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.
2 Likes
@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
1 Like
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 ^^
7 Likes
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
2 Likes
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:
VT5 Protection Specificationst
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.
6 Likes
Here, I found an early analogue of composite armor: the HCR armor tested by the U.S. military at Aberdeen Proving Ground during World War II. The performance of the HCR1 variant was unsatisfactory and subsequently abandoned, so we will focus on the HCR2 variant.
“The HCR2 was a more reliable armor design, consisting of two 25mm aluminum plates with a 25cm gap between them. This gap was filled with a mixture of crushed quartz stone, resin or asphalt, and wood chips in an 8:1.5:0.5 ratio. Testing demonstrated that this primitive composite armor could provide protection equivalent to 75mm of steel armor against conventional armor-piercing shells. With its 300mm total thickness, it was fully capable of resisting infantry anti-tank weapons like the Panzerfaust, as the shaped charge’s metal jet failed to penetrate it.”
Based on the test data, we can calculate the KE (Kinetic Energy) and CE (Chemical Energy) coefficients of this primitive early composite armor.
KE Coefficient:
The armor’s 75mm RHA equivalent protection against kinetic penetrators (e.g., conventional AP shells) is divided by its 300mm actual thickness:
KE Coefficient = 75 mm / 300 mm = 0.25.
CE Coefficient:
Using the performance of the German Panzerfaust 60 as a reference, which could penetrate 200mm of RHA at a 30° angle. When converted to vertical armor equivalence, this becomes 350-400mm of RHA (due to the slope effect).
The CE coefficient is then calculated as:
CE Coefficient = 350~400 mm / 300 mm ≈ 1.15-1.3.
This simplified calculation illustrates the HCR2 armor’s relative effectiveness compared to homogeneous steel, despite its rudimentary design.
Now let’s look at the composite armor protection coefficients of the in-game VT5:
KE coefficient: ~0.2
CE coefficient: ~1.1
These values are even worse than the world’s earliest practical composite armor (like WWII HCR2).
For a 33-ton 21st-century “lightweight” main battle tank claiming advanced design principles, such performance metrics are highly questionable. It is difficult to reconcile these figures with the vehicle’s weight class and purported modernization standards.
Here are some historical photos of HCR2 in the testing field：
3 Likes
Regarding the Strength of Current Chinese Armor Steel:
美标6级防弹插板武钢生产避弹钢板GA8级10级战术背心用负重护胸板-淘宝网
The linked item is a WISCO-manufactured armored steel insert, which is both civilian-purchasable and exportable. It measures 300 × 250 × 8 mm, weighs 4.55 kg, so the density is 7.58 g/cm³. As mentioned earlier, this is a modern steel variant.
According to the appraisal report, its 5mm and 6mm versions can easily meet the standards of Chinese GA6 and American NIJ IV, which are the highest classifications for armor protection in their respective countries. Meanwhile, the 8mm version exhibits nearly double the protective performance—so much so that there is no existing standard to quantify it. In range tests, it successfully resisted all 12.7mm caliber and smaller rounds. Such a level of protection would have been unthinkable in the past.
It’s also important to note that this is merely the civilian version. The armor steel used on Chinese tanks would be more advanced and offer even greater performance.
This demonstrates that even if the density of a material remains relatively unchanged, advancements in material science can significantly enhance its protective capabilities.
P.S. This armor steel insert is available for overseas purchase, so if you have any doubts, feel free to test it yourself! : )
Great