I don’t understand why you are so insistent on equating the protection level of a last-century TAM with that of the modern VT5. I hope you have some basic understanding of materials science, such as how high-hardness ceramic armor plates and composite armor can significantly reduce weight while maintaining the same level of protection. Different manufacturing processes can also achieve similar effects with basic armor. A new engine can provide a much higher energy density compared to products from the last century. Moreover, the TAM and VT5 differ by a full five to six tons, and the TAM has one more crew member than the VT5. Or take a look at the 2S25M—why does the 18-ton 2S25M have a protection level similar to the 30-ton TAM?
1 Like
First, the TAM is much lighter than the VT5, and the in-game TAM is equipped with composite armor on the sides
Second, the VT5 is 30 years later than the TAM, and in the case of heavy use new materials, it can achieve better protection with similar weight
1 Like
Cause steel is a known density and it indicates the VT5 should have more steel in the front.
Ceramic add-on armor isn’t relevant in my discussion cause I’m not trying to buff/justify those, I’m trying to buff/justify the steel of VT5.
The 2S25M has vastly inferior protection to the TAM. 2S25M weighs not even half as much yet has less than half the protection of TAM.
TAM is 30.5 tons, VT5 is 33 tons.
TAM-2IP is 33 tons, and VT5 with add-on armor is 36 tons.
@取余_Elysium
Steel mass doesn’t change due to years, and they are of equivalent masses and sizes.
Yes, but the current situation in game is that the TAM2IP armor performance is better than the VT5
2 Likes
Yes, the Tiger tank of World War II in Germany used the same type of steel as the modern Leopard 2A7 tank, after all, “Steel mass does not change due to years”
1 Like
Your argument amuses me. It seems you are unaware that different materials have different hardness levels, and you also don’t seem to understand the role of composite armor. But that’s okay. You can search for the density of gold and the density of iron, and then imagine which one would withstand impact better under the same weight and the same impact density.
1 Like
I can see 4 solved reports on it from last few days:
Please provide reliable data for other subjects, so devs can take a look and work on them.
3 Likes
Your argument contains several flawed assumptions and oversimplifications that misrepresent the realities of armor design and vehicle protection. Here’s rebuttal to each point:
“Steel density is known, so VT5 should have more steel in the front.”
- Flawed Premise: While steel density is constant, armor effectiveness is not solely determined by mass. Modern armor design involves:
- Steel type: High-hardness steel, rolled homogeneous armor (RHA), or advanced alloys offer vastly different protection per unit mass.
- Slope/geometry: Angled armor (e.g., TAM’s sloped front) significantly improves protection without adding mass.
- Layered/composite systems: Even if excluding ceramics, spaced armor, air gaps, or laminated steel can enhance survivability without relying on raw mass.
- Conclusion: VT5’s frontal protection depends on material quality and design, not just “more steel.”
“Steel mass doesn’t change over years.”
- False Equivalence: Modern metallurgy produces advanced steel alloys (e.g., high-hardness steel, boron-carbide-reinforced steel) with far better protection per unit mass than older steels. A 2020s VT5 likely uses superior materials compared to a 1970s TAM, even at similar mass.
- Conclusion: Material science advancements invalidate direct mass-to-protection comparisons across eras.
Ignoring Composite Armor
- Self-Contradiction: You dismiss ceramic add-ons but fail to acknowledge that even “steel-focused” designs often integrate composite layers (e.g., rubber, glass-reinforced plastic) to disrupt projectiles. The VT5’s base armor may include such materials, enhancing protection without pure steel mass.
“Equivalent masses and sizes”
- Geometry Matters: Two vehicles of similar mass can have vastly different armor distribution. For example:
- A larger vehicle spreads armor mass over a greater surface area, reducing effective thickness.
- A compact design (e.g., VT5) might concentrate armor on critical zones (turret, frontal arc), improving protection in key areas.
- Conclusion: Mass and size alone cannot determine protection without analyzing armor layout.
Final Summary:
Your argument oversimplifies armor design by reducing it to raw steel mass and density, ignoring critical factors like material quality, geometry, role-driven compromises, and advancements in metallurgy. The VT5’s protection cannot be fairly judged without detailed data on its armor composition, slope, and structural design—none of which are provided in your analysis.
7 Likes
In addition, the TAM2IP reaches 33T precisely because it has armored skirt plate on the side of the body, and in terms of naked car weight, the TAM is not as heavy as the VT5
1 Like
💀💀💀
1 Like
I can’t say cause I didn’t check last dev, but if last dev change to turret is anything, then TAM-2IP and VT5 share similar front protection.
@HuanHuanTuanZ
Well, I hope you learn about different hardness and density in time.
I’ve personally known all this and that for over a decade as my father taught me and inspired me to learn.
And yes @Salted_Fish1 the Leopard 2 uses less steel than the Tiger 1, it uses more other materials while being larger as well.
@奎达机降一般兵
I get that you think my assessment that VT5’s incorrect steel use in-game is flawed, but that is not the case.
The reason I’m not accounting for the EXTERNAL composite is cause it brings the weight up on the VT5 and obviously gives it at least as much protection as TAM-2IP’s turret.
Not sure why your post is portraying you as wanting to keep VT5 “nerfed”.
1. “TAM-2IP and VT5 share similar front protection if turret changes are considered.”
- False Equivalence: Similar protection levels ≠ identical steel usage.
- The TAM-2IP’s armor upgrades include composite modules (e.g., spaced steel, non-metallic layers), not just raw steel.
- The VT5’s armor could rely on modern high-hardness steel alloys or advanced welding techniques to achieve comparable protection with less mass.
- Critical Flaw: Assuming identical protection = identical steel mass ignores material advancements and structural efficiency. A 2020s VT5 likely uses stronger, lighter steel than a 1980s TAM-2IP.
2. “Learn about hardness and density” (Ad Hominem)
- Misplaced Condescension: Hardness and density are irrelevant if misapplied.
- Hardness ≠ protection. Overly hard steel can become brittle, reducing effectiveness against certain threats (e.g., HEAT rounds).
- Modern armor prioritizes balanced material properties (e.g., ductility, hardness, layered design), not just density.
- Example: The Leopard 2’s armor uses high-toughness steel combined with ceramics and composites. Its superior protection vs. the Tiger I isn’t due to steel density but material science and multilayer design.
3. “Leopard 2 uses less steel than Tiger I”
- Valid Point, Misapplied: This actually supports the argument against fixating on steel mass.
- The Leopard 2’s reduced steel usage highlights how modern armor relies on composite materials (e.g., ceramics, NERA) and structural optimization (slope, spacing).
- Similarly, the VT5’s design may follow this philosophy: less steel but better materials/layout.
- Contradiction: If you accept this for the Leopard 2, why insist the VT5’s steel mass alone defines its protection?
4. “You can’t prove VT5’s steel amount is incorrect”
- Burden of Proof Fallacy: The original claim was that VT5’s steel is under-modeled. The defense must provide evidence (e.g., technical manuals, metallurgical data) to justify its current in-game stats.
- Lack of Transparency: Without公开的设计 specs, claims about “correct” steel usage are speculative. Historical precedent (e.g., Type 15 light tank armor composition) suggests modern Chinese light tanks prioritize composite solutions, not pure steel.
5. “Why keep VT5 nerfed?”
- Strawman Argument: Critique of armor modeling ≠ wanting the VT5 “nerfed.” The goal is accuracy, not bias.
- Game Balance ≠ Realism: If the VT5’s armor is too low relative to its historical/technical specs, adjusting it isn’t a “nerf”—it’s aligning the game with reality.
Key Takeaways:
- Armor is multidimensional: Steel mass is one of dozens of factors (material quality, slope, composites, era-specific tech).
- Modern > Legacy: A 2020s light tank (VT5) will always leverage newer materials/designs than a 1980s vehicle (TAM-2IP), even at similar weights.
- Evidence Matters: Assertions about “correct” armor require documentation, not assumptions.
Until concrete data on VT5’s armor composition is provided, the claim that its steel allocation is “incorrect” remains unproven—and likely oversimplified.
11 Likes
It seems you can’t distinguish between the differences in armor layout for front-mounted and rear-mounted engines? Since you are so knowledgeable about “materials,” do you know that there is something in this world called “alloy”?
3 Likes
What a wonderful statement. I sincerely hope that you can work at a construction site for at least a period of time, so that you won’t be disconnected from the real world for too long. Since that’s the case, what is the significance of Germany redesigning tanks and researching new alloy armor steel during the Cold War? Isn’t it better to equip the Tiger with other equipment and explosive reactive armor, directly overwhelming the Soviet Union in terms of quantity and cost?
1 Like
It’s funny how many people are trying to justify the VT5 being “correct” all cause I and countless others are pointing out it’s less armored than it should be.
VT5 isn’t as armored as it should be no matter how much your posts falsely claim we’re wrong, or our reasoning is flawed, etc.
Very disappointed with the vt5’s armor, which is clearly not the level of an advanced tank in the 21st century
2 Likes
vastly superior weapon systems？
4 Likes
It’s interesting that I was able to see someone on a relatively professional military equipment discussion forum saying ‘Steel mass does not change due to years’, and this person still has the face to be a troublemaker here. And ‘Countless Others’? In this entire post, only you are here to speculate on your own, don’t involve anyone else.
2 Likes
I apologize for my earlier remarks. In fact, I am aware of these issues. My main concern is that the VT5 tank cannot defend against .50 BMG machine gun rounds and the incorrect turret basket implementation. These two issues are highly unreasonable, and the developers or relevant personnel have not provided any explanation. We don’t even know what references the developers used to design these features.
1 Like
@Salted_Fish1
Prove that the VT5 is correct then.
If we are all wrong in stating that it’s incorrect, provide proof that the VT5’s armor is correct.
And if you agree with us that it’s incorrect, stop starting arguments with people you agree with.