So, we can improve the velocity of a weapon with a longer barrel—we have examples of this in the game—and also with a chamber that better manages the low or high pressure generated by the shell. I think China must have significantly improved the 37mm cannons, which are a copy of the Russian 37mm cannons from the 1930s. And I don’t see the point of adding an anti-aircraft gun between the 8.0 and the 9.0, knowing that the PGZ09 has 35mm AHEAD ammunition with a better velocity of 1050m/s, while there’s a big gap between the 6.7 and the 8.0.
Another example is the ZSU-37-2, which has ammunition that travels at 1000 m/s, even though it’s just AP-T and HE-T rounds.
That’s why I said in the previous sentence that a chamber that better manages low or high pressure can also generate more velocity. Do you really think China simply used cannons from the 1930s without improving them ?
You have no understanding of the historical progression of PGZ88, and you only have a single-page image of a so-called foreign trade manualYou don’t even bother to read the authoritative materials I’ve provided. I think there’s nothing left to discuss between us
You really want a vehicle between the 8.0 and 9.0 despite the huge gap after the 6.3
With your logic, we’ll have 3 air vehicles with HE VT ammunition in the same BR range, whereas the PGZ 80, even without radar, is very, very effective thanks to the velocity of its shells
If you believe that Chinese can improve an old gun made in 1930s, why can’t Chinese just make a new 3 7mm AA gun and equip it on the PGZ88? So there comes the Type 76 AA gun and Chinese do equip it on the PGZ88 as a main weapon
I don’t think “can fire the HE-VT shell” equals “will get HE-VT shell in the game”. All discussion above is just to correct your point that PGZ88 uses the PJ76 AA gun, not the Type 74 AA gun.
Firstly, if you had simply translated the title of the paper, you would have seen what the subject of the paper is. Then, in the essay the writer just list several types of the 37mm AAs, how can you get to the conclusion of “PGZ88 = Type 74SD”?
