What's new

The entire IDF armor brigade equipped with Trophy active protection system

The RPG-30 was unveiled in 2008 by the State Research and Production Enterprise, Bazalt as a modern anti-tank grenade launcher designed to address the threat of reactive armor and active protection systems on tanks. Active protection systems (APS) such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armour munitions by destroying them before they reach the target, the RPG-30 is an intended response to the introduction of these systems. The RPG-30 has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russian state arms procurement program as of November 2008.

The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27 in that it is a man-portable, disposable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. Unlike the RPG-27 however, there is a smaller diameter precursor round in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target, tricking the target's active protection system into engaging it, allowing the main round a clear path to the target, while the APS is stuck in the 0.2-0.4 second delay needed to start its next engagement.
abrams_rpg.jpg


I never seen any fielded Phoenix tank. All its pics are from shows. Overall Phoenics looks on pair with Israeli Sabra upgrade + LEDS APS.

Al Hussein looks like they added armor only to turret front. I guess with this upgrade the turret front will be immune to overwhelming majority of the threats. But hull and turret sides remain vulnerable.
Thank you. Almost 80% of M-60 tanks were upgraded to Phoenix version, the rest are being upgraded.
 
...

Al Hussein looks like they added armor only to turret front. I guess with this upgrade the turret front will be immune to overwhelming majority of the threats. But hull and turret sides remain vulnerable.

...


Much more as vulnerable. A easy sheet of paper for “true ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)”. No chance of survival.

Example...


BILL 2 Anti-tank guided weapon (Robot 56 Bill)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saw this on TV... cool tech.

India should get the same.

India is, sort of- T-90S will be given UPG and fitted with LEDS/TROPHY APS as will the small number of T-72s that are retained and upgraded. Arjun Mk.I/II wlll be fitted with IRON FIST APS.
 
I never seen any fielded Phoenix tank. All its pics are from shows. Overall Phoenics looks on pair with Israeli Sabra upgrade + LEDS APS.

Al Hussein looks like they added armor only to turret front. I guess with this upgrade the turret front will be immune to overwhelming majority of the threats. But hull and turret sides remain vulnerable.

Then plz take a look at the description of it's upgrade. I thought you have a good idea about it.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/168386-al-hussein-mbt.html
 
Much more as vulnerable. A easy sheet of paper for “true ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)”. No chance of survival.

Actually it's protection is equivalent to Challenger-2, it's the third upgrade of Challenger-1:

Challenger 2:

vs KE (mm)

Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

vs CE (mm)

Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

Challenger 1


vs KE (mm)

Turret: 590-620
Glacis:550-600
Lower front hull: 450

vs CE (mm)

Turret: 970-1120
Glacis:800

Merkava Mk4


vs KE (mm)

Turret: 600-1030

vs CE (mm)

Turret: 750-1340

Tank Protection Levels
 
Actually it's protection is equivalent to Challenger-2, it's the third upgrade of Challenger-1:

Challenger 2:

vs KE (mm)

Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

vs CE (mm)

Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

Challenger 1


vs KE (mm)

Turret: 590-620
Glacis:550-600
Lower front hull: 450

vs CE (mm)

Turret: 970-1120
Glacis:800

Merkava Mk4


vs KE (mm)

Turret: 600-1030

vs CE (mm)

Turret: 750-1340

Tank Protection Levels

Brother.

Now, it takes at least a “true protection type AMAP (Advanced Modular Armor Protection) next generation” to have a chance of survival. Everything else is just paint to impress the credulous crowd.
 
Brother.

Now, it takes at least a true protection type AMAP (Advanced Modular Armor Protection) next generation to have a chance of survival. Everything else is just paint to impress the credulous crowd.

I don't see in it's turret sides any difference from T-90, Challenger-2, Abram-M1A2 or Lecrec. Mercava-4 seems to have thick turret armored protection from all sides though.
 
I don't see in it's turret sides any difference from T-90, Challenger-2, Abram-M1A2 or Lecrec. Mercava-4 seems to have thick turret armored protection from all sides though.

The appearances are misleading.

The real science armor protection of Tank, it's not just that. This is much more complicated. Very, very high and long jealous secret R&D. That just a few countries have mastered. All others are just weld plumber. Russia today including.


Merkava 4 high armor modular









 
The aim of new tank designing is the survivability of the tank crews first and foremost and minimization of damage from anti armor projectiles. The photographs posted above show the concerned tanks achieving their aim. Granted. But that is true for most of the modern tanks especially where the conventional Chobam is DU reinforced. In addition with the technological evolution in armor protection suites the tactics of ATGM dets have also evolved to firing multiple tandem warheads to achieve a higher kill probability.
 
It did its job protecting the crews from IEDs…

First of all concerning IED.

Anyway the Tank (M1 A2, Leo II A7, Merka IV, Challenger 2, AMX-56 Leclerc, T90 the worst) who will resist to an IED three rounds of 155 combined or 50 kg of Semtex “from below” was not born. So let the SF…


It did its job protecting the crews from IEDs and rpgs. First pic was an IED. And the Abrams don't have modular armor.

The Advanced Modular Armor Protection (AMAP) is “modular composite armour” (new next generation) is making use of new advanced steel alloys, Aluminium-Titanium alloys and its novelty particularly derives from the use of “nanometric steels, ceramics and nano-ceramics”.

As the Chobham armour (modular composite armour), although the construction details remain a secret, it is composed of” ceramic tiles encased within a metal matrix and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers”. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators.

A gradual technological development has taken place in ceramic armour: ceramic tiles, in themselves vulnerable to low energy impacts, were first reinforced by glueing them to a backplate; in the nineties their resistance was increased by bringing them under compression on two axes; in the final phase a third compression axis was added to optimise impact resistance.To confine the ceramic core several advanced techniques are used, supplementing the traditional machining and welding, including sintering the suspension material around the core; squeeze casting of molten metal around the core and spraying the molten metal onto the ceramic tile.

The armour configuration of the first western tanks using Chobham armour was optimised to defeat shaped charges as guided missiles were seen as the greatest threat. In the eighties however they began to face improved Soviet kinetic energy penetrator rounds of various sorts, which the ceramic layer was not particularly effective against: the original ceramics had a resistance against penetrators of about a third compared to that against HEAT rounds, for the newest composites it is about one-tenth. For this reason many modern designs include additional layers of heavy metals to add more density to the overall armour package.

The introduction of more effective ceramic composite materials allows for a larger width of these metal layers within the armour shell: given a certain protection level provided by the composite matrix, it can be thinner. They typically form an inner layer placed below the much more expensive matrix, to prevent extensive damage to it should the metal layer strongly deform but not defeat a penetrator. They can also be used as the backing plate for the matrix itself, but this compromises the modularity and thus tactical adaptability of the armour system: ceramic and metal modules can then no longer be replaced independently. Furthermore, due to their extreme hardness, they deform insufficiently and would reflect too much of the impact energy, and in a too wide cone, to the ceramic tile, damaging it even further. Metals used include a tungsten alloy for the Challenger 2 or, in the case of the M1 A1HA (Heavy Armor) and later American tank variants, a depleted uranium alloy. Some companies offer titanium carbide modules.

These metal modules (typically employing perpendicular rods) have many perforations or expansion spaces reducing the weight up to about a third while keeping the protective qualities fairly constant. The depleted uranium alloy of the M1 has been described as "arranged in a type of armour matrix" and a single module as a "stainless-steel shell surrounding a layer (probably an inch or two thick) of depleted uranium, woven into a wire-mesh blanket".

The whole is placed within the shell formed by the outer and inner wall of the tank turret or hull, the inner wall being the thicker.

The “Chobham armour is used on the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams series of tanks”.


wikipedia.org


It did its job protecting the crews from IEDs and rpgs...

And the Abrams don't have modular armor.


The “Chobham armour” of Challenger 2 tank and the M1 Abrams tank was defeated in Iraq “by a simple RPG-29”.

In August 2006, an RPG-29 round has penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank (Chobham armour) during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, wounding several crew members.

In May 2008, the “New York Times” disclosed that an American M1 tank (Chobham armour) had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq, which uses a tandem-charge high explosive anti-tank warhead to penetrate explosive reactive armor (ERA) as well as composite armor behind it, in Iraq. The American Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to American armor so high that they refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing it will fall into insurgent hands.

I can not imagine what would happen if it was a real warhead ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile) with a military warhead otherwise top.


MoD kept failure of best tank quiet



By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
12:01AM BST 13 May 2007


One of the British Army's Challenger 2 tanks was pierced by an Iraqi insurgent missile more than eight months earlier than the Government has previously admitted.

The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier's foot and injured several others.

The injured soldier's family has accused the Government of a cover-up and demanded to know why soldiers manning Challenger 2 tanks had not been warned of the failings with the tank's armour.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said he would challenge the government on why the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had apparently misled the public over the timing of the first incident in which the hugely robust defences of the Challenger had been breached.

He said: "Obviously, no armour is indestructible and there is no doubt that the insurgents have increasingly sophisticated technology but it is important in maintaining public confidence that the MoD and the Government tell the truth to the -British public."

The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull.

The MoD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons.

In the August attack, which occurred during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the Challenger was damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade, known as an RPG-29, defeated the ERA and penetrated the driver's cabin.

The RPG-29 is a much more powerful weapon than the common type regularly used by insurgents to attack British troops. It is specifically designed to penetrate tank armour, although this is the first occasion on which it has managed to damage a Challenger.

During the attack Trooper Sean Chance, a 20-year-old serving with the Queen's Royal Hussars, lost half of his left foot; two other crew members were injured.

The unit's commander described the moment the tank was hit by the missile in a letter he wrote to the wounded soldier in March. The officer wrote: "I recall seeing it [the RPG-29 being fired] and thinking, 'Oh Christ, that's bad.'

"As it slammed into the hull, I was picked up by the shock wave of the blast and thrown against the back wall of the turret. The explosion singed my eyebrows and burnt my face slightly. The tank was full of acrid smoke and fumes. I became aware of you screaming, 'I'm hit, I'm hit. My foot's off.'

"Daz [another crew member] and I looked at each other in slight disbelief - after all, what could possibly breach a CR2's [Challenger's] armour?"

Tpr Chance's mother Kay, 49, from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, said her son had been told that the Challenger was the best in the world and essentially impenetrable to any weapons the insurgents possessed.

She said: "Sean often told me he felt totally safe because he was in the best tank in the world. But we now know that is not the case. The Government has covered it up.

"If I was the mother of the poor soldier who lost his legs last month I would be horrified to think that an earlier attack like this had happened before but none of the soldiers were told about it."

His brother Luke said that Tpr Chance had been "abandoned" by the Army following his injury. He said: "Sean has been forgotten about. He hasn't received his Iraq medal. He's been told he is going to be medically discharged because of his injury but no one has told him when and what sort of pension he might get. It's a disgrace."

A spokesman for the MoD said: "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable. There is no question of a cover-up. Any suggestion that this was the first successful attack against a Challenger 2 tank was given in good faith based on the information available at the time.

"We would like to reassure the family that lessons were learnt from the incident last August and measures were taken to enhance the protection of our personnel."

On April 6, a Challenger was damaged by a roadside bomb in Basra. In that attack a soldier lost both his legs. Details of the incident were not made public until April 23, when

the MoD claimed: "This was the first successful attack on a Challenger 2. It's the first bomb to have damaged it."


Telegraph.co.uk





I think they are unfortunately all dead.


But worry no more. Now your M1 A2 Abrams will soon be completely protected by the system “Trophy (ASPRO-A) Active Protection Systems (APS)”.:azn:


Merkava 4 Equipped with Trophy Defeats an RPG on the First Combat Engagement of an Active Protection System

By tamir_eshel on March 1, 2011 5:57 pm

With the deployment of Merkava Mk 4 tanks equipped with Rafael Defense Systems’ Trophy (ASPRO-A) Active Protection Systems (APS) along the Gaza border last month (January 2011), that followed a Merkava tank being hit by a Kornet anti-tank missile fired by the Palestinians, battle testing of the Trophy APS was only a matter of time. Today (1st March 2011), the system was baphtized in combat, proving its worth in a first combat engagement with a hostile RPG, fired by Palestinain anti-tank team from Gaza. The system and crew performed exactly as expected, integrating automatic response to neutralize an immediate threat, rapid situational understanding and decision and forcible response, effectively eliminating the threat.

Kornet ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)




According to IDF sources, the Merkava tank was patrolling the border with Gaza, when a ‘missile launch’ was detected by the tank’s defensive system. Trophy uses the Elta System’s EL/M 2133 ‘WindGuard’ radar as the primary sensor detecting missiles and RPG threats. When such threat is classified by the system as ‘acute’ (aimeing directly at the protected vehicle), the system alerts the crew and tracks the missile closing-in on the tank. As the RPG enters the system’s kill-zone, Trophy automatically activates its hard kill countermeasure (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators – MEFP), destroying the threat at a safe distance from the tank. Some reports indicated the intercept was close enough to trigger the tank’s automatic fire ‘Spectronix’ protection, which have lead to Palestinian claims of actually hitting the tank. Shortly afterwards, IDF soldiers identified several terrorists in the launching area and fired in their direction, scoring a hit.

Such a procedure is inherently supported by the Trophy. Beside its role as the Trophy’s primary sensor, detecting the threat and calculating Time-to-Impact (TTI) and plotting the optimal intercept point, the Windguard radar also localizes the firing position of the missile being tracked, enabling the IDF troops to rapidly engage active enemy positions, eliminating follow-up attacks on its armor.

During the Second Lebanon War in 2006 more than 40 tanks were hit, most of them by anti-tank missiles, repeatedly fired by Hezbollah from hidden positions that were difficult to detect by IDF tank crews. Following this conflict, the IDF accelerated the development of Active Protection Systems (APS), and is currently fielding the system with tank battalions, being equipped with new armored vehicles. This includes new Merkava Mk4 tanks being equipped with APS and the new Namer Infantry Fighting Vehicles which will also mount the system.

A different version of Rafael’s Trophy has recently completed a six-weeks test evaluation series on a Stryker Armored Fighting Vehicle, withstanding numerous missiles and rockets attacks. The test was conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Office of Secretary of Defense and the U.S. ARMY at Aberdeen Proving Ground, as part of an evaluation of domestic U.S. and foreign APS solutions. Rafael is also developing a compact vesion of the system called Trophy Light, being evaluated for use with U.S. MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV). The system is also being evaluated for the protection of Israel Navy fast patrol boats, which, like the tanks, are exposed to RPG and missile attacks.


Defense-update





Can you please elaborate on what you mean here?

Answers to your questions are here.

See link:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/189933-entire-idf-armor-brigade-equipped-trophy-active-protection-system-2.html#post3107022


Anything else.

If you are truly a Canadian national. Ask simply yourself. Why your country, yet historical faithful ally of USA from birth (equipped almost exclusively with weapons of U.S. origin). He preferred acquired 100 Leopard 2A4 tanks from the Netherlands in 2007. Has borrowed from the German Army Twenty Leopard 2A6M beginning in mid-2007 “to support the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan”, with the first tank handed over after upgrading by KMW on August 2, 2007, and arriving in Afghanistan on August 16, 2007. As two Bergepanzer 3 Büffel were loaned from the German Army for use with the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan. And an additional fifteen Leopard 2A4 tanks were purchased from the German Army for spare parts. The Canadian Army will be able to deploy 40 combat tanks (20 2A4M CAN and 20 2A6M CAN) with 42 2A4s for training.

Rather than the “M1 A2 Abrams Tank”…


Canadian “Leopard 2A6M CAN”



 
Last edited by a moderator:

Merkava 4 resistant to a RPG-7VR







Merkava 4 resistant to a Kornet ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)

 

Back
Top Bottom