About VT-5 tank

[NCC105]

post a copy of my issue here for reference in case anyone need it. basically a collection of OSINT and magazine sources.

very long article

Currently the VT-5 in game has poor hull armor, which is incorrect. To save some time, I will just skip stating current VT-5’s armor condition.

First is OSINT analysis:
VT-5 is a very new tank and has not much information, according to “Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles”, protection will be assessed only on the appearance of the vehicle, the location and size of the armour modules.
From source1.jpg we can know VT-5’s height to turret top is 2500mm, I will use this as basic value for measuring.
From Bangladesh parade photo, we can get the vertical dimension of the addition armor on LPF is about 350mm, and the track’s width is about 510mm.
Then after some calculation based on the screenshot of CCTV’s program, we can get the armor thickness of VT-5. we can get a 105mm UPF thickness, which could be composite or solid steel armor, and 40+45=85mm LPF, which should be solid steel.
Based on another photo from Zhuhai Airshow, there are towing hooks on the side of UPF, which are cut together with the side armor of the tank to ensure strength and simplify processing. We can easily see it’s integrated with the hull with no weld seam. So the thickness of the towing hook can directly reflect the thickness of the side armor.
We can get it’s thickness is about 40mm, which is a reasonable value.

Then, secondary source:
Also according to “Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles”, evaluative information from secondary sources, such as monographs, articles, and studies are also considered.

1. Modern Ships (Issue 8, 2018, 现代舰船 2018年第8期), page 87, link: 现代舰船2018年8期 - 道客巴巴
   We can get that basic VT-5’s turret armor can protect it from old type 100mm ap shells, basically refers to BR-412D, which is widely used around the world. VT-5’s hull can protect it from 30mm ap shells, which refers to 3UBR8, which is also widely used.
   When with additional armor, its armor should be able to protect it from M111 APFSDS.
2. Modern Weaponry(Issue 12, 2016, 现代兵器 2016年第12期) page 16
   It’s the interview of VT-5’s Chief Designer.
   He said VT-5’s armor can protect it from 1st and 2nd gen MBT, which refers to things like T-55 and M60, which mainly uses 100mm BR-412D, 105mm DM23/M111.
3. Tank & Armored Vehicle(Issue 12 2022, 坦克装甲车辆 2022年第12期) page 32
   It said VT-5U(same as VT-5 except with remote control parts)’s weak point can just protect it from 23mm ap, which has 51mm penetration in game.
4. Weapon(Issue 1, 2017, 兵器 2017年第1期), page 7
   This is also an interview of VT-5’s develop director.
   It said VT-5’s can protect it from 100mm ap, refers to BR-412D.

Analysis:
From all secondary sources, we can know that VT-5’s protection aims for gen 1/2 MBTs, mostly considered are 100mm cannons, and the best shell is 105mm DM23/M111.
VT-5’s turret has a upgrade, which offers more LOS, helping it defend HEAT, while it’s KE stays similar, and all VT-5 version don’t have extra armor in front turret, so its turret protection should be about 337mm(M111 in game)
For UPF armor, from the px measuring, we can know the thickness of the UPF is 105mm. And from photo of VT-5 armored version, VT-5’s front extra armor block doesn’t cover its UPF but its LPF, so it’s actually extending the protection area. Considering usual armor efficiency of this kind composite armor is around 80%, the UPF armor around 85mm KE in 66°.
It’s a reasonable value, when with additional armor plates or ERA(not installed but you can see the bolts in UPF), can have good protection against 100/105mm cannon, also meets the secondary sources.
For LPF, 85mm solid steel armor can stop most of 30mm auto cannons, and can stop BR-412D/M111 with thick addition armor, make it also meets the secondary sources.
For side armor, 40mm side armor with standard 5-10mm screen armor, it can have good protection against 23mm AP and meets the secondary sources.

Summary:
Secondary sources protection: turret front armor can block at least BR-412D, at most M111. LPF armor can block BR-412D, with addition armor can defend M111. Side armor can stop 23mm AP.
My measuring and inference: Turret composite armor KE: 350mm, UPF 105m composite armor KE: about 80mm KE in 66°, LPF armor 40+45=85mm steel, side armor 40mm.

I believe these are very reasonable values based on OSINT and secondary sources, and I can promise the values are as accurate as possible. Should be a good reference to developers. Hope this can be considered and make VT-5 a very unique vehicle, and help the modelling of heavy armored VT-5.

other sources mentioned:
Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles: [Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder

CCTV program link: 军武零距离 20190803 轻量化主战坦克VT-5——王者的进化_哔哩哔哩_bilibili

Thanks for reading

massive images

Magazines-secondary sources

[NCC105]

maybe later, spam is forbidden

[莱茵汉斯喵喵喵]

This add-on armor plate alone is 30mm thick. If you factor in the base layer, the total thickness would be way higher than what’s data in-game. Come on, that’s basic math!

[AlvisWisla]

If that was the case the VT5 would be 3 tons with 2mm of steel and no structure/gun/fuel, not 33 tons.

Also I was correct in that they’re saving the up-armored one likely for tech tree.

[DAMONXD]

How dare u !

[LADE-将军_丹东急电]

The development team should take the reports submitted by players seriously, even though they cannot fully reproduce reality, they should also restore most of the armor protection capabilities, rather than the current situation.

[和可莉拔一晚上萝卜第二天靠心海奶]

War Thunder is a virtual game based on dreams and fantasies. When you say things in real time, the game operation says balance. When you ask for balance, he will say it is based on facts. So how about this game vehicle depends entirely on the game operator’s mouth. In addition, this game lacks at least respect for China. In 2025, there will be a main battle tank that can’t be shot below the machine gun. It’s really a slippery record.

[Caernarvon02]

We know a thing or two about tanks. We did invent them after all

[_Lucia41]

In fact, it was not only the British and Chinese vehicles that did not get the performance they deserved, but the Italian Ram tanks also suffered the same treatment, such as the famous “Air additional armor kit”. The production team always faces only what they agree with, but ignores many valuable facts. So, today it’s the Chinese vt5 tank, so what vehicle will not get the combat performance it deserves next time?

[飞马跑步鞋代言人bvvd先生]

I am here to say Chinese player is a huge amount of WT , we are not happy to see our own tank that entertained our nation‘s intelligence will be misunderstood by the respective designers

[_3391339162]

Blanninov, give all People’s republic of China’s true bata to us!
We won’t accept any weak, hypocrisy and mechanical responses!

[小云雀_来海]

---

Concerns Regarding Chinese Tech Tree Representation in War Thunder

We believe most players can sense that the developers persistently view Chinese military equipment as crude imitations of Soviet/Russian designs. While we acknowledge that pre-2000s Chinese technology did draw inspiration from the Soviet Union (our “teacher” in industrialization, military modernization, and education reform), post-2000s China has evolved beyond this stereotype. It is unreasonable and oversimplified to assume Chinese equipment must always be inferior copies of Soviet/Russian designs.

Case in Point: VT5 and Type 15 Light Tanks
These modern armored units were developed by synthesizing lessons from Western, Russian, and China’s own indigenous tank programs, tailored for distinct operational roles. The VT5, for instance, is neither a traditional light armored vehicle nor a standard main battle tank (MBT) – it occupies a unique “lightweight MBT” category that currently lacks proper classification in War Thunder.

Unacceptable Inaccuracies

The current implementation of the VT5 in-game contains fictional flaws that defy logic:

• Fragile Armor: The VT5 is inexplicably vulnerable to .50 BMG rounds, contradicting its real-world composite armor design.
• Fictional Turret Basket: The addition of a non-existent turret basket creates absurd gameplay scenarios (e.g., illogical ammunition transfer roles for crew members).

Frustration with Developer Response

Despite submitting detailed reports (issues) about these problems:

• All concerns have been dismissed without explanation.
• The developers refuse to clarify their reference materials for the VT5’s design.
• No fixes have been implemented in recent updates.

Our Stance

We are not demanding unrealistic buffs – we simply request:

1. Historical Accuracy: Remove fictional elements (e.g., turret basket) and correct armor values based on verifiable data.
2. Transparency: Explain the sources used to model Chinese equipment.
3. Gameplay Balance: Introduce a “lightweight MBT” category or adjust battle ratings to reflect the VT5’s actual role.

We love this game and want it to improve, but the current disregard for factual representation of Chinese tech is unacceptable. We demand change.

---

[AlvisWisla]

VT5’s armor protects against 50 caliber rounds as of last dev server.

[莱茵汉斯喵喵喵]

If Gaijin’s model is properly scaled, the VT5’s lower front armor should be 50mm overall: 30mm for the replaceable module and 20mm for the recessed section at the bottom. Then the rest of the lower section might range from 30-50mm. Honestly, those numbers seem pretty reasonable compared to the mess we’ve got in-game right now.
Honestly, what folks need right now is solid sources to back up the actual armor layout. Relying on just one video clip probably isn’t enough to convince the devs.

[AlvisWisla]

Yes, that was someone’s assessment as well as my own assessment based on their findings.
50mm total is more than enough for the 10.7 squadron version.
It’s not gonna stop anything anti-tank, but that’s fine. It’s the base model without the add-on armor, and they’re likely saving the 36 ton version for tech tree so the tech tree one is superior.

I think this VT5 will be the 3rd best light tank in game if not 2nd best.

Of course I don’t expect the side armor to be anywhere close to good without the add-on armor personally, but as long as the turret gets fixed, and the front hull gets fixed, me keeping my front toward enemy will be good enough.

Progress toward a fixed front armor array.

[明星_日鞠]

you want me to talk about bias to us? where is the m829a4? kew-a2 kew-a3?
you want me to talk about bias to french? where is the 120f2 or morden apfsds? why auto loader works 25% slower then jp one for a close design.
you want me to talk about bias to germen? where is the dm53a1/dm63 dm73?
you want me to talk about bias to italy? how a 5tons war given a crazy ke? long time disregard the issue but pick it up after selling a prem ariete war?
when ussr using apfsds (3bm60)go in service after war in 2022, us germ, french, cn still using the one 20 or even 30 years ago. no bias.
i talk about bias to china just cause it suffer most bias, not meaning i dont play other tanks or cant see it.
we talk about history, gaijin muted us and said for balance, talk about balance gaijin ask for prove and said it is not historicial and set label NOT A BUG

[Yizh98]

China literally suffers the most bias from Gaijin staff as a whole, not just the vehicles, but also the Chinese community

[小云雀_来海]

What are you joking about?

[AlvisWisla]

Granted, the LFP will hopefully get to its correct thickness for at least 23mm autocannon protection.

[小云雀_来海]