The actual penetration depth of armor-piercing shells, as well as the equivalent thickness of the armor, is absolutely a top military secret.

You must know that there are only three countries in the world that can develop high-performance tank guns and armor-piercing shells, one is Germany and the other is Russia, and the United States and China can only be counted as half each, that is, the American tank gun comes from Germany, and the Chinese tank gun has a technical relationship with Russia.

As for other countries, they either imitate and change their names, or they buy technology.

Not to mention ordinary countries, even France, which is known for its arrogance, basically abandoned the development of the "Leclerc" CN-120-26 tank gun, never made improvements, and only in recent years has news of the development of a 140-mm tank gun come out.

The British 120-mm rifled guns themselves are not going to be used, let alone improved.

In addition, the 120mm smoothbore guns produced by Japan, South Korea, Turkey and other countries are actually the descendants of the German RH120.

Even the United States bought the RH120 technology and named it M256 after production.

As for armor-piercing shells, there are even fewer countries that can develop and produce them.

In today's world, there are only four countries capable of developing and producing high-performance armor-piercing projectiles, namely the United States, Germany, Russia, and China.

Needless to say, the M829 series has developed to the fifth generation, that is, M829A4, and the performance has reached an almost unsurpassed height, and the specific performance has not been announced so far, while the previous generation of M829A3 was launched by M256 at a depth of penetration of not less than 800 mm at 2000 meters.

The German one is not bad, and its latest DM63 penetration data has also not been released, while the previous generation DM53 was fired by the L55 tank gun at a depth of about 700 mm at 2000 meters, while the improved DM53A1 can theoretically reach 750 mm.

Russia's is a little worse, claiming that the penetration depth of the latest armor-piercing bullet can reach 750 mm, but the armor-piercing bullet in this advertisement has so far stayed on the PPT, no one has seen it, let alone put it out for sale, and the penetration depth of Russia's existing armor-piercing bullets is generally within 600 mm.

In terms of performance, China has surpassed Russia and even Germany.

It's a pity that Huaxia's secrecy work has always been excellent.

Up to now, the outside world only knows that Huaxia's 125-mm shell-out armor-piercing bullets have been developed to the third generation, and the third generation uses depleted uranium bullet cores, which are only for their own use and are not exported.

As for the export of Huaxia, that is, foreign trade armor-piercing bullets, all use tungsten core, similar to the DM series, the latest foreign trade armor-piercing bullets claim that the data is not less than 650 mm at 2000 meters, and the user measured at about 700 mm, which is comparable to DM53.

Obviously, the armor-piercing projectiles used by the Huaxia themselves are definitely better, maybe 800 mm, to the level of the M829A3.

Of course, these so-called "data" are actually speculative, and they can also be said to be chasing after the wind.

In other countries, either there are no good armor-piercing shells, or they rely on imports.

Even France, which produced the CN-120-26, has armor-piercing shells that are only equivalent to DM33 and M829A1, which is much worse than the international first-class level.

Relatively speaking, the technical content of armor is still above that of tank guns and armor-piercing shells.

Germany was able to create a world-class RH120 tank gun and a leading DM63 armor-piercing projectile, but it could not create advanced tank armor.

In addition, countries that are able to manufacture tank armor will never publish the internal structure and specific data of the armor.

In the case of the United Kingdom, the Chobham armor has been around for almost forty years and is still a top military secret, and its specific construction has never been made public.

Of course, the same is true for other countries.

The United States developed depleted uranium composite armor 30 years ago, which is still not for sale, and all the M1 series tanks it sells are replaced with ordinary composite armor.

Russia has world-class reactive armor, but it is second-rate goods for export.

As for Huaxia, it also kept armor technology strictly secret, and when selling tanks, only an approximate data would be provided, to be precise, a range.

In the case of the VT-4, Huaxia claims that its turret has an equivalent thickness of 650 mm from the front of the body.

Obviously, the statement itself is vague.

Equivalent thickness of protection against armor-piercing shells?

Even if it is, what is the calculation standard?

Obviously, not to mention the excitement, even users who have purchased VT-4 may not be able to get specific data and have the ability to test it with live ammunition.

This is true not of China, but of all countries that sell tanks.

For example, Turkey bought hundreds of Leopard 2A4s, and it was not until a few of them were killed by Kurdish assemblers with bazookas in Syria a few years ago that it was discovered that the composite armor of these tanks was in vain, with fiberglass in the middle, and almost zero protection.

The United States is no better, the M1A1 sold to Iraq, and even the M1A2 sold to Saudi Arabia, the composite armor used is all rubbish.

The most outstanding one is the French "Leclerc".

In order to sell the tank, which cost nearly $10 million per unit, to the United Arab Emirates, France claimed that the "Leclerc" had the world's best protection performance.

The result?

In Yemen, several Leclercs were destroyed by the Houthis with bazookas, and at least one was hit by rockets that pierced the frontal armor of the turret.

Because the tank fell into the hands of the Houthis, it is impossible to know the internal structure of its frontal armor.

Later, the UAE was not angry, and took a "Leclerc" to do a live-fire test, and found that the equivalent protection thickness of the turret and the hull against the armor-piercing projectile was only 400 mm, and the equivalent protection thickness against the shaped armor-piercing bullet was 650 mm, which was not even comparable to some second-generation tanks.

Of course, there is a very important issue involved.

For reasons of technical secrecy, countries that are able to produce advanced armor generally do not use the best armor on foreign trade tanks.

To put it bluntly, as soon as one falls into the hands of a potential enemy, the armor technology will be eaten by the enemy.

You must know that tanks are consumable equipment, and tank armor is not an electronic device, so it will not be completely scrapped because the tank is damaged.

From this, no country has been able to get the best tanks by importing.

In fact, even Pakistan is no exception.

At the beginning, when Huaxia sold the technology of VT-1 to Pakistan and let Pakistan produce MBT2000, it had already developed new composite armor.

As for the VT-4, by the time it was included in the list of foreign trade, Huaxia had already adopted a new type of composite armor on the 99B.

Although "Salman" is a deluxe version of the VT-4, in terms of armor, it should be comparable to the VT-4 and will not use the composite armor of the 99B.

Of course, Wang Dong was not crazy enough to test the equivalent protective thickness of "Salman" with live ammunition.

However, there is certainly no problem in letting "Salman" fire a few shots and test the actual penetration depth of the matching armor-piercing projectiles.

The test results show that what Huaxia provides is the second-generation shell-piercing projectile, which penetrates homogeneous armor at a depth of not less than 700 mm at 2000 meters.

This power is more than enough to deal with any kind of third-generation main battle tank.