Oh, by the way. Mr. Harrier GR.7, with your messy, desperate attempts to defend Gaijin—what a loyal sycophant. Sucking up to Gaijin won’t get you a job—unless you’re already working for them on a minimum wage.
1 Like
I understand nothing…
You spend the whole topic explaining why VT-5 having paper armor on the dev server was fine because “it’s a light tank”, but then you keep saying that “we all agree that it was wrong on the dev server”.
Like, what’s your angle? xD
11 Likes
Your comprehension skills continue to astound - mistaking a deliberate reductio ad absurdum of YOUR flawed TAM/VT5 analogy for a serious comparison is like confusing a funhouse mirror reflection for actual human proportions. Let’s illuminate this tragicomic misunderstanding:
-
The Mirror of Your Madness
When YOU compared 1979 TAM steel to 2016 VT5 composites, I mirrored YOUR flawed logic by taking it to its logical extreme: If generational gaps don’t matter, then why not compare Tigers to T-80BVMs? Your failure to recognize this basic rhetorical device speaks volumes about your analytical depth. -
The Phantom Bribe Accusation
Your sudden “paid by Gaijin” fantasy - never once mentioned in my 23 previous responses - reveals more about your paranoia than my arguments. Projection much? This isn’t debate - it’s Freudian slip masquerading as technical discussion.
The final irony? Your T-80BVM/Tiger “gotcha” attempt perfectly demonstrates why your TAM/VT5 comparisons were flawed from inception. This isn’t stubbornness - it’s performance art demonstrating how confirmation bias can make someone simultaneously cite and ignore the same technical documents. Bravo - the theater of the absurd has found its lead clown.
7 Likes
@TheSoloWing_Pixy is now claiming everyone in this topic are defending Gaijin by saying VT5’s armor is wrong.
WOW! Just wow…
@SPANISH_AVENGER
I never once said the VT5’s armor is fine. NEVER. Stop inventing myths.
I never compared steel to composites in my life.
Of course, if Gaijin’s using a different VT5 variant with the tow hook mounts in a totally different spot as their reference, then just toss my analysis out the window.
Looks like our persistent interlocutor’s behavior presents a fascinating case study in self-generated consensus. Observe the pathology:
-
Schizoid Citation Syndrome
He cites imaginary allies like ‘others’ and ‘we’ while actual technical literature universally contradicts his claims. This isn’t debate - it’s a one-man reenactment of The Emperor’s New Armor where he tailors reality to fit delusions of support. -
Robotic Repetition Loops
The mechanical rehashing of debunked TAM comparisons despite 14 counter-citations suggests either:
a) Malfunctioning machine learning trained on 1970s field manuals
b) Human cognitive dissonance achieving sentient meme status
7 Likes
@奎达机降一般兵
VT5’s armor is incorrect. Namely on dev server.
Do you agree with me or not?
Or are you going to gaslight myself and others by claiming we’re mentally unwell?
The fox agrees with your view, and I do too. It seems he can be normal at times.
On the one hand, yes, you have said that it is incorrect the whole time. On the other hand:
On the other hand, you suggest that “VT-5 should not even have Leopard I-level armor unless it were 7 tons heavier”, and that it should only have “a bit more turret armor” than TAM (80mm KE)… which directly contradicts your earlier statements claiming that the armor was incorrect, when you then proceed to say that it should be worse protected than a 1960s steel tank.
So… understand my confusion, hahah.
4 Likes
“I also find the fox’s remarks self-contradictory and inconsistent. On one hand, he uses the TAM tank analogy to compare with the VT-5, trying to convince Chinese players, while on the other hand, he claims to agree with your viewpoint. His comments are utterly confusing—maybe he’s just trying to provoke Chinese players? Look at the Chinese guy upstairs who replied incoherently to the fox. Could it be that the fox supports your opinion because you’re European?”
6 Likes
That’s why I am confused indeed! It is not the first time, either.
On the one hand, he will argue against people seeking for an improvement, claiming that such suggested improvement is unfounded and unrealistic (“VT-5 can’t aspire to having better armor than a 1960s Leopard I because it’s a light tank”).
On the other hand, he will do so while simultaneously and repeatedly stating that “he is agreeing with you” and saying that “thank you for agreeing and proving that he is right” (“I think VT-5’s current armor depiction is wrong, I agree!”)…
So I am normally confused about what exactly his angle is indeed xD.
There’s been other times where we’ve had clear agreements and clear disagreements; but sometimes his statements are contradictory and I can’t figure his exact position.
I swear there is zero malice on my end, I genuinely would like to understand and try my best- but sometimes I am so confused that I don’t know what to say or interpret.
5 Likes
No idea，but strange
Yes, I wrote posts poorly and should’ve taken more time.
All my posts points’ were to say VT5’s armor is incorrect, and at the same time say that VT5 likely won’t see 30mm of side steel either IRL or in-game.
And I did mistype about TAM’s turret armor, thanks for making me aware of that; I should’ve been more tactful.
I’ve never argued against improvement, never. Please stop lying.
@CJgege
I’ll keep agreeing with Chinese players no matter what you say.
Keep claiming the Chinese players are wrong, all you do is prove us correct.
“By the way, guys, do you think the community managers secretly check the forum players’ comments during weekends? Currently, the debates around the VT-5 are still pretty heated. Hopefully, we’ll get some good news when the game devs return to work next Monday.”
1 Like
I see, I see, I see.
So your point about VT-5’s armor low effectiveness is about the HULL SIDE,
While you agree that the TURRET CHEEKS need to be stronger?
If that’s what you mean, I finally understand and agree with you, hahah.
I’m not lying, I was just referencing and quoting your earlier statements, which, as you yourself admitted, could have come off as confusing.
If that was the case, don’t worry too much about it- as long as you are able to clarify… I’m not a native English speaker either, so I often rewrite/edit out stuff as I realise I may not have expressed exactly what I initially intended. Perhaps it all boils down to language barrier misunderstandings, I always prefer to attribute things to genuine reasons and not malice xD.
3 Likes
“Haha, Fox bro, just messing with you—don’t take it so seriously, okay? You know, as long as you’re making valid points, I’ll still back you up.”
I don’t see why the origin of an aircraft has to do with something regarding the VT-5
Please stay on topic
3 Likes
Oh yes, turret composite’s likely wrong.
The vast majority of my posts were about the steel thickness of the hull and trying to buff that because the hull’s not getting composite.
2 Likes
We’ve provided Gaijin tons of data, for goodness’ sake what do we get in return? A glorified tin-can whose lower front plate can still be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds in 2025???You expect us to believe this represents proper armor protection for a 30-ton vehicle???
2 Likes
Oh! Well, it’s all clear now then, hahah.
I agree. If I had to give my two cents based on the pictures, etc, I would say;
-Turret cheeks: 350mm KE
-Hull front:
Option 1: If it has internal composite armor in an VT-4 fashion as suggested by some:
300mm KE (without add-on armor), 520mm KE (with add-on armor)
Option 2: if it does not have internal composite armor, which seems more likely:
90mm KE (without add-on armor), 320mm KE (with add-on armor)
-Hull sides: 25mm KE
1 Like