Seems like US commanders do not share your opinion that Abrams does not need ERA.
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
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.
@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
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.
Here we can see how glorious HATO force field fitted on M2 protects the engine deck against all similar 122mm top attack artillery munitions. Part of next generation armour system developed by DARPA utilising the pure power of freedom to deflect the blast. Visible is the dust clouds as superior fighting complex M2 drives away unscathed from its encounter.
A 122mm 2S1 round hitting intake grill on the engine deck of anything would destroy the engine. No questions asked, I don't care if its an M1 and M2 or a F'ing space chariot. The vehicle should be mission killed, the driver should be wounded, never mind the vehicle be able to drive away. Im sorry but I call BS on this one devs.