And Leopard 1 also do not provide any protection against any significant threat.
This is depending on variant. The mentioned variants did provide protection against a previously specified threat spectrum. The add-on armour installed on the Leopard 1A1A1 in 1974 for example did according to literature provide protection against RPGs and small HEAT ammunition (i.e. 73 mm HEAT-FS from BMP-1 and 76 mm HEAT from PT-76), which means that the tank was actually better protected (against a specific threat spectrum) than other tanks like the M60A1 or T-62.
The Leopard 1A6 was designed with quite heavy and thick armour, in order to survive hits from other tanks and anti-tank missiles; and like everytime a tank is designed, the armour was designed against a specified threat spectrum. The Leopard 1 was already relegated to secondary roles only, with the Leopard 2 being the main counter for the more advanced tanks.
It is a more modern tank, incomparable with a lightweight, lightly armored vehicle that should not even be called main battle tank.
You now have taken over the role of dozens of completely wrong Indian posters, who wanted to define the role of a tank by it's weight (calling the T-90 a light tank and the Arjun an heavy tank). Tanks are designated according the role they take over in combat.
EE-T1 is designed per obsolete concept, only because it uses some modern components it does not make it modern and comparable with better designs, like even original M1.
Bullshit. The EE-T1 was designed with composite armour according to planned threats and for specific area of operation. It is a simple as that. In the planned operation enivornment (essentially Latin America and the Middle East) there is no reason to design a tank with armour protection against the latest weapon systems, because all tanks there have only very limited penetration power (far below 400 mm at 2,000 m) regardless of caliber and have sub-par fire control systems.
So yes, the EE-T1 was not protected against the newest weapon systems, but the same has/had to be said about nearly all other tanks. The M1 Abrams was designed to resist 115 mm APFSDS and 127 mm HEAT warheads, despite there being more potent weapon systems on the battlefield already. The M1A2 entered service with similar armour protection like it's predecessor, despite the NATO expecting the Russians to field a new tank with much greater armour penetration in the future (and the NATO having a 140 mm gun themselves).
What you do is like saying the following: The Marder 1A1 IFV is much better than the M2 Bradley, because it has much better armour protection (i.e. against 20/25 mm APDS instead of 14.5 mm AP) - the higher level of protection is true. But at the same time, both vehicles were made to fight against the Soviet Union, which only had 14.5 mm AP ammunition (and no 20 mm or 25 mm guns).
No, up armoring is not easy and simple, especially in case of lightweight vehicle, up armoring can increase stress on vehicles mechanical components leading to increased wear and tear.
No, it can be so easy. Just look at the Leopard 1. There were no problems with it after a 2.4 tonnes weight increase and even a further 3 to 5 tonnes could be handled without any mention of performance problems. The MEXAS-armoured Canadian Leopard 1 tanks did perform very well despite the weight growth according to a Canadian military magazine.
Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons learned, where there was at least single incident where hydraulic oil reservoir was hit by shaped charge jet, oil did not catch fire, crew was not harmed by it. Tank that was hit is a 3-69 AR A23, hit in to left side of hull. Hydraulic reservoir had a large exit hole in it done by shaped charge jet. Hydraulic oil did not ignited, no reports about harm done to crew.
You are making a jugdement based on a single occasion. That's like saying "the armour of the M60A1 is good enough for modern battles, not a single one was destoryed during ODS".
Even with MEXAS-M ?
The same applies for heavier MBTs that gained weight through their evolution, for example, cracks appeared on the
Stridsvagn 122's turret ring because of its unbalanced armor package distributed unevenly on the front side of its turret.
I think you mean the Greek tanks, I have never read anything about troubles with the Strv 122.
This is obsolete protection. You think why these tanks were withdrawn from service?
The Leopard C2 hasn't been completely withdrawn from service, it was planned to retain some until 2015.
And who purchased it? Today designing such vehicle for export is waste of money and resources.
Today. But not in 1987. The EE-T1 and AMX-40 were designed for countries like Brazil and Saudi-Arabia, where the armour protection was enough to resist all expected enemy threats, the fire control system was revolutionary (compared to that of Chieftain and T-72) and the mobility was unmatched.
I wonder if eSim has always used the calculations of Paul Lakowski to establish these protection levels.
