Recall also that artillery generally isn't going to penetrate your armor,
85mm artillery and 76.2mm artillery probably wont but 152mm and 203mm and 240mm artillery the Russians are currently using can...
Abrams tanks were destroyed by 50kg IEDs in Iraq, do you think a 45kg HE round applied to the top armour of a tank would not do damage?
To really dumb it down, think of the claymore mine. Front towards the enemy. Do you have any practical experience in a military? Just out of curiosity. Usually, and especially in this conflict, not every tank is surrounded by the enemy all the time.
When placing Claymore mines you generally have an idea of which direction the enemy is coming from to help you decide which direction to point it in.
MON-300 claymore mines often were not pointed at the direction the enemy was coming from but to the side firing across the path of the approaching enemy force...
Taking one component on its own often does not make sense... for instance... one approach to your position you might cover heavily in anti tank mines but you stagger the front line of mines as the enemy forces approach because tanks often traverse terrain in a line, but when they reach the front line they spread out and move forward in line abreast so all of the tanks can see and fire upon the enemy positions... which makes them vulnerable to a minefield unless they are all fitted with mine rollers.
If you use a lot of mines and get creative they might stop their advance and turn to find a gap in the minefield... how do they do that while keeping their hull armour pointed at you?
A common tactic during WWII was to reverse your tank back into a building so as it collapsed around you it hid your shape as a tank but hopefully didn't cover your gun or your optics... you fired a shot and then drove out of there after revealing your position by firing.
Modern Russian tactics include using ramps to drive up and expose the turret and fire and they roll back and drop back down the ramp into cover and concealment over a distance of maybe 3-5m.
If a tank is in a situation where fire can come from any direction, then thats a sign of incompetence of use.
A tank can be used in attack and defence... in attack you drive forward towards enemy positions but you never see all the enemy... some might remain quiet and let you pass and then shoot you up the arse with an RPG... how can that be incompetence... how were they supposed to see that?
Plus the front is about 60 degrees... outside that the sides of the tank can be seen and fired upon.
By your logic, why should tanks have thicker front armor at all, if they "could" get destroyed from the side?
The only tank I have heard of that even attempted all round armour was the German Maus which had about 250mm protection from front, sides and rear... and it was a dog... too slow, too heavy, too expensive, too vulnerable to aircraft delivered bombs.
Having heavy frontal armour is not so it can dance around the battlefield pointing its heaviest armour at the biggest threat... when fighting Russia most anti armour threats can penetrate your frontal armour so pointing your front at them and reversing at 15km/h does not help because the threats heading for you will cover that distance much faster than your tank can cover that distance. Your best chance of survival is to move fast from cover to cover firing at the greatest threat to your vehicle as you go...
Why should a tank even be able to move more than 4km/h forward too, if its impossible to dodge shells already fired at it?
If reversing speed mattered that much why not go with all light tanks that can zip around the battlefield at very high speeds?
You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty here. A tank wont be already shot at before moving out of cover. It'll be targeted, then shot at. If it drives back into cover fast enough, that drastically increases survivability because, it reduces the time for it to be spotted and targetted. This should be completely obvious, but you instead choose to propose these dumb scenarios in order to deny a major issue.
Under fire from artillery means it is either leaving an impact zone or is being targeted direction with a drone to mark the tank they are in... with the former turning around and speeding away makes sense... getting out of the registered impact area makes sense... with laser guided shells you would be better to just pop smoke and move a little bit.
The scenario was not mine, I was just responding to someone elses comment.
If you look at Russian tanks training they often have prepared positions with ramps where the tank drives forward up on to the ramp exposing their turret (optics and gun) to find targets and fire and then drive back a couple of metres down the ramp where their turret is no longer exposed to enemy positions.
We are not talking about reversing all the way off the battlefield, but more likely back around the corner they just poked their nose out of... 15km/h would be fine, but if it isn't then you are moving slower so you present your nose to the enemy a little longer but a you say it is your hardest armour so extra seconds of hardest armour is better than turning and exposing softer side or rear armour... but whatever the situation the commander can decide what he orders the driver to do in that situation.
Actual russian tank manufacturers increased the reverse speed of the T-72B3, the armata has very high reverse speed. You're so desperate to claim every every thing in russian tanks is perfect, that you look ridiculous trying to defend shortcomings that actual russian tank designers have tried to correct.
They introduced a more powerful engine which presumably required a new gearbox and transmission.
But it won't work. Kornet has the absurd 8 km range requirement that can easily be waived in favor of a larger and more effective warhead - if only to make the situation even more hopeless against NATO MBTs.
Which means the Kornet can pretty much come from any direction launched from the ground or by drone or helicopter or aircraft at supersonic speeds with little warning.
1.2m penetration is pretty good already... the HE Frag warhead is lighter and more compact and that model reaches 10km.
Compared to regular HE artillery shells, the chances of being hit by a guided round is incredibly miniscule.
Funny, because I would say the opposite... a guided HE artillery shell is very likely to get a hit... over 90% in combat experience... that is why they spend the extra money to make them guided.
Russian artillery can deliver all sorts of munitions including HEAT top attack, and even sensor fused self forging fragment top attack munitions with MMW radar and IR sensors out to over 120km these days.