About VT-5 tank

Dev Server "Hornet's Sting" General Discussion - Dev Server
91

true

92

Thank you for your message and for encouraging us to share feedback in a constructive way. We truly appreciate the effort you and the team put into the game, and we share the same passion for these incredible machines. However, many of us feel that submitting bug reports alone hasn’t always led to the changes or improvements we hope to see. If submitting bug reports were consistently effective, some of the issues we’re discussing now likely wouldn’t exist.

For example, many bug reports—even those with solid evidence—have been dismissed by a certain individual (whose identity, though hidden, is no secret to the community). This has left us feeling frustrated, as it often seems that no matter how much evidence we provide, it can be easily dismissed for various reasons. The recent adjustments to the Rafale’s performance, for instance, seem to reflect that changes are sometimes made based on the developers’ discretion rather than historical or technical accuracy.

We understand that developing these vehicles is a complex process, and we genuinely want to help make them as realistic as possible. But when our feedback is repeatedly overlooked or dismissed, it’s hard not to feel disheartened. We hope you can understand our perspective and work with us to ensure that our voices are heard and considered in a meaningful way.

Thank you for your understanding, and we look forward to continuing to support and improve the game together.

20 Likes
93

The VT-5 has been unfairly treated in terms of its armor. We should unite with the players of the Ariete-War!!!

3 Likes
94

fair and I do hope the game better

4 Likes
95

For the technology after 2000, with a weight of 33 tons (similar to the T-54: 36 tons), if Gaijin has no standards in mind,at least they can just make it with the defense level of the T-54.

3 Likes
96

Thank you for your continued efforts in improving the game and for creating a space where we can share our feedback. Regarding the VT5, we understand that there may be uncertainties surrounding its armor due to limited publicly available information. However, this doesn’t mean the current implementation in the game is accurate. Based on the known data and publicly accessible materials, it’s clear that the current in-game representation of the VT5’s armor protection is incorrect. Additionally, the baffling inclusion of a turret basket (which, according to publicly available information, does not exist on the VT5) further adds to the inaccuracies.

We also want to address the broader issue of fairness. While some players may have violated forum rules in their frustration, it’s important to note that this is not their intention. What we truly seek is fair treatment, not double standards. For a long time, many of us have felt that Chinese vehicles—whether fighters, tanks, or other units—are treated differently in the game. It often feels as though the development team doesn’t hold the same enthusiasm for them as they do for other nations’ vehicles. This isn’t a new sentiment; it’s been a persistent issue since the introduction of the Chinese tech tree.

We love this game and want to see it improve, not just for ourselves but for the entire community. We hope that our feedback can be taken seriously and that steps can be taken to address these concerns in a fair and balanced manner. Thank you for your time and understanding.

16 Likes
97

Thank you for your response. I also hope to engage in friendly discussions here, as everyone does (though many of us have been affected by the actual situation, so please don’t be too harsh on them). Regarding VT5, I believe everyone here has expressed their thoughts sufficiently. While you might prefer some corrections to be made on CBR, I think we should relax a bit and not be too constrained by forum limitations. Valuable voices should be heard, no matter where they come from, right? Lastly, I sincerely hope the game continues to improve and gains recognition from everyone, and that our discussions here yield valuable insights.
Thank you once again for your assistance. Wishing you a pleasant life.

6 Likes
98

As the vehicles made by gaijin in the game become more and more new, the possibility of obtaining what gaijin calls “unclassified documents” is getting lower and lower. Instead, more often than not, the available information comes from public interviews, which could be in the form of videos, books or newspapers. If gaijin completely ignores these materials, it will be completely impossible to verify the technical details of the new and sophisticated equipment.

15 Likes
99

Thats a field modification… Not from factory…

100

Rare instance of Gaijin actively screwing china mains

4 Likes
101

“Rare”
You’re new here right.

6 Likes
102

Im not talking about the tech mod who actively kneecapped anything chinese. This is an in house thing, which is very odd seeing as BVVD is a china main

1 Like
103

Thank you for the information, this picture shows very clearly the VT-5’s hull composite armor belt, hopefully Gaijin can change the existing armor data and internal structure in the game soon!

1 Like
104

Why is there no mention in the Chinese or other language development logs that ‘the frontal and side armor of the VT5 tank can only withstand machine guns,’ while the English and Russian versions specifically emphasize this claim? Is this a deliberate bias?

17 Likes
105

Thank you for your attention to the community’s voice. The VT-5 in the game is far from the psychological expectations of most players, and there are many parts that are different from reality. Admittedly, we cannot easily obtain detailed data on armored vehicles in service, but as an export tank, VT-5 has a lot of public and authoritative information.
It is easy to get the following facts:

  1. The armor value of VT-5 in the game is too low, and it lacks composite armor modules and anti-collapse lining. The hull composite armor module and external additional armor of VT-5 can be clearly seen from the relevant reports of CCTV (even if the VT-5 in service in Bangladesh does not have external additional armor, the KE of the basic armor should be greater than the 15mmRHA in the game). Considering the interview records with the chief designer, it can be inferred that the hull composite armor belt and the turret composite armor should be able to resist at least 100mmAP direct fire, rather than only resisting small-caliber machine gun bullets in the game. Even if these data cannot directly prove the thickness of VT-5’s armor, the armor protection of VT-5 can be basically judged only by tonnage and body size: VT-5 is a tank with a combat weight of 33 metric tons, and its front and side armor are inferior to those of ZBD04A, which is 11 tons lighter than it; and the 33-ton T-54 main battle tank has a hull armor of up to 80~100mm. This is obviously unreasonable. Combined with the protection design concept of China’s main battle tank, VT-5 should be equipped with thicker and heavier composite armor on the front, and the side armor should also be able to resist 14.5mmAP direct fire at a distance of 0m.
  2. There are several serious errors in the internal structure model of VT-5 in the game. First of all, it can be clearly seen from a large number of public videos that VT-5 does not have any turret basket structure, but there is a huge “bathtub” basket model in the game; secondly, the position of the VT-5’s automatic loader model is too far back, and the rail model is too large; finally, there should be a shell collector at the bottom of the crew, not the basket floor.
  3. In the game, the VT-5’s power system is placed on the track plate next to the engine compartment, which is unreasonable and seriously affects the game experience. There is no data to prove that this is the power system (usually used as a storage box or external fuel tank), and the armor here is very weak and will be penetrated by a small-caliber machine gun and lose some combat capabilities. This is absurd both in reality and in the game.
    I hope you can consider my opinion and convey it to the developers. I pay my highest respects to you.
23 Likes
106

In War Thunder,the VT5 light main battle tank’s performance is astonishing and hard to believe.With technological progress,can’t China’s industry develop a light main battle tank with better armor than the T54/T55?

I’ve always thought War Thunder was a very realistic game that comprehensively simulated modern joint combat,with great graphics and performance simulation.But the in-game VT5 is hardly comparable to the real one.I do believe the War Thunder team respects reality and maintains game balance without any ill intentions.They must have their reasons.However,the VT5’s performance is hard to justify,and the partial vehicle structure refinement has upset many players.I hope the team addresses these issues promptly.

I sincerely wish War Thunder continued success.
在战争雷霆中，如此性能的vt5轻量化主战坦克实在是让人大跌眼镜，难以置信。科技进步，但是中国的工业难道造不出一台装甲性能超越t54/t55的轻量化主战坦克吗？
尽管我一直以来认为战争雷霆是一款非常尊重现实、能过全方面模拟现代联合作战环境的游戏，而且提供了非常好的游戏画面和性能模拟，但是战争雷霆中都vt5很难让人联想到现实中的vt5。当然，我也相信战争雷霆的制作团队从来都是尊重现实，尽他们所能维护游戏的平衡性，肯定不会带有私人目的和不怀好意。我相信制作团队肯定另有考量。但是如此的vt5性能实在是难以服众，只有部分车辆内构细化也引起了许多玩家的不满。希望制作团队能够注意到并且及时解决这下问题。
由衷地祝愿战争雷霆蒸蒸日上
嗝焖板业税不着指能七濑营养拐祁勒

25 Likes
107

I’m curious as to how you arrived at this point of view.

4 Likes
108

He literally said he was in an interview a couple years ago

109

Chinese players are so anxious because our voices always been ignored, some forum administrators suggested that Posting to the issue section was constructive. But some in the issue area are wantonly silencing our voices, justifiably or not. Sure, this behavior may be loyal to the company, but to the player, it is unfair, disappointing and worrying about the future of the game. For the existence or not of something is clearly a simple logical reasoning, things that do not exist only need to come up with counterexamples, and things that exist should be strictly proved by data. From 2019 to 2025, it’s been six years, and I hope the authorities can really value our voice.

19 Likes
110

This is precisely the issue that we’re having right now

Look at all these reports that was reported as “not a bug” or “needs more info”, despite providing AS MUCH POSSIBLE INFORMATION WITHOUT DELVING INTO CLASSIFIED INFO

✅Fixed:

➡️Passed to the devs as suggestion:

❓Not enough info:

🙋Open:

❌Rejected/Duplicate/Not a bug:

Like… what more do you want us to do? We’ve already discussed endlessly and combed through the entirety of the internet and available publications. And I also want to ask: Where do Gaijin devs get THEIR info from? Why should their word trump ours?

Too many times we bring something to the table and the response is a nonchalant, “nah” or a template “wE nEeD pUbLiCaTiOnS” response despite the community providing the only accessible sources at this time, then the devs turn around behind our backs and make up their own arbitrary interpretations. This is what ultimately wells up and leads to community frustration.

76 Likes