Korvette

Cage armors short out the warheads of certain weapons (primarily, anything which functions like a PG-7 with its nose piezo fuze and twin conductive cones to the base detonator), and prevent detonation of the warhead.
Strykers, which are notoriously paper thin, have been running around with cage armor for the better part of 2 decades, as an example.

Leopard 2FK turret

and the hull

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14LGX9jZNCVLw4TpqNwKACITR2Hy75ZGr?usp=sharing
 
A folder with DEF-STAN 95-25/19/26/24 all relating to the RHA/CHA qualities used amongst british tanks.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14LGX9jZNCVLw4TpqNwKACITR2Hy75ZGr?usp=sharing
 
A folder with DEF-STAN 95-25/19/26/24 all relating to the RHA/CHA qualities used amongst british tanks.

Chieftain replacement report AT milestone two SR(L) 4026,Chieftain replacement EPC paper  and other reports 
 
 

 
  

Other than steel and rubber, there isn't indication of any other element within chobham armor other than air.
 
CR2's armor has a lot of high hardness backing plates in its armor but there aren't many other options for filler for the rest of the composite. There could be simply all RHA sandwich which to me wouldn't make sense in terms of weight because it'd weigh a lot more than about 1-2 tonnes extra from CR1 and also increase its protection level on hull and turret increasing by such a large factor. 

The whole premise of most of the CR2's improvements were simply switching in and out components, the armor was improved but you're comparing 1960's first generation crappy spaced steel composite to a more modern ceramic, high hardness metal composite which achieved more for less.

Fofanov says the 125mm's recoil length on the MBT's are at 310mm hard stop, Rh120 is at 500mm (I think, the brochure doc for the gun has really unusual english). But Russian MBT's also don't necessarily have 'strong' suspensions like the NATO mbts and are much lighter. So they dont have to give much care to ground pressure and track size due to their weight being 20+ tons less than the West. And just as said the K2's hydro suspension will help a bit with absorbing the force from firing, just like the Leclerc and admittedly CR2, though watching them fire with the additional weight packages makes them seem like unmovable bunkers instead of 'stable firing platforms'.
 
It really comes down to how heavy you are which makes it harder to push, how much is being absorbed and how stable you are. Russian tanks don't have a reason to care much for this since they're smaller, tighter, and lighter. Plus with a stabilized sight as with all modern vehicles have, you're not having your eyes forced off target for the next shot.