Thank you for your attention to the community’s voice. The VT-5 in the game is far from the psychological expectations of most players, and there are many parts that are different from reality. Admittedly, we cannot easily obtain detailed data on armored vehicles in service, but as an export tank, VT-5 has a lot of public and authoritative information.
It is easy to get the following facts:
The armor value of VT-5 in the game is too low, and it lacks composite armor modules and anti-collapse lining. The hull composite armor module and external additional armor of VT-5 can be clearly seen from the relevant reports of CCTV (even if the VT-5 in service in Bangladesh does not have external additional armor, the KE of the basic armor should be greater than the 15mmRHA in the game). Considering the interview records with the chief designer, it can be inferred that the hull composite armor belt and the turret composite armor should be able to resist at least 100mmAP direct fire, rather than only resisting small-caliber machine gun bullets in the game. Even if these data cannot directly prove the thickness of VT-5’s armor, the armor protection of VT-5 can be basically judged only by tonnage and body size: VT-5 is a tank with a combat weight of 33 metric tons, and its front and side armor are inferior to those of ZBD04A, which is 11 tons lighter than it; and the 33-ton T-54 main battle tank has a hull armor of up to 80~100mm. This is obviously unreasonable. Combined with the protection design concept of China’s main battle tank, VT-5 should be equipped with thicker and heavier composite armor on the front, and the side armor should also be able to resist 14.5mmAP direct fire at a distance of 0m.
There are several serious errors in the internal structure model of VT-5 in the game. First of all, it can be clearly seen from a large number of public videos that VT-5 does not have any turret basket structure, but there is a huge “bathtub” basket model in the game; secondly, the position of the VT-5’s automatic loader model is too far back, and the rail model is too large; finally, there should be a shell collector at the bottom of the crew, not the basket floor.
In the game, the VT-5’s power system is placed on the track plate next to the engine compartment, which is unreasonable and seriously affects the game experience. There is no data to prove that this is the power system (usually used as a storage box or external fuel tank), and the armor here is very weak and will be penetrated by a small-caliber machine gun and lose some combat capabilities. This is absurd both in reality and in the game.
I hope you can consider my opinion and convey it to the developers. I pay my highest respects to you.
In War Thunder,the VT5 light main battle tank’s performance is astonishing and hard to believe.With technological progress,can’t China’s industry develop a light main battle tank with better armor than the T54/T55?
I’ve always thought War Thunder was a very realistic game that comprehensively simulated modern joint combat,with great graphics and performance simulation.But the in-game VT5 is hardly comparable to the real one.I do believe the War Thunder team respects reality and maintains game balance without any ill intentions.They must have their reasons.However,the VT5’s performance is hard to justify,and the partial vehicle structure refinement has upset many players.I hope the team addresses these issues promptly.
I sincerely wish War Thunder continued success.
在战争雷霆中，如此性能的vt5轻量化主战坦克实在是让人大跌眼镜，难以置信。科技进步，但是中国的工业难道造不出一台装甲性能超越t54/t55的轻量化主战坦克吗？
尽管我一直以来认为战争雷霆是一款非常尊重现实、能过全方面模拟现代联合作战环境的游戏，而且提供了非常好的游戏画面和性能模拟，但是战争雷霆中都vt5很难让人联想到现实中的vt5。当然，我也相信战争雷霆的制作团队从来都是尊重现实，尽他们所能维护游戏的平衡性，肯定不会带有私人目的和不怀好意。我相信制作团队肯定另有考量。但是如此的vt5性能实在是难以服众，只有部分车辆内构细化也引起了许多玩家的不满。希望制作团队能够注意到并且及时解决这下问题。
由衷地祝愿战争雷霆蒸蒸日上
嗝焖板业税不着指能七濑营养拐祁勒
Chinese players are so anxious because our voices always been ignored, some forum administrators suggested that Posting to the issue section was constructive. But some in the issue area are wantonly silencing our voices, justifiably or not. Sure, this behavior may be loyal to the company, but to the player, it is unfair, disappointing and worrying about the future of the game. For the existence or not of something is clearly a simple logical reasoning, things that do not exist only need to come up with counterexamples, and things that exist should be strictly proved by data. From 2019 to 2025, it’s been six years, and I hope the authorities can really value our voice.
This is precisely the issue that we’re having right now
Look at all these reports that was reported as “not a bug” or “needs more info”, despite providing AS MUCH POSSIBLE INFORMATION WITHOUT DELVING INTO CLASSIFIED INFO
Like… what more do you want us to do? We’ve already discussed endlessly and combed through the entirety of the internet and available publications. And I also want to ask: Where do Gaijin devs get THEIR info from? Why should their word trump ours?
Too many times we bring something to the table and the response is a nonchalant, “nah” or a template “wE nEeD pUbLiCaTiOnS” response despite the community providing the only accessible sources at this time, then the devs turn around behind our backs and make up their own arbitrary interpretations. This is what ultimately wells up and leads to community frustration.
It’s clear he just wants us to discuss the vehicle in question here, and voicing our frustrations with the bug reporting site is off topic.
I’m not even sure if there’s much to discuss unless if someone has info that wasn’t brought up already; most of those bug reports have as much info, care, and time put into it by the creators as possible. So I guess we just talk in circles here about… how most of the specs of the VT5 ingame is made up?
Reminding gaijin here, vt5 is a 7.53.32.5m 36t tank while amx32 is a 9.453.12.3m 40t tank, cutting off the 2m addon in length and the weight it brings to amx should make them a fair comparison on armor, while vt5 is a pair of 2s25😓missing entire tureent armor like the air armor that of ariete war kit?
The issue I have is we’ve provided plenty of documentation because we want the vehicle to be accurate and in doing so make it a worthwhile vehicle to grind. We have done our due dilegence, but what is the point in telling us to provide constructive critisism, (which we’ve been doing) if our criticism is arbitrarily dismissed?
There is a serious disconnect between the bug managers and literally everyone else here.
I just don’t understand how can the issue controller say every tank shaould have a basket even though we have given him exact photos to prove the VT-5 mbt never equipped a basket?
and i don’t know how gaijin set the data of the composite armour . it’s surprising that a 33-ton mbt can’t defend itself from a 12.7mm bullet from the front. Can gaijin show the evidence or information to support the ability of defence? Otherwise it would be common to argue whether gaijin is just write a number with no evidence to support it.
“As a lightweight main battle tank, the VT5’s side armor should absolutely be capable of withstanding 12.7mm heavy machine gun fire.”“According to the paper, when explosive reactive armor (ERA) is applied, the armor thickness should be at least 30mm to 50mm. However, in the game, the VT5’s lower front plate (LFP) is only 15mm, which clearly defies common sense.”
