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
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.
It was already showcased for the AK-630 based CS/SA5 and FK-2000 multi-purpose SPAA…
And again - it’s the exact same gun as on the QN506…
They literally have THREE different 30mm APFSDS shells developed, here’s a video of all Chinese APFSDS with images and penetration values…
The ground ZPZ02 uses different ammo to naval 1130/730. The ammo in you picture are all for naval 1130/730 guns.
Also DTC-04-30 and DTC-10-30 in the video you post are both APDS irl. The seemingly APFSDS picture in that video came from someone combining the shell of actual DTC-04/DTC-10 and the projectile of naval DEC-115. You may ask for more reliable sources on Chinese community to check the fact.
Yes. A 30mm APFSDS for their ground forces. On their ground vehicles. The gun is based on a naval cannon, but they’re obviously not using APFSDS on ships…
You said they didn’t showcase any 30mm APFSDS for ground forces at all…
And when proven wrong, you call the picture “shells for naval guns” (wrong, they’re shells on their FK-2000, CS/SA5, Type 625E ground multi-purpose SPAA). And you call the APFSDS - an APDS. Even though you can see in the images what an APFSDS looks like. One is even a direct comparison of the 30mm APDS and 30mm APFSDS… You’re a joke, man.
No sources ever pointed out that the 625E gun is based on a naval cannon.
And on the picture you posted it is clearly stated that the ammo is for 1130 and 730 guns.
At best you may say gound LD2000/LD3000 uses the same naval ammo – since the gun is exactly the same as those on PLAN frigates and destroyers. However, FK-2000, CS/SA5 and Type 625E are another story.
You may ask anyone if ZPZ02 and 1130 can ever use same ammo. I bet no reliable source would support this.
Also another trivia for you: PLAN actually uses APDS and APFSDS on their ships.
Example of PLAN shipmen feeding 730 on their ship with APDS (which is similar to the CS/BAA06 in your pic):
I like the ZBD04 cause it’s a BMP2M/M3A3 at a lower BR with laser warning and a reverse speed.
BMD-4 lacks APFSDS though while baving a slower reload.
BMD-4 that is less mobile, has APFSDS, slightly better armour (50.cal proof), and twice the ATGM amount. Yeah, at 9.7, it’s not too bad.
