Those are screenshots from first dev server containing VT5, and the side armor is steel so that’s just going to be like that until the VT5 with the add-on armor unless the side top is proven to be thicker than 5mm, which is plausible.
Are you okay?
好好好
很好
Please use English for communication in non-Chinese sections, otherwise your post may be deleted.
4 Likes
Why add a turret basket? The diagrams are right in front of you. Why do you claim the tank in the picture is called the Type 15 light tank? Where is the evidence showing it’s the Type 15? How can you prove this turret-without-a-basket configuration belongs to the Type 15 light tank? We have substantial reasoning and evidence confirming this is the VT5. Do you have any proof to validate this as the Type 15? Moreover, by your logic, would the Type 15 light tank—as a light tank—lack a turret basket entirely in the future? ???
7 Likes
you joking us, right?
It is quite interesting how some vehicles in War Thunder receive creative modifications that do not exist in real life, while others remain untouched. The VT-5 is a perfect example.
In reality, the VT-5 does not have a turret basket, yet for some reason, the developers felt the need to add one out of thin air. Why? Is it just an oversight, or is this yet another example of the consistent bias against Chinese vehicles? We’ve seen this pattern before.
But what’s even more ridiculous is its armor model. The VT-5 weighs around 33 tons—not far from a T-54/55—yet in-game, it somehow has worse protection than Cold War-era main battle tanks. The front can’t even stop heavy machine gun fire, and the sides are apparently vulnerable to rifle-caliber rounds. Are we seriously supposed to believe that a modern MBT, designed with modular composite armor, is less protected than a 1950s Soviet tank?
If the developers truly care about historical accuracy, these blatant mistakes need to be corrected immediately. Otherwise, it only reinforces the perception that Chinese vehicles are intentionally misrepresented in this game.
3 Likes
The T-54 are significantly smaller tanks than the TAM and VT5.
The front armor can stop machine gun fire:
The only way that VT5 gets armor comparable to Leopard 1 [Or 40 ton no-composite Type 10] is if it weighs 40 tons. The VT5’s incorrect armor should be fixed of course, it weighs 33 tons and it shouldn’t be weaker than its closest 33 ton 7.5 meter long comparisons.
VT5 is not a MBT.
A light MBT is also an MBT, which is fundamentally different from those airborne combat vehicles or armored vehicles modified from IFV chassis. You can’t say “Type 10 is not an MBT” just because the Type 10 tank is more than 20 tons lighter than the Challenger 2 tank.
2 Likes
TAM is also a “light MBT”, that doesn’t mean it has more than 15mm of side armor.
The VT5 was used to play against some of the older main battle tanks. Other light and heavy artillery armored vehicles (such as the M10 Booker or the 2S25M) cannot go head-on with enemy tanks - even the old T-72 from the early days.
Is there any technical connection between TAM and VT5? The Chinese have their own ideas and designs, TAM can’t prove anything, China’s own data can prove it - unless you capture VT5 on the battlefield.
2 Likes
Yes, just like the TAM is used against older MBTs.
2S25 also has less armor than both TAM and VT5 in-game.
T-72 will always pen VT5, the only way to add armor to VT5 that can resist T-72 rounds is to increase its mass well beyond 40 tons.
According to the documents provided by the manufacturer and the advertisement in Zhuhai Aviation Exhibition,the weight of VT-5 is from 33 tons to 36 tons when it is 36 tons it has all additional armor.
2 Likes
Exactly!
And I think Gaijin is saving the add-on armor for the tech tree version of the tank, and giving us the inferior armored one for squadron.
I’ve already told you, TAM can’t prove anything. The chassis of the TAM is also not designed specifically for armored combat. China’s published composite armor data proves that this armor can be better than the equivalent steel protection, and TAM is just an old thing in the past.
The type 10 is capable of reloading faster. Reloads are almost always not historical and just balance numbers from gaijin. Now i wouldnt disagree with a shorter reload but we cant use the Type 90 and Type 10 as examples when they too and many other tanks in game dont have their true reloads.
The TAM was literally designed for armored combat and has replaced Leopard 1s, M60s, and M48s for a number of countries.
TAM-2IP also exists as a showcase of composite armor.
I don’t think that the weasel-based design was designed for a head-on confrontation with enemy tanks. Moreover, this is the third time: anything about the TAM tank has nothing to do with the VT5. I don’t want to repeat this pointless question.
2 Likes