then its been 5 years since(they never corrected it)
Abrams is getting the same treatment everything’s getting the same treatment besides maybe maybe USSR vehicles
USSR would be the last thing they forget about(forget to add it as a premium)
1 Like
In fact, I believe the protective performance of all engine-front vehicles is severely underestimated in the game. Notable examples include the Merkava, TAM, and ZBD-04, among others. In the game, existing armor-piercing shells penetrate metal engines with a physical thickness of around 1000 mm as if they were made of plastic or wood.
2 Likes
Even if the side armor was thickened to 30mm, the weight of the VT5 was calculated wrongly.
thickness isnt everything tho but i agree they should be more resistance
merkavas one is definitely better than any other engines but cant rlly say the same thing for TAM, etc… since the IDF specifically reinforce the engine for more protection because they value their crews more than the tank hence the armor
id say it should be ~36 tons combat weight WITH composite block
33 tons without it, but regardless it should resist 20mm atleast without it
composite block are for helping shape charges attack and rpg and slightly better KE protection
2 Likes
30mm side steel is actual 40 ton MBT territory for the size VT5 is.
I think that external composite would be what gives the most resistance to shots fired at it.
Present your calculations. I’ll see, after all, my calculations already tell you the result.
Your persistent fixation on arbitrary millimeter thresholds reveals more about imagination than engineering reality. Let’s illuminate this fantasy with cold, hard facts: the 2021 International Armored Vehicles Symposium proceedings details how VT5’s side hull withstood 14.5mm AP at 100m- impossible with sub-20mm steel. The data’s been public for 3 years, yet you cling to 1970s TAM specs like architectural students rejecting CAD for clay tablets.
This isn’t skepticism - it’s willful ignorance masquerading as technical analysis. When your ‘standards’ conflict with published test data from five continents, perhaps the issue isn’t the tank’s design, but the stubborn refusal to exit your personal Panzer IV-era thought bunker.
6 Likes
Regardless, the equivalent thickness shouldn’t be less than 30–40% of that of armor steel, right?
i dont believe that panzer IV has better protection than VT 5
3 Likes
60x7000x1500/1000 = 630,000cm^3, that’s around 5 tons in side armor.
@奎达机降一般兵
Keep dismissing composite armor, all you do is prove us correct.
Your posts make no sense as they’re not addressing the person your posts are replying to.
In-fact, almost all of your posts contain my own takes in them.
@MrBombastic8
Careful, now he’s going to ramble to you with non-statements.
Your arithmetic gymnastics would be impressive if modern armor worked like 19th-century ironclads. Calculating 630,000cm³ as “5 tons of steel” assumes a solid steel slab - your “5 tons” fantasy belongs in Jules Verne novels, not armor discussions.
When NORINCO’s 2022 white paper details side armor’s 55mm RHAe rating (steel + composites), you retreat to Victorian-era metallurgy. This isn’t debate - it’s performance art parodying technical discourse.
Your acolytes’ “non-statements” accusation rings hollow when your entire argument relies on:
- Zero cited sources post-1991
- Imaginary steel tonnage calculations
- Willful ignorance of published terminal ballistics
The irony? You’re the one “rambling with non-statements” - like a street preacher denouncing quantum physics because “numbers should stay whole”. Until you produce:
a) VT5 metallurgical analysis
b) Live-fire test contradictions
c) Peer-reviewed counter-research
…this remains a masterclass in weaponized Dunning-Kruger effect. The floor remains open for actual evidence, but I suspect we’ll just get more creative arithmetic and Cold War fanfiction.
6 Likes
But you did say “but the hull armor side and rear is correct”.Those are your exact words. Now the VT5 side can be penetrated by 5.8MM machine guns, is this “correct”
If you point out the post, I’ll correct it to “steel” and “likely”, as I can’t remember making it due to exhaustion yesterday.
I revert to reflexive typing when tired/rushed.
@奎达机降一般兵
The fact you call 2025 composites and steel “Victorian era metallurgy” is proof you know nothing.
Read what I post instead of inventing strawmen to argue against.
I’ll show how I calculate the body of the car (I’ll take it as a regular cube, which is actually only lighter):
Hull side armor: 7.5m x 2.5m x 15mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2 x 2= （4.426875 x 2）t
Front/rear armor: 3.3m x 2.5m x 10mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2=1.29855t
Hull upper/lower armor: 7.5m x 3.3m x 10mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2
=3.89565
Frontal additional armor plate: 7.5m x 3.3m 5mm x 7.87g/cm3 / 2 = 0.16231875
That is, the modified body (carrying only electronics) is about 14 tons, plus about 2.5-3 tons of suspension and tracks / wheels, as well as about 3-4 tons of mechanical transmission and engine. The weight of the entire body can be up to 20 tons. Add in a 10-ton turret (the VT5 doesn’t actually have such a thick turret in the game) and we’re 3 tons less – which isn’t a small number.
1 Like
here it is,bro
2 Likes
Why is there even an argument about this in the first place.
2 Likes
Thank you for pointing it out and thank you for pointing out flaws in it.
I appreciate that you did that in a civil and straight forward manner so I had no chance of being upset and resentful. <3
1 Like