I believe your approach of estimating tank armor protection based solely on weight is flawed, with several critical errors:
-
The fundamental difference in protective capability between composite armor and homogeneous steel armor. For instance, when comparing armor packages of equal mass, homogeneous steel armor demonstrates inferior performance against both HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) projectiles compared to composite armor. While composite armor does exhibit relatively weaker performance against APFSDS rounds at equivalent thickness, vehicles employing composite armor can achieve superior overall protection at equivalent weight.
-
Neglecting the enhanced protection provided by energetic armor systems (Explosive Reactive Armor). The VT5 tank features layered explosive reactive armor (ERA) on its frontal turret section, which offers significantly higher protective capability than equivalent-mass homogeneous steel armor.
-
Overlooking the impact of armor configuration on protective performance. Two vehicles with completely different armor geometries cannot achieve equivalent protection levels simply through identical weight and material composition - the structural configuration itself constitutes a critical protective factor.