Any rational person who has received a basic public education would know that this model is incorrect—it’s common sense, really. People have already provided armor data and photos proving the absence of a turret basket. What have you provided? All you do is ask others for proof. If you’re so convinced you’re right, then provide the data yourself.
Prove what? That this vehicle has a turret basket?
@yichenfu
Thank you for admitting I was correct.
It only took you many insults to admit that the VT5’s armor model and basket are incorrect.
So, what is your claim? Are you asserting that this vehicle doesn’t have a turret basket?
All evidence points to a rotating base that the crew relies on, but not a basket itself.
I’m also playing War Thunder right now.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
So, what’s the deal with the turret basket in the second round of testing?
What is your stance on the side armor being unable to withstand heavy machine gun fire?
I’ve seen no claims referencing range, nor full context to claims.
At 1km, 15mm will resist 50 caliber fire.
Have you not even visited the test server? During testing, the VT5’s side armor couldn’t even withstand 5.8mm bullets. After adding the turret basket, the .50 caliber shots were blocked by it. However, the VT5’s side armor should be capable of directly resisting such firepower without relying on a turret basket that doesn’t even exist in the first place.
Moreover, the VT5’s front hull has serious modeling errors—the fender and idler wheel are misaligned. How can you even discuss the accuracy of its frontal armor when the model itself is flawed? It’s downright laughable.
As a veteran Chinese tech tree player, I’ve witnessed the development team’s dismissive attitude toward the Chinese line over the years. This has compelled me to return to the forum, even though the update is scheduled to release today.
With all due respect, these are documents submitted by other players. If you, like us, are genuinely interested in addressing the objective issues with the VT5 in the game, we encourage you to seek supporting evidence as well, rather than simply criticizing the results of others’ efforts. :)
What’s wrong, my dear moderator? Are you still drunk from drinking, or are you meticulously comparing my replies to the rulebook, line by line, to see if I’ve crossed a line? Hiding my posts every few hours, then hiding another—what’s the deal? All you do is crawl around in the shadows behind your screen.
Countless players have submitted information regarding the armor and internal construction, yet Gaijin chose to ignore it. Meanwhile, although no one had ever questioned the original gun sights, they were still changed from 3-20x to 6-12x without any supporting evidence.
May I ask Gaijin officials, is the change to the gun sights allowed without any supporting evidence?
If that’s the case, it’s hard not to see this as a provocation — not only have the efforts of numerous players been disregarded, but they have also been insulted.
I need to ask it: Is the armor value correct?
is 500+ MM of composite armor that useless that only give 133 mm of protection against kinetic ammunition and 0-6 mm against SAPCBC?
Which generation thermal sight does this tank get in game?
I do not see it listed on Ground Thermals – Thunder View yet, so I do not have 100% confirmation about if it is Gen 2 or Gen 3, but I just did a test drive and it is for SURE at least Gen 2. And has the same level of thermals for both gunner and commander views. Quite nice. I am 99% sure they are Gen 2’s though, Gen 3’s are just a TAD more crystal clear. Gen 2’s are WONDERFUL though, especially when the commander view gets them too. SO great for Light tanks for scouting in Realistic Battles.
Also, its zooms are quite good, 12x for gunner and 10.7x for commander. Commander sight is nice and high on the tank too, again very good for GRB scouting. OH AND IT HAS SPALL LINERS =D !!! I think I will probably be grinding this one out next.
This tank uses gen 3 thermal sight irl btw