Composite armor changes can take time, as anyone that has reported composite armor before knows.
Either way it’s a 5 second reloading better than 120mm DM33 firing beast of a light tank at 10.7. I’ll be running it in my 12.0 lineup as well until the up-armored one gets added.
2 Likes
At the very least the upper glacis. As it stands, the armour in-game is too weak to even mount ERA. I’d be willing to accept that sure, maybe 100mm APHE might be able to go through the lower part, other users earlier in the thread have pointed out it probably has NERA or some other composite plates in the hull (and certainly in the turret), but only being bulletproof (as gaijin claimed in the devblog) is nonsense.
I don’t expect it to be invincible. If anything, I figured “oh btw it’s completely impervious to 100mm AP, it was designed to be like that from the start” would only be a footnote that would only really come in handy when fighting nuisances like autocannon-armed tanks, SPAAs, resisting aircraft cannons, or occasionally fighting against the odd T-80UE-1 player bringing his next-strongest backup. I did not expect it to be this weak. I know Gaijin has a history of screwing over Chinese tanks - from every Chinese MBT not having a spall liner to Gaijin insisting the ZTZ-99A’s reload is actually 7.1s despite being shown video evidence to the contrary and virtually every source other than them saying so - but this really takes the cake.
7 Likes
We absolutely cannot tolerate the smearing of VT5’s performance - it is an insult to all Chinese gamers.
13 Likes
They only need to change one number in the code, from the current 0.2 factor of composite armor to the normal 0.8 factor, to solve the problem of vt5 turret protection.
Something as simple as this has not been solved so far, why do you think they will do it in the future?
4 Likes
“Oh my God, the armor of the VT-5 tank is as fragile as my Teddy Bear cookies at home!”
5 Likes
I believe your approach of estimating tank armor protection based solely on weight is flawed, with several critical errors:
-
The fundamental difference in protective capability between composite armor and homogeneous steel armor. For instance, when comparing armor packages of equal mass, homogeneous steel armor demonstrates inferior performance against both HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) projectiles compared to composite armor. While composite armor does exhibit relatively weaker performance against APFSDS rounds at equivalent thickness, vehicles employing composite armor can achieve superior overall protection at equivalent weight.
-
Neglecting the enhanced protection provided by energetic armor systems (Explosive Reactive Armor). The VT5 tank features layered explosive reactive armor (ERA) on its frontal turret section, which offers significantly higher protective capability than equivalent-mass homogeneous steel armor.
-
Overlooking the impact of armor configuration on protective performance. Two vehicles with completely different armor geometries cannot achieve equivalent protection levels simply through identical weight and material composition - the structural configuration itself constitutes a critical protective factor.
6 Likes
There are still significant issues with the VT5 on the live server.
3 Likes
"I’m still quite disappointed with the newly released VT5. Many of the data points clearly aren’t properly implemented, and the armor is simply unacceptable. For instance, numerous measurements show the armor should be 100mm, but in-game servers list it as 25mm or 40mm. Even the armor model appears drastically downsized. I understand this might represent the budget version purchased by Bangladesh, but even the base model should include provisions for composite armor upgrades. Why can’t it reflect the specifications stated in official reports? That said, I truly appreciate the developers for accurately modeling the VT5’s basket—thank you to the community and the team for their hard work.
18 Likes