>>23384296but that's what I'm saying, the original Hizack looks absolutely like it could've been made by major rebuilds of existing Zaku stocks in line with the Ship of Theseus concept as well as built anew, whereas the Act Zaku looks like so little survived of the original MS it was initially patterned on that it couldn't possibly be made with almost any of the same tooling or components, I would say that it's like it has M14 syndrome. Yes, it looks like a Garand, acts like a Garand, yet has a parts commonality of 20%. But then the BM 59 exists, and it IS a Garand, except they cut a detachable magwell in and tacked fresh goodies on.
This applies less if you look at the Advance of Zeta prototype & production Hizack- much more blocky and Feddie-ized- but you could easily have the OG Zeta & alternate AoZ models coexist by saying the former is rebuilt stock while the latter is all new chassis, both using composite armor & all or most of the same internals otherwise to meet the same final performance specifications primarily designated Hi(gh Performance)-Zaku, with some as of yet unwritten miscellaneous detailed ordnance codes to differentiate the two.
With the 'space T-72 reference' above, it's like if you were to say that if the Zaku I is a T-44 or 54, and the Zaku II is a T-55, then the Hizack would be a T-62 while the Action Zaku is more like a T-64 or some miscellaneous Objekt prototype, yes they rhyme in many of the same ways and both are elaborations on the same starting concept going in the same direction, but one is visibly evolutionary and the other is revolutionary.
It doesn't make as much sense to me the other way around, even considering the chronology of development, but maybe I'm just headcanoning too hard. The parts that especially irk me are the Act Zaku's "field motors" blurb and its having a slightly stronger generator spec of 1440 kws versus 1428 in OYW versus postwar, it feels far more like the Zaku in name only.