TAM-2C is 30.5 tons and has less turret armor than the VT-5 does which makes sense since the TAM-2C is both smaller and lighter. Similar hull armor to each other.
@bwdnmb
Our friend here was claiming side armor, not front. I never mentioned front in my post as I’m not about to make a claim of front armor protection outside my belief that 30mm hull front is standard for ~33 ton light tanks.
I made a typo, what I meant to say was that the side armor in the article that can withstand 23mm kinetic rounds is not the VT5U but the VT5 base model
You’re overthinking its protective capabilities. The frontal armor of this vehicle is designed to withstand 30mm 3UBR6 rounds, but it doesn’t require excessively thick armor—just 44mm（1000m ）. Moreover, the vehicle utilizes ceramic composite armor here, which, according to my undergraduate ballistics materials professor, is exceptionally lightweight. The same utilizes ceramic composite armor is used on ZBDO4A, 08 family and next generation IFV
the standard is 23mm with 1000 meters distance
If you’re interested in reading further:
According to an interview with the chief designer of the VT5 tank in the December 2016 issue of Modern Weapons, the VT5 was designed to counter first- and second-generation main battle tanks in both field and urban combat environments. One of its key design objectives was protection against full-caliber rounds fired from a 100mm line-bore gun. Notably, this level of protection applies to both the standard and heavily armored versions, with the turret’s protection being essentially the same across both variants.
Additionally, the chief designer explicitly introduced the concept of a “lightweight main battle tank” to distinguish the VT5 from traditional light tanks, citing the Stingray and CV90120-T as examples.
The hull front is different since the last time I checked.
Either way the UFP and turret entirely resist auto-cannon rounds, and the lower front plate is ~21 - 43mm protection, which is in-line with all light tanks of the 30 - 33 ton class.
Maybe we can get a tech tree variant with the add-on armor in the future for a higher BR than 10.7.
Also the VT5 has its spall liner now:
You stated 23mm for side armor, which the page you cited never mentioned side armor and did mention 23mm rounds, not 30mm.
And I stated that the fact that the UFP and turret resist 30mm rounds, which your screenshot proved.
The frontal and side hull spall liner are seamlessly integrated, such strong. lol
I suspect you forgot the materials I sent you before.
No, I didn’t. I was scrutinizing your VT-5U image, not your others.
I respect you enough to hold you to a high standard and wish for you to feel safe in being honest.
I am not going to say you are wrong, I am not going to be mean to you.
All I want is correct information, and having VT-5U article thrown at me when I ask for the base model VT-5 that we’re getting in War Thunder isn’t a kind thing in my eyes.
I have a deep appreciation for the Type 15 light tank, I have an extensive knowledge of modern light tanks; far more than my knowledge of MBTs.
The subject of this sentence is VT5, not VT5U my friend
So they finally decided to add spall liners but forgot the rest of Chinese MBTs.
Shocking…
Regarding the concept of a “lightweight main battle tank,” the chief designer highlighted the following points:
• Despite its lighter weight, the VT5’s protection is not weak. Its core armor can withstand full-caliber rounds from a 100mm line-bore gun (as previously mentioned), thanks to advancements in new materials developed in China.
• The basic version is effective against older generations of main battle tanks in field combat, while the heavily armored variant provides 360-degree omnidirectional protection in urban environments.
• Designed for rough terrain, the VT5 offers excellent mobility and can operate in areas where heavy main battle tanks would struggle.
Based on these design principles, it is clear that the VT5 is not a traditional light tank, but rather a platform specifically designed to counter older main battle tanks by leveraging advanced technology against outdated yet widely deployed equipment. This implies that its defensive capabilities extend beyond protection against machine guns and small-caliber artillery, reaching a level where it can withstand weaker tank guns in critical areas.
Gaijin fundamentally misclassified the VT5 in the game, leading to its current absurd armor implementation.
VT5 is not the export version of Type 15
I call that crisis management
Make sense.
They know that starting with MBT-2000 all high tier Chinese tanks should have spall liners but they are purposely negleting this feature.
VT-5 recieved spall liners due to havoc they caused.
If it’s not the export variant of the Type 15, tell me why in trade shows alongside the name VT-5, it is also called the 15E
Norinco produces both ZTZ99A, and ZTQ-15. It also makes the VT-4 and the VT-5. The VT-4 is the export counterpart of the ZTZ99A, called 99AE. The VT-5 is the export counterpart of the ZTQ-15 called 15E.
Question 1: Gaijin’s introduction stated that VT5’s hull and turret are protected by RHA and composite screen. How does Gaijin plan to do that when VT5’s fuel tank is so massive and positioned extremely close to the spall liner? There is absolutely no point in designing an extended fuel tank, resulting in increased length and weight of the hull. Honestly, I find this ridiculous, given the fact that even ZBD04A has better LFP protection than VT5.
During the Russia - Ukraine conflict, crews put Contact-1 on BTR-80 to increase protection. You never saw them put Contact-5 or Relikt on a BTR-80. That’s because the BTR-80’s “tin can” armor is too thin to hold the blast of Relikt.
In dev, the lower hull armor of VT5 is only 10mm. That’s not even enough to withstand the blast from its own ERA(FY4&5 are heavy ERA and equivalent to Relikt or better) when exploding. Unless there is more composite armor behind that 10 mm of RHA, it’s impossible to put FY4 on VT5’s LFP because the ERA itself can kill the tank. I know it’s a 33-ton variant, but all VT5 variants have the same design layout and base armor. That’s why modular design exists.
Again, where is that composite screen on the front of the hull, as promised in the intro?
Question 2: Based on the pic you posted before, the VT5 turret can only withstand 30mm APDS. Even though this VT5 is a basic version which lacks ERA on the hull and side, it still has the same protection as the heavy armor version on the turret. At least its turret armor is not up to the standard which can stop the round fired by GEN1 and GNE2 MBT（Not HEAT only, APCBC is also a common ammunition used by GEN1 & 2 MBT）, as the VT5 designer stated in the interview. In the picture below, the turret of VT5 can be easily pen by a Soviet 100mm cannon, which is a classic GEN1 MBT cannon.
The picture below shows the upgraded armor version of VT5. There are additional composite screens and NERA on the hull, ERA on the side. But the turret protection REMAINS THE SAME as the basic version. If Gaijin insist on the VT5 armor value, at least the turret protection is correct, then the VT5 with armor upgrade(the 36-ton version )is still unable to stop GEN 1 MBT firepower because it has exact the same armor profile on its turret as the 33-ton VT5 in the game. Which is entirely impossible given the fact that the designer himself admitted that VT5 is capable of withstanding the firepower of GEN2 MBT.
Unless Gaijin can find a legitimate source proving that the in-game VT5 uses a different composite armor on the turret compared to the 36-ton VT5 in real life, it is totally unacceptable that VT5’s turret only has 135mm of protection against APCBC.
PS: Please do understand that all the players in the comments are not targeting WT employees but Gaijin. They are somewhat aggressive and disappointed because they believe Gaijin should put more rational thinking in design and stop ignoring sources posted by players. Players put time and money(at least I did) to post sources, and most of the time, all they get in return is “Not a Bug.” Even some vehicle modeling is completely wrong(VT5’s turret basket, for example). They are just not feeling that Gaijin is working with them and are using “pictures are not visible or clear & classified docs” as an easy excuse.
So this is your mistake, friend. There is not much difference in protection between VT5U and VT5. “u” only represents unmanned operation, and its performance has not changed. The enhanced information warfare capability of VT5U cannot be reflected in the game.
Let’s get back to protection. Anyway, a 33 ton “lightweight” main battle tank should not be like this: it cannot block 30mm APDs on the front, and it cannot even block 12.7mm on the side.
And I think it needs to be corrected again. Although it may seem a bit tricky, this is a fact: lightweight main battle tanks cannot be equated with traditional light tanks. The former is designed to be lightweight based on the positioning of the main battle tank, while the latter is a broad concept but generally excels in mobility, with patrol and support as the main tactics.
