The VT-5’s hull base armor can withstand 23mm armor-piercing shells on its sides even in its baseline configuration (without additional armor). Yet, Gaijin has decided that its neck section and lower front plate can’t even stop 12.7mm rounds, while its side armor fails against 5.8mm bullets—a move that showcases Gaijin’s signature imaginative and creative liberties when modeling Chinese vehicles.
7 Likes
It’s hard to imagine that China North Industries Group has developed a light tank that weighs 33 tons but cannot defend against 12.7mm machine guns, but some countries have voluntarily purchased it.
11 Likes
Plz gaijin chech the oursourced modelling.
I mean, oversized Chinese crew member X-ray model in game is getting all over the place.
4 Likes
The VT5’s underhead protection needs to be strengthened, and you can’t ignore the information provided by the player, and you are deceiving yourself to satisfy some of your vanity.
1 Like
How could they mount explosive reactive armor (ERA) on such a thin iron plate? Right behind this metal sheet is Gaijin’s special fuel tank. This is no different from planting C4 at a gas station! Even if the developers aren’t particularly clever, they should at least have basic common sense, right
5 Likes
I don’t understand how the equivalent thickness of the turret composite armor of the VT5 is calculated in the game. It’s very strange.
In the protection test against HEAT, its equivalent thickness is 500mm.Due to the weakness of the upper frontal armor, the lower part of the composite armor on the front of the turret will directly kill all the vehicle crew members when facing HE and HEAT with a slightly larger caliber.
In the protection test against APFSDS, for the long-rod APFSDS, its equivalent thickness is 130mm, and for the short-rod one, the equivalent protection thickness is 140mm.
However, in the protection test against APDS, its equivalent thickness is only 117mm.
In the protection test against APCBC, its equivalent thickness is even similar to that of the long-rod APFSDS, which is 137 - 130.Due to the weakness of the equivalent thickness against APCBC, it can be penetrated by the 412D in the game.
13 Likes
The armor of the VT5 needs to be strengthened to bring it into line with the level of reality
5 Likes
It’s incredible. As a commodity, the VT5 data is almost unambiguous. But our great developers chose to believe in their dreams
1 Like
true dude
It is obvious that the VT-5 in the game currently lacks strength and does not restore history. We believe that developers can make modifications to make it more reasonable
2 Likes
Is it accurate to defend a 33-ton lightweight MBT worse than an 18-ton airborne assault vehicle? This is a common sense question. If players can accept such a simple mistake, I don’t know why we should be proud of it.
2 Likes
Spall liners have been added in the latest dev server update, which is a good start, however, still not completely fixed, as wrong turret basket was not removed. Hoping to see better efforts in today’s update.
1 Like
As an export tank, the VT5 has abundant publicly available documentation. Gaijin has clearly not referenced these materials, and even turns a blind eye to players’ evidence-based suggestions. Your team hasn’t even bothered to read our feedback thoroughly—our issues are immediately dismissed as “NOT ENOUGH INFO” or “NOT A BUG.” At times, I can’t help but suspect that Gaijin has no intention of properly developing this vehicle, content to speculate based on their own imagination. For a game developer, maintaining such an attitude is alarming. Our suggestions aim to improve the game’s quality. Numerous sources now confirm: the VT5’s turret basket and armor protection in-game are inaccurately designed. We urge developers to take this seriously and not betray the efforts of players who meticulously research and raise issues.
6 Likes
all the open info of VT5 are considered as no sources
then where do gaijin get sources?from secret one?
23 Likes
vt5——the most crazy fantasy of CN tanks XD 5mm sides could keep a 33t tank run on the field but not twisting and crushed.
5 Likes
It is funny that they mark not enough info but locked the conversation XD,
Its like: “Yes, you can have your argument, but you need to prove it,” and then mute everyone
2 Likes
10.7 Historical weight is not a reason to reduce factual protection, I hope Gaijin can pay attention to this, and VT5 has the following issues
- The inner lining on the left and right sides of the front should be divided into three pieces, and currently it is simultaneously made into one piece
- The side and front are still unable to withstand the 12.7mm machine gun at a distance of 0, which is clearly incorrect for a 33 ton vehicle, and the armor on the left and right sides is even asymmetrical.
- The turret basket is visually unreasonable in the internal structure of this vehicle. If the turret basket is indeed as shown in the internal structure, the members will not be able to transfer ammunition from the front of the vehicle body
6 Likes
The VT5’s armor must be properly designed in the game – it cannot be left as paper-thin as it currently is.
1 Like
2S25M is worse armored than the VT5, CV90105 [which is the worst armored of the non-amphibious vehicles], and TAM series tanks.
VT5’s hull has 5x the front armor of 2S25M, and 2x the side armor.
It has 12x the turret front armor as 2S25M.
@Clangokkuner
Calling reality “fantasy” is not helpful.
2 Likes
We say gaijin get rushed on VT-5 and we are upset and mad is not for no reason, we say gaijin is biased is not for no reason, it was always like that for morden Chinese vechicle:
ZTZ 99A: nerf so it has big neck and nerfed UFP aloneside with fix for smaller LFP and accurate mantle, less effective armour for same unit of thickness to russia tanks for no reason, btw no liner added.
WZ1001E: no fix at all for it, gaijin says: it’s a different vechicle!
VT-4: Take a look back what is status on release of it, some inaccuracy still not fixed as today, and that even caused a Thai soldier released a confidential manual, and still gaijin thinks it’s totally accurate with just two combined ERA for turret, and of couse no liner as well.
There a other examples like HQ17 (speed of missle), PGZ-09 (-2° angle)
And for VT-5 is even worse: we expected that aloneside with ZTQ-15 to be the vechicle to compete in top tier, we want to have a accurate vechicle so we can finally have more fun in this game while other tanks are not what it should be, because it’s for export so data are easier to acquire than doministic tanks.
We understand that it’s difficult to recreate a Chinese vechicle in game because there is more strict secrete protection rules, but can devs treat our voice equally and not just lable everyting “Not a bug” and “not enough info” in CBR. Peoples are tired to battle these kind of bias endlessly, it’s always us to find trace of evidence to counter devs assumptions, and it’s aways get a simple reject.
Now if you take a good look at what majority of people’s issue on VT-5, it is rational:
No turret basket, just rotation floor, video clip can prove that (and even rotarion floor should not be part of horizontal because there are no loader, it’s just for shells and cables)
Thicker armor for UFP and LFP, welding marks on UFP and side picture is a prove. UFP should have at least stand for 30mm APFSDS.
Side armour is vulnrable to 12.7mm is ridiculous, even morden IFV like VN22 and ZBL191 can stand for heavy machine gun fire, how come a MBT that charge in front of lines can tolerate that, not to mention power system on the back is only protected by 5mm of armour, a infant rifle can pen that one easily.
With that many obviouse inaccuracy and continuously ignoring voices of Chinese player, I don’t think anyone can just urge us to just shut up and take what it is.
So in the end: fix armour issue, raise the BR if you would like
8 Likes