This is a reference map of VT5 protection standards made by Chinese players based on all publicly available authoritative sources. Obviously, you can see if your thinking is significantly different from that of most Chinese players.
17 Likes
No offence, but last time I checked this discussion, it seems that you claimed that ‘if we consider TAM. not much is wrong about VT5’
and Chinese guys brought thousands of evidence to counter your claim.
Did I miss something after last time I checked this topic?
6 Likes
For the purposes of the current profile, the VT5 would be compared to either the Leclerc or the Type 10, as the VT5 is designed to be more of a scaled-down version of both. And not TAM. That’s why I’m so adamant about refuting you.
YES! That image is about what my conclusion is as well.
Though 30mm might be the standard AP round for the LFP upper half.
And no, VT5 and TAM-2IP should never be compared to 44+ ton MBTs.
Type 10 weighs 40 tons without any composite installed, and the 4 tons of composite are front aspect only.
@Stockholm_Blend
I never said VT5 was correct.
I stated that the side steel is probably correct, but that’s it.
I stated that the front steel protection was incorrect based on the fact TAM is of similar size though marginally smaller and lighter, and the TAM has 32mm of steel.
It was later proven that the VT5’s front steel should be ~50mm thick with its slight downward angle.
Maybe there’s something wrong with my translator. I mean: the VT5 is clearly more similar to the Leclerc or the Type 10 tank in terms of technology and design, so the VT5 should be compared to a “scaled-down” version of both. Rather than saying “VT5 should be on a par with the two or considered equivalent”. Also, it’s my going to the lab, so that’s my last word.
1 Like
The method of adding on composite onto a steel base is Type-10 like, but that does not make it Type 10.
TAM also had composite added on later in life.
The difference is VT5 weighs 33 tons minus turret composite, without any further added on composite.
The Type 10 weighs 40 tons without any composite, meaning almost all of its mass comes from ammo, fuel, steel, powerpack, wiring, gun, and track & suspension system to make up 40 tons.
That’s why I say they’re not comparable, especially when Type 10 and VT5 are of similar sizes which makes those 7+ extra tons of steel Type 10 is using even more evident that VT5 can’t have that steel use.
And for composite, it’s different there as well.
VT5’s armor is incorrect, and citing TAM & TAM-2IP as well as the 3D model of VT5 proves that VT5’s armor is incorrect.
The fox always considers himself clever and erudite, desperately trying to prove that he is right while everyone else is wrong. Why engage in meaningless arguments with him? He is neither a developer nor a manager—just a War Thunder player lacking common sense. Persuading him is utterly futile, especially over such an absurd topic. As everyone knows, the TAM tank is a product of the 1970s, developed and produced by Argentina based on German Marder infantry fighting vehicle technology. Comparing a steel-armored tank from that era to modern composite-armored MBTs feels intellectually insulting—like insisting on pitting WWII-era Tigers or King Tigers against contemporary M1 Abrams in armor defense. This fox consistently evades addressing this fundamental issue. Let my response serve as the final, definitive rebuttal.
10 Likes
@Stockholm_Blend
Check this.It shows why I trust that it should have nearly 50mm steel on the front of the body
2 Likes
The only benefit of arguing with him is to keep VT5 at the top of the conversation for a long time. After all, VT5’s protection indicators are very clear.
2 Likes
Just fix it and all of the player will be happy.
Disprove my claims that the VT5’s armor should be better.
I’ll wait.
Prove that VT5’s dev server version is correct in armor. You claim it’s correct by claiming we’re wrong, so prove that it’s correct.
Prove that we are all wrong.
You claim @来如雷霆收震怒_罢如江海凝清光 lacks common sense, so prove your position.
Stop telling lie just like doland trump,what ever u said its will not change The VT5 is light MBT.And who doubt who give the evidence.If u cant buy A VT5 AND use M2 machine gun shoot theVT5 .Just shut up,because every lie u said the god will remeber.Then u will go to hell.
1 Like
@DAMONXD
Prove that the VT5 in the dev server is correct.
You’re accusing hundreds of us of being liars and wrong, so PROVE to the hundreds of us that VT5 is correct.
VT5’s armor on last dev server IS INCORRECT no matter what you accuse us of.
Also, no one is calling TAM and VT5 “light MBTs” just because they replaced Leopard 1s, M60s, and T55s for countries.
Whoever questions, whoever provides evidence! Do you not even have this knowledge?
IF u cant give out the evidence the VT5 is just like TAM,then the VT5 is light tank!
2 Likes
Aha i konw it u r telling the lies ,u even cant say a word to prove i am wrong! Lier!
1 Like
@DAMONXD
Read these, these prove my position that VT5’s armor is incorrect.
On top of TAM’s mass being less while being of similar size, that indicates the steel thickness in the front aspect of VT5 was rather incorrect.
TAM-2IP’s add-on armor is an indication of how wrong the composite is on VT5’s turret, ESPECIALLY since VT5’s turret has a newer and likely superior composite structure.
Spoiler
So prove that all of these people are liars since you’re so bold as to claim that we are.
not the word ,i can say ZTZ59 can fly and can shoot F22.show me the evidence lier!
@DAMONXD I’ll let others prove to you that VT5 on last dev server had incorrect armor values since you refuse to listen to my posts.
I dont care what its like on sever because its wrong and i have the evdence prove im write but where is urs? The sever is ur evidence?lol