From what I have seen Kanchan are actually metal plates that are inserted between composite armour , Now I really have no clue if that stuff is harder then Tungsten or DU , It certainly is some hard metal made of multiple alloys, who knows it may have properties better then DU or Tungsten.
Hardness is not the only one feature of heavy metal alloy, more important is density. But of course we do not know exact features of DU or Tungsten alloys used for armor protection, these alloys maybe are much more different than alloys used for APFSDS penetrators. Not to mention that our knowledge about even alloys used in modern penetrators is limited.
Oh the original T-90 had cast iron turret and the T-90A has Welded Turret perhaps with a different composition , I just read it has 12 layer composite armour , but since India has T-90S i would be more concerned with the latter.
The original T-90 or Object 188, initially to be designated T-72BU was just T-72B on "steroids", these "stroids" were all the goodies from T-80U/UD tank, like commander cupola or 1A45 FCS. The T-72B/T-90 turrets were welded from (CHA) cast steel elements (not iron!). The T-90A or Object 188A1/188A2 have a turret completely welded from RHA rolled plates.
The overall armor design should not change between T-72B and T-90, also Kholotpov himself (also known as Gur Khan) had shown on his blog a drawing of possible array in T-90A, it looks similiar to that from the earlier tanks, materials used however, can be different.
Well what I have seen is Kontact-5 has evolved too , initially it used to be like short bulky metal brick similar to the ERA you see on Indian T-72 and now on Bheeshma it has become flatter and uses less explosive , I do think K-5 would similarly evolved over the decades between them since they were first introduced in 1985. And ofcourse knowing the fact the US tested the K-5 ERA the Russian would have one more good reason to improve it capability as US has improved its APFSDS.
I think You confused something. 4S22 Kontakt-5 was allways placed in cassettes like we seen them today, maybe You confused 4S22 with older 4S20 Kontakt-1 that is also seen on Indian T-72M1 tanks.
Also we need to remember that US tested Kontakt-5 after collapse of Soviet Union, these were 1990's, so Russians were allready working on much newer ERA like 4S23 Relikt or a protection called Kaktus, while Ukrainians were allready working by then on Knife ERA.
However a response for Kontakt-5 was M829A2 fielded around 1994-1995, while M829A3 a long term solution was fielded around 2003. However the development of M829 series did not ended, currently experimental M829E4 is in the final development stage and soon should be fielded under designation M829A4.
Some how the Russians have this mentality of developing systems or counter-systems based on US development and not on similar Europen system , you can see that thought process with NII STALI compared evolution of US APFSDS increasing by 35 cm every year and not about German or UK or French APFSDS. Russians usually even in other conventional systems takes US as its benchmark to evolve , wheather they suceed in it or not is a different matter altogether.
This is completely natural, western Europe by the whole Cold War did not have even single spectacular R&D program for AFV's and their weapon systems (besides the Rhinemetall 120mm gun, and the BRL-1/BRL-2 armor), however US for the whole cold war was allways keen to test any new ideas. For example the US was first to implement composite armor on their tanks and guess what I do not talking about Silicaous Core Armor developed in 50's-60's, I am talking about HCR2 armor kit for M4 Sherman tanks developed during WWII. Indeed, US and UK were experimenting on different special armors (composite) during WWII!
Of course due to several different reasons, mainly technological, these were not succesfull by then but, experiences gained with these research programs finally ended with Burlington armor (BRL-1 and BRL-2) that was again, more a coodeveloped between US and UK (of course it was mainly developed in UK) than sole UK design, as both countries had close relationship in composite armors development.
So it is obvious that Russians will rather compare their developments with developments of someone as creative as they are.
Ofcourse thats true but then you have multiple test firing from different range angle speed to get a complete picture and to have substantial data as possible the more data using as many permutations and combinations the better.
This is why Americans tried to test as many vehicles as it was possible. It is still unknown how many in reality, Soviet tanks from the former Soviet republics they managed to purchase... not nececary legally.
Actually it would be good to get such data of side attack at 0 degrees from RPG-29 on other western tanks like Leo 2 , Leclerc , Chally 2 . I am fairly certain not all will just blow up as the armour composition might just be different for these.
As far as I seen fragment of M1 tank armor, Merkava Mk4 armor, we consider close relationship between US and UK and also that all of big western manufacturers of tanks are close allies, when I consider a description of Leopard 2 armor array I can say to You that these designs seems to be very similiar to each other, of course there can be some differences between them, but I would not expect any significant differences.
Well I would rather expect the enemy to hit your weak spots , thats even true for country in conventional classic tank to tank battle where waiting for an opportunity to hit your weakest area is preferable , No one likes to hit the strongest area becuase the likely hood of it getting defeated is very low , Like the frontal turret versus RPG-29
Yes, but there are allways weight and size issues, but recently western designers tend to keep in mind lessons learned and are offering up-armor kits for their tanks.
Ofcourse we can always assume and there is nothing wrong in it , but the weakness is assumption lies in the fact that the assumption on which the entire theory builds up might be wrong , or the assumption might not partially true.
And I'm completely agree with this, this is why I said I'am only assuming something and it is not nececary close to truth.
