Talk:Trophy (countermeasure)

message: I was playing a war game, saw this tech mentioned, did a web search search, and arrived at this article.  I thought it was the manufacturers website at first.  Lines like:
"To provide thousands of systems to its customers, Rafael established the first Trophy production line in Israel in 2007" 
Sounds more like a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia.
And:
 “I tried to kill the Abrams tank with ATGM 48 times and failed, despite the fact that some of them were supersonic,” said US Army Col. Glenn Dean. 
Feels like a testimonial.
Don't get me wrong, the technology is very impressive and I don't dispute any of of the claims made.   It's just my impression of the tone after a casual read by someone with little knowledge in this area, and thus no pre-formed bias.  It doesn't leave the impression of an NPOV. Opie8 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very hard article to read -  BeingObjective (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Reads Like an Ad 

message: This section is speculative. Not only we MSNBC doesn't know the reason behind US military reluctance in buying this system, many are not a fan of dependence on technology provided by foreign sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magician 60 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance to adoption by the United States 

message: "They would have a system like TROPHY reduce or eliminate the need for heavy armor for combat vehicles."
What is that supposed to mean? --Far Beyond 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the opportunity, they (I'm assuming the TROPHY designers) would sell their TROPHY system to people who make combat vehicles, so that the vehicles could be made without heavy armor. The vehicles would use the TROPHY system for defense instead of the heavy armor. -NorsemanII 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TROPHY is not a replacement for heavy armor, its a supplement. TROPHY cannot defend against mines, anti-vehicle cannons like those mounted on tanks, or artillery, and once its ammunition is exhausted the vehicle is much more vulnerable to missile strikes. I'm modifying the article to reflect this. Peptuck 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line 

message: I fail to see how the fact that TROPHY can't totally replace armor is a "disadvantage". By that logic, the fact that anti-tank missiles are ineffective against high-altitude bombers is a "disadvantage". — Red XIV (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely absurd. The disadvantages section, I mean. Saying TROPHY has disadvantages because it isn't the equivilent an antimatter shield is like saying personal body armor has disadvantages because it doesn't protect against biological attacks. TROPHY does its job nearly flawlessly, and there are no SOURCED disadvantages. Therefore, I am removing that section until someone provides both sources for REAL disadvantages in comparison to alternatives AND realistic disadvantages. None of this "TROPHY is flawed because it's not an antimatter shield" crap. It doesn't even suggest replacing armor! It's a COMPLEMENTING SYSTEM! (71.215.201.20 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily true, Trophy may be the best active protection system curently fielded but is not quite flawless.  I don't know where anybody would get that idea.  Since Trophy just has two launcher/loaders it does not have 360 degree protection.  They are mounted on the Merkava tank in a way that there is a huge blind spot in the back (where the tank's armor is most vulverable).  Also Trophy cannot protect against top attacks.  For instance, if a FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile was launched at a tank with Trophy on it, the tank would be destroyed because the Javelin missile attacks from the top where Trophy's launcher/loader  cannot aim at.  There are a lot of other top attack missiles, aircraft launched missiles, and anti-tank artillery out there Trophy is vulnerable too as well.  Secondly, the shotgun-like kill vehicle could conceivably cause a lot of civilian collateral damage.   Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, a top U.S. Army acquisition official, said “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.”  Trophy engineers have done computer simulations that show this should only happen 1 in 100 times, but the risk is still there.  Also, the regular Trophy system is too heavy and draws too much power to put on anything but a tank.  This is why Trophy Light is in development, but Trophy Light will either have only one launcher/loader or smaller kill vehicles, either way it will be less effective.  All of these deficiencies are to be addressed in Israel's next active protection system, Iron Fist.  IraqVet225 (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and you want sources? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18356061/page/5/, http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm IraqVet225 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GOOD! Add those to the article! What the hell are you giving them to me for? If you check the history, my complaints were about the retarded "disadvantages" listed that basically complained that it wasn't an antimatter shield. I have no complaints about actual "problems" being listed. (71.215.201.20 (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages?

message: It is TROPHY® -- not sure if I really care, but all of the materials I reviewed - including other manufacturers - state all caps. 
BeingObjective (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: http://www.janes.com/article/57558/israel-rolls-out-trophy-protection-on-new-namers
Phd8511 (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy on Namers 

message: for a system that can neutralize multiple RPG launches at the same time from the same direction(it is noted in rafael's site and a PDF file on the system) a "decoy" is nothing but another RPG that can be shot down before the next and "real" one that should follow. and there is no need for another system like "Trench Coat" which i doubt if its even real, cause what it does is exactly what the Trophy system is doing and infact what the article on israelnationalnews.com site(in the reference for the "Trench Coat") said about that trench coat is an almost exact quote of what the israeldefense.co.il site said about the Trophy system on the context of the RPG 30: the article about Trophy system and RGP 30
the article is in hebrew but you can translate those few lines on google translate or notice simply notice the numbers 360 and 17 that exist in both versions in the same order and places and was clear that the Trophy system is the one which is "one step further" and not that "trench coat". and according to almost every article that talk about the RPG30 and the Trophy system like the one i showed before and this one(also in hebrew) it is noted that the main rocket of the RPG30 is working by being very close to the "decoy" rocket and that the buckshot blast can hit both rockets at the same time. infact it is possible that the Trophy designers chosed buckshot-like ammunation for the launchers to deal with the possibility of a "decoy" from the first place.
the RPG 30 was mybe theoreticaly being able to bypass some experimental and non-operational active protection systems that barely could face with one RPG(decoy or not) and used single bullet/metal piece that the "decoy" could take the hit instead of the real RPG but when it is a large cloud of 17 metal pieces(which probably only few of them actualy hit the target when it is a "regular" RPG without a decoy) everything that is close to the decoy is get hit by at least one of the metal pieces so the RPG30 isn't different from other RPGs against the Trophy system.
so can i remove the "Possible countermeasures" section? or only someone with special permission can do it?.
 --79.177.105.149 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Possible countermeasures"? the RPG 30 is nothing but a desperate attempt to bypass active protection 

message: apparently the articles i showed in former section and this wiki article are out-dated or even wrong. according to this PDF file from rafael's site: http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/5/1155.pdf  Trophy use MEFP. 
and if we comeback to the RPG30 issue, from what can be seen from the MEFP in action in one of the pictures in this article it is clear that the MEFP form large and long stream of projectiles that can easily hit another rocket that follows a decoy one close enough.
i think the wiki article should also mention that(according to this PDF at least) trophy can engage multiple RPG's from one direction and not just from multiple directions.
--79.177.105.149 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy use Multiple Explosive Formed Penetrators  - MEFP  

message: Unclear notability of EL/M-2133. If it is only used with Trtophy, it seems reasonable to address it here rather than in an individual stub. Ost (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected, given that there was no unique content to merge. Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[EL/M-2133]] into [[Trophy (countermeasure)]] 

message: With total respect, this is a very hard document to understand.
It really rambles along and seems not to follow any conventional style of English.
Was this written by a native English speaker? If it was not - I do apologize further - 
A lot of the material is clearly copied directly from promotional documentation (Raphael and Leonardo) and then what seems to be - poor attempts to obfuscate the plagiarism have been made. 
Hence, it makes little sense for the most part. There are few real citations, there is essentially no paragraph structure.
Attempts have been made to offer far better section titles, NPOV content and the like. These have been overtly rejected and reverted - with almost amazing alacrity. With no discussion or constructive dialog.
I am not of a mind to be uncivil, impolite nor to enter into editing wars - but I do think with just a little effort, civility and openness - the readability of this article could be seriously improved.
This is Wikipedia and if there is no willingness to collaborate with others, it is just not worth the effort to even offer to assist.
I am happy to help - but CERTAINLY not willing to enter into rampant conflict. It is just a Wikipedia article after all!
BeingObjective (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Style and Very Poor Use of English 

message: Most of the section titles are curiosities.
TROPHY can and is used to locate an incoming projectile - but the title of the section mumbles on about ma·neu·ver·a·bil·i·ty
/məˌno͞ov(ə)rəˈbilədē/ -- no citation, and it makes little sense. BeingObjective (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Issues - in the title areas. 

message: As far as I know the new Leopard 2A8 tanks that Norway is purchasing also have their active defense system  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6680:2104:98E8:D0AC:BEFF:FE5D:F31F (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: In the service of Norway

message: I changed the language usage - in a key section about the target acquisition and information sharing - please chat on this before reverting - it was not written in standard English and I do not want an edit war over something so obvious -  BeingObjective (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Changed - standard English and a Citation 

message: I made a number of largely wordsmithing mods. All are comprehensively documented - might needs tweaks. BeingObjective (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerous language changes 

message: I do think the title could be changed:
TROPHY - Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles
Or some such - thoughts?
Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change Proposal 

message: I think this is a far better article than in 2022 when the 'lacks cit' tag was added - I took the liberty of removal - not sure if I need some massive consensus - many editors improved this article - and it reads fairly well IMHO.
Respectfully - Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed citation warning tag. 

message: Not sure if this section is very credible - it is a decade old and the source is not really top notch. BeingObjective (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: There is specific phrasing at play that is EXTREMELY confusing and beyond-poor english.
> "A number of explosively formed projectiles countermeasure destroy incoming threats before they hit the vehicle."
If this were proper english, I'd say this should say:
> "A number of defensive projectiles deploy explosively, and destroy incoming threats before they hit the vehicle."
... or similar.
-- 98.111.249.58 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Wording, Bad English