Your persistent conflation of material eras would be comical if it weren’t so concerning. Let’s decode this tragic misunderstanding:
When we mention Victorian-era metallurgy, we’re critiquing your methodology - analyzing 2025 composites with 1885 evaluation standards. It’s not about the materials themselves, but your refusal to acknowledge that 140 years of ballistics science might have occurred since Bessemer converters. This is literally the entire point you keep missing.
Your “reflexive typing” keeps dismissing these while offering exactly:
✓ Zero material analyses
✓ Zero test data
✓ Zero technical literature
You accuse others of strawmen while literally arguing against 1980s monolithic steel concepts nobody advocated. Modern armor discussions center on:
Layer synergy coefficients
Energy dissipation gradients
Dynamic hardness profiling
Not your quaint millimeter ruler fetish. This isn’t misunderstanding - it’s willful technical illiteracy. When VT5 sides stopping 30mm APDS that would gut a TAM’s steel, your ‘steel thickness’ crusade becomes as relevant as bloodletting in modern surgery. The patient recovered - your medieval tools stay in the museum where they belong.
By examining and measuring the model, we can confirm it’s accurately scaled—the vehicle length is 6.8 meters, matching a 1:1 real-world ratio. Since Gaijin typically uses 1:1 scale models, this serves as valid evidence. Based on positional references in the images, the inner edge of the lower front armor plate aligns with the inner side of the upper tow hook mount. Drawing a line parallel to the armor surface through this reference point, measurements from the scaled model show this area’s actual physical thickness should be around 50mm."
To my esteemed colleague in this discourse: I shall take my leave for the night, leaving you front-row seats to this riveting performance of Cognitive Dissonance: The Musical. Observe closely as our protagonist continues his solo act - a magnificent display of circular logic pirouettes,Ballet in the Evidence Vacuum Zone, and dramatic leaps over inconvenient facts.
Do enjoy the encore numbers:
My Steel Ruler Beats Your Composite Data
Weight Class Fantasia in 1945
Armchair Ballistics: A Tragicomedy in Three Acts
Should the performance grow stale, simply shout ‘peer-reviewed source!’ - it triggers spectacular interpretive dances of goalpost relocation. Sweet dreams, and don’t forget - every minute spent humoring this epistemological clown car is another citation added to our future IEEE paper on modern information warfare pathologies.
I am NOT comparing composites to steel.
I am NOT comparing evaluation standards.
I am NOT comparing separate materials in general.
ALL my posts are doing is attempting to prove/disprove the implementation of steel thickness for VT5, as a way to augment the lovely posts that are proving the incorrect implementation of external composite armor.
Accept that explanation, and please just stop with the posts that are insults.
I never insulted you… at least intentionally, apologies if I made a post that did, I’ll correct my mistake if pointed out.
If you use 7.5 meters as the vehicle length, this armor plate would appear thicker. But since Gaijin went with 6.8 meters for the length and the measured width matches 3.2 meters, that’s why the current numbers make sense for a properly scaled model.
The turret modifier for KE right now is only 0.2, if it was even only 0.5 it would be able to resist BR-412D like advertised. Modern composite armor reaching 0.5 effectiveness against kinetic round is not hard to accomplish at all.
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: 6.8m x 2.5m x 15mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2 = 4.0137t
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
=3.89565t
Frontal additional armor plate: 7.5m x 3.3m 5mm x 7.87g/cm3 / 2 = 0.16231875t
All rounded up, the weight of the car without any equipment is:9.5 t
Now it’s lighter.
In Gaijin’s games, the in-game models are 1:1 scale with real-life vehicles. If something is 1 meter in real life, it’s exactly 1 meter in the game. That means if we can pinpoint reference points on the actual vehicle, we can use the in-game model to back up technical arguments (like armor measurements)
My measurements from the model should be solid, but my report got rejected due to lacking “official sources.” Still, if the devs could actually see this analysis instead of letting it get buried under “issue closed” stamps, that’d be awesome.
The VT5 employs a bustle autoloader and features crew seats rigidly connected to the turret, eliminating the need for a central column within the turret structure.So, the VT5’s turret design should resemble that of the Type 15 main battle tank, rather than incorporating a rotating floor mechanism.
