Pretty sure KMW has provided an explanation for why they decided to go that route in one of the articles about the ARC.
Altho, imo yes, it does expose the weakpoints more than it should (specifically the turret ring), especially to auto-cannons and I don’t think ARC 4.0 (the likely name of the next variant) will keep it that way, that is, assuming KMW is actually serious about the ARC becoming an alternative to the Leopard 2Ax/9.
ARC is privately funded afaik, whereas 2Ax/9 is government funded. They might merge however if ARC matures more and KMW gets rid of some of the more obvious weakpoints of the design though, since tbh their idea is good, it just need to be executed better, and for that they need Army testing. Optionally, some of ARC design ideas might be transferred over to the 2Ax if they prove to be better than the original design idea, but that remains to be seen.
Funny thing, last i heared france wasnt instreated in the leclerc evo and wants to stay with the xlr.
The evo being an export advertised to india as example. So leclerc evo for UK when?
Doesn’t really matter in the first place, it’s more of you goalpost shifting because of how irrelevant a point it was to bring up in the first place. Germany has no claim whatsoever, none, not a hint, not a touch, not a blink, to the Leclerc Evolution. Same with France to 2 A-RC