IMHO

Abrams armor plates


Chobham/Burlington armor of Chieftain

Merkava armor

And the last but not the least... T-72B armor

@IICptMillerII, I believe we can be fairly sure no one passed the "dreaded secret" of Chobham armor to the Soviet Union. It's just the laws of the physics are the same be it US, UK, Israel or the Soviet Union so the engineers come to the same designs when concieving similar things. I can tell you even more:
The effect that forms the basis of the spaced composite armor / NERA (Chobham armor) was first used in the armor of the Soviet tanks albeit in a different, considerably less efficient setup And even more, the way Kontakt-5 ERA works is the same as NERA, it's just NERA uses the energy of incoming projectile while ERA - the energy of chemical explosion

Abrams armor plates


Chobham/Burlington armor of Chieftain

Merkava armor

And the last but not the least... T-72B armor

@IICptMillerII, I believe we can be fairly sure no one passed the "dreaded secret" of Chobham armor to the Soviet Union. It's just the laws of the physics are the same be it US, UK, Israel or the Soviet Union so the engineers come to the same designs when concieving similar things. I can tell you even more:
The effect that forms the basis of the spaced composite armor / NERA (Chobham armor) was first used in the armor of the Soviet tanks albeit in a different, considerably less efficient setup And even more, the way Kontakt-5 ERA works is the same as NERA, it's just NERA uses the energy of incoming projectile while ERA - the energy of chemical explosion

Seems like US commanders do not share your opinion that Abrams does not need ERA.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8144/u-s-army-m1-abrams-tanks-in-europe-are-getting-explosive-reactive-armor

----------
My understanding is by saying "infantry held AT weapons being fired from complex geometries" you meant ligher hand-held RPGs as an antithesis to heavier tripod-based ATGMs. No doubt Trophy provides protection against RPGs as well but I believe your statement that was the main intention of Trophy development is invalid. Here's an excerpt from "Hezbollah anti-amour tactics and weapons. Assessment of the Second Lebanon War By Col. David Eshel":
Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah allocated their most advanced weaponry to combat this advanced tank, engaging these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29. RPG-29 and 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5) were employed mostly against Merkava 3 and 2 while non-tandem weapons, such as Tow, Fagot and improved RPG 7Vs were left to engage other armored vehicles such as AIFV My points:
In many interviews after 2006 Lebanon War Israeli said that they underestimated the threat posed by modern heavy ATGMs and Israli tanks sustained considerable losses. Second Lebanon War's battles was fought mostly in rural rather than urban settings. Israel dispatched a special diplomatic mission to Russia to compain s"pecifically about Syria's passing of its Russia's supplied Kornet heavy ATGM to Hezbollah. Israel sped up testing and system selection for APS right after the war. Since hard-kill APS poses a considerable danger to nearby infantry Israel changed their urban warfare doctrine after the Trophy was inducted into the armored force. Infantry now follows tanks at a distance. This difficulties in infantry-tank cooperation was actually one of the main criticism of the Trophy implementation. So I do believe your statement that "TROPHY is intended to protect tanks in urban environments from infantry held AT weapons" is misleading.
----------
Can you provide specific names/models for those "most modern and lethal ATGMs, which only exist in double digit numbers"?
----------
Kornet vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: from 2 to 4 reported penetrations, tanks disabled. Iraqi military possessed limited number of Kornets as they have never been officially supplied, only few were smuggled from Syria. RPG-29 vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: 3 reported penetrations, crews wounded/killed. RPG-29 vs. Challenger 2, 2003 Iraqi War: one known FRONTAL ERA penetration, crew wounded. RPG-29 has way less armor penetration than Kornet yet American military prohibited post-Saddam Iraqi Army from buying them http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/big-guns-for-iraq-not-so-fast.html.
"He [General Jassem of Iraqi Army] also complained that the United States wants to supply his troops with RPG-7's, the Soviet-era rocket-propelled grenade launcher. 'Why are they always giving us the oldest models?' he asked, saying he likes the more modern, larger caliber RPG-29, which penetrates armor better. But such weapons could raise a threat against the United States if they fell into the wrong hands ... "The RPG-7 is more versatile than other antitank weapons, which really only have one use -- destroying armor," the senior American officer said."
----------
Israel is well known for putting specific emphasis on tanks protection. If we put aside the argument that a way more modern Merkava-4 is less protected than American Abrams just by pure magic of it not being American then 2003 Lebanon War may be a good proxy for evaluating modern tanks protection level against current ATGMs.

Seems like US commanders do not share your opinion that Abrams does not need ERA.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8144/u-s-army-m1-abrams-tanks-in-europe-are-getting-explosive-reactive-armor

----------
My understanding is by saying "infantry held AT weapons being fired from complex geometries" you meant ligher hand-held RPGs as an antithesis to heavier tripod-based ATGMs. No doubt Trophy provides protection against RPGs as well but I believe your statement that was the main intention of Trophy development is invalid. Here's an excerpt from "Hezbollah anti-amour tactics and weapons. Assessment of the Second Lebanon War By Col. David Eshel":
Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah allocated their most advanced weaponry to combat this advanced tank, engaging these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29. RPG-29 and 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5) were employed mostly against Merkava 3 and 2 while non-tandem weapons, such as Tow, Fagot and improved RPG 7Vs were left to engage other armored vehicles such as AIFV My points:
In many interviews after 2006 Lebanon War Israeli said that they underestimated the threat posed by modern heavy ATGMs and Israli tanks sustained considerable losses. Second Lebanon War's battles was fought mostly in rural rather than urban settings. Israel dispatched a special diplomatic mission to Russia to compain s"pecifically about Syria's passing of its Russia's supplied Kornet heavy ATGM to Hezbollah. Israel sped up testing and system selection for APS right after the war. Since hard-kill APS poses a considerable danger to nearby infantry Israel changed their urban warfare doctrine after the Trophy was inducted into the armored force. Infantry now follows tanks at a distance. This difficulties in infantry-tank cooperation was actually one of the main criticism of the Trophy implementation. So I do believe your statement that "TROPHY is intended to protect tanks in urban environments from infantry held AT weapons" is misleading.
----------
Can you provide specific names/models for those "most modern and lethal ATGMs, which only exist in double digit numbers"?
----------
Kornet vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: from 2 to 4 reported penetrations, tanks disabled. Iraqi military possessed limited number of Kornets as they have never been officially supplied, only few were smuggled from Syria. RPG-29 vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: 3 reported penetrations, crews wounded/killed. RPG-29 vs. Challenger 2, 2003 Iraqi War: one known FRONTAL ERA penetration, crew wounded. RPG-29 has way less armor penetration than Kornet yet American military prohibited post-Saddam Iraqi Army from buying them http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/big-guns-for-iraq-not-so-fast.html.
"He [General Jassem of Iraqi Army] also complained that the United States wants to supply his troops with RPG-7's, the Soviet-era rocket-propelled grenade launcher. 'Why are they always giving us the oldest models?' he asked, saying he likes the more modern, larger caliber RPG-29, which penetrates armor better. But such weapons could raise a threat against the United States if they fell into the wrong hands ... "The RPG-7 is more versatile than other antitank weapons, which really only have one use -- destroying armor," the senior American officer said."
----------
Israel is well known for putting specific emphasis on tanks protection. If we put aside the argument that a way more modern Merkava-4 is less protected than American Abrams just by pure magic of it not being American then 2003 Lebanon War may be a good proxy for evaluating modern tanks protection level against current ATGMs.

Abrams armor plates


Chobham/Burlington armor of Chieftain

Merkava armor

And the last but not the least... T-72B armor

@IICptMillerII, I believe we can be fairly sure no one passed the "dreaded secret" of Chobham armor to the Soviet Union. It's just the laws of the physics are the same be it US, UK, Israel or the Soviet Union so the engineers come to the same designs when concieving similar things. I can tell you even more:
The effect that forms the basis of the spaced composite armor / NERA (Chobham armor) was first used in the armor of the Soviet tanks albeit in a different, considerably less efficient setup And even more, the way Kontakt-5 ERA works is the same as NERA, it's just NERA uses the energy of incoming projectile while ERA - the energy of chemical explosion

Seems like US commanders do not share your opinion that Abrams does not need ERA.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8144/u-s-army-m1-abrams-tanks-in-europe-are-getting-explosive-reactive-armor

----------
My understanding is by saying "infantry held AT weapons being fired from complex geometries" you meant ligher hand-held RPGs as an antithesis to heavier tripod-based ATGMs. No doubt Trophy provides protection against RPGs as well but I believe your statement that was the main intention of Trophy development is invalid. Here's an excerpt from "Hezbollah anti-amour tactics and weapons. Assessment of the Second Lebanon War By Col. David Eshel":
Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah allocated their most advanced weaponry to combat this advanced tank, engaging these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29. RPG-29 and 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5) were employed mostly against Merkava 3 and 2 while non-tandem weapons, such as Tow, Fagot and improved RPG 7Vs were left to engage other armored vehicles such as AIFV My points:
In many interviews after 2006 Lebanon War Israeli said that they underestimated the threat posed by modern heavy ATGMs and Israli tanks sustained considerable losses. Second Lebanon War's battles was fought mostly in rural rather than urban settings. Israel dispatched a special diplomatic mission to Russia to compain s"pecifically about Syria's passing of its Russia's supplied Kornet heavy ATGM to Hezbollah. Israel sped up testing and system selection for APS right after the war. Since hard-kill APS poses a considerable danger to nearby infantry Israel changed their urban warfare doctrine after the Trophy was inducted into the armored force. Infantry now follows tanks at a distance. This difficulties in infantry-tank cooperation was actually one of the main criticism of the Trophy implementation. So I do believe your statement that "TROPHY is intended to protect tanks in urban environments from infantry held AT weapons" is misleading.
----------
Can you provide specific names/models for those "most modern and lethal ATGMs, which only exist in double digit numbers"?
----------
Kornet vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: from 2 to 4 reported penetrations, tanks disabled. Iraqi military possessed limited number of Kornets as they have never been officially supplied, only few were smuggled from Syria. RPG-29 vs. American Abrams, 2003 Iraqi War: 3 reported penetrations, crews wounded/killed. RPG-29 vs. Challenger 2, 2003 Iraqi War: one known FRONTAL ERA penetration, crew wounded. RPG-29 has way less armor penetration than Kornet yet American military prohibited post-Saddam Iraqi Army from buying them http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/big-guns-for-iraq-not-so-fast.html.
"He [General Jassem of Iraqi Army] also complained that the United States wants to supply his troops with RPG-7's, the Soviet-era rocket-propelled grenade launcher. 'Why are they always giving us the oldest models?' he asked, saying he likes the more modern, larger caliber RPG-29, which penetrates armor better. But such weapons could raise a threat against the United States if they fell into the wrong hands ... "The RPG-7 is more versatile than other antitank weapons, which really only have one use -- destroying armor," the senior American officer said."
----------
Israel is well known for putting specific emphasis on tanks protection. If we put aside the argument that a way more modern Merkava-4 is less protected than American Abrams just by pure magic of it not being American then 2003 Lebanon War may be a good proxy for evaluating modern tanks protection level against current ATGMs.

Can you differentiate between "my ATGM PtoK is almost zero against your frontal projection" and "your ATGM team will die one second after the launch and before missile hits the tank"? Because the first case means I need to maneuver my ATGM to hit sideways or from behind. But the second case means my infantry more or less does not possess long range AT capability at all. Or I rather pay 1.5 ATGM team for every launch against the tank whether taken down or not.
Well... I guess Trophy must be wasteful spending then, right? Since ATGMs stand no chance against composite spaced armor... 

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

Not quite right... Ehhh... CMBS' LWR-equipped tanks (like M1) acquire ATGM-launchers almost instanteniously. What is the basis for such a behaviour when real life LWRs (Thales, Leonardo) give you 30/45 degrees sector??? Instant target acquisition in a 30/45 degrees sector at a distance of 2-4km??? Why not have an Abrams with an ion-gun then?
And it has profound impact on the gameplay. In real life (Yemen, Syria) we see tanks being burned every time they are careless enough while facing an ATGM-armed opposition. In CMBS a platoon of Abramses can simply drive through the whole map blasting everyone around.

Those were VK away URLs that were curiously rebuilt. Here are the working ones. You can get an English language listings by simple product search.
https://m.ru.aliexpress.com/s/item/32832867713.html?trace=wwwdetail2mobilesitedetail&productId=32832867713&productSubject=Pixhawk2-Developer-Kit-Intel-Edison-Carrier-Board-GPS-Module-PIX-Open-Source-Flight-Control-For-RC&spm=a2g0v.10010108.1000016.1.e16a5acMOWDbU&isOrigTitle=true#autostay
https://www.readymaderc.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=11_30_38&products_id=919
https://m.ru.aliexpress.com/s/item/32793902104.html?trace=wwwdetail2mobilesitedetail&productId=32793902104&productSubject=Original-DLE-61CC-Gasoline-engine-DLE61-for-RC-Gasoline-Airplane&spm=a2g0v.10010108.1000023.4.27acf48fwhl7XQ#autostay

RUS MoD statement highlights:
1. Both Navy's Tartus and Air Force's Hmeimim were attacked.
2. There were 13 drones, 7 were taken down by Pantsyr SHORAD, C&C chain of the rest was taken over by ECM. Three of them blew up at landing and three landed intact.
3. The technology used in drones provides control over them at a distance of up to 100km.
4. The rest is barometers, GPS, actuators and the rest of what they call "advanced" technology...

I wonder if NYT does list anyone as a source/proof... I guess someone sitting too many a mile away from both the Kremlin and Syria. May be sipping a cocktail and browsing Google News

Combat Mission: The Road to Brexit...