The entire IDF armor brigade equipped with Trophy active protection system

[Oldman1]

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…

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]

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.

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]

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]

^^^ 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]

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.

 

[Oldman1]

^^^ 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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[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]

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]

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

 

[500]

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.

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]

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.

 

[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