The VT5 tank’s turret should have an anti-penetration protection of 350mm, the upper front hull armor should provide 290mm of anti-penetration protection, while the lower front hull armor should offer 115mm of anti-penetration protection. It should provide full protection against 12.7mm caliber machine gun fire across all areas, with its side armor even capable of withstanding 23mm caliber autocannon fire.
I’m not sure what kinds of track Gaijin makes, but according to an office paper, the new T-158 track weighs 11,736 pounds per set, while the older T-156 track weighs 8,940 pounds per set. (United States General Accounting Office, 1991)
The document name is NSIAD-91-114 Abrams Tank: Operating Costs More Than Expected
thank you!
since you have asked therefore I pay same respct to read your statement and asked for same level of respect to read my statement
light-MBT category does not exist doesnt means that it is not a light-MBT, just like there is no ATGM category in the game, list as tank destoryer doesnt means they are not ATGM carrier. claiming TAM is a light MBT does NOT meaning to lose the ability of scouting, scout drone and etc
It is to clear what it is was designed to do, which is NOT as same as TAM but similar, comparing between TAM and VT5 as identical is a use of Politician’s syllogism which is disrepectful to both TAM’s designers and VT5/Type 15’s designers, it is impossible to find anything the same, the only possible is similar, so please do not do it again
it is a tragic if that you believe that I was trying to manipulate the tank by changing its category
Note that what I said is sincere, and of course I respect everyone.
My ONLY intent with comparing TAM to VT5 was to PROVE that VT5’s steel armor is under-performing on the hull front, that’s it.
And I’ve listed the explanations of why I compare them for that reason.
So of course I’ll apologize if my statements were difficult to understand.
fair enough, I take this as a nature conversation
the only intent I take is to clear some mistakes before they have negative impact to anyone, nothing personal
I am actually very disappointed with Abrams :(
Gaijin barely brought out its technical advantages. In fact, Abrams and AH-64 in reality has the ability to target enemies and share just like what light tank could do in Warthunder.
VT5 is an excellent tank that should be treated well instead of turning a blind eye to relevant facts
Gaijin hasn’t implemented modern fire control systems, so the real-world gap in digitization isn’t reflected in-game. For certain tanks, this is a genuine disadvantage.
This minor update still does not include any fixes for the issues with the VT5 tank. It is clear that the developers believe the current implementation of the VT5 in the game is correct. Disappointing.
how can tam compare to VT5？And why is type10
superior tank？what is this fox talking？
Come on dude, be respectful. This guy is just having a different kind of point of view. Its weird, I know, I also don’t understand some part of his point.
Is there the latest unpacking information, there is no information about VT5?
The latest datamining information has been released, but I’m not sure if it’s allowed to be shared on the forum. Therefore, I don’t dare to post it here. I still recommend you follow the War Thunder Chinese Player Community channel (QQ) for updates.
If I recall correctly, that person also mentioned that the KH38 is inferior to the AGM-65D, and that there’s not much difference between the AIM-7F and the R-27ER
I mean the fox
ok,thank you
Please do not ignore our legitimate demands for a long time.No one would complain about these things as soon as they start playing the game.We ask you to remove the turret basket and redesign the anti-collapse lining.Also,please adjust the armor values to the reasonable levels that others have proposed.
As some friends joked,if I were the military procurement officer of Bangladesh and bought a tank that couldn’t withstand machine gun fire,I’d probably be in jail by now.
Don’t forget to consider the era. The Maus armor weighs several times heavier than 279, but its protection is not as good as theirs
The new update has everyone placing high hopes on the VT5. As an export-oriented product, it’s data-rich and finally evidence-based. The initial design looked great - issues regarding speed, traverse mechanism, and cannon reload were submitted and approved. Even unapproved adjustments yielded mostly acceptable results. But the real shock came with these past two days’ updates: despite having the most comprehensive armor protection data with images, videos, and detailed documentation, the changes ultimately failed implementation. This is truly a massive failure. Honestly, it’s disheartening. Many Chinese tech tree players (including myself) were ready to purchase this vehicle immediately. In its current state, it’s bound to leave everyone deeply disappointed.
