IS-3 is smaller, and Tiger 2 has more armor distributed around its tank in different ways as well as a heavier suspension system.
The density of steel does not change, but that does not apply to composite materials. I reiterate that the vehicle lacks the composite armor it should have. If you continue to believe that similar dimensions and weight of tanks equate to comparable protection levels, then continuing this discussion would be meaningless. A vehicle with only steel armor and no composite armor does not align with the design language of modern tanks.
Glad you agree about composite materials, however the composite materials aren’t what’s being discussed for the most part.
If you haven’t been keeping up, people are claiming that the amount of rolled steel that VT5 has on the dev server is wrong, and it’s likely the case with the front hull that it is slightly incorrect.
All my posts are about the steel, not the composite on the turret [and maybe UFP I wasn’t paying too much attention to the UFP].
TAM’s comparison is in the base armor, the rolled steel.
TAM-2IP is the direct comparison with the 36 ton version that has more armor attached as both would have plenty of composite armor.
Therefore, is3 is different from tiger king in structure and age, so the two should not be compared together, so tam and vt5 should not be compared. It is illogical and wrong to infer current tanks based on tanks of different configurations from 30 or 40 years ago
The VT5 and TAM are both “light MBTs” light tanks comprised of ~30 tons of primarily rolled steel. TAM-2IP and VT5 with add-on armor both have composite armor as well.
The fact you keep arguing that steel was heavier 40 years ago is hilarious.
Since there are no specific parameters available, we can only make rough estimates.
The density of armored steel is given as 7.87 g/cm³.
Hull: The internal clear height is 810 mm. Excluding the structural elements on both sides, the estimated weight of the hull is 3.9 tons. Adding the weight of the 5 mm armor on both sides, the total weight is approximately 4.5 to 5 tons. However, the hull weight should not exceed 8 tons.
Gun: Taking the 105L7A1 as an example, which weighs 1.282 tons, the Chinese 105 mm gun is estimated to weigh around 1.7 tons.
Turret: Using the 90-type autoloader as a reference, which weighs 1.5 tons, the VT5 autoloader is estimated to weigh around 1 ton. The estimated weight of the turret is around 5 tons.
Road wheels and idler wheels: Assuming each weighs 100 kg, the total weight would be around 1.6 tons. Adding the tracks, suspension, and other miscellaneous components, the total weight is estimated to be between 2.5 to 3 tons.
Engine and transmission system: Estimated to weigh between 3 to 4 tons.
Total estimated weight: 18.7 tons.
I’ll show how I calculate the body of the car (I’ll take it as a regular cube, which is actually only lighter):
Hull side armor: 7.5m x 2.5m x 15mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2 = 4.426875t
Front/rear armor: 3.3m x 2.5m x 10mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2=1.29855t
Hull upper/lower armor: 7.5m x 3.3m x 10mm x 7.87g/cm3 x 2
=3.89565
Frontal additional armor plate: 7.5m x 3.3m 5mm x 7.87g/cm3 / 2 = 0.16231875
All rounded up, the weight of the car without any equipment is: 9.9t
I show the technical staff the results of our calculations: please tell me, is this reasonable? Or do you, like some babbling people, think, “Only the track weighs 11.7 tons?” ”
1 Like
The issue of VT5 protection must be solved, just like that ridiculous turret basket is a matter of principle that cannot be compromised!
I didn’t say whether the weight of steel has changed. I said that two things with different structural designs should not be inferred from each other. The tiger king and is3 can’t be compared. Tam and vt5 can’t be compared, just like human brain and monkey brain, even though they are both protein and fat, can they be the same? Is it the translator or something? Is that hard to understand?
2 Likes
The IS3 and Tiger 2 are of different weights.
The TAM and VT5 are within 3 tons of each other, and those 3 extra tons of VT5 are likely turret and hull length related.
TAM and VT5 were also developed for similar roles: Replacing ancient MBTs and running a cheap armored fighting vehicle for a variety of roles light tanks would do.
VT5 is a fellow tracked vehicle 105mm gun of the 31 ton class and of similar size.
Yeah! You said that the tiger king is different from is3. If you only know about 70 tons of heavy tanks now, can you imagine that a year later, the heavy tank designed by the enemy will be 20 or 30 tons lighter than yours, and the protection is similar to or even better than yours, not to mention vt5 and tam, which are 20 or 30 years apart
I didn’t say the year or the weight? Why do you understand that?
In my opinion, your remarks are frivolous and meaningless.
Firstly, I did not claim that TAM is a lightweight main battle tank, but rather a modern technology medium tank disguised as a traditional light tank. This is because the development of technology has enabled light tanks to have the same protective capabilities as World War II medium tanks.
Secondly, I did not mention CV90120 and ELC. Among these two armored units, the former was born for defensive operations and therefore has excellent complex terrain combat capabilities and maneuverability, while the latter is positioned like the Octopus M and is an airborne combat armored unit. However, it was not even adopted because the winner was the well-known AMX13.
Finally, if you feel that I have been deceived by the Chinese government, I think you can provide some evidence, and you can also state your belief in the VT5 combat positioning here, instead of baseless thinking that “you have all been deceived by the Chinese government, he is not xxxxx.”
1 Like
yes it can be
This text has been polished and translated by Deepseek. If the tone or meaning is not fully conveyed, we kindly ask for your understanding.
Do you think that if you pulled a breastplate from a museum and I crafted one using modern metallurgy, and we both faced the impact of a matchlock gun, who would die first? When two tanks are decades apart in age, do you think the technology in their various modules doesn’t evolve? Is the weight of a tank only determined by its armor? What about the weight of the engine, transmission, and suspension? Wouldn’t different layouts result in different weight distributions? And wouldn’t the use of new materials in auxiliary equipment help reduce weight? Step outside your door and take a look—compare the bulk of old CRT monitors to the slimness of modern LCD screens. Think about which one would be heavier. The weight saved from these advancements can be reallocated to armor. Even if we ignore your so-called argument that “the era doesn’t affect the weight of armor,” the iterative weight reduction of onboard equipment alone would still result in better defense than the TAM. Drop your ignorant arrogance—it’s 2025, not the World War II or Cold War era anymore.
It’s 1944. Can you guess that 70-ton Abrams will be 50 or 60 years from now by looking at the 70-ton Tiger King in front of you? Now there’s no weight. Stop worrying about the damn weight. Now only time has changed. 60 years can’t make steel lighter, but some lighter materials can be made to replace steel where steel is less needed; it allows humans to build engines that are more powerful without a huge increase in weight, to build lighter communications equipment, and to have more knowledge to design tanks without redundant space
Versus Composite Armor compared to Rolled homogeneous armour (if I spell them correctly) will have less weight but increase the protection capabilities because of other materials and a better production method. Modern metallurgical techniques can reduce impurities in steel and improve the homogeneity and toughness of the material. By adjusting the alloy composition, the hardness, impact resistance and tensile strength of steel can be improved.
One example could be Kevlar, the tensile strength of which is about 5 times that of steel, but weighs only 1/5 as much.
Correct, and that would be relevant IF any of these tanks had add-on STEEL armor, but none do.
It’s why I’m comparing them of similar weights.
When the primary differences are add-on turret armor and length, when all else is equal, it’s easy to compare VT5 and TAM, while taking into account photographs of VT5 to conclude that the front plate of VT5’s hull should be thicker.
Personally despite all the problems pointed by the Chinese player base and their efforts to fix it, I think still a very pleasing vehicle to play, I like the later Chinese tank technology and their improvements from the Soviet doctrine but keeping a similar design.
For me, it will be like playing the VT4-A1 at lower battle rating with much more versatility in a powerful platform. I’m excited to read some threads calling the VT-5 a broken vehicle that needs to be at higher battle rating.
Yet here is the issue: How do you know they are using the same refining technique?