Oh, if you have PUBLIC documentation of that, you should feel free to open a bug report. Again, I do NOT have 100% confirmation that it is NOT Gen 3 in game, it’s just what I THINK they are. So maybe we could get a confirmation from a mod/dev and/or see if Thunder View updates their page soon.
I did contact a tech mod. He submitted the docs in his internal report. Hopefully we will get gen 3 thermal sight at some point.
Gunner’s thermal sight in game looked bit clearer than the M3A3 bradley’s gunner sight. Bradley uses gen 2 thermal I think.
1 Like
Yup, M3A3 Bradley uses Gen 2’s all around:
BUT sometimes if the zoom is higher magnification, it can make the thermals SEEM a bit more blurry. Ie, if the tank has LOWER zoom, the thermals might SEEM a bit more clear. Not sure what the M3A3 has for zooms, just wanted to mention the zooms have an effect on how much you might notice it.
EDIT: Just checked, M3A3 has 10x Gunner, and 8x commander. Probably NOT making a noticeable difference between the VT5.
1 Like
The core issue in this entire farce is that Gaijin has yet to accept the fact that China is evolving from a follower of standards to a rule-maker. In Gaijin’s eyes, all Chinese carriers must be labeled as modified Russian equipment, and all Chinese design philosophies are seen as mere imitations or adaptations of Russian systems.
Even with ample evidence available, they just fail to understand — or simply refuse to acknowledge — that China has developed a modern ground vehicle with a completely new design philosophy.
“Yes, you’re light enough, you run fast enough, so you must be classified as a light tank — and therefore must be equipped with pathetic armor, just like our 2S25 tanks.”
Pedantic to the core.
6 Likes
Because the VT5 is gaijin’s own vehicle, its shape is borrowed from the real-life VT-5
Will the type 15 with era have better protection than vt-5?
ZTZ-15 has no composite armor but only steel in large angle, and covered with heavy ERA, should be similar to REAL VT-5(without additional armor)
Sounds kind of disappointing… Could tank so many autocannon rounds if it had both. But at least it has hydropneumatic suspension, right?
ZTQ-15
I predict VT5 gonna go up to 11.0 BR before next major update because rightnow Gaijin want you guys to pay for MI-35, VT5 and T-80UD/BE lineup, just another story, same likes MBT-2000, nothing about performance in reality. The only thing I know is Chinese players gonna make more memes for this XD
Your entire post is myth.
NATO doesn’t use the 2S25, and the 2S25 has less than half the armor VT5 does.
More steel would require the VT5 to be heavier. Norinco says it’s a light tank, Norinco says its modestly armored, and your post is implying Norinco are liars.
AFAIK, I can’t see any of ‘NATO’ terms on his comment.
his post can be summarized by
- Gaijin believes that Chinese weaponry is nothing but inferior to soviet technology in every single aspect.
(Maybe in the level of ‘should have been subtree but cannot happen due to the size of the Chinese player base’) - That is why Gaijin is ignoring quite much of the evidence that Chinese players submitted.
Because Russian devs on Gaijin HQ can’t admit that the Chinese developed a new thing which has the weight of a light tank, but the armour of an older MBT. - So, Gaijin decided to give VT5’s armour at similar worthless level as same as 2S25 does.
I can’t see any [NATO myth] here.
unsure about other myths though.
I think that Chinese players furiously told you about it thousands of times about that.
isn’t it?
I know that you love to use some sarcastic jokes, but it will make them nothing but furious. especially when it needs to pass through the translator for ‘some Chinese player who didn’t learn english on a good level’
@Stockholm_Blend
No one has proven that you can make ~7.8g/cm^2 into anything notably less while as strong for RHA.
English ver:
Subject: Concerns Regarding Systematic Underperformance and Bias Against Chinese Vehicles in War Thunder
Dear War Thunder Development Team,
We write to express profound disappointment with the persistent misrepresentation of Chinese military assets in your game, particularly regarding the VT5 Lightweight MBT tank’s armor mechanics. Available technical specifications and expert analyses clearly demonstrate the VT5’s composite armor configuration, yet its in-game implementation fails to reflect documented protective capabilities. This discrepancy undermines both gameplay balance and historical authenticity.
Of greater concern is the pattern of dismissing verifiable evidence through official channels. Multiple community-submitted documents - including manufacturer specifications and ballistic test data - have been summarily rejected without technical counterarguments. This closed-door approach contradicts War Thunder’s celebrated commitment to “documentation-based vehicle design” and erodes player trust in the fairness of your verification process.A 33-ton combat weight tank exhibiting inferior base armor protection compared to the 24-ton ZBD04A IFV？
This issue extends beyond the VT5. Comparative analysis reveals consistent statistical deviations across multiple Chinese vehicles (both ground and aerial), where performance metrics frequently fall 15-20% below peer vehicles from other nations despite comparable real-world capabilities. The cumulative effect creates a distorted technological narrative that does disservice to your international player base.
We urge immediate action to:
- Re-evaluate VT5’s armor modeling using declassified technical reports
- Implement transparent evidence review protocols for community submissions
- Conduct parity audits across all Chinese tech tree vehicles
As loyal players who deeply appreciate War Thunder’s technical ambition, we believe addressing these concerns will strengthen the game’s reputation as a militarily authentic cross-cultural platform. We welcome open dialogue to resolve these issues constructively.
Sincerely,
[Your Player Community]
1 Like
First of all, I’m glad you’re willing to respond.
What’s the relevance of NATO in this context?
Armor strength and armor density are not strongly correlated. Please refer to the item link I provided earlier. Even modern civilian products can now achieve what were previously top standards with half the thickness. Test standards that once required 10mm-thick materials can now be met with just 5mm with even decrease in density(only 7.58 now). Also, someone previously uploaded a publicly available document from the Australian Department of Defence, which discusses the lack of correlation between armor density and strength in more detail.
The Northern Industries Group says it’s a lightweight main battle tank. Forget the concept of ‘light tank’. The so-called ‘modestly armored’ also has more specific indicators, namely, defence against 100-mm-calibre armour-piercing rounds in key areas and defence against Russian 30-mm shells throughout the vehicle.
1 Like
Maybe a failed attempt at a miserable joke. I guess.
He usually brings up NATO on a topic which looks like anti-russo.
1 Like
Then it makes sense to put it that way. The point I was trying to make is that Gaijin perceives the VT5 as a poor imitation of the 2S38: strong firepower, high mobility, and weak armor.
From a gameplay perspective, the VT5 does have certain strengths, but these advantages become meaningless in gameplay that fails to reflect real-world conditions.
Yup, this thing is definitely going up on BR next patch.