Yeah it was a problem around 2-3 years ago, they were removed from this position though.
Gaijin now relies on itself to conduct research regarding CN vehicles.
1 Like
I believe the root of the problem lies with Gaijin itself. Some of the fixes that have been implemented only make the VT-5 slightly more reasonable, but they are ultimately insignificant. Furthermore, since the test server has already been closed, it is highly likely that the VT-5 will remain in its current state when it goes live on the official server. If that’s the case, what is the point of our discussions here?
You claim that many issues have been fixed, but why hasn’t the turret basket issue been addressed? I won’t even bring up the armor protection problems for now—let’s just focus on the turret basket, a glaringly obvious issue that has been discussed numerous times in this thread. Why was it immediately removed from the Leopard 2 after widespread criticism, yet suddenly added to the VT-5? Anyone with normal eyesight can clearly see that the VT-5 does not have a turret basket.
Yet in the ISSUE report, the response to this problem was:
Reports about the basket will be accepted only if there are sources on which the basket is clearly visible.
Under the turret ring, it is empty space instead of the basket.
This is impossible; tankers must sit on something that rotates with the turret. There is no other way.
But does this really mean that a turret basket must exist? Most Russian tanks in real-life design do not have turret baskets either, so why does Gaijin assume that if the crew rotates with the turret, there must be a turret basket?
Furthermore, the existence of a turret basket contradicts the internal design logic of the VT-5. If the tank crew runs out of ready ammunition, are they supposed to reach through the basket to access additional rounds? How would that even be possible? Despite overwhelming evidence proving that this design is nonsensical and unrealistic, the issue is still marked as “not enough info”.
And those evidence those friends have already uploaded in this forum, is also available on YouTube
At this point, I can only conclude that this is a clear bias against the Chinese tech tree and Chinese equipments, OR if they can prove where did they get those information about VT-5. And really if VT-5 is that vulnerable. I suggest Indian Armed Force just using machine guns to defend Bangladesh VT-5.
13 Likes
Right now there are no bug reports for the VT5 turret basket in English that use the in-garage photograph with the turret lifted, dunno about the official diagrams. Those images showed up after the previous reports were closed.
I can’t check the Mandarin reports obviously.
There is no bias against Chinese vehicles, that fact is obvious from many amazing [and a few under-BR’d] vehicles.
Christ, I really hope someday CN players also have tech mods which have enthusiasm in a good way. :|
4 Likes
“Bro, your words really touched me. Thank you for your support. I hope not only the Chinese series but also the French and British series can improve.”
8 Likes
Can these photos help with the turret basket report?
ZTQ-15 and VT-5 are produced in the same factory
If you look at these pictures, you can see that the VT-5 has only a rotational floor, not a turret basket, as shown in ZTQ-15. (For your information, these photos are not leaked, they were found in the photos posted on the blog for promotional purposes at the factory)
13 Likes
Does ZTQ 15 have carousel autoloader alongside the bustle autoloader? There seems to be a carousel autoloader laying near the turret floors in the second picture.
I think you’ve got it wrong.
1 Like
According to other pictures I saw on the blog, VT-4 and 99A also seem to be produced in the same factory. So the carousel autoloader will be theirs
2 Likes
Yes, those photos can.
1 Like
A Symphony of Corporate Alchemy and Ludonarrative Contortions
Oh, Gaijin —the maestros of historical reinterpretation and the high priests of gameplay equilibrium—have once again blessed us with their creative genius: the VT5 light tank. As it prepares to bow out of the tech tree, we are treated to a masterclass in “balance adjustments” that defy both empirical data and common sense, all while paying homage to the sacred doctrine of monetization. Truly, who better than our Russian stewards of digital warfare to decode the nuances of Chinese military engineering?
A Geometric Farce
The VT5’s gun elevation, a modest -6°/+22° in reality, has been artfully recalibrated to a more “balanced” -4°/+15°. This bold reimagining of ballistic mechanics transforms a state-of-the-art 21st-century light tank into a glorified Civil War-era cannon. When questioned, Gaijin’s invocation of “classified documentation” as justification was nothing short of inspired—a masterstroke of corporate sleight-of-hand. One can only assume these documents exist in the same metaphysical plane as the Challenger 2’s infamous “leaked manuals,” forever suspended in a state of quantum ambiguity.
The Art of Reductionism
The VT5’s composite armor, a triumph of modern materials science, has been distilled into a homogenized steel equivalent, rendering it vulnerable to munitions that would struggle to penetrate a mid-century farm vehicle. The basket area, once a cluttered repository of equipment, has been reimagined as a pristine “critical weak spot,” embodying the philosophical axiom that existence itself is a liability. This reductionist approach to armor modeling is a testament to Gaijin’s commitment to “streamlining” reality for the sake of gameplay—a bold rejection of empirical data in favor of creative liberty.
The Enigma of Explosive Logic
The VT5’s rear-mounted autoloader, designed to mitigate catastrophic detonations, has been ingeniously reworked to prioritize hull ammo rack explosions. When presented with real-world blast door schematics, Gaijin’s response—“diverse gameplay experiences”—was a stroke of rhetorical brilliance. This Schrödinger-esque approach to ammunition storage, where the tank is simultaneously protected and vulnerable, elevates the VT5 to a metaphysical plane of existence. It is a poignant reminder that, in Gaijin’s universe, the laws of physics are mere suggestions.
The Twilight of the VT5: A Capitalist Requiem
The timing of these “adjustments,” coinciding with the VT5’s removal from the tech tree and the introduction of a shiny new premium vehicle, is a masterclass in corporate choreography. This “out with the old, in with the new” cadence is a poignant commentary on the commodification of history, where authenticity is sacrificed at the altar of profit. It echoes Gaijin’s earlier triumphs, such as the Challenger 2 debacle, where player-submitted data was dismissed as “illegal leaks” in favor of dubious, yellowed pamphlets procured from a Moscow flea market.
The Doctrine of Balance and Its Heresies**
In Gaijin’s meticulously curated alternate reality, Newtonian physics yield to spreadsheet algorithms, and the sanctity of historical accuracy is subordinated to the whims of market forces. This alchemical transmutation of reality into profit is a testament to the company’s unwavering commitment to its creed: “If the truth impedes the payout, the truth must be sacrificed.” As we await the next patch, one can only marvel at the possibilities. Perhaps the VT5 will be retrofitted with sails, a fitting tribute to the 19th-century innovation that Gaijin so clearly reveres.
8 Likes
“Fox, why aren’t you sleeping? What time zone are you in? Do you think the VT5’s basket can provide any protection against fragmentation, or would APFSDS rounds penetrating the basket create even more spalling?”
“I’m talking about the basket inside the turret.”
That would probabaly be VT-4s like other people said. Because most 125 shells can only be loaded with carousel autoloader right now i guess. But 105 and 120 shells are all one pieced shell with shell case and warhead in one whole part, not like 125 shells with two parts. So literally 105 and 120 dont need carousel autoloaders.
“The VT5’s 105mm uses fixed ammunition (unitary rounds), not two-part shells (separate-loading rounds).”
1 Like
VT5’s instances are ignorance based, not malice.
And it’s the research team failures, not the dev team’s.
This is especially noticeable with the fact J-11B is the best Flanker in the game, while VT5 has a lot of issues.
So yeah, there’s a lot of mistakes on the research side, and it’s obviously not malicious.
@CJgege
Stop insulting VT5 supporters. This isn’t the topic to be hating on people trying to fix the VT5.
It’s 13:55.
1 Like
“Hey bro, don’t get too worked up. I genuinely want to discuss whether the turret basket would be penetrated by APFSDS rounds (tank ‘darts’) and generate spalling, or if the spalling caused by APFSDS penetrating the outer armor would be blocked by the basket. Do you think having a basket is better or worse? Without a basket, would the APFSDS simply pass through the tank? Also, since the VT5 now has an internal spall liner, what kind of damage effects do you think APFSDS penetration would currently cause on the hull?”
“Good morning bro! Looks like it’s around 4 PM there. Here it’s 7 AM and I’m about to have breakfast. I stayed up all last night thinking, and realized my comments might have been too harsh yesterday. I feel really bad about it and want to apologize - due to translation errors, I mistakenly thought you were trolling and intentionally downplaying the VT5.”
I did try my best to use full words and not use contraction words like “can’t” to keep my sentences as simple but specific for those translating to Chinese.
I did not do the best job, and that is my fault.
All my posts were in support of fixing VT5’s armor.
I think the basket as of the dev servers I noticed it on was incorrect.
1 Like
dreams