Source???
I understand this was question of curiosity BUT...........I'm fairly certain that no matter what I put in for armour protection someone....... ( who's closest contact with the tank will be the internet ).....is going to tell me we have it all wrong .......ALL of the armour values for MBT's in the game are estimates......NONE of the real data is common knowledge so the best we can do is look at what we have for previous models then ask ourselves why would anyone built a new multimillion $ tanks with LESS protection that in the past....then we go from there.
One source claims the "basic" protection is proof against 25 mm APDS-T ( STANAG 4569 Level 5 protection ) then there is reactive and spaced armour on top of that but I don't think armour of 12 would go over well no matter how much HEAT and reactive armour I added and to put that into perspective 12 is the front armour of a Tiger 1. I have to think there is better "basic" protection on a T-14 than that.
Until someone puts a big hole in one then it's analysed and the results published.....which will never happen ...... all we can do is guess and debate the issue with everyone who thinks we guessed wrong one way or the other
More than one source claims "low-silhouette of the tank "........ it's 3.3 meters tall ( !!!).... the Abrams is 2.44m ------ the Challenger 2 is 2.49m the T90 is 2.22 so IDK where "low-silhouette " comes in or what they are measuring...... The SHERMAN was 2.74 m
tall and this things 3.3 ? It's only ""low-silhouette" when it's behind all the other MBT's in the world. I suppose hiding behind a T-90 and firing over top WOULD give increased protection...........
that turret is massive compared to previous designs
The T-90 looks almost "sporty" in comparison
Don