Why so many Western tanks like the Challenger, Leclerc, and Abrams weigh significantly more than Russian tanks, yet have inferior armor?
What is all this extra weight related to? Since it’s not related to armor plating.
Even other non-Western tanks like the ZTZ-99A, which weighs 10 tons more than the T-90M, have significantly less armor than the T-90M.
The armor of the tanks should be reviewed because the discrepancy in armor/weight ratio compared to Russian tanks is so illogical and unrealistic.
9 Likes
I mean, Western tanks are typically bigger?
2 Likes
with the exception of Leclerc, yes.
But the armor plating also wouldn’t be proportional to the size of the vehicle?
1 Like
That’s like asking how it’s possible that a guy that has a height of 200cm can be fit with his 90kg of weight, just because you’re morbidly obese with same weight and 170cm in height.
Proportion is the key.
2 Likes
Abrams vs T-72:
If you know what the “square-cube” law is then that also explains a lot :)
6 Likes
volume
it’s also not just armour that accounts for tank weight
3 Likes
Clearly russian bias!!!
The trap is that armor effectiveness ≠ raw mass
When people say Western tanks have “inferior armor,” they’re usually comparing claimed RHAe values (Rolled Homogeneous Armor equivalency, like you see in game X-Ray or APFSDS can pen 6XX mm or HEAT can pen 4XX mm) against Russian figures for tanks like the T‑90M. Those Russian figures are selective often frontal arc only and optimistic (best-case test assumptions. sometimes straight-up marketing numbers).
Western armor figures, when they leak at all, are conservative, system-level just armor + layout + survivability) and rarely published in full.
The baseline comparison is already crooked.
Western tanks obsess over “what happens after penetration”.
The extra Western tanks weight goes crew survivability systems. for example Armored ammo compartments with blow-off panels, Heavier internal spall liners, Thicker bulkheads between crew and ammo and Fire suppression systems. That survivability mass doesn’t show up as “armor thickness,” but it absolutely shows up on the scale.
Which means Western tanks are physically larger. More surface area means More armor mass required to hit a given RHAe number. That’s geometry.
Western armor is multi-layered and non-dense Chobham-style composites are ceramics, elastomers, air gaps and heavy backing plates. They defeat threats through disruption, not just mass. Ceramic tiles shatter penetrators but are bulky and heavy per protected area. Russian armor often relies more on steel + NERA density stacking, which looks great on paper and test plates.
Different philosophy, different weight profile.
3 Likes
You could say it’s a different design philosophy. While Western tanks initially prioritized mobility and firepower, being conceived as defensive tanks, they later changed doctrine, designing tanks that prioritized crew survival above all else. That’s why they were larger and heavier. As the person above mentioned, much of the weight is due to survival systems, and I would also add that, being more spacious, it’s easier for a penetration to avoid causing as much serious damage.
Soviet tank design has always focused on creating low-profile tanks to make them harder to hit. This explains why the T-55 was low, why the T-62 required a loader less than 1.70 meters tall, and why later tanks opted for an automatic loader. Initially, this was a good design choice, but the enormous improvement in ballistic systems eventually rendered this doctrine obsolete. A disadvantage of this approach is that all the tank’s systems and crew are crammed together, and even the slightest penetration can completely disable the vehicle. This can also be seen in real-world comparisons between the BMD-4 and the Bradley. Being more spacious and heavier, the Bradley has a significantly higher chance of survival than the compact and overcrowded BMD-4.
For example, I seem to recall that in the Iraq War, an Abrams tank was hit by an RPG on the side of its hull, and as a result, only one crew member was injured. If it had been a T-72, the damage would likely have been much more serious, or even resulted in the detonation of ammunition.
1 Like
So, we’re pretending Russia is better at miniaturizing parts. While clumsy Western engineers need to make them really big and inefficient?
inb4 abrams dies to oneshot and T72 turret eats spall completly because of dark magic
2 Likes
Weight is proportional to size^3
Armor thickness is proportional to size^1
There you go but there’s also best world s ERA on top of it
USSR tanks are much smaller than western ones, so it’s logical to assume they can have the same amount of protection while having less weight.
It’s like comparing two 20mm thick sheets of metal, one 5m^2 and another 10m^2.
Latter one is going to weigh more for obvious reasons but both will provide the same amount of protection.
1 Like
hard to argue they were worse at making smaller tanks if you compare east/west tank designs from T-34 to T-64 vs Sherman to Patton
design philosophy
you aren’t making a small, insanely protected MBT with NERA when volume is one of the requirements for it to actually function, then you need space for the 4th crew member if you aren’t running an autoloader, more space for using a bigger and more powerful engine and transmission etc.
1 Like
Well, that’s the fault of the devs and their horrible work with the damage model, which I no longer know if it’s laziness to fix it, not knowing how to fix it, or not wanting to fix it as a hidden balancing measure.
In game, armor is modeled more cleanly than reality, but internal survivability is underrepresented, spall behavior is simplified and catastrophic ammo effects are inconsistent
So Russian designs look disproportionately strong for their weight. That’s a modeling limitation, not a physics revelation.
thanks for the explanation