I should first preface this by saying that the armored vehicle rules look very interesting - and have quite a lot of detail.
However, there are some things that are missing or a bit oversimplified IMHO (sorry, I've designed a module for a WWIII squad-level game), and may be worth considering at least as optional rules.
The one most "serious" issue is the lack of HEAT degrading armor (reactive armor / composite armor) in the system. Indeed, PCs and NPCs will be using AT rocket launchers, and having to face, say, a T-72BV will require them to try and hit it where there are no ERA bricks. A nice tactical challenge .... Or to find some way to dispose of the tank by other means.
A very simple way to handle it would be to give vehicles with such armor two values : one against kinetic rounds (APDS / APFSDS / APDU), one against HEAT (and HESH) rounds - for reactive armor, marked (RA), the reactive armor on the facing has fully detonated and is ineffective on 1-3 on 1D6.
A related issue is that (for long range combat), HEAT rounds lose accuracy significantly faster than APFSDS rounds. For instance, according to the 2002 French platoon leader manual, an AMX 30 B2 had an effective range of 2,500 m with APFSDS (OFL in French lingo), but only 1,800 m with HEAT (OCC for the French acronym).
Still on the armored combat front, and related to the turret issue raised by another player (a point I do agree with), it may be worth putting in some kind of provision for hull down positions (on hills or behind walls, hillocks, etc) - which does require having a turret location system (if you're hull down, hits to the hull are ignored).
Last, it would not be difficult to put a bit more detail on both stabilization and fire control - which are independent components. For instance, one could (at least) distinguish between single-axis stabilization (ie Warsaw Pact stabilization - reducing penalty by one), and dual-axis stabilization (NATO stabilized vehicles - removing it). Likewise, fire contriol systems ranged from primitive calculators and coincidence sights (level 1), to Pact laser rangefinders / computerized systems or early NATO systems (level 2), to NATO full computerized suites (level 3). The way to handle it would be to provide that the range band is reduced by the fire control level (1, 2 or 3).
A lot of this could be put on a page of optional rules. One way to save space, incidentally, would be to remove the stats next to each weapon / vehicle and only keep the table. The current setup does eat up valuable page space
The reactive armor / differential stabilization has enough of an impact that a simple platoon level game like WaW 85 models it - so it would be a bit curious for the detail-oriented TW 2000 not to have it - at least as an option for the "threadhead" players that seem to abound on this forum.