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
Expecting that level of KE when they only primarily cite APCBC isn’t what I would expect for the base model VT5, especially for 33 tons.
To estimate it, I gave the composite modules a typical 0.65 KE multiplier, the same found in some 1990s MBTs; on the one hand, it may seem too much to assume it’s as effective; other hand, the armor is decades more advanced than those MBTs; so I think it is sensible to assume the level of effectiveness is at least similar while remaining lighter.
Only speculation on my end though- but I find it difficult to believe that the composite modules would be any less effective than those already existing in the 1990s.
move on bro
Well the multiplier includes air + plates.
It’s based on the air to plates, and the thickness of the estimated plates.
Either way I’m going to run a massive math run in a bit.
“Gracias por tus esfuerzos.”
“Thank you for your efforts.”
1 Like
Yep! This is again speculation, but some suggest that VT-5’s composite modules share a similar structure to VT-4’s.
VT-5 being essentially a smaller and lighter VT-4, that notion makes sense to me. But, again, it’s difficult to work on this tank, given how little info there is about it hahah. But, in these cases, I always advocate for the best estimates possible. Tanks being advanced wonders of engineering, I prefer to estimate they are as good as they can be rather than going for low conservative values.
2 Likes
And thank you for your message! It’s my pleasure to always look after tanks. There’s nothing I love more than tanks, hahah. So my goal is for them to be properly depicted in War Thunder in their full glory, rather than as mere shadows of their reality.
That’s also why I am enraged by the lack of spall liners in all Chinese MBTs, and many more things.
I recently finally started playing China, and I am fascinated by these tanks- so it hits me even harder to see how much better they could be if Gaijin cared to fix them, hahah.
2 Likes