There already is composite, but just that they aren’t modelled, if looking at VT5 turret CE protection value it sits well on par with most others at more than 450mm, its just that it is given a 0.14 KE value that makes it so vulnerable, which IDK how composite armour has 0.14 KE value, but apparently it got Gaijined.
1 Like
We all know that this VT-5 has not been equipped with the external composite armor package. I reiterate once again that what it lacks is the composite armor it was originally supposed to have.
1 Like
yeah quite so
the reason why PLA developed Type 15 is because they wish to have something that is less heavier, PLA used to have only Type 59 so they developed type 62 as a simplly smaller type 59.
PLA like type 62 a lot but all the upgrade attempt to it were failed. After it out of service, PLA suddenly found out the only possible replacement is type 59 again, which is way heavier and performed horrified in diffcult terrain
therefore PLA start to develop Type 15 and eventually use it as a light-MBT in difficult enviroment, yet the development last so long, the orignal type 62 which should be replaced by type 15 now has become type 59, thats the reason why the division now using type 15 used to be using type 59
so simply
PLA wish to use tank in some places→use Type 59→to heavy→developed type 62→good→attempt to upgrade it→failed→type 62 out of service→ so we are using type 59 again now?→developed Type 15
2 Likes
It’s 0.2 currently.
@KMS_Bisssssmarck
Composite armor was only ever attached to the turret of the base VT5.
The hull remains empty of composite/ERA until the 3 ton armor package is equipped, so the hull is going to be bare steel for the most part.
You and I may dislike that, but VT5 we’re getting will be balanced off of the armor it gets regardless.
Haven’t had the newest datamine stats. TY.
It certainly doesn’t look like 15mm though. From various sources it is much higher than just 7.62mm proof, as well as the hull should get the extra 8mm high hardness plate which should be around 20mm equivalent so should at least be 30mm proof.
I’ve seen no images of its armor cut away, which is the only way you’ll see the thickness of the side armor itself.
The suspension mounting has welded plates attached for strengthening, cause 15mm doesn’t make for an ideal suspension mount.
If you’re talking front armor then yeah, at least the add-on plate should be thicker in-game.
Once again, Thank you so much for sharing this lovely historical lesson about VT5!
It seems you guys are kind, eager, and filled with belief for your tank.
It was an honour to discuss this with you guys.
Have a wonderful day and hope you guys get a proper historical fix about VT5
We also had ahistorical FM about Harrier. So I am partially understand your pain. :'(
3 Likes
np at all 👍
15mm can’t be realistic, 12.7 is the minimum for any tank or even APCs up front, no way a 33t tank has this little armour.
Sides are described to be 30mm proof in various interviews, but obviously it only says ‘all angle 30mm proof’ and that it could well be talking about just 30mm AP. Depends on range as well, so likely sth like 30-50mm.
33 tons I expect ~32mm personally, in-line with VT5’s direct comparison: TAM.
Sides with the add-on armor is likely described at auto-cannon resistant [not proof], but the only way to make the sides auto-cannon proof without the add-on armor is making the tank 50 tons.
NVM it said 20mm, that makes 30mm armour with a bit of angle very achievable.
Why do you think two vehicles with a 30-40 year age gap have basically the same protection? The engine horsepower has increased by 100hp, yet you claim protective technology hasn’t advanced in decades? Moreover, how could a front-engine layout with four crew members and no autoloader possibly be identical to the VT5? Just because they share the same weight? By your logic, the 188-ton Maus tank should have better protection than two Abrams tanks combined?
Steel is steel, while there are minor changes in alloys, the density remains almost the same.
The only thing TAM-2IP and the 36 ton VT5 have over the standard TAM and VT5 are add-on armor that increases their protection.
The standard VT5’s turret has some forward protection over the TAM and that’s the only difference between those two protection wise.
Both are using rolled armor for the hull and turret base.
They are from different eras, yet you assume that because their weights are similar, their protection levels should also be comparable.
Again, steel doesn’t get lighter with time, it stays largely the same density.
Their rolled steel protection should be comparable, yes.
Is3 has only 48 tons. Tiger King has 70 tons. Are they the same level
IS-3 is smaller, and Tiger 2 has more armor distributed around its tank in different ways as well as a heavier suspension system.
The density of steel does not change, but that does not apply to composite materials. I reiterate that the vehicle lacks the composite armor it should have. If you continue to believe that similar dimensions and weight of tanks equate to comparable protection levels, then continuing this discussion would be meaningless. A vehicle with only steel armor and no composite armor does not align with the design language of modern tanks.
Glad you agree about composite materials, however the composite materials aren’t what’s being discussed for the most part.
If you haven’t been keeping up, people are claiming that the amount of rolled steel that VT5 has on the dev server is wrong, and it’s likely the case with the front hull that it is slightly incorrect.
All my posts are about the steel, not the composite on the turret [and maybe UFP I wasn’t paying too much attention to the UFP].
TAM’s comparison is in the base armor, the rolled steel.
TAM-2IP is the direct comparison with the 36 ton version that has more armor attached as both would have plenty of composite armor.
Therefore, is3 is different from tiger king in structure and age, so the two should not be compared together, so tam and vt5 should not be compared. It is illogical and wrong to infer current tanks based on tanks of different configurations from 30 or 40 years ago