We have seen changes to the VT5 in the game, which is very gratifying, but the most important issues remain unresolved, such as the fact that we have fully demonstrated the VT5’s armor error in the game
Why not answer another discussion below? The 70 ton Abrams of the 21st century is as strong as the 70 ton Tiger King of 1944, after all, the quality of steel has not changed for 60 years
2 Likes
The current unfortunate reality is that even though the turret armor can withstand 500mm chemical munitions, the hull armor fails to provide adequate protection. When a 105mm HEAT round strikes below the VT5’s gun mantlet, the hull would still be subjected to overpressure damage due to the game’s mechanics. This essentially renders the tank’s armor design meaningless under such circumstances. It might as well be transformed into a 18-ton class, thin-skinned armored vehicle with a 50 power-to-weight ratio for enhanced mobility. Of course, adopting the armor protection parameters speculated by the player community would undoubtedly be the optimal solution.
Quality doesn’t mean density reduces to a notable amount.
Steel alloys’ densities are all rather close to each other.
7000kg of steel isn’t suddenly going to be 6500kg in the same volume.
If anything armored steel might be ever so slightly denser [heavier for the volume they use].
The Russians might be afraid that if the correct performance of the VT5 is restored, the lie they told the Indians a few years ago about selling them the 2S25 to counter the ZTQ-15 will be exposed.
3 Likes
We already provided some info on reports requirements here:
3 Likes
While homogeneous steel alloys do maintain relatively consistent density parameters, this line of reasoning curiously ignores the fundamental engineering breakthrough that revolutionized armor design since the 1970s - namely, the advent of composite armor systems. Modern protection schemes don’t rely on monolithic steel blocks, but rather sophisticated layering of ceramics, metallic matrices, and non-metallic composites. The Chobham armor pioneered by the British (with density variations of 2.5-4.8g/cm³ across layers) or Soviet combinations of aluminum oxide ceramics with titanium alloys demonstrate how intelligent material synergy – not singular material density – achieves optimal mass-to-protection ratios. If we were to follow the steel-density absolutism to its logical conclusion, we’d still be fielding WWII-era Tiger IIs while dismissing depleted uranium mesh and nano-ceramic laminates as ‘impossible’. Perhaps the confusion stems from conflating medieval plate armor design principles with 21st-century materials science?
2 Likes
Incidentally, the VT5’s advertised 33-ton weight with frontal arc protection against 100mm APDS already inherently disproves the monolithic steel theory - unless we’re suggesting Chinese engineers magically compressed 55 tons of RHA equivalence into half the mass through alchemy rather than multi-material compositing.
1 Like
Don’t argue, you just need to answer whether the 70 ton Tiger King and the 70 ton Abrams are the same？
1 Like
No authority claims VT5 can resist 100mm APDS munitions, they at most claimed 100mm APCBC.
Also, I’m not talking about VT5’s composite armor, I am talking about its steel armor that’s under-performing.
Other posts address composite armor.
Thank you very much!
You’re not answering again, like an ostrich burying its head in the sand when things get tough—though your ass is still sticking out. Is a 70-ton Tiger II the same as a 70-ton Abrams?lol
1 Like
According to publicly available information, the chief designer of the VT5 light tank, did explicitly mention the design standards for the tank’s protective performance during a technical interview. In an interview with Modern Weapons magazine, the chief engineer team pointed out that the armor protection system of VT5 can effectively resist frontal attacks from 105mm level conventional ammunition, and particularly emphasized its optimized design for the threat of modern armor piercing bullets. This statement implies the defense capability against small caliber high initial velocity ammunition (such as 100mm APDS), as the armor piercing power of 105mm artillery is generally higher than that of traditional 100mm level ammunition
2 Likes
Which would be HEATFS and APCBC rounds, not APDS.
The designer and producer of the VT5 tank claimed in an interview that its frontal armor can withstand direct hits from the main guns of first and second-generation main battle tanks. If you think the words of the tank’s designer and producer are not “authoritative” enough, then I have nothing more to say to you.
3 Likes
I don’t know if this is the most “accurate” VT-5 made in the game, but I know that if I were a staff member of the Bangladesh Ministry of Defense and spent nearly 6 million dollars to purchase a light tank for our country that weighs 33 tons but cannot effectively defend against 12.7mm machine gun fire on both the front and side, I would definitely be sent to a military court.
Looking at the last picture, it can’t even effectively defend against 7.62mm machine guns
10 Likes
Curiously, your persistent conflation of munition types only reinforces the need for evidence-based discourse. While HEAT-FS and APCBC rounds are indeed part of the defensive spectrum, NORINCO’s technical bulletin explicitly lists resistance against 100mm 3BM-25 APFSDS as the VT5’s baseline requirement - a specification validated. The dozen-plus defense analysts who’ve published spectral analysis of the turret’s ceramic layers aren’t exactly debating medieval ballistics here.
One might humorously observe that this debate resembles a symposium on quantum physics where one participant insists neutrons don’t exist while waving a 19th-century chemistry textbook. The technical community has moved beyond monolithic steel evaluations since the Challenger 1’s Chobham armor rendered such metrics obsolete 45 years ago. Should you possess contrary ballistic test data or metallurgical analyses supporting your claims, the floor remains open - though thus far, the evidentiary scale tips rather decisively toward peer-reviewed documents versus… well, let’s call it ‘armchair thermodynamics’.
4 Likes
Dunno why you’re looking at side steel of a 33 ton tank that’s slightly larger than a TAM, it’s not going to be as good as the 30 - 38mm side steel of modern MBTs that weigh 44+ tons.
But yeah, the front armor seems lacking.
This says each set of tracks weighs 11,760lb (5,334kg)
Off of this I would assume that earlier Abrams had the lighter tracks, at over 8,000lb per set.
2 Likes
Comparing the VT5’s protection philosophy to 1970s-era TAM tank design is akin to judging smartphone processing power through the lens of rotary telephones - an exercise in chronological dissonance. While both vehicles occupy similar weight classes, the VT5’s layered ceramic-composite side skirts (STANAG 4569 Level 4 certified) render direct millimeter-to-millimeter comparisons with Cold War-era homogeneous steel obsolete.
One might note the irony of dismissing a 2010s digital protection system using analog-era metrics, particularly when:
TAM’s side armor couldn’t stop 23mm APDS beyond 500m, while VT5’s base + ceramic composite armor defeat 30mm APFSDS at 300m
The persistent focus on raw steel dimensions while ignoring 40 years of materials science breakthroughs suggests a peculiar form of technological astigmatism - like attempting to measure 5G bandwidth with a vacuum tube oscilloscope. Perhaps when multiple defense ministries and the original designers all confirm capabilities beyond 20th-century parameters, it’s time to consider whether the ‘deafness’ lies in the listener’s methodology rather than the chorus of technical evidence
3 Likes