ERA and composite armors are superior than base steel, but steel is required for the underlying armor especially if the vehicle is intended to have ERA to protect against HEAT munitions and small caliber autocannon fire.
@奎达机降一般兵
Then stop isolating materials, and stop responding to me with off-topic stuff I don’t want to talk about nor am interested in.
The only thing I’m interested in is VT5’s steel thickness being correct.
Other people are addressing the external composite of the turret.
And now @青团海豹球 is coming in to tell people to not converse with VT5 fans trying to fix the VT5.
Typical VT5 hater.
I get that you hate the VT5, but stop telling others to ignore those trying to fix it. Be kind.
@_197830848
Prove that the VT5 and TAM-2IP have equivalent armor IRL and in-game, I’ll wait.
You made the claim, so prove it.
Me: VT5 has inferior armor to TAM in-game, and this likely shouldn’t be the case.
Your fixation on isolated steel metrics in 21st-century composite systems is like obsessing over steam engine boiler thickness when discussing electric vehicle batteries - charmingly antiquarian, but technically irrelevant. The VT5’s high-hardness steel base isn’t meant to function alone, just as your skull’s thickness doesn’t define concussion resistance without considering cerebrospinal fluid and meninges.
The defense engineering community stopped evaluating armor through single-material lenses when the M1 Abrams entered service. Your persistence in doing so is the equivalent of auditing NASA’s Mars rover program with a 1950s slide rule - an amusing anachronism, but ultimately as productive as measuring sunlight with a sundial at midnight.
5 Likes
Your fixation on isolated steel metrics in 21st-century composite systems is like obsessing over steam engine boiler thickness when discussing electric vehicle batteries.
The defense engineering community stopped evaluating armor through single-material lenses when the M1 Abrams entered service. Your persistence in doing so is the equivalent of auditing NASA’s Mars rover program with a 1950s slide rule - an amusing anachronism, but ultimately as productive as measuring sunlight with a sundial at midnight.
I’m glad we can say the same exact thing.
instead of here i think you should just do something else more important like finding more sources to help rather than arguing with that one specific person that ive block
1 Like
Just look at how many posts he has compared to how many posts others have. Make your own assumptions off of that.
3 Likes
Don’t attack him, he’s not trying to nerf VT5. If we want the same thing, then please be friendly
You said earlier that the VT5 has too little armor steel on the front, which we all agree with. In fact, right now the VT5 side can’t withstand a 7.62MM machine gun, and that’s not how it should be. If you compare TAM2IP with VT5, then you should find that the side of TAM2IP is immune to 12.7
2 Likes
Then why am I being attacked for trying to buff the VT5’s steel plates?
Why are anti-China xenophobes blocking me for trying to buff the VT5’s steel plates?
Never said or implied that, just told people to make their own assumptions. Immediately being argumentative when someone just simply mentions something sure will help them make their decision.
i dont think it make sense for a tank to not resist one of the most popular machine gun caliber in the world, if it cant resist ur entire crew would be turn into red mist
the problem is for gaijin to do so
also what did he say?
1 Like
Prove that the VT5 and TAM-2IP have equivalent armor IRL and in-game，
You made the claim，not me
Did you experience hallucinations after smoking too much marijuana
1 Like
All tec trees deserve respect and vehicles being as correct as possible
1 Like
YES!
However, Bombastic will block you now. XD
1 Like
hey man merkavas would wanna throw hand with you
1 Like
Because before you didn’t emphasize that you thought the VT5 was too weak, and I vaguely remember that you said there was no problem with the side armor of the VT5, right? The fact that the VT5 can’t defend against 7.62, or even 5.8, is impossible from a common sense point of view
2 Likes
Ah, the telltale retreat into semantic echo chambers - when technical discourse fails, parroting phrases becomes the last refuge. Your sudden pivot to ‘only steel matters’ after 72% of our previous exchanges focused on composite mechanics speaks volumes. Perhaps this selective amnesia stems from realizing your WWII-era metrics crumble under modern data?
This isn’t debate - it’s theater of the absurd where 21st-century engineering gets graded by 1940s yardsticks. Your refusal to acknowledge error mirrors medieval astronomers clinging to geocentrism as Galileo’s telescope burned their dogma to ash. The question remains: Is this obstinacy born of actual ignorance, or just bruised ego masquerading as technical critique?
8 Likes
I love my merkava mk2B in the US tree
I said that the side steel thickness is likely correct due to that being a standard, but it’s plausible that it could be upwards of 18 - 20mm thick depending on where weight is distributed in the vehicle.
However, no 33 ton tank of its size and weapon has more than 20mm of steel for the sides [the singular plate, not including side skirts], ever, so I’m going to be hesitant in believing there’s more steel.
I primarily said that the front LFP should probably have at least 32mm of steel as standard for this weight class.
Merkava armor are all wrong tho so 💀
And they should be corrected then
1 Like