If you want to calculate the full hull, I can tell you that too (i.e. the full hull minus the turret):
Road wheels and idler wheels: Assuming each weighs 100 kg, the total weight would be around 1.6 tons. Adding the tracks, suspension, and other miscellaneous components, the total weight is estimated to be between 2.5 to 3 tons.
Engine and transmission system: Estimated to weigh between 3 to 4 tons.
The excess calculated by the body is enough to offset the electronic systems inside the body, so the total weight is about 16t.
Your 19-22t figure is completely unreasonable.
2 Likes
If the VT-5 and the TAM have the same turret weight, then the TAM, as a product of the last century, has less advanced turret armor technology than the VT-5, so the VT-5 is theoretically better protected when it has the same turret weight as the TAM, but according to the data of the current test stage, the turret of the VT-5 is often not as protective as the TAM in the game.
In addition, if you say so, both the TAM and the VT-5 have a 22-ton hull.The engine of the VT-5 is behind the hull. If the front is to achieve the front protection of the TAM hull, its armor equivalent thickness should be higher than that of the current test stage, rather than the close-range fire of the 20mm cannon that cannot be resisted in the current test stage.
2 Likes
Considering that the weapon system of the VT5 is much later than the weapon system of the Type 10, even from the most basic technical logic, I do not consider the weapon system of the Type 10 to be “superior”. At most, you can say “almost”.
2 Likes
The Abrams tracks weigh 11,700kg, not the suspension, just the tracks.
Now, materially they’re designed for 70+ tons and are a few meters longer than TAM & VT5 tracks, while VT5’s tracks were materially designed for at least 40 tons.
So my loose estimate of 7000kg for the entire system of VT5 is at least within 1500kg on either side, potentially closer.
Time doesn’t dictate capabilities of weapon systems, especially when Type 10’s FCS can identify weakspots on enemy tanks [from a document] while being the heavier and superior 120mm gun.
@天色天歌天籁音
Both TAM and VT5 use standard rolled steel for the underlying armor.
TAM-2IP adds armor on top, and VT5 with the 3 ton armor kit does the same.
The VT5 shares similar dimensions with the Type 10 main battle tank. The Type 10 measures 9.84m (L) × 3.17m (W) × 2.3m (H), while the VT5 is 7.5m (L) × 3.3m (W) × 2.5m (H). As a star vehicle in the game, the T-80BVM has dimensions of approximately 9.56m (L) × 3.4m (W) × 2.2m (H).
Although the Type 10 is equipped with a 1200 HP engine compared to the VT5’s 884 HP engine, the VT5’s optimized armor configuration ensures its hull provides reliable protection against full-caliber ammunition from early-generation main battle tanks, while its turret demonstrates even superior defensive capabilities.
And the Type 10 weighs 11 tons more due to armor, engine, and gun [mostly armor], thus cannot be compared.
I need you to tell me where your numbers come from. The weight of the M1A2 tracks, the weight of the TAM turret, the number on which you estimate the VT5 are based.
I google searched until I found a valid source.
I did calculations for general estimates.
I then typed up responses and went to sleep.
I saved nothing because I was exhausted that day, otherwise I could give them to you.
These platforms share identical design philosophies and should naturally serve as more appropriate comparison subjects. However, you insist on using the TAM and CV90 series – originally developed from infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) – as benchmarks. By that logic, the TAM and CV90 are even less suitable for such comparisons. As evidenced by the Puma IFV and Type 10 main battle tank sharing comparable weights (both around 40-44 tons), their armor protection capabilities differ fundamentally. Directly comparing IFVs with main battle tanks represents a categorical error in armored vehicle evaluation.
TAM and VT5 share identical design philosophies, and neither do with MBTs.
TAM is not developed from IFVs, it’s developed from itself.
Both TAM and VT5 have replaced ancient tanks for countries.
Comparing light tanks like TAM and VT5 with modern MBTs represents a categorical error in armored vehicle evaluation.
You mean the M1 track weighs 22 tons? That’s hilarious.
Um… 11,700kg is 11.7 tons, not 22.
And yes, 11.7 tons of the 65 tons of an Abrams is just the tracks.
I thought you said the track on the M1 side weighed 1.16 tons, so there would be no error with my calculation. But, 11600kg? Is an M1 track heavier than some light armored vehicles?
2 Likes
Are the TAM and VT5 armored vehicles products of the same historical era? Does the front-engine configuration (TAM) fundamentally share the same design philosophy as rear-engine layouts (VT5)? While the Merkava MBT shares comparable weight (~70 tons) with the Leopard 2A7, do they demonstrate equivalent protection levels given their distinct armor configurations and threat-response design paradigms?
4 Likes
The TAM was a program, the company used the suspension and base plate of the Marder, but the new hull of TAM was entirely a new fabrication.
It had to be made significantly shorter, which ultimately saved a lot of weight for a heavier turret.
@MoomAtles
Engine placement does not dictate classification of a vehicle, nor capabilities of that vehicle.
As for your point with Merkava vs Leopard, go look at the Leopard’s engine bay armor, and compare that to the engine bay armor of Merkava.
Then compare the crew compartment armor of both.
You’ll find that the armor is largely the same, but redistributed to different locations.
For light tanks the armor is going to have almost the same distribution whether its front or rear mounted.
Dear Staff,
I have many questions regarding the VT5, one of the most prominent being: How do the crew members in the game transfer ammunition from the ready rack to the autoloader through the turret basket? Aren’t these two elements contradictory? Clearly, this is neither historically accurate nor realistic. It’s as “humorous” as the rotary autoloader structure revealed in the VT5 model teardown.
take words from this book “de Mazarrasa, Javier (1996). La Familia Acorazada TAM”
“The hull of the German Marder armored personnel carrier was used,and the chassis was strengthened to support the increased weight of the TAM”
the new hull of TAM was not a new design but based on Marder, which have the same protection level.
Comparing TAM and VT5 represents a categorical error in armored vehicle evaluation
Correct, the TAM itself wasn’t based on the Marder, the entirely new hull used the basis of the Marder hull in revising it for a light tank and Leopard 1 replacement role.
The TAM hull was designed to be a light tank hull from the start, and the TAM ultimately replaced old MBTs like the VT5 does today.
@quartas121 The American player I am most familiar with is you. Allow me to bother you to ask you a question: is the unilateral track weight of the M1 tank 11600kg?
1 Like
I was trying to explain that comparing tanks which have different developed purpose is a mistake
also objecting this line
3 Likes