You’re not answering again, like an ostrich burying its head in the sand when things get tough—though your ass is still sticking out. Is a 70-ton Tiger II the same as a 70-ton Abrams?lol
1 Like
According to publicly available information, the chief designer of the VT5 light tank, did explicitly mention the design standards for the tank’s protective performance during a technical interview. In an interview with Modern Weapons magazine, the chief engineer team pointed out that the armor protection system of VT5 can effectively resist frontal attacks from 105mm level conventional ammunition, and particularly emphasized its optimized design for the threat of modern armor piercing bullets. This statement implies the defense capability against small caliber high initial velocity ammunition (such as 100mm APDS), as the armor piercing power of 105mm artillery is generally higher than that of traditional 100mm level ammunition
2 Likes
Which would be HEATFS and APCBC rounds, not APDS.
The designer and producer of the VT5 tank claimed in an interview that its frontal armor can withstand direct hits from the main guns of first and second-generation main battle tanks. If you think the words of the tank’s designer and producer are not “authoritative” enough, then I have nothing more to say to you.
3 Likes
I don’t know if this is the most “accurate” VT-5 made in the game, but I know that if I were a staff member of the Bangladesh Ministry of Defense and spent nearly 6 million dollars to purchase a light tank for our country that weighs 33 tons but cannot effectively defend against 12.7mm machine gun fire on both the front and side, I would definitely be sent to a military court.
Looking at the last picture, it can’t even effectively defend against 7.62mm machine guns
10 Likes
Curiously, your persistent conflation of munition types only reinforces the need for evidence-based discourse. While HEAT-FS and APCBC rounds are indeed part of the defensive spectrum, NORINCO’s technical bulletin explicitly lists resistance against 100mm 3BM-25 APFSDS as the VT5’s baseline requirement - a specification validated. The dozen-plus defense analysts who’ve published spectral analysis of the turret’s ceramic layers aren’t exactly debating medieval ballistics here.
One might humorously observe that this debate resembles a symposium on quantum physics where one participant insists neutrons don’t exist while waving a 19th-century chemistry textbook. The technical community has moved beyond monolithic steel evaluations since the Challenger 1’s Chobham armor rendered such metrics obsolete 45 years ago. Should you possess contrary ballistic test data or metallurgical analyses supporting your claims, the floor remains open - though thus far, the evidentiary scale tips rather decisively toward peer-reviewed documents versus… well, let’s call it ‘armchair thermodynamics’.
4 Likes
Dunno why you’re looking at side steel of a 33 ton tank that’s slightly larger than a TAM, it’s not going to be as good as the 30 - 38mm side steel of modern MBTs that weigh 44+ tons.
But yeah, the front armor seems lacking.
This says each set of tracks weighs 11,760lb (5,334kg)
Off of this I would assume that earlier Abrams had the lighter tracks, at over 8,000lb per set.
2 Likes
Comparing the VT5’s protection philosophy to 1970s-era TAM tank design is akin to judging smartphone processing power through the lens of rotary telephones - an exercise in chronological dissonance. While both vehicles occupy similar weight classes, the VT5’s layered ceramic-composite side skirts (STANAG 4569 Level 4 certified) render direct millimeter-to-millimeter comparisons with Cold War-era homogeneous steel obsolete.
One might note the irony of dismissing a 2010s digital protection system using analog-era metrics, particularly when:
TAM’s side armor couldn’t stop 23mm APDS beyond 500m, while VT5’s base + ceramic composite armor defeat 30mm APFSDS at 300m
The persistent focus on raw steel dimensions while ignoring 40 years of materials science breakthroughs suggests a peculiar form of technological astigmatism - like attempting to measure 5G bandwidth with a vacuum tube oscilloscope. Perhaps when multiple defense ministries and the original designers all confirm capabilities beyond 20th-century parameters, it’s time to consider whether the ‘deafness’ lies in the listener’s methodology rather than the chorus of technical evidence
3 Likes
Weight-class comparisons only hold meaning when accounting for material generational gaps, much like comparing lithium batteries to lead-acid equivalents by sheer kilogram weight.
3 Likes
If I recall correctly, the chassis of the TAM was designed for the Marder infantry fighting vehicle, as evident from its layout and the significant space reserved in the rear section of the hull. In contrast, the VT5’s structural design closely resembles that of a main battle tank. Therefore, I believe the two cannot be directly compared.
1 Like
No on is comparing steel to ceramic, and the design intentions are the same: Replace old MBTs and light tanks.
@時間長河
No, the Marder has a taller heavier chassis to fit soldiers.
The TAM uses the significantly smaller rear space for equipment and ammo.
And it’s irrelevant cause they’re of similar size, general capabilities, and so forth.
The TAM is a bit of indirect proof that the steel amount in the front aspect of VT5 is incorrect.
The ONLY reason I can think of to say that TAM and VT5 are not comparable is if one would prefer the VT5 stay the way it is or get nerfed.
Both the VT5 and TAM 2IP are 33 tons. According to the TAM 2IP’s schematic diagram, its sides are fully immune to 7.62mm 7.62mm 7.62mm rounds, yet there are screenshots showing the VT5 failing in the same scenario. Didn’t you claim they have identical tonnage and therefore equivalent protection? What’s the situation now? Is Gaijin only mistaken about frontal armor? Isn’t the side armor clearly also incorrect?
3 Likes
The side armor of the VT5 can be equipped with explosive reactive armor, which can be seen in many videos. If this is correct in the game, isn’t the base armor of the explosive reactive armor too thin? With only 10 mm of armor, it can’t even withstand the explosion of its own explosive reactive armor, which is fatal. And if you think that the explosive reactive armor has additional armor to withstand all this, it is known that the VT5 with additional armor weighs 36 tons. Are you saying that the 33-ton vehicle body can’t provide as much armor ckness as this 3-ton explosive reactive armor? I think you may not really understand this aspect or may have fallen into an “information cocoon”. I recommend that you can read more research papers by other scholars, and many of your doubts will be resolved.
2 Likes
he insistence on comparing 1970s rolled homogeneous armor layouts to 2010s nano-composite architectures reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of armor evolution - like claiming Formula 1 cars are ‘incorrect’ because they don’t use as much steel as Model Ts. Let’s clarify:
Your persistence in evaluating 5th-gen armor with 2nd-gen metrics mirrors critiquing mRNA vaccines through 18th-century humoral theory - an amusing academic exercise, but hardly relevant to modern battlefield realities. The only thing being ‘nerfed’ here is logical consistency, as the defense engineering community moved beyond monolithic steel comparisons when Reagan was still president.
2 Likes
Incidentally, your ‘indirect proof’ logic would also suggest the Wright Flyer disproves F-35 aerodynamics because both use wings - a charmingly retro perspective that might interest historians of science, but has precisely zero bearing on actual aerospace engineering. Modern armor, like modern aircraft, operates on principles the TAM’s designers would find as alien as quantum computing.
5 Likes
@奎达机降一般兵
Steel is not nano-composite, they are different materials.
Stop comparing the two/bringing them up in the same sentence.
Your insistence on isolating materials from their engineered systems is like judging a bulletproof vest by its cotton lining while ignoring the Kevlar - quaintly misguided. Modern armor integrates steel with composites precisely to transcend single-material limitations, . when NORINCO’s test footage shows VT5 shrugging off rounds that would gut a TAM, material pedantry becomes academic. The deafness here isn’t to criticism, but to four decades of armor evolution staring us in the face.
5 Likes
Stop arguing with him, he is just another average player that his word means nothing.
He is not manager or dev, and still keeps arguing to us a 80s vechicle in the west is acceptable for 2020s Chinese vechicle, and still keeps saying we can’t make better vechicle with far better technology today.
2 Likes
Didn’t you say they both have the same protection? Is the picture the same now? VT5 can’t even defend against 7.62, right? Did Gaijin do it right?
And you haven’t answered me yet. 70 ton Tiger King is the same as 70 ton Abrams.They are different, why do you still use TAM data to speculate on VT5
3 Likes