The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class

Iron Man · Feb 5, 2017

Hendrik_2000 said:
You need to use your head more rather than your foot.Here is the picture

I don't know if you're dishonest or merely ignorant here, but neither descriptor bodes well for you. I think I'm just going to go ahead and ignore this photo of a USN LCAC that is still several dozen meters away from the photographer and the well deck

Hendrik_2000 said:
I don't know where you get the dimension of 16 m for the type 71 well deck width.But judging from the photo of the ship and type 71 beam spec. It is definitely more than 16m. Even accounting for slight tapering at the well deck. So that will shot down your argument that Yuyi beam is limited to 14 m.I read the estimate it varies between 14 to 16 m

Type:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Displacement: 25,000 tons full load.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Length: 210 m (689 ft 0 in)
Beam: 28 m (91 ft 10 in)
Draft: 7 m (23 ft 0 in)

Let's use your own photo here:

The red line is 425 pixels. The orange line is 242 pixels. Can you do the math? No? No problem, I'll help you:

28*(242/425) = 15.94m. I'm feeling generous today so I will give you an extra 0.06m. Were you saying something about a foot and a mouth?

Hendrik_2000 said:
Using you own photo and assuming the average height of north Chinese man of 1.75m. The pilot cabin width is roughly 3.5m and so do the crew cabin.Now accounting for the cushion bulge of 1/2m even using 14 m That left out 6m loading deck width.That is based on 16m wide well of type 71
Which I highly doubt from eyeballing the type 71 photo and beam spec

Instead of using your ridiculously flawed "average" 1.75m tall Chinese male ruler, let's use something slightly more objective, shall we?

The red line is 965 pixels. The yellow line is 327 pixels. Here is the math: 14*(327/965) = 4.74m. Is it my coke bottle glasses that are the problem, or yours? LOL

Hendrik_2000 · Feb 5, 2017

Iron Man said:
I don't know if you're dishonest or merely ignorant here, but neither descriptor bodes well for you. I think I'm just going to go ahead and ignore this photo of a USN LCAC that is still several dozen meters away from the photographer and the well deck

Let's use your own photo here:

View attachment 36218

The red line is 425 pixels. The orange line is 242 pixels. Can you do the math? No? No problem, I'll help you:

28*(242/425) = 15.94m. I'm feeling generous today so I will give you an extra 0.06m. Were you saying something about a foot and a mouth?

I don't know what kind of pixel measurement that you use. I get different pixel count than you do Here is my Calc using Pixel Ruler

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(200/320)X28m=17.5m lol

Instead of using your ridiculously flawed "average" 1.75m tall Chinese male ruler, let's use something slightly more objective, shall we?
View attachment 36219

The red line is 965 pixels. The yellow line is 327 pixels. Here is the math: 14*(327/965) = 4.74m. Is it my coke bottle glasses that are the problem, or yours? LOL

Here is my calc (190/500)X14=5.32 Even using your ridiculous 14 m still get you 5.32
Now if you use 15m wide well beam you it will get 5.7m wide LCAC opening

Maybe you are using cheap tablet to do the measurement LOL

SanWenYu · Feb 5, 2017

Iron Man said:
View attachment 36219

The red line is 965 pixels. The yellow line is 327 pixels. Here is the math: 14*(327/965) = 4.74m. Is it my coke bottle glasses that are the problem, or yours? LOL

There are a couple clues in the second picture: the two anti-skid floor patterns, the three short cylinders above the rear floor by the central line. So it does look like a single row loading by design. And thinking about it, having only one orange central line itself is also a telling sign. If it was able to load side-by-side, it would need also lines on both sides to mark the boundaries.

Hendrik_2000 · Feb 5, 2017

SanWenYu said:
There are a couple clues in the second picture: the two anti-skid floor patterns, the three short cylinders above the rear floor by the central line. So it does look like a single row loading by design. And thinking about it, having only one orange central line itself is also a telling sign. If it was able to load side-by-side, it would need also lines on both sides to mark the boundaries.

Assuming it was type 96 Tank which what that LCAC is designed for. To transport tank from over the horizon. It also has orange horizontal line that definitely indicated the stop line for side by side parking

Iron Man · Feb 5, 2017

Hendrik_2000 said:
I don't know what kind of pixel measurement that you use. I get different pixel count than you do Here is my Calc using Pixel Ruler
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(200/320)X28m=17.5m lol

Here is my calc (190/500)X14=5.32 Even using your ridiculous 14 m still get you 5.32
Now if you use 15m wide well beam you it will get 5.7m wide LCAC opening

Maybe you are using cheap tablet to do the measurement LOL

Sorry, but I just don't believe you at all. I will need to call total BS on this post here unless you can visually prove your claims by taking screenshots of your measurements IN PROGRAM.

SanWenYu · Feb 5, 2017

Hendrik_2000 said:
Assuming it was type 96 Tank which what that LCAC is designed for. To transport tank from over the horizon. It also has orange horizontal line that definitely indicated the stop line for side by side parking

Sure the central line can be seen as dividing the loading area for small vehicles side by side. But for its main purpose, that is to load PLA's current tanks and AFVs, 726 is unlikely capable of more than one row IMO.

By the way, should we use "column" instead of "row" here?

Hendrik_2000 · Feb 5, 2017

Iron Man said:
Sorry, but I just don't believe you at all. I will need to call total BS on this post here unless you can visually prove your claims by taking screenshots of your measurements IN PROGRAM.

Equally BS is your assumption of 14m LCAC beam based on 16m Well deck width
We will soon know who is right wait until they used in in exercise

Hendrik_2000 · Feb 5, 2017

SanWenYu said:
Sure the central line can be seen as dividing the loading area for small vehicles side by side. But for its main purpose, that is to load PLA's current tanks and AFVs, 726 is unlikely capable of more than one row IMO.

By the way, should we use "column" instead of "row" here?

If that is the case, there will be 3 horizontal bar since the HMMV length is only 5 m. I only see 1
It is row because the vehicle is parked side by side

Iron Man · Feb 5, 2017

Hendrik_2000 said:
Equally BS is your assumption of 14m LCAC beam based on 16m Well deck width
We will soon know who is right wait until they used in in exercise

I THOUGHT SO. I just caught you 'massaging' the truth, didn't I? Don't bother denying it, you're essentially admitting to it here. Shame on you

The well deck of the 071 IS 16m in width and I proved it to you visually. The fact that you refuse to accept the truth is completely irrelevant to the veracity of the truth. My ratios drawn of the 726 is also visually explicit, unlike your fantasy made-up numbers. The usable vehicle deck width to total width ratio is .339 or close to it. Incidentally, that means that even if the total width of the 726 is 16m the vehicle deck width is still only 5.42m, not enough for 2 of your WZ-551, which would require 5.6m in addition to the necessary clearance in between each other and between them and the vents/doors. The ZBD-97 and ZBD-5/2000 are 2.74m width, also too wide for the 726. I can't think of any active IFV that the PLAN could reasonably carry in a side-by-side configuration. Not to mention these IFVs are around 20t or more, which means weight-wise the 726 could only carry 3 of these at a time anyway. So there is no need to wait for an exercise to know what the truth is, because it is already quite clear.

Hendrik_2000 · Feb 5, 2017

Iron Man said:
I THOUGHT SO. I just caught you 'massaging' the truth, didn't I? Don't bother denying it, you're essentially admitting to it here. Shame on you

The well deck of the 071 IS 16m in width and I proved it to you visually. The fact that you refuse to accept the truth is completely irrelevant to the veracity of the truth. My ratios drawn of the 726 is also visually explicit, unlike your fantasy made-up numbers. The usable vehicle deck width to total width ratio is .339 or close to it. Incidentally, that means that even if the total width of the 726 is 16m the vehicle deck width is still only 5.42m, not enough for 2 of your WZ-551, which would require 5.6m in addition to the necessary clearance in between each other and between them and the vents/doors. The ZBD-97 and ZBD-5/2000 are 2.74m width, also too wide for the 726. I can't think of any active IFV that the PLAN could reasonably carry in a side-by-side configuration. Not to mention these IFVs are around 20t or more, which means weight-wise the 726 could only carry 3 of these at a time anyway. So there is no need to wait for an exercise to know what the truth is, because it is already quite clear.

Really Check this one out It clear all the vent door, Pilot cabin door,etc The position of ramp winch is in front of everything else.Yup you are the one that is hallucinating

The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class

Iron Man

Major

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

SanWenYu

Senior Member

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

SanWenYu

Senior Member

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Iron Man

Major

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General

Attachments