99% of times you do not get line of sight of enemy's tank tracks.
Even the slightest bending of the landscape makes vehicles appearing and disappearing behind terrain contour, it is a myth that tanks could be easily taken out disabling tracks and rollers.
If you happen to have an open line of sight to the hull, you aim and shot at the hull, not at the tracks.
I totally agree... but even more so the idea that you can just shoot the gun off it is equally absurd... even if they aim dead on at the gun odds are they will hit something else...
It is just too easy that shrapnels and small to medium caliber shot hit the broad target, and gun plus autoloader are just a broad target. The same applies for the whole of the sensors and electronics package.
Do you think western tanks don't have sensors and electronics that can be taken out if hit?
In present MBTs optics are armored, are small, and only the window is actually vulnerable to almost whatever could hit it. The surrounding casing is armored enough to withstand direct hit from small to medium calibers, and like for tracks, good luck at risking your life with the hope to exactly hit those 40 by 40 cm (or even less) target and accomplish a mission killing.
And how big are those electronic boxes on the sides of the turret?
Most of the critical systems and electronics are inside the hull.
You are arguing that Armata is stated to weight around 48 tons having an almost unarmored turret, I am telling that I believe those 48 tons already include an armor package for the turret, and the Armata prototypes that rolled on the Red Square weighted something less than the stated mass.
Armata has a chassis significantly longer and more heavily armoured than the T-90... and the T-90 is 48 tons plus... the whole idea of putting the crew in the hull is to use the heaviest armour to protect them. Why waste weight protecting the gun from everything?
Obviously the turret won't be armored to withstand a 120 mm APFSDS, but between being unarmored, and trying to defy an 80 cm long flechette coming at you at over 1800 m/s. there is ample margin to provide with enough passive protection against 90% of all the metal parts that usually fly across the battlefields, without adding several tons to the turret.
Most of the material flying around the average battlefield is HEAT warheads from rockets or missiles and they have an APS system for that...
Why do you keep reposting this video as if it is absolute fact?
Unless I see Uralvagonzavod oficailly confirm it is just speculation and does not count as evidence.
Why do you think it is wrong?
Do you think they will put heavy armour in the turret... when they moved the crew into the hull so the turret didn't need heavy protection...
Why do you hate anything that has a weight of more than 55 tons?
Because extra weight is bad... why do heavy weight boxers not look like Sumo wrestlers?
Extra weight makes your tank slower.
You burn more energy moving around the place... which is inclined to make you move less if you can.
It makes you a bigger target.
It means there are places you cannot go and things you cannot use like some bridges or roads, or soft ground... which limits your options.
It means you can't be transported easily and in numbers.
It means that big powerful engine they developed is only going to make you adequately mobile, instead of zippy and fast... and it means you always have to worry about where you can get more fuel...
And who said that the Koalitsiya would need haevy armor?
Why would it not need more armour... if you need to protect your gun then the Coalition has a huge one and all the ammo in the rear of the turret needs protecting too...
Your arguments about this simply make no sense.
Look at Germanys experience in WWII with super heavy tanks... you could say it lost them the war... but they don't because that is where the US went too.
The whole concept of the MBT was to have a medium sized vehicle with huge fire power and good protection and good mobility.
Light tanks were too thin and easily defeated, and heavy tanks were too slow and heavy and expensive.
It was medium tanks that had the best of everything.... now tell me again why Russia needs 65 ton tanks so the enemy wont be able to shoot out their smoke grenade launchers...