@HIDwhite-live
There is no tank in War Thunder or reality that weighs 20 tons at the same size, engine power, and gun as VT5 with the same protection.
2S25 has less than 25% the protection of VT5 and weighs 55% of a VT5.
VT5 only adds 83% mass for ~400% protection.
CV90105: 76% the mass of VT5, its turret is 8% the protection of VT5’s turret.
TAM-2 weighs 30.5 tons, this tank has the same protection on the hull, and 60% protection on turret.
92.4% the mass of VT5, with 60% the protection of turret to VT5.
The VT-5 tank has issues with its armor protection. It is missing a critical armor plate on its front, which is essential for the lower hull to withstand 30mm cannon fire. Additionally, the sides of the VT-5 should be capable of resisting 12.7mm machine gun fire even without additional armor modules.At last,the attitude of the bug reporter whose name is TrickZZter is very bad.He denied many issues about VT-5 and VT-4 without any reasons.
Have you seen vechicle with 5mm armour surrounding power system and can be pen by 5.56mm rifle in warthunder that weights like 30 tons and called light MBT? I see: It’s called VT-5
never the less it’s produced in 2023
Even though I’ve provided evidence from multiple sources showing that this 33-ton tank’s armor thickness across most areas is only sufficient to resist 23mm AP ammunition (26mm RHA equivalence), with a portion of the frontal hull resisting 30mm AP (44mm equivalence), and only the turret front capable of stopping 100mm AP (200ke for APCBC—not APDS or APFSDS), such protection levels are not particularly challenging for a 33-ton vehicle. Especially considering that the thickest sections of its hull armor already use lightweight ceramic add-on armor like that implemented on the ZBD04A in-game. Despite presenting this extensive documentation, why insist on comparing it to the TAM—a vehicle based on an infantry fighting vehicle chassis? Even India’s newly developed 25-ton Zorawar light tank achieves full 360° protection against 14.5mm AP ammunition (STANAG 4569 Level 4: 14.5mm AP at 200m, equivalent to ~33mm in-game penetration), which the TAM cannot match. Given its 33-ton weight and turret-front composite armor blocks totaling less than 3 tons, why would the VT5 struggle to achieve 26mm side protection?
The Cockerill 3105 is 3.5 tons at all, the Hull for Zorawar is 21.5 tons, VT5’s hull has a similar overall weight, isn’t it logical for its side armor to be thinner while specific frontal areas are thickened?
But you missed the point, the TAM has a 4-man turret, while the VT5 has only two. For a turret of the same size and volume, the composite armor used in the VT5 can be lighter, because the composite material is lighter than the homogeneous steel for the same volume. I think the main body armor belt can be thicker than the TAM.
Cause TAM is quite literally made of the same base materials, is only slightly smaller than the VT5, has an almost identical armor thickness in-game for hull, and a weaker 10.5 ton turret using a 105mm gun.
And for people arguing VT5 is a “light MBT”, so is the TAM according to the same arguments.
TAM replaced M48s, M60s, and Leopards for countries.
Just like VT5 replaces T55s.
So we know that the turret of VT5 should be at least 10.5 tons, and likely heavier due to its improved front armor and autoloader.
@Tohsaka_Rin_TY
Which largely doesn’t matter, the turret width of both tanks is more equal than dissimilar.
And VT5 is made of steel for turret and hull.
VT5’s composite armor would be externally mounted.
Zorawar? You mean an Indian tank? It has less side armor.
It has external side armor [spaced or otherwise], but the armor under it is less than 15mm, I guarantee that.
Currently, the VT5 in the game can be penetrated by 12.7 caliber bullets from the front, and can be penetrated by standard caliber rifles from the side. Is this data reliable?
A typical point is the thickness of the armor plate in front of the vehicle body, which has been pointed out by other players many times.
In addition, in the latest update, the armor equivalent of VT5 has been increased from 0.14 to 0.2. To be honest, this does not make people feel that this is a rigorous consideration, but more like an attempt to calm the anger of players. (In other words, the slogan of this game “based on facts” can no longer convince players)
Players provided a lot of video and picture materials to prove the protection ability of VT5, all of which were denied.
On the other hand, gaijin did not disclose the source of his data, including the recently added hanging basket system, which was refuted by the data of players.
On the one hand, the vehicle was hastily modeled and made, and on the other hand, player feedback was ignored. This is the most annoying thing.
The turret armor may be more wrong than correct, but the hull side steel and rear steel is likely correct, and front is probably incorrect.
That’s my statement on the matter.
What I know is based on the existing thicknesses of the hull in-game, its estimated mass is ~19 - 22 tons.
That leaves the turret 11 - 14 tons of mass availability for its systems and armor.
I’m done with it, it happens every time, it happens for ZTZ-99A it happens for WZ1001 it happens for VT-4 it happens for HQ-17 it happens for ZBD04A
the same for ZLT-11 the same for PGZ-09, the only good vechicle released recently was PLZ-05
This will stil happen for VN22 VN20 ZBL-191 ZTQ-15, you name it they nerf it.
How come the Chinese player would only count for M1A2T to be the only one that’s accurate, that’s pure humiliation
I think the development group is supposed to respect the fact.If the information provided by the enthusiastic players is obvious, it should be taken into account instead of being attached with a ‘not a bug’.
How do you view the Type 10 main battle tank? The VT5 weighs approximately 75% of the Type 10. The Type 10 tank features 600mm KE protection for its turret and 600mm KE coverage in its armored hull zones, albeit with limited protected areas. However, the VT5 shares the same design philosophy as main battle tanks rather than infantry fighting vehicles. You should compare the VT5 with the Type 10 instead of IFVs, just like the US M10 (referring to the current model rather than the WWII version). Though similar in weight to the Type 10, the M10’s armor is essentially a joke.
I’ll show how I calculate the body of the car (I’ll take it as a regular cube, which is actually only lighter):
Hull side armor: 7.5m x 2.5m x 15mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2 = 4.426875t
Front/rear armor: 3.3m x 2.5m x 10mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2=1.29855t
Hull upper/lower armor: 7.5m x 3.3m x 10mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2
=3.89565
Frontal additional armor plate: 7.5m x 3.3m 5mm x 7.87g/cm3 / 2 = 0.16231875
All rounded up, the weight of the car without any equipment is: 9.9t
Do you think this is normal?
The Type 10 MBT is the smallest MBT of the 120mm class ever made by any country.
The only country that comes close to its size is Korea’s K2.
And despite that small size, in order to get ~600mm effectiveness in the front armor, it has to have 30mm size armor on the hull, 5 road wheels per side for lower weight, 1200hp powerpack for lower weight, and a significantly weaker side armor on the turret.
All while being the same weight as a T-90 and having less overall armor.
Type 10 moved armor forward.
@来如雷霆收震怒_罢如江海凝清光
Again, that’s omitting the ~7000kg of suspension and tracks.
