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.
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：
Great
They should’ve made this a $80 dollar premium pack honestly.
Can’t though, cause literally same BR as the less expensive ones, 80 dollar only for those 11.7 vehicles or 13.0 for ARB.
There are more than 1 available VT5 and also ZTQ15 so they eventually will make a premium, just not this one.
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!
: )
Apologies for the re-edit, as it was due to a misstep.
That ridiculous composite armor would have to have a KE coefficient of at least around 0.6 to withstand a direct shot from a 100mm APCBC.
However, even the earliest composite armor like the HCR2 model I mentioned boasts a KE coefficient of 0.25 and CE coefficients ranging from 1.15 to 1.3. This blatantly disrespects modern materials science, exposing Gaijin’s dismissive attitude toward scientific rigor.
Wdym behind paywall? Its literally a squadron vehicle
This actually let me remembered that Крупнокалиберный Переполох, the famous russian military youtuber made a Video about T-90M
And in this video he showed a, even not a GA8 Armored insert, just a ceramic strikeface from China, withstand one 12.7x108 firing from T-90M’s remote weapon stations machinegun.
look at 13:30 in this video.
I cannot imagine a countrys designer can design this kind of ceramic strike face, but cannot developed proper composite armor for VT-5 tank… isnt that quite ridiculous?
Reasonable evidence has been provided, yet you have dismissed it with absurd reasons. Do you want to elicit confidential documents by doing so
Rational evidence has been offered, and you have disposed of it on the most absurd grounds. Accurate data can only be found in secret documents, you are a scoundrel.
@Char_Bosian
You came here just to harass people trying to fix VT5…
There has been no evidence provided by you or anyone else proving that VT5 in War Thunder is correct.
VT5 is incorrect no matter how many times you attack us.
Nah, Your speech was ambiguous enough to create confusion. Especially when passed through translators.
As a joke, some of the guys will believe you as Stona’s sub-account. :P
Indeed, Gaijin completely ignores (and likely refuses to acknowledge) even the most basic advancements in materials science. Despite decades of progress, fundamental improvements in material properties receive no recognition whatsoever.
“I’ve been following Fox’s posts on the forum since March 13th. They’re truly contradictory—often hard to tell if it’s a translation issue or intentional.”
I believe it was with Abrams.
The VT5’s modular armor system includes a “base configuration” with composite protection (e.g., reactive armor plates on the hull front and hollow armor modules for mine resistance) and optional upgrades (ERA or slat armor). These base components provide essential protection, while add-ons enhance survivability in high-threat scenarios.The VT5’s composite armor is an intrinsic part of its design, Claims that it “relies solely on external armor” ignore its foundational protective architecture and technological sophistication.
You’re no exception
