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?
Similar but not accurate enough. Simply put, VT-5 was originally one of the solutions used to replace ZTQ62, but due to losing to ZTQ15 in the competition, it was converted into a foreign trade product.
The following is the development process, which may be helpful for you to understand:
The earliest mention of Chinese light tanks can be traced back to the existing ZTQ62 and the hidden PT76 in the game. It is not difficult to see from the technology tree of the game that China copied the 211 Project from the PT76 in the development of light tanks and developed it into the ZTS63. At the same time, China began developing the ZTQ62 in 1958 to meet the complex terrain and military needs of China. Therefore, in 1962, China’s first traditional light tank design was finalized and mass production began in 1963.
In its development history, there is a war that cannot be avoided, which the Chinese authorities call the “Self Defense Counterattack War against Vietnam” (please do not have too many questions about the name of this war, our focus is on the development history of Chinese tanks). The performance of the ZTQ62 in this war far exceeded that of the ZTZ59, which was copied from the T54/55. This made the Chinese military pay more attention to the research and development of its related equipment, and continuously upgrade the ZTQ62 in the following decades. The latest ZTQ62g uses a brand new ZPL94 105mm artillery, equipped with night vision devices, laser rangefinders, bidirectional stabilizers, and digital ballistic computers, and has strong combat capabilities. Unfortunately, due to a large-scale military adjustment in the late 1990s to early 2010s, the ZTQ62G was not adopted and China’s light tank program was put on hold. But I am looking forward to seeing ZTQ62G in the game.
According to existing data, it is estimated that around the late 2010s, the Chinese military launched a plan to replace the ZTQ62 and develop a new type of tank as a result. This is the origin of ztq15 and vt-5. According to currently available information, this plan includes at least the following indicators:
As for why this conclusion can be drawn, firstly, it is because in interviews with CCTV and authoritative military magazines, the chief designer mentioned that "although its weight is relatively light, its protective ability is not weak. We have already achieved a level of protection for the VT-5 light tank that can withstand attacks from first and second generation main battle tanks. "In China, the first/second generation main battle tank usually refers to the ZTZ59, while the full caliber ammunition is the BR412 series commonly used on the 100mm gun mounted on the ZTZ59.
Secondly, we all know that tanks positioned at 33-36 tons cannot fully withstand frontal attacks from the BR412 series, but the turret is definitely capable. And it is not difficult to resist 30mm armor piercing bullets. and in the combat environment of new tanks, the probability of encountering infantry fighting vehicles equipped with autocannons is significantly higher than encountering modern main battle tanks—this is due to terrain limitations.
So overall, according to its design standards, this new type of tank is more similar to a “small” main battle tank that is lighter than mainstream main battle tanks. A less accurate example is the difference between the former Soviet Union’s T-34-85 and T-54, both of which were classified as medium tanks at the time. However, the T-54 was better designed and therefore had stronger performance, and both had a strong correlation. The VT-5 and VT-4 are exactly the opposite. You can simply consider the VT-5 as a much lighter VT-4, which is also emphasized by the new tank program: a special vehicle that can resist modern third-generation tanks.
It doesn’t matter because the density difference won’t have a tangible mass difference.
VT5 should likely be more equal to TAM’s hull rather than inferior.
The VT5 weighs much less than it does in the game. The “33 tons” in the game is completely wrong. Your “11700kg M1 tracks” is such a stupid joke.
The VT5 IRL weighs 33 tons.
For VT5 to weigh less IRL it’d have less steel…
Show your calculations on the line. Even if you give the VT5 in the game a 10-ton turret, it weighs nowhere near 33 tons. This gaijin’s VT5 has at least 5-7 tons less protection mass.
@AWACS_Ghost_Eye1
So I have Norinco corporate interests? You know, I’ve been called worse, Norinco’s a cool company.
If you have so much interest in weight, someone estimated VT5 in game mass by steel thickness. It’s roughly 18.7 tons
And you might wanna take a look at this as well: Squadron Vehicles: VT5 - #229 by 两炮炸碎台独魂-长官我是福建人
They have the wrong thickness for steel, didn’t account for suspension & track weight.
They reduced the armor to less than half of what the War Thunder’s armor value is to get to 18.7 tons, which is equivalent to the 2S25’s armor, not the actual armor that VT5 has in-game.
A lot of other omitted things as well.
They took suspension and track into consideration, It’s 3 tons in calculation. Even I doubt the side armor weight, It’s 5 more tons. Hell Let us add 10 more tons. Still 5 tons short.
And the most important thing u didn’t answer. All VT5 versions have the same turret. (ERA or composite pack) Why the turret in game fail to stop 100mm apcbc when its designer in real life stated otherwise?
what suspension type is the VT?
the regular one. No fancy stuff like Type90 has
The calculations were wrong.
While the VT5’s steel amount for the hull front is provably wrong, those calculations thinned the steel significantly to what’s in-game. Tracks + suspension of that width weighs significantly more than 3 tons.
And I have already supported fixing the turret of VT5, that is not the purview of my posts at this time.
The sides have 15mm of armor each, not 5.
I didn’t check the roof of floor of the hull at the time of dev, otherwise I’d comment.
I know the thread is about VT5 but I’d really enjoy type 62 gai in game
That’s why I added 10 more tons to mitigate the false calculation. 28.7 tons is still not enough. And the weird lookig fuel tank in game, It’s educated guess that extended part should be composite armor. And I quote, Gaijin intro, hull is protected by thin RHA and composite screen. Now, It’s thin RHA only, and composite screen is replaced by fuel tank. 10mm rha on lfp, is too thin to support ERA. It kills itself when ERA is triggered
Highly relevant and interesting document on the diskussion of weight and steel thickness. The same density and thickness of steel and have wildly differing capabilities of defeating a projectile:
(https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1027340.pdf)
This is also 10 years old and unclassified so one can only assume that the armor used today is way better compared to then.
Edit:
Sidenote, this is actually what i’m currently studying in university (Engineering - Material Sciences) so it was super interesting to read ^^
Ohhhh, Despite that I called for extra information, I didn’t expect you to come out and show a long story about the development of VT5! How kindly.
I got a reply from three guys(two others and you) who know about Chinese tanks.
everyone was kind, and eager.
I also gratefully thank you for sharing fascinating stories and hope you have a good day.
by the way, ZTQ62G seems epic. XD
As is widely known, in CCTV promotional material about the VT5 light tank, the chief designer explained its protection specifications as follows: The frontal armor can defend against Soviet 100mm AP ammunition such as BR-412B/D rounds. However, the hull structure cannot withstand impacts from such projectiles. Through technical estimation, the VT5’s armor is still assessed to provide protection against 30mm APDS (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot) rounds. Based on this calculation methodology, the VT5’s hull demonstrates a KE protection value of approximately 120+ mm RHA equivalent. Furthermore, due to optimized CE defensive performance, its protection against shaped charge munitions is estimated to reach 200-250 mm RHA equivalent. The vehicle’s side armor can effectively resist direct fire from 12.7mm heavy machine guns.
Based on the provided information, the protection capabilities of the VT5 light tank can be summarized as follows:
Turret Frontal Armor
1.KE Protection: Approximately 230± mm RHA equivalent (against kinetic energy penetrators like APFSDS)
2.CE Protection: Approximately 500± mm RHA equivalent (against chemical energy threats like HEAT rounds)
Hull Frontal Armor
1.KE Protection: Approximately 120± mm RHA equivalent
2.CE Protection: Approximately 200± mm RHA equivalent
Side Armor (Entire Vehicle)
Capable of resisting 12.7mm direct fire (e.g., heavy machine guns), equivalent to 30–35 mm RHA ballistic protection.
This summary aligns with the disclosed technical parameters while maintaining consistency with conventional armor classification methodologies.
But what about in the game? The front of the vehicle can only withstand 12.7mm direct fire, the turret has only 120 ± mm armor piercing resistance, and the side is even more vulnerable.
By the way, T54/55 weighs 34t and is almost immune to the front of KWK43/L71 88mm tank guns. Of course, this is the performance after achieving the ultimate bulletproof appearance, and it cannot be fully achieved by VT5. The Octopus M weighs 18 tons and can withstand a large area of 12.7mm direct sunlight on the front of the vehicle. Here, I have a question: Do you think a “light” main battle tank with a total weight of 33 tons would have worse protection performance than a positioning airborne light tank?
And I also have information here to prove that the new type of composite armor can achieve a lower density than steel and better protection performance than steel.
