“By the way, guys, do you think the community managers secretly check the forum players’ comments during weekends? Currently, the debates around the VT-5 are still pretty heated. Hopefully, we’ll get some good news when the game devs return to work next Monday.”
1 Like
I see, I see, I see.
So your point about VT-5’s armor low effectiveness is about the HULL SIDE,
While you agree that the TURRET CHEEKS need to be stronger?
If that’s what you mean, I finally understand and agree with you, hahah.
I’m not lying, I was just referencing and quoting your earlier statements, which, as you yourself admitted, could have come off as confusing.
If that was the case, don’t worry too much about it- as long as you are able to clarify… I’m not a native English speaker either, so I often rewrite/edit out stuff as I realise I may not have expressed exactly what I initially intended. Perhaps it all boils down to language barrier misunderstandings, I always prefer to attribute things to genuine reasons and not malice xD.
3 Likes
“Haha, Fox bro, just messing with you—don’t take it so seriously, okay? You know, as long as you’re making valid points, I’ll still back you up.”
I don’t see why the origin of an aircraft has to do with something regarding the VT-5
Please stay on topic
3 Likes
Oh yes, turret composite’s likely wrong.
The vast majority of my posts were about the steel thickness of the hull and trying to buff that because the hull’s not getting composite.
2 Likes
We’ve provided Gaijin tons of data, for goodness’ sake what do we get in return? A glorified tin-can whose lower front plate can still be penetrated by 12.7mm rounds in 2025???You expect us to believe this represents proper armor protection for a 30-ton vehicle???
2 Likes
Oh! Well, it’s all clear now then, hahah.
I agree. If I had to give my two cents based on the pictures, etc, I would say;
-Turret cheeks: 350mm KE
-Hull front:
Option 1: If it has internal composite armor in an VT-4 fashion as suggested by some:
300mm KE (without add-on armor), 520mm KE (with add-on armor)
Option 2: if it does not have internal composite armor, which seems more likely:
90mm KE (without add-on armor), 320mm KE (with add-on armor)
-Hull sides: 25mm KE
1 Like
Expecting that level of KE when they only primarily cite APCBC isn’t what I would expect for the base model VT5, especially for 33 tons.
To estimate it, I gave the composite modules a typical 0.65 KE multiplier, the same found in some 1990s MBTs; on the one hand, it may seem too much to assume it’s as effective; other hand, the armor is decades more advanced than those MBTs; so I think it is sensible to assume the level of effectiveness is at least similar while remaining lighter.
Only speculation on my end though- but I find it difficult to believe that the composite modules would be any less effective than those already existing in the 1990s.
move on bro
Well the multiplier includes air + plates.
It’s based on the air to plates, and the thickness of the estimated plates.
Either way I’m going to run a massive math run in a bit.
“Gracias por tus esfuerzos.”
“Thank you for your efforts.”
1 Like
Yep! This is again speculation, but some suggest that VT-5’s composite modules share a similar structure to VT-4’s.
VT-5 being essentially a smaller and lighter VT-4, that notion makes sense to me. But, again, it’s difficult to work on this tank, given how little info there is about it hahah. But, in these cases, I always advocate for the best estimates possible. Tanks being advanced wonders of engineering, I prefer to estimate they are as good as they can be rather than going for low conservative values.
2 Likes
And thank you for your message! It’s my pleasure to always look after tanks. There’s nothing I love more than tanks, hahah. So my goal is for them to be properly depicted in War Thunder in their full glory, rather than as mere shadows of their reality.
That’s also why I am enraged by the lack of spall liners in all Chinese MBTs, and many more things.
I recently finally started playing China, and I am fascinated by these tanks- so it hits me even harder to see how much better they could be if Gaijin cared to fix them, hahah.
2 Likes
Can you summarize your viewpoint without context? Your statements before and after are indeed somewhat contradictory, which confuses us as to what kind of armor you think VT5 has. Can you describe it?
1- VT5’s armor is incorrect.
1a- The hull steel thickness is incorrect.
1b- The turret composite thickness seems incorrect, especially with evidence provided as well as my own suspicions.
1a2- In relation to the hull steel thickness being incorrect I cross-checked other vehicles for similar weight and size and determined that a quick comparison with TAM may result in information that proves my hypothesis.
2a- Comparing TAM’s steel thickness to that of dev server’s VT5 I determined that there’s a MINIMUM of 15mm of missing steel from VT5 on the lower front plate and posted my suspicions here.
2b- With that people conversed, some pinging me with information that would help me learn. I thank them for that.
At some point someone was able to get the 3D model checked proving that the thickness should be ~50mm thick.
Some people misunderstood my statements and I did a poor job alleviating those misunderstandings on my end for that I apologize.
5 Likes
did they close devs server?
1 Like
Dear Gaijin,
Many friends have already sent materials regarding the VT-5. However, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the longstanding unfair treatment of the Chinese tech tree. Gaijin has repeatedly stated that they do not want people to send classified documents, that they will not look at classified documents, and that they will not use them to modify in-game data. Yet now, when presented with publicly available images, information, and designer interviews regarding export models, they claim that such evidence is insufficient to modify the fabricated data they have come up with. They completely ignore the community’s protests, and this issue persists not only with the VT-5 but also with the VT-5A1 and the 99A. Most ridiculous is that one version of VT-5 they made with a rotate auto-loader just like T-72. What kind of 105 shells should use such auto-loader? What kind of designer will make a 30t modern tanks frontal armor invulnerable to withstand machinegun and autocannons fire and can call it as a light MBT?
I would like to ask: have Chinese tech tree players, or more broadly, the Chinese player base, not contributed enough to this game? Features like gun depression angles and the so-called turret basket have been repeatedly proven to be inaccurate through various pieces of evidence, yet they are still forcibly applied to the VT-5. Even the in-game models, despite having real-life reference photos, are poorly made. At this point, I can only assume that Gaijin has never truly cared about Chinese vehicles. Are the military experts from the countries that purchased Chinese export equipment incompetent? Should they have instead bought Russian equipment for their purchases to be considered “correct”?
Or does Gaijin really need to wait until an actual war breaks out, with real-life battle results and casualties, before acknowledging the truth and saying, “Not a Bug”? Their unique arrogance makes it seem as if they believe the Soviet Union/Russia is the true leader of armored vehicle development, clinging to outdated, heavily modified Cold War-era equipment, while everything we develop as quite new equipments are just a crude imitation. Is that not laughable?
I am not trying to target anyone specifically and definetly trying to be kind, but can I assume that Gaijin’s actions amount to consistently discrimination against Chinese players? Or to put it more bluntly, is this a blatant case of racist reflected in the game?
Stop discriminating against Chinese players, ok?
7 Likes
Yes they did.
bruv