想在顶级对局里有一战之力？你们既有“艾布拉姆斯”（Abrams），又有基于MBT-2000改进的坦克；还有苏-30（Su-30）和同等级别的自行高炮（SPAA）。你们这还有什么好抱怨的，哈哈。
1 Like
他说的是别的国家需要更多的联队载具，最好这些载具能组成完整的出击队列
1 Like
啊，是我的疏忽。既然如此，我非常赞同联队载具应当具备与科技树同类载具相当的性能表现。
1 Like
确实，而且其实开线金车啥的也该了（说的就是你，otco）
有时候我真的不想骂这个游戏里某些玩家和某部分群体，但这些人的发言已经变成了我对的他们的刻板印象，以至于哪怕让我用脚趾头猜也能猜到他们到底有没有玩过哪怕是一把中系
当务之急是给日系出一辆高权重联队轻坦当启动器，印尼虎还是有点抽象的
得了吧，总体而言，中国车辆比大多数西方车辆都要好。有大量的视频资料显示，中国车辆的表现甚至优于其在现实生活中的实际表现。
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈虽然我已经知道答案，但我还是想问你是否使用过中国载具进行过任何一次对局 :P
至于是否优于现实情况，我的回答是中文分论坛中有一个“ 中系issue/投票通过未实装整理”的讨论，你可以去看一眼
确实，你说得对，我还没玩过中国系的载具；不过，我的看法是基于俄罗斯科技树的——毕竟我在玩《战争雷霆（WT）的这段时间里，一直都在用俄系载具。归根结底，许多中国系的高级载具都是 T-72 的衍生型号。我想，也许正因为我不是主玩中国系的玩家，所以看法才会有所不同。如果我之前的言辞让大家觉得有些刺耳，我深表歉意。Sentence.
只能说非常的奇异搞笑，刻板印象又加深了
4 Likes
If it is an old tank, then I would say you are right, but if you still think Chinese new tanks are T72s, then you simply do not want to understand the development of a country’s weapons.
I don’t think that Chinese tanks are T-72s, however, it is a fact that the ZTZ-99 which the MBT 2000, and the VT-4 are both derivatives from, are based off the T-72 layout and chassis.
A friendly attitude, briefly explain why you think VT4 and T72 are related. The Type 99 is indeed related to the T72, but the Type 99A is almost a completely new tank.
Alright, essentially:
T-72
⬇️
Type 90
⬇️
MBT-2000
⬇️
VT-4
Although I did get the relation to the Type 99 wrong, the MBT-2000 is based off of the Type 90, which is also based off of a T-72.
Sources:
Give me some time, I’ll go check the information. There may be things I still don’t know, but I’m quite sure that VT1~~VT3 is indeed related to T72.
1 Like
“The Chinese VT4 main battle tank was developed by the NORINCO corporation as a deep modernization of the earlier export MBT-2000 (Al-Khalid).”
“The layout, crew placement, gun caliber, and feeding mechanism are strongly reminiscent of the T-72”
We can deduce that technically, if the VT4 is related to the MBT-2000, and the 2000 related to the Type 90, that the VT-4 is distant relative of the T-72
You’re right, the VT4 can also be called the MBT3000. Its design concept and construction are indeed related to the T72, though the tall body of the VT4 makes it hard to think of the T72 at first glance.
1 Like
I agree, after all, I hope the U.S. side can release a squadron plane above 11.3
The relationship between the VT4 and the T72 is too tenuous; even distant relatives are indeed somewhat distant. It’s similar to the relationship between Chinese people in China and Chinese people in Chinatowns—it is difficult to say that there is any real connection.
Fair, however in many cases, they share the same mechanisms, such as caliber, autoloader, and the ability to launch ATGMs as well as APFSDS. This is also shared by many high tier Chinese tanks. I do get your point, that there is little shared difference in many other circumstances (mobility, turret, ERA type). Obviously the Chinese derivatives of the T-72 aren’t going to be the exact same, but certain qualities are shown that are related to the T-72, which highly influence the play style of high tier China.