# The entire IDF armor brigade equipped with Trophy active protection system



## 500

*Armored brigade equipped with advanced defense system
*

Iron Trails Brigade was recently outfitted with the Trophy active defense system, which defends tanks against incoming missiles
Date: 24/06/2012, 3:24 PM Author: Florit Shoihet

The entire Iron Trails Brigade, a tank brigade within the IDF's Armored Corps, was recently equipped with the Trophy active defense system. The new defense system identifies and eliminates anti-tank missiles before they can reach the tanks on which it is installed.

In the past month, the Iron Trails Brigade, which boasts a number of advanced Merkava Mark IV tanks, completed a significant exercise in conjunction with engineering forces. This drill involved cooperating with other units and focused on the advanced platforms used by the unit.

"The Iron Trails Brigade's exercises are difficult, reflecting our belief that we must push the commanders to the limit of their abilities and those of the platforms," Col. Einav Shalev, commander of the unit, stressed to the IDF Website. "As part of the process of strengthening the brigade, I emphasize the depth of our responsibility to reach further than any other brigade, in places where others would fall. All of this influences the outlook that we can demand more from our units, so that in the future we will successfully reach deeper and further in less time."

"Our platforms do not prevent injury entirely, but they certainly reduce it. Ultimately, all of this influences our success in striking the enemy," he added.

The Iron Trails Brigade's exercises have taken place in various settings, including challenges such as operating at night and under pressure. "This year was a large step forward for us in many respects: combat in urban areas, using armored combat vehicles and tanks against an enemy, anti-kidnapping drills, and underground fighting," the brigade commander concluded.

IDF - Israel Defense Forces : Armored brigade equipped with advanced defense sys






















RAFAEL&#39;s Trophy (Active Protection System) - YouTube

&#x202b;

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Archdemon

One of its kind


----------



## GoodBoy

Saw this on TV... cool tech.

India should get the same.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

Archdemon said:


> One of its kind





*K-2 Tank APS (Active Protection System)
3D search & track radar / thermal search & track*







*Russia Metis-M1 interception slowly*








*APS (Active Protection System) testing against RPG-7 and
Metis-M ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile) or also Kornet ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)*

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## 500

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> *K-2 Tank APS (Active Protection System)
> 3D search & track radar / thermal search & track*


Its not operational.

Reactions: Like Like:
 2


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

500 said:


> Its not operational.



Not for long.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Its not operational.



What about this?


LEDS ( Land Electronics Defense System )
LEDS - Land Combat Defense System









And plz your openion of this tank, and I don't know if it's equipped with the LEDS:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## killerx

have seen the same system on Russian T90 what about mines and the ATM fired from very close range and the troops take shelter of the tanks in case on enemy fire and guy on or out side of the tank would get injured for sure if these missile explode so close to the tank and mines are still there the missiles will get smart to like shells which have double penetration rounds and used to penetrate explosive reactive armor and hull


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

@ 500
What about unguided ATGM? such as RPG-32?





http://jresco.com/images/rgp_32_en.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> What about this?


There are several active protection systems in development and testing:

Arena - KMB (Russia)
LEDS-150 - Saab (Sweden)
Iron Fist - IMI (Israel)
KAPS - ADD (S.Korea)
MAPS - Diehl, IMI (Germany/Israel)
AWiSS - Diehl (Germany)
Quick Kill - Raytheon (US)
AMAP-ADS - IBD (Germany)

But only Trophy is operational. And now its employed on entire brigade.

Rafael Hard Kill Active Protection System - YouTube



BLACKEAGLE said:


> @ 500
> What about unguided ATGM? such as RPG-32?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://jresco.com/images/rgp_32_en.pdf


Trophy intercepts both RPGs and ATGMs and even tank HEAT rounds.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> There are several active protection systems in development and testing:
> 
> Arena - KMB (Russia)
> LEDS-150 - Saab (Sweden)
> Iron Fist - IMI (Israel)
> KAPS - ADD (S.Korea)
> MAPS - Diehl, IMI (Germany/Israel)
> AWiSS - Diehl (Germany)
> Quick Kill - Raytheon (US)
> AMAP-ADS - IBD (Germany)
> 
> But only Trophy is operational. And now its employed on entire brigade.


But, Jordan bought TOT of this system after going through extensive tests. It's installed on the Jordanian M-60 Phoenix as it appears in the picture. And how do you know all the above aren't operational? and plz your openion of Al-Hussien tank Hybrid upgrade.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

BLACKEAGLE said:


> @ 500
> What about unguided ATGM? such as RPG-32?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://jresco.com/images/rgp_32_en.pdf



The Trophy active defense system catches easily Anti-tank guided missile as sophisticated as the Kornet ATGM. So for all other lower types it is even easier for him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> The &#8220;Trophy active defense system&#8221; catches easily Anti-tank guided missile as sophisticated as the &#8220;Kornet ATGM&#8221;. So for all other lower types it is even easier for him.


I read once about Trophy inability to intercept high speed RPGs as they are unguided. ATGM are slower of course as they are guided.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

BLACKEAGLE said:


> I read once about Trophy inability to intercept high speed RPGs as they are unguided. ATGM are slower of course as they are guided.



It is impossible, illogical and totally ridiculous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> But, Jordan bought TOT of this system after going through extensive tests. It's installed on the Jordanian M-60 Phoenix as it appears in the picture. And how do you know all the above aren't operational? and plz your openion of Al-Hussien tank Hybrid upgrade.


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.



BLACKEAGLE said:


> I read once about Trophy inability to intercept high speed RPGs as they are unguided. ATGM are slower of course as they are guided.


Trophy intercepts tank HEAT rounds which travel at speed of 3 Mach. Much faster than any anti tank missile or RPG.

It can even hit APFSDS rounds which travel at speed of 5+ M. But the problem it is that it does not affect them...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

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.*








500 said:


> 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.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

500 said:


> ...
> 
> *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 &#8220;true ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)&#8221;. No chance of survival.

Example...


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

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abingdonboy

GoodBoy said:


> 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.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> 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


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> Much more as vulnerable. A easy sheet of paper for &#8220;true ATGM (Anti-tank guided missile)&#8221;. 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


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

BLACKEAGLE said:


> 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 &#8220;true protection type AMAP (Advanced Modular Armor Protection) next generation&#8221; to have a chance of survival. Everything else is just paint to impress the credulous crowd.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> 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.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

BLACKEAGLE said:


> 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*


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

*M1 A2 Abrams armor modular defect in Iraq*


----------



## Wright

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> *M1 A2 Abrams armor modular defect in Iraq*



Can you please elaborate on what you mean here?


----------



## Hellfire

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.


----------



## Zabaniyah

500 said:


> Trophy intercepts both RPGs and ATGMs and even* tank HEAT rounds.*



That means T-72s would be toast 



Wright said:


> Can you please elaborate on what you mean here?



No tank is indestructible.


----------



## Oldman1

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> *M1 A2 Abrams armor modular defect in Iraq*



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


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

Oldman1 said:


> It did its job protecting the crews from IEDs&#8230;



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 &#8220;from below&#8221; was not born. So let the SF&#8230;




Oldman1 said:


> *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 &#8220;modular composite armour&#8221; (new next generation) is making use of new advanced steel alloys, Aluminium-Titanium alloys and its novelty particularly derives from the use of &#8220;nanometric steels, ceramics and nano-ceramics&#8221;.
> 
> As the Chobham armour (modular composite armour), although the construction details remain a secret, it is composed of&#8221; ceramic tiles encased within a metal matrix and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers&#8221;. 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 &#8220;Chobham armour is used on the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams series of tanks&#8221;.
> 
> 
> *wikipedia.org*






Oldman1 said:


> It did its job protecting the crews from IEDs and rpgs...
> 
> And the Abrams don't have modular armor.




The &#8220;Chobham armour&#8221; of Challenger 2 tank and the M1 Abrams tank was defeated in Iraq &#8220;by a simple RPG-29&#8221;.

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 &#8220;New York Times&#8221; 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 &#8220;Trophy (ASPRO-A) Active Protection Systems (APS)&#8221;.




> *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&#8217; 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 &#8216;missile launch&#8217; was detected by the tank&#8217;s defensive system. Trophy uses the Elta System&#8217;s EL/M 2133 &#8216;WindGuard&#8217; radar as the primary sensor detecting missiles and RPG threats. When such threat is classified by the system as &#8216;acute&#8217; (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&#8217;s kill-zone, Trophy automatically activates its hard kill countermeasure (Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators &#8211; MEFP), destroying the threat at a safe distance from the tank. Some reports indicated the intercept was close enough to trigger the tank&#8217;s automatic fire &#8216;Spectronix&#8217; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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*













Wright said:


> 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 &#8220;to support the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan&#8221;, 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 &#8220;M1 A2 Abrams Tank&#8221;&#8230;


*Canadian &#8220;Leopard 2A6M CAN&#8221;*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

*
Merkava 4 resistant to a RPG-7VR*










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


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> There are several active protection systems in development and testing:
> 
> Arena - KMB (Russia)
> LEDS-150 - Saab (Sweden)
> Iron Fist - IMI (Israel)
> KAPS - ADD (S.Korea)
> MAPS - Diehl, IMI (Germany/Israel)
> AWiSS - Diehl (Germany)
> Quick Kill - Raytheon (US)
> AMAP-ADS - IBD (Germany)
> 
> But only Trophy is operational. And now its employed on entire brigade.


There are near hundred of such systems developed or in developement, of all them Drozd was the first actually developed and fielded, back in the 70s. Analogous in characteristics Trophy was deployed only recently, it is nothing special in this field.



Bubblegum Crisis said:


>



These pictures show how innefective Merkava's "modular composite armour" is, as compared to old T-72 with Kontakt. The armour module falls apart after a single cumulative hit (RPG or ATGM warhead), leaving rather huge vulnerable zone.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> There are near hundred of such systems developed or in developement, of all them Drozd was the first actually developed and fielded, back in the 70s. Analogous in characteristics Trophy was deployed only recently, it is nothing special in this field.


Trophy uses precise hit with explosively formed elements and provides 360 grad protection. In addition it shows the source of fire.

Drozd fires 107-mm shrapnel shell that slaughters everyone around and protects only the frontal arc (which is well protected anyway). 

Thats why only small number of ancient T-55 tanks was equipped with Drozd and soon it was phased out.



Lidsky said:


> These pictures show how innefective Merkava's "modular composite armour" is, as compared to old T-72 with Kontakt. The armour module falls apart after a single cumulative hit (RPG or ATGM warhead), leaving rather huge vulnerable zone.


The Free Syrian Army destroyed Russian tank-46 Russian BMP T-72


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

Lidsky said:


> ...The armour module falls apart after a single cumulative hit (RPG or ATGM warhead), leaving rather huge vulnerable zone.



There will be no other cumulative hit. 

Why? The Windguard radar of &#8220;system Trophy&#8221; also localizes the firing position of the missile being tracked (tracking GPS), enabling ground troops and air combat support (F-16, AH-64 Apache or UAV) to immediately engage the active enemy positions, eliminating follow-up attacks on its armor.

*See &#8220;1:04 time&#8221; in video link:*


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Trophy uses precise hit with explosively formed elements and provides 360 grad protection. In addition it shows the source of fire.
> 
> Drozd fires 107-mm shrapnel shell that slaughters everyone around and protects only the frontal arc (which is well protected anyway).
> 
> Thats why only small number of ancient T-55 tanks was equipped with Drozd and soon it was phased out.


Drozd and Trophy are analogous in capability, only difference is that israelis developed it 3 decades later, to provide protection against the same threat. They only make a big deal of it, while in fact it is a sign of backwardness.




> The Free Syrian Army destroyed Russian tank-46 Russian BMP T-72


What has this to do with Merkava or with what I said ?


----------



## Ottoman-Turk

so does this mean the tank is indestructable by rpg , atgm ?


----------



## Archdemon

Drozd and Trophy are nowhere near, trophy is all sphere while droz isnt, trophy is instant rechargeable while droz isnt, trophy tested against 21c threats while droz is for 80s, trophy is operational while droz is not.


----------



## Archdemon

Ottoman-Turk said:


> so does this mean the tank is indestructable by rpg , atgm ?



No, it means more survivability.


----------



## Oldman1

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> 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



M1A1 Abrams Runs Over A VBIED/Car bomb Must Watch!! - YouTube














> 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.



It depends on where it was hit, your article says Abrams was damaged but not destroyed. And I don't believe that the Challenger 2 was penetrated in the front turret but at the bottom which are all tanks weaknesses.



> I think they are unfortunately all dead.



Unfortunately it was never proven they were dead because I don't see the turret being penetrated otherwise they would have recorded the aftermath and showing ammo cooking off. All I see are parts of the storage being blown to bits which is common when exposed outside and the video was cut off immediately afterwards.




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



Thats great it helps reduce deaths and repairs.

And about the modular armor I thought you meant interchangeable like French Leclerc or Patria AMV that are modular. Not the armor itself that comprised of different materials.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

Oldman1 said:


> M1A1 Abrams Runs Over A VBIED/Car bomb Must Watch!! - YouTube
> 
> 
> It depends on where it was hit, your article says Abrams was damaged but not destroyed. And I don't believe that the Challenger 2 was penetrated in the front turret but at the bottom which are all tanks weaknesses.
> 
> Unfortunately it was never proven they were dead because I don't see the turret being penetrated otherwise they would have recorded the aftermath and showing ammo cooking off. All I see are parts of the storage being blown to bits which is common when exposed outside and the video was cut off immediately afterwards.
> 
> 
> Thats great it helps reduce deaths and repairs.
> 
> And about the modular armor I thought you meant interchangeable like French Leclerc or Patria AMV that are modular. Not the armor itself that comprised of different materials.




You are very very funny.

Always pretending to never understand.

At least do not semblance all the time. Put the right amount of explosive.









Flashback&#8230;

*See all old links:*

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3102152

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3103797

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3107022

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3107153


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

I don't deny Merkava-4 enormous body protection but it got destroyed though:
@Bubblegum Crisis, I think you are exaggerating, get down to earth...


----------



## Mosamania

I think we have acquired a jewel in this forum in the form of the member Bubblegum Crisis. Really impressed with you mate.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Mosamania said:


> I think we have acquired a jewel in this forum in the form of the member Bubblegum Crisis. Really impressed with you mate.



Bla bla bla
All he is doing here is underestimating your recognized sources and over exaggerating Merkava-4 and any other Israeli products capabilities. And the worst and most upsetting thing was mocking Al-Hussien tank!!!




If he were in an Arab forum, he would be in a big trouble!


----------



## Mosamania

BLACKEAGLE said:


> Bla bla bla
> All he is doing here is underestimating your recognized sources and over exaggerating Merkava-4 and any other Israeli products capabilities. And the worst and most upsetting thing was mocking Al-Hussien tank!!!
> 
> 
> 
> If he were in an Arab forum, he would be in a big trouble!



Well actually I saw that he looked at it from a completely scientific manner. He even criticized the Abrams Tanks.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Mosamania said:


> Well actually I saw that he looked at it from a completely scientific manner. He even criticized the Abrams Tanks.



What about the last video I posted that displayed several destroyed Merkava-3/4 tanks which he tried to portray as an impenetrable one? Off course, forget about the empty slogans in it, just see the pics, so, mute it. However, I know that this tank is the most protected one, but he exaggerates more than Israeli themselves. I posted a diagram of protection levels of tanks world wide, which is considered a respectable reference, but he turned a blind eye on it. Anyway, NP.


----------



## Mosamania

BLACKEAGLE said:


> What about the last video I posted that displayed several destroyed Merkava-3/4 tanks which he tried to portray as an impenetrable one? Off course, forget about the empty slogans in it, just see the pics, so, mute it. However, I know that this tank is the most protected one, but he exaggerates more than Israeli themselves. I posted a diagram of protection levels of tanks world wide, which is considered a respectable reference, but he turned a blind eye on it. Anyway, NP.



No from my readings he acknowledged that they are destructible and have problems but also said that the APS will eliminate most of those problems. And quite frankly I believe he is right.


----------



## Oldman1

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> You are very very funny.
> 
> Always pretending to never understand.
> 
> At least do not semblance all the time. Put the right amount of explosive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flashback&#8230;
> 
> *See all old links:*
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3102152
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3103797
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3107022
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...y-active-protection-system-2.html#post3107153



Wheres the aftermath? All I see is Abrams being lifted up. Show a catastrophic kill from that video. If all you can get are videos of damaged tanks or burned fuel than its not catastrophic kills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Tr1Epiga0&feature=related

Theres a reason why most videos tend to stop after IED hits.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> Drozd and Trophy are analogous in capability, only difference is that israelis developed it 3 decades later, to provide protection against the same threat. They only make a big deal of it, while in fact it is a sign of backwardness.


There is nothing analogous in their capability. I'll repeat again:

1) Drozd protects only front. Trophy protects 360 grad, i.e. Drozd does not protect most vulnerable parts like sides and rear.
2) Drozd makes a huge collateral damage, spraying with fragments everything around. Trophy does not use fragments but very precise EFP hit.
3) Trophy shows the source of fire, Drozd does not.
4) Trophy can intercept tank HEAT rounds, Drozd does not.

Thats why oinly small part of very old tank were equipped with Drozd and soon they also were phased out. And Russia started to develop Arena to replace it.



> What has this to do with Merkava or with what I said ?


Better replace a module than a tank with crew.



BLACKEAGLE said:


> I don't deny Merkava-4 enormous body protection but it got destroyed though:
> @Bubblegum Crisis, I think you are exaggerating, get down to earth...


On pic is Merkava 2, not Merkava 4. Video is rubbish.


----------



## Safriz

The system does seem effective against more sophisticated threats,such at Missiles and RPG...
But for the most common threat faced by Tanks in Urban warfare...IED..there seems to be no solution..

Do you know of any system that counteracts/Detects IED?


----------



## Mosamania

Safriz said:


> The system does seem effective against more sophisticated threats,such at Missiles and RPG...
> But for the most common threat faced by Tanks in Urban warfare...IED..there seems to be no solution..
> 
> Do you know of any system that counteracts/Detects IED?


----------



## Safriz

^^^ Hi Mosa,
I was on about something more sophisticated than a mechanical shovel.....


----------



## Mosamania

Safriz said:


> ^^^ Hi Mosa,
> I was on about something more sophisticated than a mechanical shovel.....



Haha you seem to be getting my point. These things are for now the most effective way to clear mines and IEDs. Other methods were tried. For Instance this is a thing Saudi soldiers have developed to counter IEDs:






This is a device which is placed int he soldiers shoes and a follow up device that peeps is placed inside the Soldier's helmet or above his ear that peeps once the soldier is within 30 meters radius of an IED or Mine.


----------



## Bubblegum Crisis

BLACKEAGLE said:


> I don't deny Merkava-4 enormous body protection but it got destroyed though:
> @Bubblegum Crisis, I think you are exaggerating, get down to earth...


 

Or I say the Merkava was invulnerable?

No weapon is invulnerable.

I love the Hezbollah propaganda, it consist distort always reality only in its meaning to him.

In a war. The main question is always the same. How many men more than your opponent are you willing to sacrificing for consider that you win front of him or you lose the battle? And if ultimately in your overall ratio, you lose many more men than himself then the question not even arise, undeniably you are about to lose.

This synthesis of the 2006 Lebanon War, concerning the confrontation with tanks Merkava, summarizes absolutely the situation.




> Many of Israel's casualties in the 2006 Lebanon War were Merkava tank crews. Only the minority of the tanks used during the war were Merkava Mark IVs, as by 2006 they had still only entered service in limited numbers. Hezbollah antitank missiles penetrated the armor in five Merkava Mark IV tanks killing 10. The penetrations were caused by tandem warhead missiles. Hezbollah weaponry was believed to include advanced Russian RPG-29 'Vampir', AT-5 'Konkurs', AT-13 'Metis-M', and laser-guided AT-14 'Kornet' HEAT missiles. Another Merkava IV tank crewman was killed when a tank ran over an improvised explosive device (IED). This tank had additional V-shaped underside armor, limiting casualties to just one of the seven personnel (four crewmen and three infantrymen) onboard. In total, 50 Merkava tanks (predominantly Merkava IIs and IIIs) were damaged, eight of which remained serviceable on the battlefield. Two Merkava Mark IVs were damaged beyond repair, one by powerful IEDs, and another, it is believed, by Russian AT-14 'Kornet' missiles. All but two Merkava Mark IV tanks damaged during the war were repaired and returned to the IDF. The Israeli military said that it was satisfied with the Merkava Mark IV's performance, and attributed problems to insufficient training before the war.
> 
> After the 2006 war, and as the IDF becomes increasingly involved in unconventional and guerrilla warfare, some analysts say the Merkava is too vulnerable to advanced anti-tank missiles, that in their man-portable types can be fielded by guerilla warfare opponents. Other post-war analysts, including David Eshel, disagree, arguing that reports of losses to Merkavas were overstated and that "summing up the performance of Merkava tanks, especially the latest version Merkava Mark IV, most tank crews agree that, in spite of the losses sustained and some major flaws in tactical conduct, the tank proved its mettle in its first high-saturation combat." On a comparison done by the armor corps newsletter it was shown that the average number of crewmen killed per tank penetrated was reduced from 2 during the Yom Kippur War to 1.5 during the 1982 Lebanon War to 1 during the 2006 Lebanon War proving how, even in the face of the improvement in anti-tank weaponry, the Merkava Mark IV provides better protection to its crew (although only a limited number of the Israeli tanks used in 2006 were Merkava Mark IVs). The IDF wanted to increase orders of new Merkava Mark IV tanks, and planned to add the Trophy active protection system to Merkava Mark IV tanks, and to increase joint training between crews and Israeli antitank soldiers.
> 
> In December 2010, Hamas in Gaza fired an AT-14 Kornet anti-tank missile at a Merkava Mark III tank stationed on the Israel-Gaza border near Al-Bureij. It had hitherto not been suspected that Hamas possessed such a sophisticated missile. The missile penetrated the tank's armour, but in this instance it caused no injuries among its crew. As a result of the attack, Israel decided to deploy, along the Gaza border, its first Merkava Mark IV battalion equipped with the Trophy active protection system.
> 
> On 1 March 2011, a Merkava MK IV stationed near the Gaza border, equipped with the Trophy active protection system, successfully foiled a missile attack aimed towards it and became the first operational success of the system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oldman1

Safriz said:


> ^^^ Hi Mosa,
> I was on about something more sophisticated than a mechanical shovel.....



Surely you know about V shaped hulls on our vehicles these days. When these vehicles introduced and mass produce to Iraq and Afghanistan casualties were cut significantly. Insurgents have to spend more time in the open and use more explosives to at least achieve the results they want. Is it bomb proof nope, but it has protected many lives that could have been prevented from loss when IEDs exploded. Theres also jamming devices, rollers, etc. The U.S. military introduced a kit to counter EFPs as well but its heavy.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Bubblegum Crisis said:


> Or I say the Merkava was invulnerable?
> 
> No weapon is invulnerable.
> 
> I love the Hezbollah propaganda, it consist distort always reality only in its meaning to him.
> 
> In a war. The main question is always the same. How many men more than your opponent are you willing to sacrificing for consider that you win front of him or you lose the battle? And if ultimately in your overall ratio, you lose many more men than himself then the question not even arise, undeniably you are about to lose.
> 
> This synthesis of the 2006 Lebanon War, concerning the confrontation with tanks Merkava, summarizes absolutely the situation.





BLACKEAGLE said:


> What about the last video I posted that displayed several destroyed Merkava-3/4 tanks which he tried to portray as an impenetrable one? *Off course, forget about the empty slogans in it, just see the pics, so, mute it.* However, I know that this tank is the most protected one, but he exaggerates more than Israeli themselves. I posted a diagram of protection levels of tanks world wide, which is considered a respectable reference, but he turned a blind eye on it. Anyway, NP.



.................................


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> There is nothing analogous in their capability. I'll repeat again:
> 
> 1) Drozd protects only front. Trophy protects 360 grad, i.e. Drozd does not protect most vulnerable parts like sides and rear.
> 2) Drozd makes a huge collateral damage, spraying with fragments everything around. Trophy does not use fragments but very precise EFP hit.
> 3) Trophy shows the source of fire, Drozd does not.
> 4) Trophy can intercept tank HEAT rounds, Drozd does not.
> 
> Thats why oinly small part of very old tank were equipped with Drozd and soon they also were phased out. And Russia started to develop Arena to replace it.


1)It is the same, Trophy and Drozd. Drozd consists of modules which can be mounted to provide wanted protection. Soviet tanks were to be used in more conventional warfare, according to that doctrine frontal arc protection was what was required and system Drozd was installed accordingly. In addition to that, additional modules imply an increase in weight and expense, so they are redundant if not really needed.
2) That again is up to doctrine and intended role of tanks. And Trophy is not that safe for infantry, presence of APS is never really suitable for that role. 
3) This is more like cheap advertisement with no relevance. Modern Russian APS make an automatic response to counter the threat, turret is aimed automatically at the direction of the firing source. What they say about Trophy is rather joke, it is all up to the crew response, to locate and eliminate the target, which is not effective for today's standart.
4) That capability was also present in Drozd, funny thing is that 3 decades earlier Drozd was actually deployed, against the very same weapons, RPGs, succesfully employed in combat in Afghanistan.




> Better replace a module than a tank with crew.


Your module serves only against one single RPG hit, then it leaves a huge vulnerable zone, as compared to tank with Kontakt where only 2-3 tiles react, giving tank the ability to survive multiple hits.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## user1

On November 12, 2009, PhD Vladimir Korenkov, who led Russian state unitary enterprise Basalt from 2000 to 2009, stated that The Israeli system of active protection of tanks, *Trophy, as any other similar systems, can be evaded*. One of the activities of this enterprise was to develop rocket-propelled grenades, designed to destroy modern armament. The rocket-propelled grenade *RPG-30*, according to Vladimir Korenkov, is designed to overcome these tank defense systems. "All the existing active protection systems in the world share the same idea. This is a radar homing at some distance, close or far, to destroy the target with a warhead that creates fragment stream and explosive field. These systems have common flaws. First of all, the *duty cycle, i.e. the time interval of the system response to the threat*. RPG-30 easily defeats such a protection system. There is a *smaller diameter precursor round in addition to the main round. *This precursor acts as a *false target *spoofing the APS into engaging it and allowing the main round (following the precursor after a slight delay) 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. This time interval is sufficient for defeating the Israeli system."[15]


----------



## Oldman1

user1 said:


> On November 12, 2009, PhD Vladimir Korenkov, who led Russian state unitary enterprise &#8220;Basalt&#8221; from 2000 to 2009, stated that &#8220;The Israeli system of active protection of tanks, *&#8220;Trophy&#8221;, as any other similar systems, can be evaded&#8221;*. One of the activities of this enterprise was to develop rocket-propelled grenades, designed to destroy modern armament. The rocket-propelled grenade *RPG-30*, according to Vladimir Korenkov, is designed to overcome these tank defense systems. "All the existing active protection systems in the world share the same idea. This is a radar homing at some distance, close or far, to destroy the target with a warhead that creates fragment stream and explosive field. These systems have common flaws. First of all, the *duty cycle, i.e. the time interval of the system response to the threat*. RPG-30 easily defeats such a protection system. There is a *smaller diameter precursor round in addition to the main round. *This precursor acts as a *false target *spoofing the APS into engaging it and allowing the main round (following the precursor after a slight delay) a clear path to the target, while the APS is stuck in the 0.2 &#8211; 0.4 second delay needed to start its next engagement. This time interval is sufficient for defeating the Israeli system."[15]



Forgot to tell those that the Israelis have something to counter the RPG 30.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> 1)It is the same, Trophy and Drozd. Drozd consists of modules which can be mounted to provide wanted protection. Soviet tanks were to be used in more conventional warfare, according to that doctrine frontal arc protection was what was required and system Drozd was installed accordingly. In addition to that, additional modules imply an increase in weight and expense, so they are redundant if not really needed.


Woulda coulda shoulda. Drozd protected only front and did not protect most vulnerable sides and real.



> 2) That again is up to doctrine and intended role of tanks. And Trophy is not that safe for infantry, presence of APS is never really suitable for that role.


Trophy does not use fragments at all. Chances to be hit by Trophy are scanty. Drozd is basically a huge shrapnel shell that can kill people within hundreds meters.



> 3) This is more like cheap advertisement with no relevance. Modern Russian APS make an automatic response to counter the threat, turret is aimed automatically at the direction of the firing source. What they say about Trophy is rather joke, it is all up to the crew response, to locate and eliminate the target, which is not effective for today's standart.


Maybe but these modern APS are not employed.



> 4) That capability was also present in Drozd,


No, drozd is limited to 700 m/s and cant hit HEAT rounds.

Overall Drozd vs Trophy is like Sopwith Camel vs F-22.

Arena fixed many Drozd problems but it was never employed.



> Your module serves only against one single RPG hit, then it leaves a huge vulnerable zone, as compared to tank with Kontakt where only 2-3 tiles react, giving tank the ability to survive multiple hits.


In reality tanks with Kontakt are destroyed by most simple grenade launchers.



BLACKEAGLE said:


> What about the last video I posted that displayed several destroyed Merkava-3/4 tanks which he tried to portray as an impenetrable one? Off course, forget about the empty slogans in it, just see the pics, so, mute it. However, I know that this tank is the most protected one, but he exaggerates more than Israeli themselves. I posted a diagram of protection levels of tanks world wide, which is considered a respectable reference, but he turned a blind eye on it. Anyway, NP.


Israelis never claimed that Merkava 3/4 are impenetrable. And video is BS, almost nothing is accurate there.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Woulda coulda shoulda. Drozd protected only front and did not protect most vulnerable sides and real.


Drozd was system composed of modules. You can mount 3 same as you can mount all, as Trophy. How it is implemented does not make a difference.



> Trophy does not use fragments at all. Chances to be hit by Trophy are scanty. Drozd is basically a huge shrapnel shell that can kill people within hundreds meters.


There is still debris as seen in videos. As of safety, relativity does not mean it is safe in general, in fact it is not (for infantry), an APS cannot be. Besides the fact that Drozd was designated for a different, conventional role, ignoring low intensity irregular conflicts while Trophy was attempted to be effective against them. And still, Drozd was effective for what it was designed, Trophy, focusing in interaction with infantry, is not fully suitable. 

In conventional role, Drozd and Trophy are analogous, but Drozd is 3 decades older.

In their respective roles, as said, Drozd performs better for what it was developed and intended than Trophy.

In lower intensity, infantry support, Drozd is not suitbale, but neither is Trophy, as it still isn't completely safe.




> Maybe but these modern APS are not employed.


The point is that statement of "threat location" of Trophy is complete advertising garbage with no relevance. And if Trophy is such a modern system (atleast newer) it should have such capability as rest of modern APS.



> No, drozd is limited to 700 m/s and cant hit HEAT rounds.
> 
> Overall Drozd vs Trophy is like Sopwith Camel vs F-22.



700 m/s is figure from state trials, no higher requirement was stated. Theoretical capability is higher. Back in the 60-70s soviet APS had capability to hit such targets as kinetic rounds (velocity, but not to neutralise them). 

Same may apply to Trophy, but since nothing was explained, that claim has the same value as many of Israeli (Rafael's) stupid advertisements, as Trophy being "The first APS in service". Rafael marketing department is not serious, less if they do not provide any figures. So that is just a baseless claim.



> Arena fixed many Drozd problems but it was never employed.


This is not correct. Arena was not developed as any successor to Drozd. In USSR there were developed several projects by different institutions, Arena and Drozd have different roots and they are competitors. In fact, they belong to different kind of APS, Arena is long range neutralisation, Drozd is medium range as Trophy.



> In reality tanks with Kontakt are destroyed by most simple grenade launchers.


May be, but that would require significant effort, and their reactive armour provides better protection in any case than heavy and voluminous module which is gone after one single RPG hit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

i think the solution is large number of well trained and equipped infantry with the best AT to fire at enemy armor with accuracy and numbers the system cant handle all of it


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> Drozd was system composed of modules. You can mount 3 same as you can mount all, as Trophy. How it is implemented does not make a difference.


Drozd is heavy and bulky sustem. If u installed 360 grad it wouls be super heavy and bulky. Anyway fact is that Drozd protected only front. And overall it was a junk system and thats why installed only on small number of junk tanks.



> There is still debris as seen in videos. As of safety, relativity does not mean it is safe in general, in fact it is not (for infantry), an APS cannot be. Besides the fact that Drozd was designated for a different, conventional role, ignoring low intensity irregular conflicts while Trophy was attempted to be effective against them. And still, Drozd was effective for what it was designed, Trophy, focusing in interaction with infantry, is not fully suitable.


In conventional war sides are vulnerable. For example, during the WW2 less than THIRD of hits were in front, 58% hit the sides and 10.5% - rear. During the war in towns would be even more side and rear hits.



> In conventional role, Drozd and Trophy are analogous, but Drozd is 3 decades older.


No its falls short at 4 very important aspects:

1) lack of 360 grad protection.
2) terrible collateral damage.
3) lack of threat indication.
4) innability to shoot HEAT rounds.

All for are very important both in conventional and LIC wars.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> i think the solution is large number of well trained and equipped infantry with the best AT to fire at enemy armor with accuracy and numbers the system cant handle all of it


Your forces are limited. If you put lots of forces in one place u make another place more vulnerable.

Anyway APS only increases the survivability of the tank. It does not makes it immune.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Drozd is heavy and bulky sustem. If u installed 360 grad it wouls be super heavy and bulky. Anyway fact is that Drozd protected only front. And overall it was a junk system and thats why installed only on small number of junk tanks.


Modules are heavy as they are protected against 12.7mm fire, more modules would imply more expense, same as Trophy is more expensive. 

Drozd was installed on about 300 tanks, more than Merkava IV Israel has deployed.



> In conventional war sides are vulnerable. For example, during the WW2 less than THIRD of hits were in front, 58% hit the sides and 10.5% - rear. During the war in towns would be even more side and rear hits.


You are not really familiarised with maneouver warfare concept. In accordance with that doctrine most hits will come from 0-30 degrees, frontal arc. Soviet and Western tanks are armoured around that, to provide enought protection and safe manouvering. 




> No its falls short at 4 very important aspects:
> 
> 1) lack of 360 grad protection.
> 2) terrible collateral damage.
> 3) lack of threat indication.
> 4) innability to shoot HEAT rounds.
> 
> All for are very important both in conventional and LIC wars.


Drozd met all it's objectives, frontal arc protection and safe manouvering (40 degrees), Trophy designed with infantry interaction in mind, did not, as it is dangerous, not fully effective. 

1) Drozd provided all requested and needed protection
2) For Drozd collateral damge was not an issue as it was designed for conventional conflict, to protect tank formations. Trophy is not safe either, and it is not so effective in it's role, of providing support to infantry.
3) Trophy does nothing for the crew, it is all slow manual task of finding and neutralising the threat, which is poor for system designed recently.
4) There is no indication that Trophy is effective against tank HEAT.


----------



## Archdemon

Lidsky said:


> Modules are heavy as they are protected against 12.7mm fire, more modules would imply more expense, same as Trophy is more expensive.
> 
> Drozd was installed on about 300 tanks, more than Merkava IV Israel has deployed.
> 
> 
> You are not really familiarised with maneouver warfare concept. In accordance with that doctrine most hits will come from 0-30 degrees, frontal arc. Soviet and Western tanks are armoured around that, to provide enought protection and safe manouvering.
> 
> 
> 
> Drozd met all it's objectives, frontal arc protection and safe manouvering (40 degrees), Trophy designed with infantry interaction in mind, did not, as it is dangerous, not fully effective.
> 
> 1) Drozd provided all requested and needed protection
> 2) For Drozd collateral damge was not an issue as it was designed for conventional conflict, to protect tank formations. Trophy is not safe either, and it is not so effective in it's role, of providing support to infantry.
> 3) Trophy does nothing for the crew, it is all slow manual task of finding and neutralising the threat, which is poor for system designed recently.
> 4) There is no indication that Trophy is effective against tank HEAT.




Deja vu? 


http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...operation-success-trophy-windbreaker-aps.html


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> Modules are heavy as they are protected against 12.7mm fire, more modules would imply more expense, same as Trophy is more expensive.


Drozd Modules are heavy because they use huge 107-mm shells to shoot down a projectile, while Trophy uses a small rotating EFP launcher.



> Drozd was installed on about 300 tanks, more than Merkava IV Israel has deployed.


No it was instaled less than 100. And only on old T-55 tanks, because its total junk. Very soon they were scrapped.



> You are not really familiarised with maneouver warfare concept. In accordance with that doctrine most hits will come from 0-30 degrees, frontal arc. Soviet and Western tanks are armoured around that, to provide enought protection and safe manouvering.


You are not really familiar with real war. WW-2 Tiger and IS tanks had very thick sides almost same as front. Side protection is super important in real war. 



> Drozd met all it's objectives


No it did not:

1) lack of 360 grad protection.
2) terrible collateral damage.
3) lack of threat indication.
4) innability to shoot HEAT rounds.



> 1) Drozd provided all requested and needed protection


It did not protect the most vulnerable parts: sides and rear.



> 2) For Drozd collateral damge was not an issue as it was designed for conventional conflict, to protect tank formations. Trophy is not safe either, and it is not so effective in it's role, of providing support to infantry.


Infantry always walks infront of tanks. Drozd slaughters them.



> 3) Trophy does nothing for the crew



Trophy shows source of fire, WIth one click u can rotate gun and illuminate it. Thats super important.



> 4) There is no indication that Trophy is effective against tank HEAT.


There is no indication that Drozd is effective at all.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Drozd Modules are heavy because they use huge 107-mm shells to shoot down a projectile, while Trophy uses a small rotating EFP launcher.


Unlike Trophy, Drozd is protected against 12.7mm bullets. Trophy's "peddles" countermeasure, still dangerous, leaves debris, and has dubious efficiency against modern missiles.



> No it was instaled less than 100. And only on old T-55 tanks, because its total junk. Very soon they were scrapped.


Drozd was installed on more tanks than Merkava 4s has Israel, and participated in Afghan conflict. 

Drozd gave to rather old T-55 new capabilities, while soviets had faith in their modern tanks. 65-70 ton Merkava is junk, such that they had to install an analogous to 3 decades older system Trophy to protect it against ancient RPGs. 



> You are not really familiar with real war. WW-2 Tiger and IS tanks had very thick sides almost same as front. Side protection is super important in real war.


ÏÎÄÕÎÄ Ê ÁÐÎÍÈÐÎÂÀÍÈÞ ÁÎÐÒÎÂÎÉ ÏÐÎÅÊÖÈÈ ÒÀÍÊÀ And learn something.



> No it did not:
> 
> 1) lack of 360 grad protection.
> 2) terrible collateral damage.
> 3) lack of threat indication.
> 4) innability to shoot HEAT rounds.


1- Not necessary, but possible.
2- Trophy is not safe either, and Drozd was not intented for such conflicts.
3- It is the same in Trophy than in 3 decades older Drozd
4- Trophy does not protect against them.



> It did not protect the most vulnerable parts: sides and rear.


Read the article.



> Infantry always walks infront of tanks. Drozd slaughters them.


Neither Trophy is safe. It is not an issue for scenarios on which Drozd was to operate.




> Trophy shows source of fire, WIth one click u can rotate gun and illuminate it. Thats super important.


This is joke, all is up to slow crew reaction and manual process, from searching to engaging and neutralising the target. 



> There is no indication that Drozd is effective at all.


About Drozd there is information from goverment tests, developers, and combat records, Afganistan. Trophy is ridicolous story inflated with advertisement.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> Unlike Trophy, Drozd is protected against 12.7mm bullets.


No, Trophy is also protected.



> Trophy's "peddles" countermeasure, still dangerous, leaves debris, and has dubious efficiency against modern missiles.


Trophy does not use any fragments at all. Trophy can hit even HEAT rounds, so any missiles is piece of cake.



> Drozd was installed on more tanks than Merkava 4s has Israel, and participated in Afghan conflict.


Do u have any pic of it in Afghanistan? Who would send that own infantry slaughter machine to Afghanistan especially when it does not protect the sides?



> Drozd gave to rather old T-55 new capabilities


ERA and NERA is much more effective, at least it can protect sides and does not slaughter infantry at 100 meters. No wonder that this thing was scrapped, while T-55 with ERA and NERA versions still serve.




> , while soviets had faith in their modern tanks. 65-70 ton Merkava is junk, such that they had to install an analogous to 3 decades older system Trophy to protect it against ancient RPGs.


No Merkava's were destroyed by RPGs in West Bank and Gaza, while many dosens of your modern tanks were destroyed in Chechnya.



> ÏÎÄÕÎÄ Ê ÁÐÎÍÈÐÎÂÀÍÈÞ ÁÎÐÒÎÂÎÉ ÏÐÎÅÊÖÈÈ ÒÀÍÊÀ And learn something.


Thats same site that claimed that there is zero probability to destroy tank with canon from 4 km? 

Tiger and IS tanks were build using extra rich experience of WW2 and both had very thick side armor. So spare me of nonsense that side armor is not important. Just because u could not make an APS that protects sides too


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> No, Trophy is also protected.


Against what ?



> Trophy does not use any fragments at all. Trophy can hit even HEAT rounds, so any missiles is piece of cake.


That is according to who ? Stupid advertisement with no proof ? They'd better show how it is supposed to destroy modern missiles, not ancient RPG.



> Do u have any pic of it in Afghanistan? Who would send that own infantry slaughter machine to Afghanistan especially when it does not protect the sides?


 Trophy is not safe for infantry, difference is that Drozd was not supposed to be.



> ERA and NERA is much more effective, at least it can protect sides and does not slaughter infantry at 100 meters. No wonder that this thing was scrapped, while T-55 with ERA and NERA versions still serve.


T-55s with Drozd were not scrapped on purpose. No T-55 remain in active service. About ERA and NERA you are wrong.



> No Merkava's were destroyed by RPGs in West Bank and Gaza, while many dosens of your modern tanks were destroyed in Chechnya.


RPGs in those zones are in very primitive level, and Trophy was deployed to deal with them. Chechnya was no way comparable to that, and despite that few tanks were taken out, as prove of Kontakt effectiveness.



> Thats same site that claimed that there is zero probability to destroy tank with canon from 4 km?


It is not any site, it is scientifical journal, 1991, a technical article describing how tank (sides, vulnerable zones) should be protected , by what criteria, soviet tanks followed that doctrine.

The other article, you did not understood, if you did, it would be clear for you.



> Tiger and IS tanks were build using extra rich experience of WW2 and both had very thick side armor. So spare me of nonsense that side armor is not important. Just because u could not make an APS that protects sides too


What was learned from WW2 and not only, and how important is siide armour and how it should be protected for conventiinal conflict, all that is explained in the article, with technical descriptions. Maybe it is that you are only used to interpret junk advertisements, and not actual technical information. Level of Rafael advertisements is far away from such articles.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> Against what ?


Bullets.



> That is according to who ? Stupid advertisement with no proof ? They'd better show how it is supposed to destroy modern missiles, not ancient RPG.


Simple if it can intercpet 1000 m/s HEAT round then ATGMs who travel at about 300-400 m/s are very easy.



> Trophy is not safe for infantry, difference is that Drozd was not supposed to be.


Trophy is safe, because it does not use fragments. Drozd is disaster.



> T-55s with Drozd were not scrapped on purpose. No T-55 remain in active service. About ERA and NERA you are wrong.


T-55 are in service in all the world and in stores. T-62 with ERA and NERA are still in service even in Russia. T-55 with Drozd are scrapped after shrt service time becauise its useless crap. 



> RPGs in those zones are in very primitive level, and Trophy was deployed to deal with them. Chechnya was no way comparable to that, and despite that few tanks were taken out, as prove of Kontakt effectiveness.


Same RPG-7 as in Chechnya and Ossetia.



> It is not any site, it is scientifical journal, 1991, a technical article describing how tank (sides, vulnerable zones) should be protected , by what criteria, soviet tanks followed that doctrine.


Alas, contstrructors of Tiger and IS tanks, which were built using super rich WW2 experience had very thick sides.

They knew that side protection is super important. Only losers who cant make a proper APS say its not important.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Bullets.


What bullets ? What kind of protection ?




> Simple if it can intercpet 1000 m/s HEAT round then ATGMs who travel at about 300-400 m/s are very easy.


There is no proof it can intercept HEAT rounnds, and that is only our deduction. It is not about speed anyway, Trophy's effectiveness against modern missiles is dubious, it is weak, and it was never proven.



> Trophy is safe, because it does not use fragments. Drozd is disaster.


Trophy is not safe, it leaves debris flying in all directions, it is weaker than Drozd, but still dangerous, and of dubious effectiveness against modern missiles.

T


> -55 are in service in all the world and in stores. T-62 with ERA and NERA are still in service even in Russia. T-55 with Drozd are scrapped after shrt service time becauise its useless crap.


T-55AD (Drozd) were never scrapped, they ended in Ukraine. T-55 were all retired in Russia, T-62 is no longer in service and it is being withdrawn as well. Yes, with ERA even these old tanks have better all around RPG protection than Merkava, but comparing add on ERA with APS is not correct.



> Same RPG-7 as in Chechnya and Ossetia.


By no means the same. In Chechnya they used plenty of armament from army stocks, those used where Merkava, are not even longer manufactured.



> Alas, contstrructors of Tiger and IS tanks, which were built using super rich WW2 experience had very thick sides.


And experience, evolution of threats and doctrine of implementation proved the obsolescence of those tanks. All Soviet and Western tanks designed after WW2 follow what is described in the article, solutions for conventional moneouver warfare.



> They knew that side protection is super important. Only losers who cant make a proper APS say its not important.


Only looser is Rafael whom it took 3 decades to replicate working method to beat RPGs and inflate it with stupid advertisement, but for completely different use, and still innefective by today;s standarts.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> What bullets ? What kind of protection ?


Enough protection.

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/8/38048.pdf



> There is no proof it can intercept HEAT rounnds, and that is only our deduction. It is not about speed anyway, Trophy's effectiveness against modern missiles is dubious, it is weak, and it was never proven.


We compare both systems using official data. So spare me of your A$$umptions. 



> Trophy is not safe, it leaves debris flying in all directions, it is weaker than Drozd, but still dangerous, and of dubious effectiveness against modern missiles.


Trophy does not use any fragments at all. Drozd uses 107-mm fragment bomb. You are slow understanding, but I can repeat.



> T-55AD (Drozd) were never scrapped, they ended in Ukraine.


Because no one needs that shyt. Ukraine sells lots of old Soviet armor from its stocks. But no one needs these stupid tanks with Drozd. Because they are only good to slaughter own infantry.



> T-55 were all retired in Russia, T-62 is no longer in service and it is being withdrawn as well. Yes, with ERA even these old tanks have better all around RPG protection than Merkava, but comparing add on ERA with APS is not correct.


Many dozens of T-62/72/80 tanks were destroyed in Chechnya with RPGs, not a single Merkava was destroyed by RPG in West Bank and Gaza.



> By no means the same. In Chechnya they used plenty of armament from army stocks, those used where Merkava, are not even longer manufactured.


Very same. I saw tons of footages and always Chechens run with RPG-7. Same RPGs that Palestinians have.



> And experience, evolution of threats and doctrine of implementation proved the obsolescence of those tanks.


What experience Russia had since WW2? 



> All Soviet and Western tanks designed after WW2 follow what is described in the article, solutions for conventional moneouver warfare.


Its not because its not needed, but because its simply impossible to protect sides from modern threats. *The only way to do so is APS. And Trophy is first such APS in the world.*



> Only looser is Rafael whom it took 3 decades to replicate working method to beat RPGs and inflate it with stupid advertisement, but for completely different use, and still innefective by today;s standarts.


Only Russian APS that approaches Trophy is Arena. But it was never deployed.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Enough protection.
> 
> http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/8/38048.pdf


It does not specify what kind of protection. Requirement of soviet APS, Drozd, was to whitstand heavy machine gun fire, 12.7mm. Has Trophy such protection ?



> We compare both systems using official data. So spare me of your A$$umptions.


OK, provide data for comparison.



> Trophy does not use any fragments at all. Drozd uses 107-mm fragment bomb. You are slow understanding, but I can repeat.


I did not said that Trophy uses fragments. I said that it's projectiles disperse in many directions and still cause collateral damage, despite being weaker than Drozd powerfull fragments, thus of more dubious effectiveness against modern ATGMs with protection.



> Because no one needs that shyt. Ukraine sells lots of old Soviet armor from its stocks. But no one needs these stupid tanks with Drozd. Because they are only good to slaughter own infantry.


They ended in Ukraine as result of break-up, and they could not remain in service same af many armament which ended there. 

Yes, indeed such APS like Drozd or Trophy, they maybe were of use 3 decades ago against warfare threats of that time, but they are not so relevant today. In Russia there are plenty of such systems available, which are just not seen to have perspectives, because in modern conflicts such expensive systems which protect only against missiles are not viable. Today essential requirements are universal protection, against missiles, and kinetic rounds, systems as Afganit or Burlak project APS. Only those are seen as perspective and are being actively developed.



> Many dozens of T-62/72/80 tanks were destroyed in Chechnya with RPGs, not a single Merkava was destroyed by RPG in West Bank and Gaza.


No such damage in Second Chechen War, meanwhile Merkava is threatened by RPG. Besides, media reports of Merkava damage are ambiguous on purpose, they do not consider a tank destroyed despite it has been left completely neutralised and was rebuilt.



> Very same. I saw tons of footages and always Chechens run with RPG-7. Same RPGs that Palestinians have.


RPGs of Palestinians, obsolete with penetration level hardly over 300mm which have nothing to do with army stocks.



> What experience Russia had since WW2?


Experience learnt from WW2, which led to developement of T-44, T-54,55, etc. 



> Its not because its not needed, but because its simply impossible to protect sides from modern threats. *The only way to do so is APS. And Trophy is first such APS in the world.*


It is possible to provide such protection in manouver warfare doctrine based on front engagement. As article describes, from WW2 experience, simulations, etc, soviet tanks are armoured to provide protection and safe manouevering at 30 degrees (similar with western tanks), which is dispersion of projectiles from effective engagement range. Drozd provided 40 degrees frontal arc protection, enought for such conflicts. More just wasn't needed and was redundant, but it could be provided anyway.



> Only Russian APS that approaches Trophy is Arena. But it was never deployed.


Trophy is in the level of soviet developements of the 70s (Drozd, Veer-1,Veer-2, Dozd, Shater, which was Arena predecessor) Difference is that it was developed decades later, despite that it has analogous characteristics.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> It does not specify what kind of protection. Requirement of soviet APS, Drozd, was to whitstand heavy machine gun fire, 12.7mm. Has Trophy such protection ?


I did not see anything about 12.7 mm in official sources.



> OK, provide data for comparison.


*Weight:*

Drozd: 1000 kg
Trophy: 850 kg

*Protection:*

Drozd: +-40 grad
Trophy: 360 grad 

*Threats:*

Drozd: ATGM / RPG 
Trophy: ATGM / RPG / Tank HEAT round

*Collateral damage:*

Drozd: enormous, heavy 107-mm fragment warhead exploding in the air.
Trophy: chance of a dismounted soldier to be injured from Trophy <1%. Using MEFP technology.

*Detection of enemy fire source:*

Drozd: No.
Trophy: Yes.



> I did not said that Trophy uses fragments. I said that it's projectiles disperse in many directions


No, MEFP projectiles are fired very accurately towards the source. You dont even understend the principle of MEFP.



> No such damage in Second Chechen War, meanwhile Merkava is threatened by RPG. Besides, media reports of Merkava damage are ambiguous on purpose, they do not consider a tank destroyed despite it has been left completely neutralised and was rebuilt.


In second Chechen war tanks also were destroyed, son did in Ossetia war. In order to prevent tank loses usage of tanks was minimised and Russia lost some 5000 soldiers. By comparison during Defensive Shield operation in West Bank IDF lost 29 soldiers.



> Experience learnt from WW2, which led to developement of T-44, T-54,55, etc.


And IS-3.


> RPGs of Palestinians, obsolete with penetration level hardly over 300mm which have nothing to do with army stocks.


Same did Chechens. Palestinians also have some tandem warhead RPG-7 and RPG-29.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> I did not see anything about 12.7 mm in official sources.





> &#1054;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1093;&#1072;&#1088;&#1072;&#1082;&#1090;&#1077;&#1088;&#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080;:
> 
> &#1088;&#1077;&#1078;&#1080;&#1084; &#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1099; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1082;&#1089;&#1072;
> 
> &#1086;&#1073;&#1085;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1078;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1080; &#1089;&#1086;&#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1086;&#1078;&#1076;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1094;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1081;
> 
> &#1090;&#1080;&#1087;&#1099; &#1087;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&#1078;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099;&#1093; &#1094;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1081;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#1076;&#1080;&#1072;&#1087;&#1072;&#1079;&#1086;&#1085; &#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1081; &#1087;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&#1078;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099;&#1093; &#1094;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1081; &#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088; &#1079;&#1072;&#1097;&#1080;&#1090;&#1099; &#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1082;&#1072;
> 
> &#1087;&#1086; &#1072;&#1079;&#1080;&#1084;&#1091;&#1090;&#1091;
> 
> &#1087;&#1086; &#1091;&#1075;&#1083;&#1091; &#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;
> 
> &#1050;&#1086;&#1083;&#1080;&#1095;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1086; &#1074;&#1099;&#1089;&#1090;&#1088;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074; &#1076;&#1083;&#1103; &#1086;&#1090;&#1088;&#1072;&#1078;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1072;&#1076;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1081;, &#1096;&#1090;:
> 
> &#1074; &#1079;&#1072;&#1097;&#1080;&#1097;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1086;&#1084; &#1089;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1077;
> 
> &#1089; &#1086;&#1076;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1088;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103;
> 
> &#1057;&#1082;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1087;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&#1078;&#1072;&#1077;&#1084;&#1099;&#1093; &#1055;&#1058;&#1059;&#1056; &#1080; &#1075;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072;&#1090;, &#1084;/&#1089;
> 
> &#1042;&#1077;&#1088;&#1086;&#1103;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1079;&#1072;&#1097;&#1080;&#1090;&#1099; &#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1082;&#1072; &#1086;&#1090; &#1055;&#1058;&#1059;&#1056; &#1080; &#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1090;&#1080;&#1074;&#1086;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1093; &#1075;&#1088;&#1072;&#1085;&#1072;&#1090;
> 
> &#1052;&#1072;&#1089;&#1089;&#1072; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1082;&#1089;&#1072; *&#1089; &#1091;&#1095;&#1077;&#1090;&#1086;&#1084; &#1079;&#1072;&#1097;&#1080;&#1090;&#1099; &#1086;&#1090; 12,7&#1084;&#1084; *&#1082;&#1075;.
> 
> &#1042;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#1085;&#1077;&#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1088;&#1099;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1099;, &#1095;&#1072;&#1089;
> 
> &#1042;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#1075;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1082;&#1089;&#1072; &#1082; &#1079;&#1072;&#1097;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077; &#1086;&#1090; &#1089;&#1083;&#1077;&#1076;&#1091;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1075;&#1086; &#1085;&#1072;&#1087;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072;&#1102;&#1097;&#1077;&#1075;&#1086; &#1073;&#1086;&#1077;&#1087;&#1088;&#1080;&#1087;&#1072;&#1089;&#1072; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1077; &#1079;&#1072;&#1097;&#1080;&#1090;&#1099; &#1086;&#1090; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1099;&#1076;&#1091;&#1097;&#1077;&#1075;&#1086;, &#1089;
> 
> &#1069;&#1083;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1088;&#1086;&#1084;&#1072;&#1075;&#1085;&#1080;&#1090;&#1085;&#1072;&#1103; &#1089;&#1086;&#1074;&#1084;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1084;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; &#1086;&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1077;&#1095;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1103; &#1087;&#1088;&#1080; &#1091;&#1076;&#1072;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1080; &#1090;&#1072;&#1085;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1089; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1082;&#1089;&#1072;&#1084;&#1080;:
> 
> &#1087;&#1086; &#1092;&#1088;&#1086;&#1085;&#1090;&#1091;, &#1084;
> 
> &#1087;&#1086; &#1075;&#1083;&#1091;&#1073;&#1080;&#1085;&#1077;
> 
> &#1042;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#1075;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1074;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1082;&#1089;&#1072; &#1087;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1077; &#1074;&#1082;&#1083;&#1102;&#1095;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103;, &#1084;&#1080;&#1085;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#1072;&#1074;&#1090;&#1086;&#1084;&#1072;&#1090;&#1080;&#1095;&#1077;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;
> 
> &#1088;&#1072;&#1076;&#1080;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1082;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1086;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1077;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> + 40
> 
> &#1086;&#1090; - 6 &#1076;&#1086; +20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8
> 
> 2
> 
> 70 ... 700
> 
> 
> 
> 0,7
> 
> 1000
> 
> 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0,35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50
> 
> 30
> 
> 5





> *Threats:*
> 
> Drozd: ATGM / RPG
> Trophy: ATGM / RPG / Tank HEAT round


This is not data for comparison, it is what you say and it is wrong (Drozd is also effective against artillery cumulative projectiles, 700m/s).

Again, what technical charatcteristics indicate that Trophy is effective against Heat round ?

[


> B]Collateral damage:[/B]
> 
> Drozd: enormous, heavy 107-mm fragment warhead exploding in the air.
> Trophy: chance of a dismounted soldier to be injured from Trophy <1%. Using MEFP technology.


This is not serious figure from advertisement, a fast image search shows http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3828/t12ap.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7439/84201440.jpg

This is supposed to be safe ?


> *Detection of enemy fire source:*
> 
> Drozd: No.
> Trophy: Yes.


There is no detection at all in Trophy, same as in decades older Drozd, it is all up to crew.

If you only bring empty statements, and not technical specifications, then there is no comparison.



> In second Chechen war tanks also were destroyed, son did in Ossetia war. In order to prevent tank loses usage of tanks was minimised and Russia lost some 5000 soldiers. By comparison during Defensive Shield operation in West Bank IDF lost 29 soldiers.


Chechen war is not comparable in intensity, I don't know how it can be compared. Few armour lost as compared to first war due to better use and armouring with Kontakt. In Ossetia Russia has not suffered any significant armour (tank) loss.



> And IS-3.


IS-3 belongs to WW2 era, designed in 1944 and produced in 1945. First post-war tank as such, having in account all war experience, was T-54, following design patterns detailed in the article, same as all other post war soviet and western tanks.



> Same did Chechens. Palestinians also have some tandem warhead RPG-7 and RPG-29.


Chechens had army stock weapons, and in quantity, very different from Palestinians which use grenades which are hardly effective today, which Merkava fears.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> ...


I asked the official source not copy paste.



> This is not data for comparison


It is.



> it is what you say and it is wrong (Drozd is also effective against artillery cumulative projectiles, 700m/s).


700 m/s is not enough vs tank HEAT rounds.



> Again, what technical charatcteristics indicate that Trophy is effective against Heat round ?


Offical data says that it protects vs tank HEAT rounds.



> This is not serious figure from advertisement, a fast image search shows


Its official data.



> This is supposed to be safe ?









As u can see, Trophy projectiles are fired as a beam which is has about same width as RPG shell.



> There is no detection at all in Trophy,


There is, unlike Drozd. You are really frustrated.

* Calculates location of threat launching point.
* Facilitates vehicle weapon system aiming at launching point.

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/8/38048.pdf



> Chechen war is not comparable in intensity, I don't know how it can be compared. Few armour lost as compared to first war due to better use and armouring with Kontakt. In Ossetia Russia has not suffered any significant armour (tank) loss.


If u cant fight u get it intense. Russian command thought better lose soldiers than tanks. Thats why u lost 5000 there.



> IS-3 belongs to WW2 era, designed in 1944 and produced in 1945.


IS-3 was produced till 1953. It used all the experience gained in WW2. And this experience showed that side armor is very important. Both Germans and Russians thought so. Then was also litlte production of IS-4 heavy tanks with even thicker sides.

But after that Khruchev decided that army does not need heavy tanks and thats why medium tanks with thin sides were produced. 



> Chechens had army stock weapons, and in quantity, very different from Palestinians which use grenades which are hardly effective today, which Merkava fears.


Bla bla. Palestinians get through tunnels all Iranian and North African army stocks. Chechens fought mostly with RPG-7. They had some modern RPGs but in small numbers same as Palestinians.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> I asked the official source not copy paste.


Rosoboronexport



> 700 m/s is not enough vs tank HEAT rounds.
> 
> Offical data says that it protects vs tank HEAT rounds.


It does not say anything, there is no proof, and it was not shown. You still do not understand how to make comparisons, and what actually are technical specifications.

First to compare, information has to be of value and have a meaning, what you do is compare stupid advertisement which says nothing to official information from goverment trials, not favorable to you.

From Drozd official tests it was shown it intercept targets from 70-700m/s, this is a valid technical specification. From Trophy there is nothing, so it's not known what kind of targets it is able to intercept.

Second, assuming Trophy can intercept Heat rounds, this would not imply that it will give a reliable protection. From Drozd tests there were given figures of 0.7 success rate against RPGs, and 1 against missiles. There is no information at all about Trophy, so it cannot be assured that it will actually protect against Heat rounds.



> As u can see, Trophy projectiles are fired as a beam which is has about same width as RPG shell.


And is dangerous for everyone nearby as this and this other image show: http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3828/t12ap.jpg




> There is, unlike Drozd. You are really frustrated.
> 
> * Calculates location of threat launching point.
> * Facilitates vehicle weapon system aiming at launching point.
> 
> http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/8/38048.pdf


And this again is non relevant advertisement junk. Today's systems automatically detect the location of the launcher, calculate necessary gun rotation and elevation to inmediately eliminate the threat. Nothing of this is realised in "modern" Trophy. It is all up to the crew to interpret the location and to initiate all the procedure, which is a slow manual process with no guarantee of effective counteraction. It is up to you to take advertisement seriously...



> If u cant fight u get it intense. Russian command thought better lose soldiers than tanks. Thats why u lost 5000 there.


This is very ignorant and empty statement.



> IS-3 was produced till 1953. It used all the experience gained in WW2. And this experience showed that side armor is very important. Both Germans and Russians thought so. Then was also litlte production of IS-4 heavy tanks with even thicker sides.
> 
> But after that Khruchev decided that army does not need heavy tanks and thats why medium tanks with thin sides were produced.


IS-4 was a continuation of earlier series, rroduction lasted only a few years ceasing before 1950, while T-54 was seen as perspective concept, IS series concept got archaic after WW2 and was not continued, neither in the rest of the world.



> Bla bla. Palestinians get through tunnels all Iranian and North African army stocks. Chechens fought mostly with RPG-7. They had some modern RPGs but in small numbers same as Palestinians.


 From there they would hardly get anything modern, less in significant quantities.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> Rosoboronexport


Link. I have its brochure there is nothing about 12.7 mm.



> It does not say anything, there is no proof, and it was not shown. You still do not understand how to make comparisons, and what actually are technical specifications.


It says it protects against tank HEAT rounds. Something that Drozd cant do.



> First to compare, information has to be of value and have a meaning, what you do is compare stupid advertisement which says nothing to official information from goverment trials, not favorable to you.


Spare me of your nonsense. You dont have trials information. We both relly only on advertistments.

From Drozd official tests it was shown it intercept targets from 70-700m/s, this is a valid technical specification. From Trophy there is nothing, so it's not known what kind of targets it is able to intercept.


> Second, assuming Trophy can intercept Heat rounds, this would not imply that it will give a reliable protection. From Drozd tests there were given figures of 0.7 success rate against RPGs, and 1 against missiles. There is no information at all about Trophy, so it cannot be assured that it will actually protect against Heat rounds.


These are rubbish numbers. Pentagon made 30 tests of Trophy and it showed more than 0.95 effectiveness.



> And is dangerous for everyone nearby as this and this other image show: http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3828/t12ap.jpg


Spare me of your MS Paint works.



> And this again is non relevant advertisement junk. Today's systems automatically detect the location of the launcher, calculate necessary gun rotation and elevation to inmediately eliminate the threat. Nothing of this is realised in "modern" Trophy. It is all up to the crew to interpret the location and to initiate all the procedure, which is a slow manual process with no guarantee of effective counteraction. It is up to you to take advertisement seriously...


All of it is realized in Trophy, I showed you the source. And its not realized in Drozd. No Russian tank have such system.



> This is very ignorant and empty statement.


You lost 5000 we lost 29. Thats fact. You lost over hundred tanks to RPGs, we lost zero.



> IS-4 was a continuation of earlier series, rroduction lasted only a few years ceasing before 1950, while T-54 was seen as perspective concept, IS series concept got archaic after WW2 and was not continued, neither in the rest of the world.


Fact: IS-3 was based on rich WW2 experience.
Fact: IS-3 had thick sides.
Conclusion: side protection is very important in classic warfare.

Fact: Tiger was based on rich WW2 experience.
Fact: Tiger had thick sides.
Conclusion: side protection is very important in classic warfare.

And facts that even you cant deny:

Side protection is very important in urban warfare.
Side protection is very important in LIC and COIN warfare.

The only way to provide side protection against modern threats is APS. And Trophy is first APS which is doing that.



> From there they would hardly get anything modern, less in significant quantities.


There are plenty of modern RPGs gear there.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> Link. I have its brochure there is nothing about 12.7 mm.


It is from Rosoboronexport. Do not have it now, you can find for yourself.



> It says it protects against tank HEAT rounds. Something that Drozd cant do.


As there are no specifications and lack of data, there is no proof at all that Trophy will protect against HEAT, only empty statements.



> Spare me of your nonsense. You dont have trials information. We both relly only on advertistments.


I provided official information coming from trials with specific figures showing effectiveness, 0.7 RPGs and 1 against ATGMs, among other technical information. You are discussing with nothing but empty statements. If you do not provide figures for comparison then you have nothing to argue with.



> These are rubbish numbers. Pentagon made 30 tests of Trophy and it showed more than 0.95 effectiveness.


Where are details (RPG ? ATGM ? Tank projectiles ?)
Where are specific technical figures, such as I provided ? Where it proves anything about supposed ability of intercepting HEAT ? In no way you can base your claim in that, it says nothing. Provide figures, not your deductions or fantasies.



> Spare me of your MS Paint works.


I have real image showing it's actual "efficiency". You have baseless statement.



> All of it is realized in Trophy, I showed you the source. And its not realized in Drozd. No Russian tank have such system.


Source is advertisement which says nothing of what I described. In modern systems there is automatized response against threat, this is present for example in Shtora and many others. Trophy does nothing at all, responsive is entirely from the part of the crew, slow, manual. It is up to you to believe in stupid advertisement and fantasize.



> You lost 5000 we lost 29. Thats fact. You lost over hundred tanks to RPGs, we lost zero.


What pointless comparison, you could also compare with WW2, equally valid.



> Fact: IS-3 was based on rich WW2 experience.
> Fact: IS-3 had thick sides.
> Conclusion: side protection is very important in classic warfare.
> 
> Fact: Tiger was based on rich WW2 experience.
> Fact: Tiger had thick sides.
> Conclusion: side protection is very important in classic warfare.


Fact: There is evolution in warfare as well as in sophystication of armament.
Fact: Such tank concept got archaic after WW2 and was rejected by all countries. IS series themselves were discontinued and abandoned shortly after conflict. You can make your ignorant deductions, but not use them as argument. I provided technical article on the subject.



> And facts that even you cant deny:
> 
> Side protection is very important in urban warfare.
> Side protection is very important in LIC and COIN warfare.


It is important for urban warfare, and there are many ways of improvement (ERA, add on armour, etc) But when Drozd was designed they did not even considered such conflicts, it was designed purely for conventional manouver warfare so it has nothing to do there. For urban warfare you have also to consider collateral damage, and Trophy is not safe as proved.

For conventional warfare only a specific angle range is in need to be protected, because according to doctrine those are the most probable to be hit, while rest is not. I provided with an article describing all of that in detail.



> The only way to provide side protection against modern threats is APS. And Trophy is first APS which is doing that.


Throphy is not fully suitable for urban warfare, while for 3 decades older conventional conflicts existed analogous Drozd. But today Trophy, protecting only against some cumulative threats is not suitable, Drozd was, but that was for decades older warfare. 



> There are plenty of modern RPGs gear there.


 Sure, figure of less than 1 % of Trophy advertisement describes that better, than for Trophy itself.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> It is from Rosoboronexport. Do not have it now, you can find for yourself.


No there is nothing about 12.7 mm. 



> As there are no specifications and lack of data, there is no proof at all that Trophy will protect against HEAT, only empty statements.


You dont have data on Drozd tests, only Rosoboronexport's add. 
In case of Trophy there is a big number of interception videos + Pentagon test data.



> I provided official information coming from trials with specific figures showing effectiveness, 0.7 RPGs and 1 against ATGMs, among other technical information. You are discussing with nothing but empty statements. If you do not provide figures for comparison then you have nothing to argue with.


No you provided your hallucinations. 


> Where are details (RPG ? ATGM ? Tank projectiles ?)
> Where are specific technical figures, such as I provided ? Where it proves anything about supposed ability of intercepting HEAT ? In no way you can base your claim in that, it says nothing. Provide figures, not your deductions or fantasies.


It says ALL HEAT threats. What other details do u need.


> I have real image showing it's actual "efficiency". You have baseless statement.


No you have MS Paint nonsense and u also jhave lack of knowledge in MEFP.



> Source is advertisement which says nothing of what I described. In modern systems there is automatized response against threat, this is present for example in Shtora and many others. Trophy does nothing at all, responsive is entirely from the part of the crew, slow, manual. It is up to you to believe in stupid advertisement and fantasize.


Trophy is also automatic. 

Shtora does not locate source of fire, it can only detect the azimuth of laser radiation. Thats all. Only very small number of threats. And Drozd does not detect at all.



> What pointless comparison, you could also compare with WW2, equally valid.


Both German and Soviet WW2 experience show that side protection is important.



> Fact: There is evolution in warfare as well as in sophystication of armament.


Of course. In WW2 u could protect sides with extra armor. Today the only way to protect the sides is APS. And Trophy is the first APS who does that job.



> It is important for urban warfare, and there are many ways of improvement (ERA, add on armour, etc) But when Drozd was designed they did not even considered such conflicts, it was designed purely for conventional manouver warfare so it has nothing to do there. For urban warfare you have also to consider collateral damage, and Trophy is not safe as proved.


Drozd was a primitive junk for testing. They could not make a normal APS with 360 grad protection. If they could they were making it.



> Sure, figure of less than 1 % of Trophy advertisement describes that better, than for Trophy itself.


Trophy accurately fires MEF projectiles towards the missile.


----------



## mnd

500 said:


> No there is nothing about 12.7 mm.


I provided figures already, search by yourself or ask anyone who knows.



> You dont have data on Drozd tests, only Rosoboronexport's add.
> In case of Trophy there is a big number of interception videos + Pentagon test data.


Specific figures were provided, in goverment tests, which are used to describe system effectiveness.

In case of Trophy there is no data at all, only baseless advertisements.



> No you provided your hallucinations.


These were actual figures, not your empty statements or advertisements. Meanwhile you argue with nothing but with your words, which have no value at all.



> It says ALL HEAT threats. What other details do u need.


It means nothing. These advertisement has the same value as other jewels as Trophy, "the first operational APS" lol.

If there are no figures for speed range of targets, showing what targets it is capable to intercept, and corresponding effectiveness figures (probablity) as there are for Drozd, there is no argument. 

For example if HEAT interception will have an effectiveness probability of 0.2, this cannot be considered as reliable protection. How do you know ?

It is simple, want to prove, and to compare, bring figures, otherwise you have no grounds and your words against proven facts.



> No you have MS Paint nonsense and u also jhave lack of knowledge in MEFP.


I do not believe in empty statements.
You base Trohpy's effectiveness just on silly advertisements with no explanations, I refuted them with image showing it's working method. 



> Trophy is also automatic.


There is nothing automatic on it, it is said in your advertisement. If you want to contradict everybody then describe the working method in detail.

Trophy is manual response which can be too much delay for such situations.



> Shtora does not locate source of fire, it can only detect the azimuth of laser radiation. Thats all. Only very small number of threats. And Drozd does not detect at all.


Shtora detects azimuth, direction of threat, automatically gives signal indicating necessary rotation and gun elevation for rapid fire and neutralisation. Such automation is present on modern APS, but not on Trophy.



> Both German and Soviet WW2 experience show that side protection is important.



Sure, you know everything in detail



> Of course. In WW2 u could protect sides with extra armor. Today the only way to protect the sides is APS. And Trophy is the first APS who does that job.


Today side protection is necessary only in unconventional conflicts, and only against cumulative threats. Trophy is not the only system that gives such protection.



> Drozd was a primitive junk for testing. They could not make a normal APS with 360 grad protection. If they could they were making it.


Drozd was actually in service, the first of such system in the world. You are clearly not familiar with soviet APS developement history.



> Trophy accurately fires MEF projectiles towards the missile.


You can see what collateral damage it causes in advertisement images which I showed.


----------



## 500

Lidsky said:


> I provided figures already, search by yourself or ask anyone who knows.
> 
> 
> Specific figures were provided, in goverment tests, which are used to describe system effectiveness.
> 
> In case of Trophy there is no data at all, only baseless advertisements.


I provide official links. You say its propaganda.

You cant provide any official links and want us to believe u. 

But even you cant deny the fact that Drozd does not protect the most vulnerable parts and is a collateral manage disaster.


----------



## david39553

500 said:


> Its not operational.


500 can trophy stop rpg 30 ?


----------



## 500

david39553 said:


> 500 can trophy stop rpg 30 ?


RPG 30 fires small decoy first before the real round. I think that u can make a simple software modification: when radar see two rounds coming from same direction with very little delay, u should tell the system to intercept the second round and not the first.


----------



## Bratva

500 said:


> RPG 30 fires small decoy first before the real round. I think that u can make a simple software modification: when radar see two rounds coming from same direction with very little delay, u should tell the system to intercept the second round and not the first.



I have seen videos of APS engagement in ongoing conflict. One question arises in mind, the ATGM intercepted very close to tank, doesn't exploding explosives causes damage to skin of tank ?


----------



## Adir-mz

> I have seen videos of APS engagement in ongoing conflict. One question arises in mind, the ATGM intercepted very close to tank, doesn't exploding explosives causes damage to skin of tank ?



The shards of the ATGM cause zero damage to skin of tank after it's intercepted.


----------



## Informant

500 said:


> RPG 30 fires small decoy first before the real round. I think that u can make a simple software modification: when radar see two rounds coming from same direction with very little delay, u should tell the system to intercept the second round and not the first.



Wouldnt the decoy be in the same flight path as the main projectile?


----------



## Natan

casual poster said:


> Out of Trophy and Iron dome, which one is better? On paper Iron dome looks more promising as it could intercept Kinetic energy rounds.


You mean Iron Fist, not Iron Dome.



Informant said:


> Wouldnt the decoy be in the same flight path as the main projectile?


Are you suggesting that the decoy would physically protect the main projectile?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Informant

Natan said:


> You mean Iron Fist, not Iron Dome.
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the decoy would physically protect the main projectile?



If the tank is stationary, wouldn't the decoy be in the same flight path? Or can the Trophy system engage multiple targets simultaneously?


----------



## Natan

Informant said:


> If the tank is stationary, wouldn't the decoy be in the same flight path? Or can the Trophy system engage multiple targets simultaneously?


Here you go, the decoy and the main projectile are in the same path. Trophy ignores the decoy and attacks the main projectile:


----------



## Informant

Natan said:


> Here you go, the decoy and the main projectile are in the same path. Trophy ignores the decoy and attacks the main projectile:
> View attachment 44922



What if it's exactly i straight line with the rocket dispenser/housing/launch system? 

My original query as regarding if it's a head on approach to the trophy rocket system?


----------



## Natan

Informant said:


> What if it's exactly i straight line with the rocket dispenser/housing/launch system?
> 
> My original query as regarding if it's a head on approach to the trophy rocket system?


Imagine it in 3D and you will see that a a head on approach to the Trophy APS is very unlikely. It has be not just straight line to the Trophy, but also the same height above the ground. 

In order to have a head on approach the shooter must be able to hit a target of the size of a standard notepaper with an unguided RPG.


----------



## 500

casual poster said:


> Out of Trophy and Iron fist, which one is better? On paper Iron fist looks more promising as it could intercept Kinetic energy rounds.


Yes Iron Fist has some advantage on paper. But they could not finish their product and pass the military tests.



Informant said:


> What if it's exactly i straight line with the rocket dispenser/housing/launch system?
> 
> My original query as regarding if it's a head on approach to the trophy rocket system?


----------



## Bratva

Adir-mz said:


> The shards of the ATGM cause zero damage to skin of tank after it's intercepted.



I was talking about warhead of ATGM, Won't it explode when APS intercept it ?


----------



## Aepsilons

500 said:


> *Armored brigade equipped with advanced defense system
> *
> 
> Iron Trails Brigade was recently outfitted with the Trophy active defense system, which defends tanks against incoming missiles
> Date: 24/06/2012, 3:24 PM Author: Florit Shoihet
> 
> The entire Iron Trails Brigade, a tank brigade within the IDF's Armored Corps, was recently equipped with the Trophy active defense system. The new defense system identifies and eliminates anti-tank missiles before they can reach the tanks on which it is installed.
> 
> In the past month, the Iron Trails Brigade, which boasts a number of advanced Merkava Mark IV tanks, completed a significant exercise in conjunction with engineering forces. This drill involved cooperating with other units and focused on the advanced platforms used by the unit.
> 
> "The Iron Trails Brigade's exercises are difficult, reflecting our belief that we must push the commanders to the limit of their abilities and those of the platforms," Col. Einav Shalev, commander of the unit, stressed to the IDF Website. "As part of the process of strengthening the brigade, I emphasize the depth of our responsibility to reach further than any other brigade, in places where others would fall. All of this influences the outlook that we can demand more from our units, so that in the future we will successfully reach deeper and further in less time."
> 
> "Our platforms do not prevent injury entirely, but they certainly reduce it. Ultimately, all of this influences our success in striking the enemy," he added.
> 
> The Iron Trails Brigade's exercises have taken place in various settings, including challenges such as operating at night and under pressure. "This year was a large step forward for us in many respects: combat in urban areas, using armored combat vehicles and tanks against an enemy, anti-kidnapping drills, and underground fighting," the brigade commander concluded.
> 
> IDF - Israel Defense Forces : Armored brigade equipped with advanced defense sys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAFAEL&#39;s Trophy (Active Protection System) - YouTube
> 
> &#x202b;



Looking good, IDF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Bratva said:


> I was talking about warhead of ATGM, Won't it explode when APS intercept it ?


it explodes several meters away, cant from that distance tank can get only some scratch.



Nihonjin1051 said:


> Looking good, IDF.


Arigato!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

This is news from 2012, how many units are equipped now and number of tanks, APCs, etc


----------



## Aepsilons

@500 , Israel truly is a ground power. IDF has 360 of the Merkava IV MBT, 780 of the Merkava III MBT, 400 of the Merkava II MBT, 180 of the Merkava I MBT. This is not even taking into consideration over 1800 of the Magach MBTs. Israel , currently, has in its disposal and can mobilize over 3500 MBTs at whim.

Yea, nothing is touching Israel and expect to survive Her Wrath. *Period*.


----------



## Natan

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> This is news from 2012, how many units are equipped now and number of tanks, APCs, etc


Another brigade is getting brand new Merkava Mk4M tanks that come with Trophy off the production line.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

Natan said:


> Another brigade is getting brand new Merkava Mk4M tanks that come with Trophy off the production line.



What is the difference between Merkava MK4M and normal Merkava 4s?


----------



## Natan

AUz said:


> What is the difference between Merkava MK4M and normal Merkava 4s?


Trophy APS, and some other less distinctive features.


----------

