They didn’t.
It isn’t.
Uh huh.
That ATGM penetration difference of 150mm is also perfectly enough to not go through many notable armors in the game. The 750mm ATGM on the BMD can go through the Abrams and Leopard 2 hulls, for example - the 600mm ATGM is just perfectly weak enough to not go through, even with tandem.
That’s one HUGE downside over the BMD-4 that people haven’t realized yet. You can test it yourself.
This type of narrative is always a good way to look dumb if you pretend that everyone is some sort of hivemind and that the same people that said A are the same people that said B.
1 Like
Didn’t say they were.
You said the story changed, that implies exactly that.
1 Like
The community predominant story. The community goes through these phases every major update.
That still implies the ‘community’ is some sort of entity. I have never once talked about a Chinese IFV so my story also never changed on the subject.
Either way the BMD is ridiculous at 9.0 as well compared to what is out there, one of the fastest vehicles in the game, AA capabilities, auto cannon, pin point accurate ATGM, gen 2/3 thermals, LRF compared to what, a Type 89 with gen 1 thermals, sluggish, the most anemic ATGM launcher and wonky ATGMs that twirls around, cannot fire on the move, no tandem ATGM, no IRST, almost half the turret rotation speed and that’s somehow supposed to be on par.
1 Like
No, no it doesn’t.
Then the story didn’t change.
1 Like
The predominant story changed.
If it did, it has nothing to do with this topic.
1 Like
The topic where the ZBD is still better than BMD, as much as individual human players inside the community try to claim it isn’t.
The topic is about the comparison, where some claim they are equal and others claim the ZBD is better based on a few traits despite other traits being significantly worse, and either way the BMD is massively undertiered.
1 Like
People have already answered the question then.
Not necessarily convincingly, an upgrade from paper to cardboard and APFSDS paired with all the shortcomings in comparison doesn’t seem justified to me.
1 Like
The Type 87 RCV getting bumped to 9.0 without any of the modifications being returned is a crime
2 Likes
More like buffed to me…
In real life it is almost impossible for it to stop 30mm APDS in front, and in real life we do not know if it is actually equipped with APFSDS.
Yeah I also think 9.3 is more legit.
It’s literally quoted by the PLA to have that protection level…
Yes we do. It’s the same APFSDS found on the QN506 and that APFSDS was shown off in multiple NORINCO events and video footage… The ZBD04A is also known to have a spall liner in a document titled “兵器科学技术学科发展报告2014-2015” (Weapons Science and Technology Discipline Development Report 2014-2015), and from real life images of the interior…
Which was acknowledged in a bug report already: Community Bug Reporting System
It’s difficult talking to someone who speaks in bad faith.
I can also personally attest to the ZBD04A’s lowered survivability - as I already had a moment where I was one-shot by getting shot in the engine, with only my gunner killed and my ammo red (not destroyed), with the replay showing that the “engine” exploded and killed me.
So the ZBD already has clearly nerfed survivability. (Especially considering the BMP-3’s fuel tank is known to literally eat large caliber APFSDS entirely by itself).
They only said ‘armor piercing’ but did not directly quoted APDS. It should be able to stop full caliber AP shells like 3UBR6 but APDS is too much for a 22.9ton IFV.
To my knowledge NORINCO did not showcase 30mm APFSDS for ground forces. You may mistake certain APDS shells for APFSDS.