_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Trophy system on M1, l
Kenaicop
#384
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 08, 2017 - 07:12 PM UTC


http://www.leonardodrs.com/media/6346/trophy_datasheet.pdf
bots1141
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 14, 2013
KitMaker: 318 posts
Armorama: 313 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 04:46 AM UTC
Steven Zaloga posted this on fb today from the Association of the US Army convention in Washington DC.

JSSVIII
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Joined: March 28, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
Armorama: 1,067 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 04:56 AM UTC
Very interesting, looking forward to seeing more photos of this!
warhog
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: November 26, 2003
KitMaker: 568 posts
Armorama: 398 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 05:31 AM UTC
with that set up going to play hell checking the oil and getting the B**ch plate off and on.
Removed by original poster on 10/10/17 - 00:32:04 (GMT).
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 12:36 PM UTC
I do not think that the setup on the photo is practical.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:

Removed by original poster on 10/10/17 - 08:02:06 (GMT).
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Monday, October 09, 2017 - 06:32 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I do not think that the setup on the photo is practical.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:



I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...more testing would be needed, but Trophy sure alters the M1A2 SEP V3 profile more than almost any other upgrade, meaning in the future, time for a new 1/35 M1A2 SEP kit or resin conversion.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 02:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I do not think that the setup on the photo is practical.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:



I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...


I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.
Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.

[
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 07:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I do not think that the setup on the photo is practical.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:



I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...


I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.
Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.

[


Perhaps I am wrong too.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 11:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I do not think that the setup on the photo is practical.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:



I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...


I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.
Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.

[


Perhaps I am wrong too.


If one or two of the launchers can elevate to launch vertically it would enable top coverage
/ Robin
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 01:27 PM UTC

Quoted Text



I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.
Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.
[


The difference between the Merkava turret and the Abrams turret is the geometry.

Lets assume that each antenna covers a 160 or even a 180 degree sector with the emiting array. The 2 front antennas on the Merkava have all of that sector clear of obstacles, whilst on the Abrams the 2 front antennas have the turret side and the smoke grenade launchers inside the left or right part of the sector.

Imagine that you have a searchlight mounted in the place of each antenna. Will the spotlight be able to sead light on the front of the vehicle?
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 02:46 PM UTC


The image in the first post in this thread gives me the impression that the dark object on the box on the turret side is in front of the smoke/grenade launcher which would give it a clear view of the front sector.
Would be interesting to get the facts on the launcher, does it elevate, does it rotate?


Different configuration, the antenna is located on the angled front of the turret with the launcher further back.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/us_army_m1a2_sep_v2_mbt_tanks_fitted_with_israeli_trophy_active_protection_system.html


Model of the alternative configuration:

The launcher can elevate to 90 degrees and rotate.
/ Robin
griffontech
Visit this Community
Canada
Joined: November 21, 2007
KitMaker: 237 posts
Armorama: 231 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 04:39 PM UTC
I swear the defence industries of the world are working in concert with model manufacturers. The only reason they are upgrading tanks and apc''s is so we have to buy new model kits, not because the vehicles need upgrading.

I can't keep up with all the different variants of the Soviet designed T54's to the T90 series of tanks used by all the different countries. Grrrrrrrr
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - 09:46 PM UTC
Another article here:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/10/10/army-to-equip-brigade-of-abrams-with-active-protection-system-by-2020
chnoone
Visit this Community
Armed Forces Europe, United States
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 12:56 AM UTC
Of all armored vehicles the "Tank" usually is considered the least vulnerable player on the ground ... speaking in terms of general operations
.... all the others are much more endangered even/especially in urban environments.
Okay ... so you have all the lastest RPGs and rockets with dual-charged warheads etc. etc. ... but if not delivered from the top the worst result being a mobility-kill.
I believe the TUSK packages have been of good use ?
So I would set my priorities, integrating this kind of technology, on the "lighter" skin participants involved ... but as the article outlines upgrading Bradley and Striker is the real challenge here.
Maybe all this talk of "light but fast" forces is reaching it's limits once you arrive in a 3rd world country were there is absolutely nothing but the lastest and newest AT weaponry.
Is that why Briton is even more seriously going back and taking a more closer look at the heavier BOXER from Rheinmetall ?
All this stuff has to get way smaller and more compact .... give it to the Japanese they done it before !
But then again .... there is no safe place in a modern battlefield anyway ...

Cheers
Christopher
edklingon
Visit this Community
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Joined: October 11, 2010
KitMaker: 194 posts
Armorama: 173 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 01:04 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I swear the defence industries of the world are working in concert with model manufacturers. The only reason they are upgrading tanks and apc''s is so we have to buy new model kits, not because the vehicles need upgrading.


Perfect, ahahahahah!!!!
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - 06:12 PM UTC

Quoted Text



Lets assume that each antenna covers a 160 or even a 180 degree sector with the emiting array. The 2 front antennas on the Merkava have all of that sector clear of obstacles, whilst on the Abrams the 2 front antennas have the turret side and the smoke grenade launchers inside the left or right part of the sector.

Imagine that you have a searchlight mounted in the place of each antenna. Will the spotlight be able to sead light on the front of the vehicle?


I don't think its as big of an issue as your making it out to be. As long as the radar signals meet at the front before the engagement range of missile, there should be no issues.
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 12, 2017 - 03:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text



Lets assume that each antenna covers a 160 or even a 180 degree sector with the emiting array. The 2 front antennas on the Merkava have all of that sector clear of obstacles, whilst on the Abrams the 2 front antennas have the turret side and the smoke grenade launchers inside the left or right part of the sector.

Imagine that you have a searchlight mounted in the place of each antenna. Will the spotlight be able to sead light on the front of the vehicle?


I don't think its as big of an issue as your making it out to be. As long as the radar signals meet at the front before the engagement range of missile, there should be no issues.



That's my point too.
Even with the configuration shown in the first picture, I don't see any truoble for the device to track any incoming projectile, unless we assume that the system will wait until de missile is within a few meters of the tank.
Just drawing a simple schematic -pardon my lack of skills with image editors- of the theoretical area covered by the system we can see that the turret front will not be unprotected. The location of the device is an estimation extrapolated from the picture shown, so it may differ in a few inches from the actual system.

m1a2-sep-view
 _GOTOTOP