Glad you agree that comparing tanks for different purposes is a mistake.
That’s why TAM and VT5 are compared, and neither are being compared to IFVs or modern MBTs.
Both TAM and VT5 were developed for recon, ancient tank replacement, and so forth.
Neither were developed to replace VT4, Type 10, Type 99, T-72, etc.
glad you agree that comparing tanks for different purposes is a mistake
thats why TAM and VT5 are not compared, and neither are being compared to each other
TAM and VT5 were developed in different purpose and serves in different uses
So you’re claiming that VT5 is a light tank that can’t be compared to the TAM “light MBT”?
Hmmm…
I’m going to say that’s nonsense.
Both were developed for the same reasons, both are ~31 tons, both are equipped with 105mm guns, both have versions with composite armor, both have replaced older MBTs.
This is topic for VT-5, better to keep on topic. If you have found some solid evidence that could improve our game and vehicles, please send report with acceptable and safe contents on our community bug report platform. Thank you in advance.
In the game, the Japanese Type 16 wheeled tank weighs approximately 26 tons. In contrast, the German TAM 2C, at only 30.5 tons, has inferior protective capabilities compared to the 26-ton Japanese Type 16 wheeled tank and the 28.5-ton Swedish CV9040. Why does the heavier TAM 2C have worse protection? On the other hand, the VT5 weighs 33 tons and has an armor structure similar to the Type 16 wheeled tank and the CV9040. They share a common feature: the placement of composite armor modules on the front of the turret and the front hull. It is evident that the thickness of the composite armor modules on the VT5’s turret is similar to that of the CV9040, while the armor of the Type 16 wheeled tank is thinner than both. Despite being heavier and having similar armor placement, why does the 33-ton VT5 have inferior protection? Could it be that the expertise of Chinese specialists is inferior to that of their Japanese and Swedish counterparts?
The TAM weighs more for multiple tons of tracks and suspension.
Which BTW doesn’t actually have worse protection, it’s largely equal.
It’s why I’m comparing the VT5 light tank “light MBT” with the TAM light tank “light MBT”.
VT5 is a fellow tracked vehicle 105mm gun of the 31 ton class and of similar size. And VT5 has a modest amount of composite armor attached to the ~50mm of rolled steel on the turret face.
I am not comparing the thermals, the composite itself that adds probably 500 - 1000kg.
I am exclusively comparing the rolled steel of the VT5 to the TAM.
so you’re claiming that VT5 and TAM are developed for the same reasons and use in same enviroment and serves in same uses?
with resepect, thats nonsense
all dogs have four legs
my cat also have four legs
therefore, my cat is a dog
@AlvisWisla
No offence but it seems you are acting a bit stubborn here.
I think your Sarcastic joke can’t make them happy, but makes them even furious.
Go drink a cup of chilled water, relax and get back to discussing with a cooler head.
It will be better for both sides and a wider view.
It seems the whole arguing goes round and round just like a merry-go-round.
Why bother talking to a brick wall lol, man has it out for the VT5, talking to a brick wall achieves exactly nothing. You have sources saying it should ay the very least resist BR-412 and these people will just absolutely gloss over it like it’s junk, remember challenger ERA and AZUR? those have clear sources stating the nature of their protection and nothing ever came of it, if gaijin is deliberately gimping something absolutely no source not even the manufacturer will change how they model a vehicle.
You claim that the TAM 2C does not have inferior protection compared to the Type 16 wheeled tank and the CV9040, right? Then why is it that in the game, the Type 16 wheeled tank and the CV9040 can defend against 25~30 mm APFSDS rounds, and even have a chance of defending against 40 mm APFSDS, while the TAM 2C cannot? No, it can’t even defend against 25 mm APFSDS rounds. Is this what you call “not inferior protection”? In the game, the penetration of 25 mm APFSDS is 92 mm, 30 mm APFSDS is 116 mm, and 40 mm APFSDS ranges from 143 to 170 mm.
Shouldn’t we compare the design of VT5 with specialized light tanks such as XM8 and VFM5, instead of comparing TAM light tanks derived from infantry fighting vehicle platforms? Are the main factors for choosing TAM as a reference for VT5 comparison all 33 tons?
Yes, that’s comparing VT5 to Type 10.
Which is why all dogs are dogs is comparing VT5 to TAM.
Read the next part very closely:
Right now the VT5 has scouting, a scout drone, reduced air spawn cost potential.
It was designed in the same philosophy as TAM: Replace old MBTs like T-55, Leopard, etc, and perform the duties of a light tank augmented by modern main battle tanks for countries that operate both.
There is NOTHING to gain by claiming TAM and VT5 aren’t comparable, that’ll at best nerf the VT5 by removing its scouting, scout drone, and reduced air spawn costs, that’s it.
TAM-2IP is not anymore a “light main battle tank” than VT5 just cause its turret resists 100mm APCBC to an extent, and the entire tank resists general auto-cannon fire.
Trust me when I say there is NOTHING to gain by claiming the light tank China themselves calls a light tank is not a light tank, NOTHING.
If you’re trying to manipulate meaning into thinking it’ll buff armor, that’ll never, ever happen.
Zero vehicles in War Thunder have changed armor based off of that type of manipulation and they never will, not only that but the VT5 will lose valuable light tank features.
@Star727476
If TAM was a derivative it’d use the same exact hull: See 2S38 vs BMP3, same exact hull.
TAM is a specialized light tank, the company making a brand new hull based on an older hull doesn’t change that; and its sales is partly evidence of that.
Oh, BTW the Abrams uses the same exact road wheels the M26 uses… the Abrams suspension is ultimately based on the M26’s, that doesn’t make the Abrams an M26 derivative.
Don’t discuss this meaningless topic with him again. Physically and logically speaking, the weight of the VT5 does not match its in-game data at all. The VT5 in the game is just a thin tin coffin, and its protective performance is far from reaching the standard of 33 tons.
This information is official and correct，i hope Gaijin can fix the current issues with the VT5
I see @来如雷霆收震怒_罢如江海凝清光 is telling people to not engage with anyone saying that VT5 has inaccuracies.
Sorry, but kindly stop.
VT5 has inaccuracies no matter what you say.
Furthermore, you mentioned that the VT5 is only compared to the TAM 2C’s steel armor, correct? How can a country that is unable to independently produce special steel for aircraft carriers manufacture high-hardness armor? I have 50 mm thick steel armor plus composite armor. Why does it have inferior penetration resistance compared to a vehicle with only 25 mm of steel armor? Why should it be compared to the TAM 2C? Does it even have composite armor?
Critical Technical Inaccuracies in VT-5 Light Tank Implementation
During testing server evaluation, significant technical discrepancies have been identified in the VT-5 light tank implementation across three primary categories: internal layout modeling, armor modeling, and protection values. These issues require urgent correction to maintain technical authenticity.
I. Internal Layout Modeling Errors
Excellent post sir! Keep up the great work in helping improve VT5.
It’s sad that you have it out for the VT5.
The fact your post argues that the VT5 supporters are brick walls for wanting to improve the accuracy of the VT5 in War Thunder is annoying.
Take your post’s anti-VT5 hatred elsewhere.
@TACN 's post claiming that it’s arrogant to say VT5 has inaccuracies.
VT5 has inaccuracies no matter what you two say.
Keep insulting everyone here, all you do is prove everyone correct that VT5 has inaccuracies.
The remaining half of the body after removing the power compartment and combat room from TAM is useless excess weight
