The entire IDF armor brigade equipped with Trophy active protection system

[500]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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.