@AlvisWisla
No offence but it seems you are acting a bit stubborn here.
I think your Sarcastic joke can’t make them happy, but makes them even furious.
Go drink a cup of chilled water, relax and get back to discussing with a cooler head.
It will be better for both sides and a wider view.
It seems the whole arguing goes round and round just like a merry-go-round.
Why bother talking to a brick wall lol, man has it out for the VT5, talking to a brick wall achieves exactly nothing. You have sources saying it should ay the very least resist BR-412 and these people will just absolutely gloss over it like it’s junk, remember challenger ERA and AZUR? those have clear sources stating the nature of their protection and nothing ever came of it, if gaijin is deliberately gimping something absolutely no source not even the manufacturer will change how they model a vehicle.
You claim that the TAM 2C does not have inferior protection compared to the Type 16 wheeled tank and the CV9040, right? Then why is it that in the game, the Type 16 wheeled tank and the CV9040 can defend against 25~30 mm APFSDS rounds, and even have a chance of defending against 40 mm APFSDS, while the TAM 2C cannot? No, it can’t even defend against 25 mm APFSDS rounds. Is this what you call “not inferior protection”? In the game, the penetration of 25 mm APFSDS is 92 mm, 30 mm APFSDS is 116 mm, and 40 mm APFSDS ranges from 143 to 170 mm.
Shouldn’t we compare the design of VT5 with specialized light tanks such as XM8 and VFM5, instead of comparing TAM light tanks derived from infantry fighting vehicle platforms? Are the main factors for choosing TAM as a reference for VT5 comparison all 33 tons?
Yes, that’s comparing VT5 to Type 10.
Which is why all dogs are dogs is comparing VT5 to TAM.
Read the next part very closely:
Right now the VT5 has scouting, a scout drone, reduced air spawn cost potential.
It was designed in the same philosophy as TAM: Replace old MBTs like T-55, Leopard, etc, and perform the duties of a light tank augmented by modern main battle tanks for countries that operate both.
There is NOTHING to gain by claiming TAM and VT5 aren’t comparable, that’ll at best nerf the VT5 by removing its scouting, scout drone, and reduced air spawn costs, that’s it.
TAM-2IP is not anymore a “light main battle tank” than VT5 just cause its turret resists 100mm APCBC to an extent, and the entire tank resists general auto-cannon fire.
Trust me when I say there is NOTHING to gain by claiming the light tank China themselves calls a light tank is not a light tank, NOTHING.
If you’re trying to manipulate meaning into thinking it’ll buff armor, that’ll never, ever happen.
Zero vehicles in War Thunder have changed armor based off of that type of manipulation and they never will, not only that but the VT5 will lose valuable light tank features.
@Star727476
If TAM was a derivative it’d use the same exact hull: See 2S38 vs BMP3, same exact hull.
TAM is a specialized light tank, the company making a brand new hull based on an older hull doesn’t change that; and its sales is partly evidence of that.
Oh, BTW the Abrams uses the same exact road wheels the M26 uses… the Abrams suspension is ultimately based on the M26’s, that doesn’t make the Abrams an M26 derivative.
Don’t discuss this meaningless topic with him again. Physically and logically speaking, the weight of the VT5 does not match its in-game data at all. The VT5 in the game is just a thin tin coffin, and its protective performance is far from reaching the standard of 33 tons.
This information is official and correct，i hope Gaijin can fix the current issues with the VT5
I see @来如雷霆收震怒_罢如江海凝清光 is telling people to not engage with anyone saying that VT5 has inaccuracies.
Sorry, but kindly stop.
VT5 has inaccuracies no matter what you say.
Furthermore, you mentioned that the VT5 is only compared to the TAM 2C’s steel armor, correct? How can a country that is unable to independently produce special steel for aircraft carriers manufacture high-hardness armor? I have 50 mm thick steel armor plus composite armor. Why does it have inferior penetration resistance compared to a vehicle with only 25 mm of steel armor? Why should it be compared to the TAM 2C? Does it even have composite armor?
Critical Technical Inaccuracies in VT-5 Light Tank Implementation
During testing server evaluation, significant technical discrepancies have been identified in the VT-5 light tank implementation across three primary categories: internal layout modeling, armor modeling, and protection values. These issues require urgent correction to maintain technical authenticity.
I. Internal Layout Modeling Errors
Excellent post sir! Keep up the great work in helping improve VT5.
It’s sad that you have it out for the VT5.
The fact your post argues that the VT5 supporters are brick walls for wanting to improve the accuracy of the VT5 in War Thunder is annoying.
Take your post’s anti-VT5 hatred elsewhere.
@TACN 's post claiming that it’s arrogant to say VT5 has inaccuracies.
VT5 has inaccuracies no matter what you two say.
Keep insulting everyone here, all you do is prove everyone correct that VT5 has inaccuracies.
The remaining half of the body after removing the power compartment and combat room from TAM is useless excess weight
The VT5 tank’s turret should have an anti-penetration protection of 350mm, the upper front hull armor should provide 290mm of anti-penetration protection, while the lower front hull armor should offer 115mm of anti-penetration protection. It should provide full protection against 12.7mm caliber machine gun fire across all areas, with its side armor even capable of withstanding 23mm caliber autocannon fire.
I’m not sure what kinds of track Gaijin makes, but according to an office paper, the new T-158 track weighs 11,736 pounds per set, while the older T-156 track weighs 8,940 pounds per set. (United States General Accounting Office, 1991)
The document name is NSIAD-91-114 Abrams Tank: Operating Costs More Than Expected
thank you!
since you have asked therefore I pay same respct to read your statement and asked for same level of respect to read my statement
light-MBT category does not exist doesnt means that it is not a light-MBT, just like there is no ATGM category in the game, list as tank destoryer doesnt means they are not ATGM carrier. claiming TAM is a light MBT does NOT meaning to lose the ability of scouting, scout drone and etc
It is to clear what it is was designed to do, which is NOT as same as TAM but similar, comparing between TAM and VT5 as identical is a use of Politician’s syllogism which is disrepectful to both TAM’s designers and VT5/Type 15’s designers, it is impossible to find anything the same, the only possible is similar, so please do not do it again
it is a tragic if that you believe that I was trying to manipulate the tank by changing its category
Note that what I said is sincere, and of course I respect everyone.
My ONLY intent with comparing TAM to VT5 was to PROVE that VT5’s steel armor is under-performing on the hull front, that’s it.
And I’ve listed the explanations of why I compare them for that reason.
So of course I’ll apologize if my statements were difficult to understand.
fair enough, I take this as a nature conversation
the only intent I take is to clear some mistakes before they have negative impact to anyone, nothing personal
I am actually very disappointed with Abrams :(
Gaijin barely brought out its technical advantages. In fact, Abrams and AH-64 in reality has the ability to target enemies and share just like what light tank could do in Warthunder.
