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.
Because their technology is of the same origin, my friend. For example, the MBT2000 is a product of China Pakistan cooperation, with Pakistan unilaterally calling it “Khalid” and China calling it the VT1 main battle tank.
This is actually not that difficult to understand.
Everyone who knows the history of the development of Chinese tanks knows that ZTZ99 and VT4, ZTQ15 and VT5 are completely different. The projects are parallel.That display board was to satisfy the strange insistence of some customers who had to get the same tank as the PLA equipment.
Real World:
ZTQ15：
Firepower: 105mm artillery system
Protection: light steel hull, ceramic armor plate, ERA
Power: Specialized super power, for plateaus, marines, etc. The power pack is huge
Position: A light tank for special environment
VT-5：
Firepower: Basically at the same level as the ZTQ-15，But with degraded, older ammunition
Protection: Light steel hull, ceramic armor plates, composite armor pack, urban combat kit
Power: Sufficient high engine power
Position: Lightweight main battle tank. It can give customers with small budgets an advantage over older tanks
The current WT world
VT-5：VT-5’s fire system and power pack + even worse protection than ZTQ15
Position:Anger Chinese TT players
Actually, I don’t understand, since gaijin is not clear about the level of protection of the VT-5, why not launch the ZTQ15 first? At least there won’t be such a big controversy about protection. The controversy may be the lack of the latest ammunition parameters for the PLA’s own use.
Let me briefly summarize the current issues with VT-5：
1.Firstly, the relationship between ztq15 and vt-5. VT-5, like ZTQ15, was a product developed by China to address the complex terrain in the south but also to meet the demand for armored forces. VT-5, on the other hand, failed in this competition for new armored units and became a foreign trade product. Here we can answer why there is also the word “15e” on the VT-5 exhibition board at the Zhuhai Airshow. The reason is that the two are essentially of the same origin, and some countries have special needs (such as wanting PLA’s own products), which has led to the current situation of ZTQ15e/VT-5.
2.Next is the definition problem, which is also the most important issue. As is well known, tanks can be simply classified into three categories: light, medium, and heavy. The main battle tanks in the world today evolved from medium tanks, starting with early main battle tanks represented by the T-54/55, Centurion, and Leopard1. Their main characteristics are good mechanical performance, generally excellent protection, and the ability to block full caliber armor piercing shells of small and medium caliber.
However, light tanks gradually became marginalized during their evolution. Today’s light tanks are mainly responsible for support and patrol, and have mostly evolved into wheeled assault guns, such as the Italian Centaur and the American M1128. Of course, tracked weapons still exist, but they have mostly undergone specialized design and can be roughly divided into two branches: artillery based and machine gun based weapon selection. This has led to the emergence of two armored units, modern light tanks and modern infantry fighting vehicles. The former focuses on anti armor/anti engineering as the main design direction, while the latter focuses on accompanying infantry and providing fire cover as the main design direction.
Let’s get to the point here: What kind of armored unit is VT-5? Which type should he belong to?
In our discussion, some people compared the Octopus M light tank from Russia, some compared it to the TAM light tank from Argentina, and even compared it to the latest M10 Booker light tank from the United States. However, this is actually an incorrect way of comparison. Let’s briefly analyze the Octopus M, TAM, and M10 Booker tanks respectively.
Firstly, the positioning of Octopus M is an airborne armored unit designed for VDV requirements, which results in extremely strict weight requirements. VDV requires its firepower to be strong enough to resist enemy main battle tanks, so it chose the 125mm 2A75 anti tank gun, but at the cost of almost no anti ballistic performance. The front can only withstand 12.7mm bullets with a specially designed anti ballistic shape, and the side can only withstand rifle bullets. Rather than being a light tank, it is more accurate to say that it is a self-propelled anti tank gun with basic protective capabilities that can be airborne, and the Russian military indeed believes so.
Then there is the M10 Booker (TAM is placed at the end because it is closer to the positioning of VT-5). Firstly, we know that the M10 Booker is a product of the Mobile Protective Fire (MPF) program. Prior to this, the US military considered the Stryker Artillery System, but it has now been halted for various reasons. The fundamental purpose of the MPF program is to provide direct fire strikes for infantry and emphasize the strategic deployment and battlefield mobility of vehicles. Its positioning is more similar to China’s PTL02/ZLT11 wheeled assault gun or Italy’s Centaur wheeled assault gun than what we call light tanks. The official positioning of the M10 Booker by the US military is only: “The M10 Booker is a mobile platform that provides protected firepower for infantry, aimed at supporting our infantry brigade combat teams by suppressing and destroying defensive works, artillery systems, and trench routes, and then providing protection against enemy armored vehicle fire, Not some ‘light tank’.”
(Off topic: The M10 Booker is much heavier than a normal light tank and has poor protection performance, making it difficult to call it a light tank.)
Finally, we generally believe that TAM is the closest to VT-5. I think everyone should know that the full name of TAM is the “Tanque Argentino Mediato” program. So what is actually quite counterintuitive is that TAM’s official designation is actually a medium tank, rather than the light tank we usually consider. The tam2ip in the tam family is closest to the design concept of the VT-5: a special armored unit specially customized for its own needs. This demand is reflected in Argentina as a threat from surrounding countries and a need for armored units to replace their equipment; In China, 96/99 can’t drive normally in the complex terrain in the south and Xizang plateau, and the demand caused by armored threats in Central Asia, South Asia and Central South Asia. So from a demand perspective, the positioning of VT-5 is more similar to TAM2IP.
Among the three types of light tanks that we generally considered earlier, there is actually one medium tank (TAM), one airborne specialized self-propelled anti tank gun (Octopus M), and one tracked assault gun (M10 Booker) that provides direct fire for infantry.
Now let’s take a look at the VT-5. First of all, in the official definition, the VT-5 is a “lightweight main battle tank”, which means that the VT-5 should be seen as a lightweight VT-4. The VT-4 weighs 52 tons, and the VT-5’s 33 tons are naturally considered “lightweight”. This is very reasonable.
Therefore, in the definition of “lightweight main battle tank” in vt-5, the subject is not “lightweight”, but “main battle tank” behind it, because only in this way can the armored threat from Central Asia, South Asia and Central South Asia be resisted, and after “lightweight”, the tank can quickly maneuver in the complex terrain of southern China and the plateau of Xizang.After all, it should be noted that under the influence of advanced materials science and engineering today, a 33 ton armored vehicle is not a realistic product, while a 33 ton tank can completely achieve it.
TAM, CV90105, VT5, etc aren’t “lightweight main battle tanks”, stop claiming the Chinese government are lying about the Type 15/VT5 LIGHT TANK.
Sorry to intervene, but this claim seems a bit cringe I think.
Don’t bring another light vehicle to support your claim. It seems it is nothing more than blurring the point.
Even though VT-5 is officially classified as a Light tank. It doesn’t mean that they can’t call it a Lightweight MBT.
I heard that the Chinese government developed VT5 to sell as a replacement for old MBTs such as ZTZ59.
@魔法武装拖拉机
I do not know much about Chinese tanks. Is it true?
And Leopard 1 replaced M48.
Either way there’s a lot of talk about breaking the laws of physics in steel use. Rolled steel is barely a density change over standard steel citations.
The 36 ton version with add-on armor is in-line with TAM-2IP’s level of protection and level of mass gain.
Oh and TAM also replaced Leopard 1s.
CV90s replaced APCs.
So on and so forth.
So far the claims of 100mm APCBC and 23mm side armor protection make sense for the add-on armor, cause that’s the TAM-2IP’s level of protection as well.
I am not an expert on Chinese tank-developing. So I am unsure about arguing further ‘worthfully’
Still, AFAIK, Norinco developed it as somewhat similar to MBT but Lightweight.
To sell them as replacement of ZTZ59 or T-55.
On a country that needs MBT but can’t afford the current 60t-ish one.
Terrain, Budget…
@八十六区_无翼血鸟_白风绫 coming out with racist and xenophobic statements…
In reality the 33 ton version doesn’t have the composite add-on armor of the 36 ton version, and that composite armor seems to give the protection against 100mm APCBC rounds frontally.
VT5 is much an “MBT” as TAM and CV90105 are.
And a direct replacement doesn’t even need to be equivalent side armor protection.
TAM replaces Leopard 1s and M60s for countries, yet is less armored than both by far.
Leopard 1s replaced M48s.
Type 16 replaced Type 74s, it’s not even tracked.
close enough. for many countries, they don’t have much well-built road and other infrastructure, so a normal modern MBT can hardly get to most of the territory.
so here is VT-5, has a low weight and good mobility. has significant advantage to old type MBTs like T-55, while also be comparable to modern MBTs.
the main idea is the requirement of MBT and the limitation of infrastructure. Budget is also a problem but not its main idea. Budget focus should be things like Durjoy or Al-Zarrar
Thanks for the extra info, mate!
It seems players from China have good enthusiasm and belief about their tank. XD
If you had paid attention to some of the submissions made by myself and others, you would have noticed that the chief designer of the VT5 deliberately distinguished it from the traditional light tanks based on the CV90 chassis. Please do not equate the VT5 with the 90105 or 90120 tanks.
Regarding the positioning of the VT5, I found a previous documentary from the CCTV (a national and official television) military channel:
In the video, both the documentary filmmakers and the manufacturer repeatedly emphasize the term ‘lightweight main battle tank.’ Furthermore, during the performance comparison (including factors like speed and mobility), the VT5 is contrasted with other main battle tanks.
As for the labeling at the exhibition, it can be seen as a more understandable approach, considering that not everyone is familiar with or ready to accept a more precise positioning of this new class of vehicles.
p.s. The Type 15 tanks and VT5s are only technically homologous; they are completely different in terms of design philosophy and tactical application. The Chinese army required a traditional light tank, which is why the Type 15 entered service while the VT5 did not.
It is obvious that the most serious issue with the VT-5 is its lack of the proper composite armor, yet you are only focusing on comparing its weight with other light vehicles. If weight were the sole determining factor, then why does the 30-ton T-44 have better protection than the 44-ton Panther II?
You cannot assess protection levels based solely on weight while ignoring the impact of armor layout and materials. If that were the case, then the best-protected tank in War Thunder should be the 188-ton Maus.
The composite armor is part of the 3 ton armor package which we’re sadly not getting.
T-44 is tiny, it’s quite literally a T-34 redesigned.
the direct replacement for old MBTs like ZTZ59s should be ZTZ96s
Type 15 is a replacement for those armor devision that were deployed in diffcult environment such like plateau, where normal MBT would not performed well enough
This is another great piece of information for me. Thank you so much.
So… in conclusion
VT5 was developed to replace old outdated MBTs like ZTZ59 for foreign customers
But not for direct replacement(like type 96 does) but for the customers who kept them because of difficult terrain?
So… it should have better armour than it now.
(With various sources)
Did I understand correctly?
