I think his goal is to dilute the meaningful information in the thread with pointless discussions. Let him be. He’ll happily cling to what he believes is right, and maybe that’s not such a bad thing. In the game of Earth Online, we need confident players like him.
3 Likes
And @HuanHuanTuanZ is claiming that stating and providing evidence that VT5 is incorrect is “a pointless discussion”. Do you hate the VT5? Cause that’s the only reason I can see of you hating everyone that is trying to fix it.
In any case, the VT5 armor in the current game is wrong and significantly weaker than reality, if you think so, this discussion can be closed
2 Likes
Interesting. Didn’t this entire post and other people who replied to you provide data? Don’t say anything else, first express your underlying logic clearly. Please explain whether the statement ‘Steel mass does not change due to years’ is correct. Your argument is based on this thing, explain it. I look forward to the paper data you provide.
Thank you very much for your indication and for the recent repairs made by the development team to the VT5. However, you also mentioned providing valid materials to the developers. But with the existing materials, we have already provided a lot of “credible materials”, such as the official promotional magazines of Norinco and the structural analysis of the VT5 from various videos and photos, all of which can prove that its armor is not as unreliable as it is in the current test server. However, the issue platform rejected these suggestions. We want to know at wi e increasing secrecy of the active-duty tanks, it will be increasingly impossible to obtain e materials required by the issue platform. We don’t have any manuals (unless there is a leak), and we can only rely on the official videos and pictures (but these will not be adopted). This makes us very anxious because it seems that no matter how much effort we put in, we can’t change these situations.
3 Likes
I was rushed in that post, but it means that the steel density change over time and use cases isn’t enough to be notable, and proves that VT5’s steel in the front aspect is wrong to me, alongside the images of the VT5 itself.
agree
The ongoing discussion around the VT5’s specifications has indeed been spirited, though the volume of constructive feedback from experienced players might suggest there’s merit to these observations. While some continue to present technical analyses and historical data to support their perspective, it’s curious that the counter-argument persists without comparable evidence - rather like debating astronomy with someone who insists the Earth is flat while refusing to look through a telescope.
4 Likes
The current armor protection capability does not meet the overall weight of 33 tons for VT5
1 Like
We have seen changes to the VT5 in the game, which is very gratifying, but the most important issues remain unresolved, such as the fact that we have fully demonstrated the VT5’s armor error in the game
Why not answer another discussion below? The 70 ton Abrams of the 21st century is as strong as the 70 ton Tiger King of 1944, after all, the quality of steel has not changed for 60 years
2 Likes
The current unfortunate reality is that even though the turret armor can withstand 500mm chemical munitions, the hull armor fails to provide adequate protection. When a 105mm HEAT round strikes below the VT5’s gun mantlet, the hull would still be subjected to overpressure damage due to the game’s mechanics. This essentially renders the tank’s armor design meaningless under such circumstances. It might as well be transformed into a 18-ton class, thin-skinned armored vehicle with a 50 power-to-weight ratio for enhanced mobility. Of course, adopting the armor protection parameters speculated by the player community would undoubtedly be the optimal solution.
Quality doesn’t mean density reduces to a notable amount.
Steel alloys’ densities are all rather close to each other.
7000kg of steel isn’t suddenly going to be 6500kg in the same volume.
If anything armored steel might be ever so slightly denser [heavier for the volume they use].
The Russians might be afraid that if the correct performance of the VT5 is restored, the lie they told the Indians a few years ago about selling them the 2S25 to counter the ZTQ-15 will be exposed.
3 Likes
We already provided some info on reports requirements here:
3 Likes
While homogeneous steel alloys do maintain relatively consistent density parameters, this line of reasoning curiously ignores the fundamental engineering breakthrough that revolutionized armor design since the 1970s - namely, the advent of composite armor systems. Modern protection schemes don’t rely on monolithic steel blocks, but rather sophisticated layering of ceramics, metallic matrices, and non-metallic composites. The Chobham armor pioneered by the British (with density variations of 2.5-4.8g/cm³ across layers) or Soviet combinations of aluminum oxide ceramics with titanium alloys demonstrate how intelligent material synergy – not singular material density – achieves optimal mass-to-protection ratios. If we were to follow the steel-density absolutism to its logical conclusion, we’d still be fielding WWII-era Tiger IIs while dismissing depleted uranium mesh and nano-ceramic laminates as ‘impossible’. Perhaps the confusion stems from conflating medieval plate armor design principles with 21st-century materials science?
2 Likes
Incidentally, the VT5’s advertised 33-ton weight with frontal arc protection against 100mm APDS already inherently disproves the monolithic steel theory - unless we’re suggesting Chinese engineers magically compressed 55 tons of RHA equivalence into half the mass through alchemy rather than multi-material compositing.
1 Like
Don’t argue, you just need to answer whether the 70 ton Tiger King and the 70 ton Abrams are the same？
1 Like
No authority claims VT5 can resist 100mm APDS munitions, they at most claimed 100mm APCBC.
Also, I’m not talking about VT5’s composite armor, I am talking about its steel armor that’s under-performing.
Other posts address composite armor.
Thank you very much!