Why is one 9.0 and the other 9.7?
The only difference I can detect is APFSDS which adds 20mm of pen, but beyond that it seems the BMD has way faster turret rotation, faster elevation, a better ATGM, 70km/h reverse opposed to 17km/h… the ZBD does get laser warning and a better layout, but does that really result in a .7 BR increase?
Also reminder the Type 87 RCV is 9.0 with no stabilizer, no thermals, no ATGM, no laser rangefinder, no HE.
Better armor and the ATGM reload is 4 seconds.
Yeah, that’s true reload trumps everything else. If there was a wheelbarrow with 4 seconds reload it would sit at 11.0, regardless of everything else, we have ample examples of this. Now the ZBD also has commander thermals, but looking at the initial post, considering the Type 87 RCV has none of that, yet the BDM still sits at the same BR, the reload and thermal balancing only hits nations that aren’t as popular.
Better armor, cardboard instead of paper, is there anything that can kill a BMD but not a ZBD?
And a 1 second reload difference doesn’t seem that big of a deal, especially not in compression hell.
RCV has no business being anywhere near 9.0 anyways.
There is a monkey in Gaijin HQ, fed a steady diet of Vodka 3x a day. His job is playing darts and where his dart lands determines the br.
The BMD also has 33.1 hp/t vs the ZBDs 24.4
APFSDS is a decent buff I suppose but I think it’s mostly minor nation tax. Type 87 gets taxed even harder, no real reason for it to be 9.0.
APFSDS is good for pen but has bad post pen, 30mm APDS is better than 30mm APFSDS, contradicting logic.
The penetrator is usually significantly longer than that of APDS and incorporates fins for improved long-range ballistics. The additional penetrator length improves the post-penetration damage effects.
Even 60mm APFSDs is worse than 30mm APDS, a projectile 3 times the mass.
the ATGM reload is the same as the BMD-4, about 4 seconds, so yeah
If I’m not mistaken the bmd-4 can be .50 caled from the front. Also imo apfsds is a massive buff due to better angled performance compared to apds.
ZBD04A have an LWS, APFSDS, and double the amout of the ATGM. Additionally if i recall that right, it should have a better reload.
Armor profile is also better, could help bounce stuff on the UFP.
I’d still take APFSDS since the angled penetration almost doubles over APDS, much easier getting through the side of vehicles at odd angles and better for punching through composite screens if you’re taking it higher than 9.7.
You’re going to need it in perma 10.3 and 10.7 games, something the BMD avoids.
more missiles, much better ammo, you can use a belt of full apds and another of apdsfs, unlike the bmd4 and bmp which are limited to a single belt of apds and it is also a mix one , stock apds, lwr(which is a massive advantage for a light tank), engine on the front (so overpressure wont work there), on the other hand the bmp have better mobility and better handling, thats all.
Also, the reports for the missing spall liner was also acknowledged, same as the m117m1.
They both seem to have pros and cons, none of which seem to justify the .7 BR differences in my opinion at a heavily compressed BR.
they are completely justified, the increased survability, ammo and the lwr is more than an enough reason, keep in mind that you can kill the bmd4 from the front with a 50cal, the zbd can easily bounch apdsfs off plus most of the front is actually protected against 30/25 mm apds.
BMD is also infinitely better than the RCV at 9.0, or the Type 87, but somehow this is justified because of Gaijins refusal to decompress BRs.
At most I can see a .3 difference at 9.7 and 9.3 between the ZBD and BMD be justified, but seeing how we can have massive differences in vehicles at the exact same B because of compression, .7 seems way too much.
the RCV like the vcb shouldnt be there to begin with, an absurdly overated tank is not a good example.
They’ve been there forever, can call it whatever you want but that’s where they are placed permanently.
they have been moved to there, they used to be much lower.
