Propaganda.
It's typical weapons industry propaganda where they depict alternative systems as inferior.
MercenarySlick 2 years ago
The Bradley does have advantages, like TOW missiles and a slightly better armor package,
but its inferior mobility was why it was turned down by the Norwegian Army in favor of the CV90.
Not just in snow, but also in hills and slopes. Norway has a lot of mountains, so mobility in those areas is important to us.
And the CV90 IS newer than the Bradley.
Pzgraf 2 years ago 2
Yes, the CV90 is newer than the original Bradley, but new Bradleys have been built, and they all get upgraded constantly. The electronics, communications and fire control on the Bradley is state of the art. The US has always had an edge in that department.
MercenarySlick 2 years ago
But the Bradley doesn't have 40mm Bofors cannon with 3P-ammo. :D
langhammars 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Bradley has a perfectly adequate 25 mm cannon that has programmable ammo, and it also has a TOW missile launcher.
MercenarySlick 2 years ago
There's no programable ammunition for Bradley today. And its armour is also inferior to that on the a CV90. Especially the new CV9035 is way ahead of Bradley in almost every aspect. Check it out yourself.
heinedenmark 2 years ago 4
False.
The French currently have the best fire control systems in the world. The Leclerc is second to none, and the Burst system on French mobile artillery is superb.
The Bradley is a HORRIBLE vehicle.
oxtwin586 2 years ago
@MercenarySlick
Even if this is a movie from BAE/Hägglunds the scenes when the Bradley get stucked in the snow is recorded during the Norweigan tests.
Do you think Norway, a member of NATO, would do such a thing?
They wanted the best...tested the vehicles...choosed the Swedish CV90...and they got the best!
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
Because the vehicle that gets stuck isn't a CV90, it's a russian CV
traedet 2 years ago
I never understand why the government of Canada cancelled the CV90 contract in 1993 for the LAV III !
Jimderkaisser 2 years ago 4
i think its um
political connections from the lav owners lol
seekerofvision678 2 years ago
The CV90 is just the perfect vehicle for the canadian forces..
Jimderkaisser 2 years ago 2
The Canadians selected the LAV III instead
zeke1978 2 years ago
Aah, at 5:05, listen to that beutiful sound of the Scania V8 :) <3
freedetheman 2 years ago 3
Swedish technology > american technology
Himno88 2 years ago 25
Of course when the cv90 gets stuck they need the good old Hagglunds bv206 to pull it out!
Veitnamsoldier 2 years ago 12
The finnish version comes with a fully equiped bar.
And Instead of the 40mm bofors who they think is just another gay Swedish thing the crew uses knifes and yelling as there primary weapon.
it can also be turned in to a sauna in less then 5 min in field conditions.
bengtsson45 2 years ago 29
that looked fun going in swamp/marsh thing
DivineMaddog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh the silly swedes. Of course all CV9030FIN:s should have a swedish flag, all Finnish Leo2:s should have German flags, all Finnish Hornets should sport the star spangled banner. (ie. the US flag). every Finnish bmp2 should have the russian flag.
The swedes are a bit naïve.
KekkonenKalasti 2 years ago
Ahh the FINNISH CV90 (with the 30mm cannon and that can actually get out of the snow). :)
KekkonenKalasti 2 years ago
dumbass haha since when the F is the cv9040 finnish? its swedish.
vibraloop 2 years ago 4
Perhaps since it has been in operational use in the Finnish Army for some years now as the CV9030FIN with the 30mm cannon.
KekkonenKalasti 2 years ago
"Combat Vehicle 90 represents a family of armoured combat vehicles developed by BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds (formerly Alvis Hägglunds) of Örnsköldsvik and Saab Bofors Dynamics of Karlskoga, Sweden. Land Systems Hägglunds builds the chassis and Saab Bofors supplies the turret."
Aenonar 2 years ago 4
Det är bara de svenska vagnarna som har Boforstorn. Alla andra länder har andra torn tillverkade av andra företag. Bara chassiet som är i stora drag samma som våra vagnar.
CmJH 2 years ago
I don't know why you replied in Swedish when everyone else is talking English, but whatever.. I were replying to the guy saying that the CV90 is Finish, though it clearly is a Swedish vehicle through and through.
Aenonar 2 years ago 2
Jag kanske inte kan engelska? Ja det är ett svenskt fordon, men allt är inte så självklart som du får det att vara, då det bara är chassiet vi exporterar.
CmJH 2 years ago
Ohh, the love of my life, so fun to drive, the traction in the winters are amazing, pretty good to drift with aswell. think i was made for the winters? :] Driver Nilsson.
Nilssonkimpa 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wtf we need Leopard 2, not any shitty infantry 40mm tank!!!!!!!!!!!!!! more Leopard 2 to Sweden!! And also, we should get nuclear weapons, it's about time!!
clarkcolt45 3 years ago
Why a nuclear bomb when we can use viral or chemical weapons. It´ll be fun to watch the enemy die from terrible deaseases or chemicals. No seriously, why in the world should we have nuclear devices. There is no tactical use in them. And about the leopards I think we should get rid of them. To heavy and big for our terrain. Get more lighter tanks with bigger guns instead. It´s easier to hide if your small.
onlypeaceindeath 3 years ago
lol i must have been drunk when i made that comment :D anyways, you're right, Leopard is in need of infantery support and support from smaller tanks.. also very bad in urban terrain. Biological weapons sounds fun tho ;) And we could have tactical nukes, that kind that can take out a whole battalion lol
clarkcolt45 3 years ago
If we could remove the problem with nuclear fallout that nukes comes with it would not be such a bad idea. To nuke tactical positions were the troops can´t hold should buy the time needed to regroup and counter attack the enemy as they have becomed much weaker of the blast. With the enemy infantry disintegrated by the blast and the machinery immobilized by the EMP it would be a nice target for the counter attack.
onlypeaceindeath 3 years ago
@onlypeaceindeath
Small tanks/armoured vehicles= veaker armour, hard to fit, use and store ammo to a big gun.
satanihelvetet 1 year ago
You are the biggest pipshit I've ever met. NUCLEAR ARMAMENT, ARE YOU ALRIGHT IN THE HEAD?!
Nuclear weaponry need total disarmament by all nations worldwide.
And you know nothing of warfare, do you. Ever heard of the Panzerfaust? It was a German weapon that oblitiated tanks on a close distance during World War II. And do you know why? Because they didn't have any IFVs!
opalen903 3 years ago
lol :D
clarkcolt45 3 years ago
Wow! Way to miss-interpret Araben13.
He was talking about the US and the Bradley.
His question about the snow in Russia was rhetorical.
RETARD!
OZJD 3 years ago 3
Fan vad vackert när den tar det vertikala hindret. Spänstigt och kraftfullt. :)
rezimato 3 years ago
this is one awesome piece of machinery!!
SparalOy 3 years ago
I want to see some sand. When was the last time you saw a talib hiding in the snow.
herlufoax 3 years ago
when did you last see talibs in scandinavia?
AnttiN 3 years ago
I have not. But since that is they are being sent to Afghanistan by Denmark and have already been deployed by the Norwegians there, i think it is as relevant to show how they perform there.
herlufoax 3 years ago 2
There are mountains and snowy regions in afghanistan m8 ;). Clearly the cv90 outperforms the bradley.. just look at 3:20
Sjon14 3 years ago