A couple blips for perspective:
Ed Severson
I'll give you a little background on how we designed [CPM]3V (I'm one of their metallurgists).
In tool steels with any type of wear [resistance], A-2 is about as tough as you can get. For better toughness you have to give up all wear [resistance] and go with S-7. If you look at the properties of A-2 vs S-7 there is a big gap between the two. 3V was designed to have as much wear resistance with as close to the toughness of S-7 as we could get.
3V has about 2/3 of the toughness of S-7 and wear equal to or slightly better than D-2. Corrosion is about equal to D-2 but still not comparable to stainless.
That's as much an advertisement that while A2 is a fine steel, 3V is a little better.
I'd have to dig to find it, but Phil Wilson indicated to me in an Email that Bob Loveless told Wilson that if he hadn't been so completely committed to making a stainless knife, Loveless would have used A2 since it was such a fine edge holder, yet tough. That got Wilson to look at A2, and then on to CPM 3V, and so on into the CPM's.
Per at least some of Crucible's data, A2 has a toughness peak around Rc60... it has a double hump, the toughness peaks again around Rc57 (this admittedly on unspecified size of material samples, and from my memory). So a tough blade at Rc60 should make a very fine tool.
Until RJ Martin got onto 3V, he found that A2 was an optimal steel for his chisel ground blades... tough enough to stand up to the "zero grind" of his Japanese Kozuka... shallow (small) angle edge, tough enough to make a good steel choice.
So, A2 is good stuff... especially where toughness and abrasion resistance are both required and corrosion resistance is not. 3V probably beats it in toughness and matches or beats in edge holding, but at a significantly higher cost, typically.
(If any of those people's names above are new to you, suffice to say that many here on the forums, and among the knife buying public, will find them to be quite reputable)