runaway wrote:GarryB wrote:When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.
That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?
It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.
It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.
And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.
I don't think the leopard 2a6 can wihstand the vacuum 1/2 rounds used by Russian tanks.