Israel Defends Against ATGMs

XaNDeR

New Member
September 8, 2007: Israel is apparently equipping all of its tanks, and many armored personnel carriers, with the Trophy APS (Active Protection System.) This is part of the reforms prompted by encounters with Russian Kornet anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) last Summer, when 22 Merkava tanks were damaged by the more powerful warheads of these missiles.



The Trophy system consists of a radar, to detect incoming missiles, and small rockets to rush out and disable the incoming threat. A complete trophy system weighs a ton. Russia pioneered the development of these anti-missile systems. The first one, the Drozd, entered active service in 1983, mainly for defense against American ATGMs. These the Russians feared a great deal, as American troops had a lot of them, and the Russians knew these missiles (like TOW) worked. Russia went on to improve their anti-missile systems, but was never able to export many of them. This was largely because these systems were expensive (over $100,000 per vehicle), no one trusted Russian hi-tech that much, and new tanks, like the American M-1, were seen as a bigger threat than ATGMs.



The Israeli Trophy uses better, more reliable, and more expensive technology than the Russian Drozd (or its successors.) For about $300,000 per system, Trophy will protect a vehicle from ATGMs as well as RPGs (which are much more common in combat zones.) Israel is the first Western nation to have a lot of their tanks shot up by modern ATGMs, and apparently fears the situation will only get worse. Israel first encountered ATGM, on a large scale, in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. But these were the clumsy, first generation ATGM. These turned out to be more smoke than fire. But the latest ATGM, like Kornet, are more deadly. So Israel is getting ready.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20070908.aspx?comments=Y


Israel is concentrating much on Tank protection , Merkava Mk 4 already was a big step forward and it focused alot on tank protection based on their experience but they are still trying to increase that protection , especialy to counter Kornet ATGM.
 

steve33

Member
It sure is the way to go,stop the projectile before it gets to the vehicle.

Reactive armour is being used on Bradleys and Abram in Iraq but it will probably only be effective against single warhead,double tandam will penetrate.
 

Catalan

New Member
Reactive armour is being used on Bradleys and Abram in Iraq but it will probably only be effective against single warhead,double tandam will penetrate.
Why would the United States upgrade the Abrams with armor designed to defeat warheads from the 80s, instead of designing the armor to defeat the tandem warheads which already exist in Iraq from before the upgrade first saw production? I don´t doubt that the reactive armor, of unknown ilk, on the TUSK can defeat a tandem HEAT warhead, or at least ebb the damage.
 

Chrom

New Member
Why would the United States upgrade the Abrams with armor designed to defeat warheads from the 80s, instead of designing the armor to defeat the tandem warheads which already exist in Iraq from before the upgrade first saw production? I don´t doubt that the reactive armor, of unknown ilk, on the TUSK can defeat a tandem HEAT warhead, or at least ebb the damage.
95% RPG's and ATGM's used in Iraq are NOT tandem warhead. So, i can see why USA still think what TUSK upgrade is usefull.
As for USA ERA perfomance, nobody can tell exact figures.
But, for example, current french ERA (and at least they started to develop it before USA) is believed to be in Kontakt-V class - which have only limited effectivity against tandem warheads. I'm pretty much sure USA ERA is in the same class.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Tusk upgrade ERA package is just a stop gap package that was needed with the outmost urgency. It is not designed to entirely stop Tandem projectiles but will have some effects of slowing them down. The Stryker is now currently being tested with it and will be emplemented with it hopefully soon. Leclerc urban package also is not designed to entirely stop Tandem projectiles.
 

Catalan

New Member
Well, I don´t see how one could opinionate on the TUSK upgrade when nobody really knows if the reactive armor on the TUSK is really explosive reactive armor. I remember a discussion on Tank Net where some were suggesting it was non-energetic reactive armor, or some variation thereof. The point of my comment was that I would be led to believe that the United States would design an armor package that would defend the Abrams against current threats and near future threats [tandem warheads are a near future threat, given that there have been reports of the RPG-29 in Iraq for a while now, fictitious or not].

According to World Guns the RPG-7 has had a tandem warhead since the late 80s [PG-7VR], and there have been reports that U.S. M1A2s have been engaged by the PG-7VR warhead [previously, they had thought it was the RPG-29, and now they say it´s the older PG-7VR tandem warhead].

So, I would be led to believe that even interim armor upgrades included protection - even if slight - against existant tandem warhead threats in Iraq.
 

Chrom

New Member
Well, I don´t see how one could opinionate on the TUSK upgrade when nobody really knows if the reactive armor on the TUSK is really explosive reactive armor. I remember a discussion on Tank Net where some were suggesting it was non-energetic reactive armor, or some variation thereof. The point of my comment was that I would be led to believe that the United States would design an armor package that would defend the Abrams against current threats and near future threats [tandem warheads are a near future threat, given that there have been reports of the RPG-29 in Iraq for a while now, fictitious or not].

According to World Guns the RPG-7 has had a tandem warhead since the late 80s [PG-7VR], and there have been reports that U.S. M1A2s have been engaged by the PG-7VR warhead [previously, they had thought it was the RPG-29, and now they say it´s the older PG-7VR tandem warhead].

So, I would be led to believe that even interim armor upgrades included protection - even if slight - against existant tandem warhead threats in Iraq.

The only problem, what TUSK without ERA will not be able to stop even 70x non-tandem RPG's. Even old-gen ERA such as Kontakt-V is 3-4 times more effective against HEAT than modern composite armor.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, I don´t see how one could opinionate on the TUSK upgrade when nobody really knows if the reactive armor on the TUSK is really explosive reactive armor. I remember a discussion on Tank Net where some were suggesting it was non-energetic reactive armor, or some variation thereof. The point of my comment was that I would be led to believe that the United States would design an armor package that would defend the Abrams against current threats and near future threats [tandem warheads are a near future threat, given that there have been reports of the RPG-29 in Iraq for a while now, fictitious or not].

According to World Guns the RPG-7 has had a tandem warhead since the late 80s [PG-7VR], and there have been reports that U.S. M1A2s have been engaged by the PG-7VR warhead [previously, they had thought it was the RPG-29, and now they say it´s the older PG-7VR tandem warhead].

So, I would be led to believe that even interim armor upgrades included protection - even if slight - against existant tandem warhead threats in Iraq.
It is ERA with the explosive element contained when hit by a shape charged projectile. There is no reputable report that a M1A2 was engaged by a RPG7VR or RPG29 in Iraq, only uncredible speculation from outside sources.

Again - Tusk upgrade is just a quick fix upgrade.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The only problem, what TUSK without ERA will not be able to stop even 70x non-tandem RPG's. Even old-gen ERA such as Kontakt-V is 3-4 times more effective against HEAT than modern composite armor.
And how have you come to that conclusion.:)
 

Catalan

New Member
Well, there´s no doubt that TUSK is a quick fix solution but there is nothing to say that it can´t defend itself against a tandem HEAT warhead. To suggest that it couldn´t is just as malinformed than to suggest that it could, because nobody really knows. My opinion is that given that we don´t know, but we do know that the TUSK upgrade is a quick fix to defend the Abrams in an urban situation given examples from the ongoing conflict in Iraq and past examples such as Chechnya and even simultaneous examples such as the Israeli war in Lebanon in the summer of ´06 it would make sense that the TUSK offers at least partial protection against tandem HEAT warheads.

There is no concrete evidence of either the RPG-29 or the RPG-7 with a PG-7VR warhead engaging an Abrams in the media. That´s not to say that there is evidence which exists but still has not been declassified. I´m not suggesting I have seen such evidence or even suggesting that it really exists, but I am suggesting that we musn´t say that an Abrams has never been attacked by a tandem warhead because we honestly don´t know.

It would just be strange to me that the TUSK could not offer even partial protection against such threats - threats which have been real since the late 80s.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, there´s no doubt that TUSK is a quick fix solution but there is nothing to say that it can´t defend itself against a tandem HEAT warhead. To suggest that it couldn´t is just as malinformed than to suggest that it could, because nobody really knows. My opinion is that given that we don´t know, but we do know that the TUSK upgrade is a quick fix to defend the Abrams in an urban situation given examples from the ongoing conflict in Iraq and past examples such as Chechnya and even simultaneous examples such as the Israeli war in Lebanon in the summer of ´06 it would make sense that the TUSK offers at least partial protection against tandem HEAT warheads.

There is no concrete evidence of either the RPG-29 or the RPG-7 with a PG-7VR warhead engaging an Abrams in the media. That´s not to say that there is evidence which exists but still has not been declassified. I´m not suggesting I have seen such evidence or even suggesting that it really exists, but I am suggesting that we musn´t say that an Abrams has never been attacked by a tandem warhead because we honestly don´t know.

It would just be strange to me that the TUSK could not offer even partial protection against such threats - threats which have been real since the late 80s.
Tusk may very well offer some form of protection over Tandem shaped charges especially for angled shots but if you look at what these rounds are designed to do, defeat ERA before impacting the main armor of a MBT and the penetrating values after punching thru ERA, we would have to have a pretty hefty armor package with considerable weight. A good example of some of the best flank protections on a armored vehicle would have to belong to the German Puma IFV and this comes at a weight of 43 metric tons, most certainly the Germans took into consideration the penetration levels of Tandem shaped charged projectiles that are currently fielded. The Russians have even stated that a PG-29V projectile will in fact penetrate the frontal armor on a T-90. Hopefully these projectiles are not being flooded into Iraq, but with the ERA and armor upgrades being conducted on U.S vehicles Iran or Syria may very well start handing them out if they have enough of them on hand.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Simply - without ERA TUSK will weight 15+ tons just to have _chance_ against old-gen RPG.
I would have to agree with you there for flank and rear positions on not just U.S tanks but pretty much every tank that is currently out there.
 

Chrom

New Member
I would have to agree with you there for flank and rear positions on not just U.S tanks but pretty much every tank that is currently out there.
Sure. Thats why russians started to use ERA long ago. And thats why everyone else was forced to jump on the same train, despite previous sceptical comments...
 

Catalan

New Member
The Russians have even stated that a PG-29V projectile will in fact penetrate the frontal armor on a T-90. Hopefully these projectiles are not being flooded into Iraq, but with the ERA and armor upgrades being conducted on U.S vehicles Iran or Syria may very well start handing them out if they have enough of them on hand.
What part of the frontal armor? Can the RPG-29 penetrate the frontal armor of a Merkava Mk. 4 or a Merkava Mk. 3 Baz?
 

Chrom

New Member
What part of the frontal armor? Can the RPG-29 penetrate the frontal armor of a Merkava Mk. 4 or a Merkava Mk. 3 Baz?
May be RPG-29V can penetrate very first version of T-90 armor, without ERA bricks installed, and even then without 100% probability.
Yes, i expect RPG-29 will have chance penetrating Merkava Mk.4 and Merkava Mk.3. frontally - but again, not in most protected areas. With engine frontally, i would expect high crew survivability in that case due to weak after-penetration effect - the heat jet will likely have too little energy to penetrate throu engine.
Currently RPG-29/RPG-7 have too small caliber to insure frontal penetration on modern tanks.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What part of the frontal armor? Can the RPG-29 penetrate the frontal armor of a Merkava Mk. 4 or a Merkava Mk. 3 Baz?
It was claimed that two penetrations were achieved thru the frontal hull area after passing thru the ERA tiles. As far as being able to penetrate the frontal armor on the Merkava MK 3 or 4 series, doubtful for a front turret penetration but may have the potential for a front hull penetration.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
May be RPG-29V can penetrate very first version of T-90 armor, without ERA bricks installed, and even then without 100% probability.
Yes, i expect RPG-29 will have chance penetrating Merkava Mk.4 and Merkava Mk.3. frontally - but again, not in most protected areas. With engine frontally, i would expect high crew survivability in that case due to weak after-penetration effect - the heat jet will likely have too little energy to penetrate throu engine.
Currently RPG-29/RPG-7 have too small caliber to insure frontal penetration on modern tanks.
Are you stating that the RPG-29V will not penetrate K-5 series tiles, because Russia claims differently, it is reported that the projectile will penetrate approximately 800mm of armor after ERA tile penetration. Also the size diameter of the warhead is 105mm.
 

Chrom

New Member
Are you stating that the RPG-29V will not penetrate K-5 series tiles, because Russia claims differently, it is reported that the projectile will penetrate approximately 800mm of armor after ERA tile penetration. Also the size diameter of the warhead is 105mm.
Which ERA, remains unknown. Kontakt-V or Kontakt-1 - thats 1st. T-90 passive armor against HEAT is believed to be 800-900mm - thats 2nd.
And 105mm is certainly too small for modern standards - thats 3rd.

Also, RPG-29 will certainly penetrate K-V, but again K-V will certainly affect even tandem warheads more than K-1 affect them.
 
Last edited:

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Which ERA, remains unknown. Kontakt-V or Kontakt-1 - thats 1st. T-90 passive armor against HEAT is believed to be 800-900mm - thats 2nd.
And 105mm is certainly too small for modern standards - thats 3rd.

Also, RPG-29 will certainly penetrate K-V, but again K-V will certainly affect even tandem warheads more than K-1 affect them.
T-90 hull armor is equivelant to 800 - 900 mm of armor.:D
And I think that the technology is there for a 105mm diameter Tandem projectile to give satisfactory performance.
 
Top