The VT5 is a tank with a weight close to T55. Although it has many auxiliary equipment, its protection should not be similar to that of 2S25m, as it is now,I hope gaijin can pay attention to this
3 Likes
At least half of the data on the VT5 is incorrect, including armor thickness, fuel tank capacity, shell penetration performance, and that inexplicably added ‘bathtub’.
1 Like
A tanks weight is not an automatic reflection of it’s protection capabilities unfortunately.
Naturally we will review and study any piblciallt available material submitted via reports, but we cannot make changes based solely on the tanks weight.
2 Likes
I hope developers will pay attention to this post,vt5’s data is currently wrong.
However,a tank of 33t can not Defeat 12.7 machine gun bullets On the front and side is clearly incorrect,i think gaijin should pay attention to this
1 Like
Perhaps the tank weight doesn’t accurately reflect the vehicle’s protection, but why would the Chinese be foolish enough to build a tank that can be damaged by a rifle, and why would Bangladesh be foolish enough to buy it? Does Gaijin really believe that releasing such a vehicle in the new version will actually attract players to play?
3 Likes
It’s too rediculous about a 33T “LMBT” cann’t even defeat 12.7 machine gun.VT-5 need to be fixed. I hope to see new changes on devserves.
2 Likes
slf-/ invent next gen air armor with 13t weight but 0 defense
1 Like
I’ve come to post this quote of my statement in another topic.
1 Like
Dear community manager, although the tonnage of the two tanks is similar, vt5, as a lightweight main tank, can’t prevent bullets of 13.8 or even 5.8mm in the front, which is obviously unreasonable. Besides, materials science has been progressing and developing for so many years. Please think it over. We hope you can uphold justice for us.
1 Like
So, can I understand that you currently believe that a VT-5 with only 38 105mm shells, under the same protection conditions, is equivalent to an octopus M that is 15 tons lighter and can carry 40 125mm shells.
If that’s the case, do you think you lack some common sense.
And the common sense I know is that the higher the hardness, the greater the mass, and the thicker the thickness, the more difficult it is to penetrate. Even ordinary A4 paper, as long as the thickness reaches 20-30cm, can block 7.92 full power rifle bullets. It is obvious that the composite armor of the VT-5 turret is much harder than paper, and also significantly thicker than the example of 20-30cm.
Even if the VT-5 is filled entirely with asbestos and rubber (as these two materials are most common in tank composite armor), it should not be unable to withstand 12.7mm bullets.
Of course, what I’m talking about is frontal protection, not side protection, because we all understand that armor plates with a thickness of 20-30mm cannot withstand anything.
Okay my friend, since you’ve always thought that the current VT-5 is normal, why don’t you take a look at the three pictures below? Although you may not understand Chinese, it’s okay. After playing WT for so long, you still know some interfaces
Let’s start with the most familiar armor structure diagram. It is very obvious that this composite armor is a block shaped object resembling a rectangular shape, showing the characteristics of being long in the front to back direction and short in the up and down direction.
Now is the most commonly seen frontal protection analysis diagram. Wow~It’s all green. Of course, the focus is not on analysis, but on the type of ammunition: br-412d。 This is one of the most familiar shells to us, but we are not here to criticize that the VT-5 cannot withstand the BR-412d. Let’s first remember the puncture resistance of the BR-412d here: 135mm, let’s just assume it is 140mm.
Okay, the main film has just begun. Let’s take a look at this picture again. It’s still an armor analysis, but the direction has been moved from the front to the top. As we just mentioned, this composite armor is long and narrow, which means that the physical thickness from the front should be greater than that from the top. From this, we can theoretically speculate that the front penetration resistance of this composite armor is stronger than that from the top.
But let’s take a look at this picture again, and you should be able to see very clearly his anti penetration thickness: 225mm, let’s assume it is 220mm for now. This number is actually larger than what we just saw. Do you remember what the data was just now? The answer is: 135mm.
Now let me ask：Is the wear resistance of the longer part of a rectangular block made of the same material higher or lower than that of the shorter part?
I hope you can give a normal answer, and this normal answer precisely negates the current performance of the VT-5 vehicle.
4 Likes
You replied to the wrong post.
I stated that the armor is likely incorrect.
Your entire post does not address anything I said, and your post is not in disagreement with my statements.
Since you can’t understand, let’s ask a simpler question: Is there a material in the world with a physical thickness of 400-500mm but a wear resistance coefficient of only 0.25 or less?
At least as far as I know, the wear resistance coefficient of composite armor is generally between 0.6-0.8, because the characteristics of composite materials cannot have a high wear resistance coefficient, and their demand cannot lead to a low coefficient, that’s all.
2 Likes
I just read some of your statements and it seems like I went a bit too far. I apologize to you here.
However, in any case, weight should not be completely equivalent to protective performance, but the current armor protection coefficient data is bound to be incorrect, and it is almost impossible to have a second answer. If China only wants to build a main battle tank that can be penetrated by heavy machine guns, why not modify it on the basis of the existing ZBd04A? To some extent, the protection level of ZBd04A is even better（
In summary, the level of protection for turrets should not be like this, and it is absolutely impossible to do so. This is just random writing of data.
2 Likes
Does gaijin or anyone really think that a 33-ton tank can barely defend itself against heavy machine guns? This game is full of Russian bias against non-Russian vehicles, especially Chinese and Italian ones.
2 Likes
Oh look, a post claiming NATO and China are Russian.
Both the baseline and upgraded 36-ton variants of the Bangladeshi tank lack additional add-on armor in the turret’s primary armor zone. Multiple non-interview journal articles assert that both base and upgraded turret configurations can withstand BR412 AP rounds. For the hull add-on armor, independent analyses—including measurements based on the average head height of Chinese males—have calculated the armor plate thickness. Referencing the add-on armor thickness of the ZBD04A IFV, this section is fully capable of resisting 3UBR6 AP ammunition. These findings align with journal claims that the lightweight variant provides protection against 30mm armor-piercing rounds, confirming consistent defensive performance across design iterations.
2 Likes
According to the 《现代舰船》2018年8期（Morden ships，issue 8, 2018）《国产新轻坦的重新审视》（Re-examination of domestic new light tank）in page 89 it said :新型轻型坦克也借鉴了XM8装甲火炮系统的分级防护理念，采用安全性更好的尾舱式自动装弹机，减少坦克乘员的同时控制了车体的尺寸和战斗全重，以基础防护模式时30吨左右的战斗全重进行远程投送并应对中低安全威胁作战环境的需要,炮塔正面装甲可抗击老式100毫米穿甲弹，车体正面装甲可免疫俄式30毫米穿甲弹" which means “The new light tank also borrowed the hierarchical protection concept of the XM8 armored gun system, and adopted a safer tail-compartment automatic loader, reducing the tank crew while controlling the size and total combat weight of the tank. In basic protection mode, the total combat weight of about 30 tons can be delivered remotely and meet the needs of the combat environment of low and medium security threats. The turret front armor can resist the old 100 mm armor-piercing shells, and the body front armor can be immune to the Russian 30 mm armor-piercing shells.” The “老式100毫米穿甲弹,old 100 mm armor-piercing shells” in Chinese usually means the BR412D fired by type 59/T54 and “俄式30毫米穿甲弹,Russian 30 mm armor-piercing shells” usually means the 3UBR6 fired by 2A72.If we want to say the 3BM8 or 3UBR8, we usually say"脱壳穿甲弹" which means APDS. So the Hull with basic additional armor of the basic VT5 could protect tank from 3UBR6 AP,
very like the Hull of ZBD04A.