Werewolf wrote:Do you even know how thick you need to make your rear door to withstand 30 to 45mm rounds? You won't be able to use the door anymore with such thickness and weight.
Even full blown MBT's have trouble in armoring the rear to that extent, It's even more doubtful a medium sized vehicle could do so.
considering that all tanks have 25 to 50mm on the rear, no tank should be able to sustain a 30mm AP-T ammo, credited with 96mm penetration at 100m vs medium RHA. In fact, even some 20mm AP rounds (from WW2 or later) could penetrate at point blank. In fact at least 1 M1 abrams (M1A2) suffered a catastrophic mobility kill from a 14.5mm KPV machine gun in iraq, it was in the "real war" during the few first weeks of 2003 invasion. It was even said to be a 12.7mm MG (dshk or NSV) but i doubt it.
This will be a shock to many of you, but, the russian tanks T-72/80 have roughly 80mm side armour with a 20mm bottom (unreachable by a projectile) side plate at the level of the torsion bars (the same is found on T-54,55,62 arranged in a simpler way). T-64 is more complex, and not has 80mm everywhere on the side, i think it is 50 or 60 on some areas. T-90A i don't know, i guess it's still like T-72 but probably a bit reinforced (100mm on the forward-central area maybe)
Leopard 2 (all versions) have 50 and 25mm base side armour, it's not a joke. Leopard 2 side armour is exactly 25mm at the level of the suspension (all length), 50mm at the "habitacle" (it goes down to 25 or 30mm at the debut of the engine compartment)... On the top where the "faux" side (sponsons fuel tanks) is found, there is yet another 25mm external armour on the whole length, making 50 + fuel + 25mm best side armour on this tank. The combat protection kit (skirts) improves a lot: the 4 forward panels of each side are a total of 50 + 10 + 50mm steel/air/steel (spaced 50mm x2), protecting the habitable from a forward-side strike to a good mesure, and able to stop simple HEAT warheads and old 100mm and lower caliber full bore AP rounds (100mm not guarantee) on a perpendicular side hit.. it gives 50+50+50mm real armour + many gaps. The rest of the skirts are thin sheet of rubber/steel and have 0 impact on kinetic penetrators, but can disrupt simple HEAT warheads... at this place the armour is like 50+10mm + gap.
Abrams side armour is believed to be between 30 and 50mm all the length, with this + another 30 or 50 at the fuel tanks sponsons. Abrams then uses the skirtks, believed to be 35+air+35mm steel on the forward ones, and, simple thin (10-20mm) plates on the rest of the length.
Those western tanks have very week hull but strong side turret armour.
You can bet all tanks like leclerc, challenger 2 or some asian tanks also follow the same hull armor rule.
And, back in the day, tank praised and bullshited to be best of the best armored ever seen, the chieftain, had litterally 38mm side armour + a thin skirt. WW2 T-34 had 45mm side armour, half of it angled and approaching 60mm real value.
All the while, Tank like T-10M had 90mm side armour with only a very thin and almost unreachable area where it was really 90mm vertical, the rest was 90mm at 60° for a 180mm LOS value and litterally 220 to 250mm real value vs armor piercing and early sabot rounds. Soviet heavy tanks of the 1950s and 1960s (only prototypes) had monstruous side armour (= to front armour of western medium tanks like M48) thanks to ingenious angling, still being around 50t machines.
So, yes, many tanks of the 50s and even WW2 have more side armour than current MBT.