Israeli tank destroyed..

[CitizenKain]

Why is this a suprise that an anti-tank weapon takes out a tank? No matter how good a tank is, there is something able to penetrate the armor on it. Armor technology will mitigate the damage and help lower the chance of penetration, but something will get through.
Most armored vehicles aren't really destroyed so much as a disabled. Taking out the treads on a tank, or damaging the main gun will effectively destroy the tank until they bring it back for repairs. Its not the WW2 days where a solid hit would turn a Sherman into a fireworks display.

 

[soydios]

A shaped-charge hitting a weak spot on a tank will kill most of its crew.
I will use the American M1A2 Abrams main battle tank for examples.
The Abrams tank has the thickest sloped armor on the front, medium armor on the sides, and thinner on the rear, and thinnest on the top. Blow-out panels direct the force of a hit to the ammunition compartment in the rear of the turret outwards, away from the crew compartment.

Just about any hit on the front armor of the tank will do negligible damage, unless it takes some of the optics offline.
A hit to the rear of the tank chassis will take the power pack offline. The tank will no longer be able to move.
A hit to one of the tank tracks will break the track. The tank will no longer be able to move.
A hit on the rear half will most likely result in the ammunition cooking off. Due to the Abram's "blow-out" panels, the crew compartment will retain its structural and defensive integrity. If the loading door is open at the time of impact (unlikely, but possible), the burning ammunition will suck out all air from the turret, and the turret crew (commander, gunner, loader) will asphyxiate.
A hit on the top of the turret is catastrophic. Assume that the three turret crewmembers will be killed instantaneously.
A hit from a heavy shaped-charge antitank weapon (Hellfire missile, for example) stands a good chance of penetrating the armor, and killing the crew.

In summary, the modern tanks are remarkeably surviveable. A single casualty due to enemy action is quite a feat. In Gulf War One?, IIRC, an Abrams was disabled, and was under seige for three hours. It survived *four* direct anti-tank rocket hits. The crew was rescued after the rest of the army caught up with them.
This isn't like WWII, where a solid hit on an American Sherman tank would light off the *gasoline* (diesel doesn't ignite as easily, and the Abrams uses jet fuel, which is even less prone to ignition) fuel tank.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Why would Israel send the older tanks into the middle of a battle where they know the enemy has these kind of weapons?

It would make sense that the tank was in fact the latest one.

you literally seem like you are 13 years old, crying out about stuff.

NOTHING is invincible, im sure with a proper screwdriver, you could destroy a tank...

 

[kage69]

This was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of armor.

I think you have this Merkava confused with the British Challenger II then. It's solid state armor is superior to that of the kind found on the Abrams. Merkavas have good armor with the added protection of reactive charges, but I'm pretty sure it is still second to the modified Chobham laminate found on the Challenger II.

Reactive armor is nice, sure, but it's effectiveness is somewhat mitigated when you consider dual-warhead anti-tank weapons (one to trigger the reactive charge, another close behind to kill), or the new Chechen tactic of putting a dozen hits in the exact same place with cheaper weapons like basic RPGs. Which is why the Israelis have been working on the afore mentioned Trophy system. I think I remember reading the Russians have had something similar in the works. Very cool stuff.

Not surprised that they lost a tank, it's pretty much a certainty when you bring tanks into an urban combat area. Even tanks designed with this kind of fighting in mind (like the Merkava) are not immune. I think it speaks to the proficiency of the IDF that so far only one has been lost. But I'm sure it won't be the last, from all reports the fighting is escalating, not dying down.

I believe in the 67 war some units were using WWII Shermans.

You are correct. Israel has a history of ostensibly using whatever it can get its hands on. I remember seeing pics of rifles and mortars used by kibbutz defenders that were WWI era.

 

[kage69]

IIRC, an Abrams was disabled, and was under seige for three hours. It survived *four* direct anti-tank rocket hits. The crew was rescued after the rest of the army caught up with them.

I think you might have the wrong tank factoid (although I could be wrong). It was a Challenger II that was disabled by an Italian-made anti-tank missile in an Iraqi neighborhood, and for the next several hours it was pummeled with RPGs and heavy machine-gun fire. The crew remained safe until the cavalry arrived. The commander, a Scottish guy with glasses, recounted the incident on the History Channel not too long ago.

I'm not trying to poo poo the Abrams, I think it's a great tank, I just remember this because I saw the show twice.

This isn't like WWII, where a solid hit on an American Sherman tank would light off the *gasoline* (diesel doesn't ignite as easily, and the Abrams uses jet fuel, which is even less prone to ignition) fuel tank.

Actually the Abrams can run on any grade of gasoline, as well as kerosene, diesel, and JP4 or JP8 jet fuel. I was under the impression that diesel was mainly used to simplify support logistics. Burning jet fuel might be a bit safer, but it makes life hell for support infantry who have to work in close proximity of the tank (something quite likely in urban combat). Jet exhaust, yuck.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Ancient crap? Define what that is please. I think at a range of 10 meters a panzershrek may give the best tanks in the world a run for their money from the side or rear.

That weapon is about 65 years old.

Just to nit pick, the panzerschrek (and most current infantry anti-tank weapons) is a HEAT weapon. It used focused explosive force to punch through armour, and did not rely on speed for any of it's penetration, so it's penetration at 0 meters is exactly the same as it's penetration at 500m (or 1000m or whatever)

 

[straightalker]

Interesting thread Aimster.

It immedietely brings two things to my mind.

1] In Iraq some MIAI Abramms tanks were instantly and completely destroyed and all occupants instantly killed by a weapon that fired a projectile through the tank like it was made out of butter. The concept is the same as the depleted uranium sabot round these tanks fire at other tanks. Only in this instance, the projectile was fired by an unknown man-portable weapon. Probably something fairly heavy that stood mounted on a tripod and not something light like a shoulder fired LAW (a modern bazooka type weapon).

2] As warfighting technologies advance, various offensive and defensive weapons gain temporary advantages over each other. The MIAI Abrams tank is only effective on a battlefield that is devoid of the sort of high tech "tank-buster" weapons as described above.

In Lebanon, Israel sort of surprized Hezbollah with the current massive invasion. But gradually, exactly as happened in Iraq, the resistance fighters will gradually aquire "better" weapons that will cause increasing tank losses on the Israeli side. Same goes for Israel's Apache helicopters and jet-fighters.

The Russians and Chinese supply the other side while the USA supplies Israel. It's the reason these wars are so so dangerous. If the Russians decided to give Hezbollah the man portable "tank-busters" as described above, Israel's offensive would be over in a matter of days. A couple weeks tops. Russia could also provide the missile that knock out low flying helicopters and jets as if they were clay pidgeons.

So behind the scenes, the USA/Irali/British war machine has to negotiate the terms of these wars with Russia.

The modern day reality is this. Certain weapons platforms are becoming catagorized as outdated for use in many battlefield scenarios. The best example is the Carrier Task Force. Just one tactical nuke can obliterate an entire fleet of surface ships. Conventionally, non-nuclear missiles now exist that are so fast and manueverable they can render large surface ships completely vulnerable.

An MIAI Abramms Tank is a sitting duck to quite a few non-nuclear weapons these days. Israel may be able to use them on the battlefield against a small Nation like Lebanon that is on their border. For awhile. But any invasion of Iran would be met with Soviet supplied tank-busting weapons. Putin is standing firm on Iran. He will supply the Iranians with whatever they need to halt any USA/Israeli/British invasion. The theatre there will be off limits to bumbling slow moving lumbering fat ground tanks. Who are just a juicy target for the most modern anti-tank weaponry. Including man-portable.

So that's why we see Israel's IDF war machine sealing off Lebanon's borders as priority number one. Meanwhile, the Russians are no doubt pouring tank-buster weaponry into Syria. Where these weapons will be cached and used in and long and protracted guerilla war. Iran the same deal. These Muslim Nations including Iraq can never be "occupied". Not without an evil genocide that puts Hitler's Third Reich to shame.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Aimster
This was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of armor.

I guess the same thing was said about the U.S tanks until they went into Iraq a few years ago and they started to get destroyed.

You know nothing of armor and war.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Aimster
This was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of armor.

I guess the same thing was said about the U.S tanks until they went into Iraq a few years ago and they started to get destroyed.

What's your point? Nobody expects 100% invulnerability from such weapons. Why do you think they call the counter measure an anti-tank weapon? :roll:

yes they do. Go on military boards This was supposed to be the best tank.

Hezbollah is using ancient crap for their anti-tank missiles.

The U.S felt their tanks to be superior to all and were bragging about it for years until we invaded Iraq.

And then what happened ?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Aimster
This was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of armor.

I guess the same thing was said about the U.S tanks until they went into Iraq a few years ago and they started to get destroyed.

You know nothing of armor and war.

& you do?

If so go help build tanks.

IDF is hiring experts like you.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Aimster
This was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of armor.

I guess the same thing was said about the U.S tanks until they went into Iraq a few years ago and they started to get destroyed.

You know nothing of armor and war.

& you do?

If so go help build tanks.

IDF is hiring experts like you.

I don't agree that you "know nothing", but why is it a surprise that an AT weapon took out a tank of any type? Just because somebody says that an M1A1 or Merkava is the "best tank in the world" does not mean its invulnerable...and obviously Hezbollah is not Hamas, they're using real weapons provided by real states instead of the usual teenage rock-throwing brigade.

What I find really funny though is that Muslim militants always get so excited when they manage to stop a couple of tanks, but meanwhile their entire country gets destroyed and they still act like its a big victory?! So what if you knocked down a single helicopter, you lost everything else you fvcking idiot!

 

[Zebo]

I wonder if it's any of these arms Israels "great ally" or lacky as some claim is selling them.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Aimster
This was supposed to be the best of the best in terms of armor.

I guess the same thing was said about the U.S tanks until they went into Iraq a few years ago and they started to get destroyed.

You know nothing of armor and war.

& you do?

If so go help build tanks.

IDF is hiring experts like you.

I don't agree that you "know nothing", but why is it a surprise that an AT weapon took out a tank of any type? Just because somebody says that an M1A1 or Merkava is the "best tank in the world" does not mean its invulnerable...and obviously Hezbollah is not Hamas, they're using real weapons provided by real states instead of the usual teenage rock-throwing brigade.

What I find really funny though is that Muslim militants always get so excited when they manage to stop a couple of tanks, but meanwhile their entire country gets destroyed and they still act like its a big victory?! So what if you knocked down a single helicopter, you lost everything else you fvcking idiot!

Well I dont think there has ever been a Muslim country that has been invaded by a Western force where their national army actually fought back. In Iraq the majority cheered the U.S troops entering. I don't really classify Russia as being part of the West, but they have invaded Muslim nations and each time they lost 10,000+ troops.

As for the Merkava tank, I didn't think a group like Hezbollah could take one out. I didn't have much respect for Hezbollah, but obviously they have managed to get their hands on the latest and best weapons Iran and Syria has. I mean Lebanon's army is crap. Yet Hezbollah has better weapons than the national army.

 

[Lemon law]

By nature a tank is an offensive weapon---but study after study has shown equally equipped tanks taking a dug in concealed defensive position will out detroy enemy tanks by about a 2 to 1 ratio or better. In the current fighting in Southern Lebanon the Israelie tanks are offensive in nature--and hence in danger to well equipped defenders using anti-tank weapons. As I recall, there was talk in the 1980 after the deployment of shaped charges to the effect that all tanks were obsolete and sitting ducks. But armor resistant to shaped charges has been developed and the use of tanks continue---nor do I understand this talk of short range being all that more damaging---in a few hundred yards---air resistance causes only a tiny loss in initial muzzle energy for most weapons.

Short range can however aid accuracy---which only suggests the guidance mechanism is crude---because certain powers now have cruise missles that can fly half way around the world--and you can specify exactly what window in a given building you want to hit.

But what is surprising is that Hezbollah---even by Israelie admittance is doing far better than expected---and capturing a buffer zone of less than a 1000 square miles is proving an
expensive challenge to the vaunted Israelie military---I somehow doubt that the internation community will permit a repeat of the carnage the Israelie military has done elsewhere in Lebanon as hatreds soar to new highs.

 

[imported_toxigun]

Well, it seems like I was wrong. The destroyed tank is Merkava Mk 3.

 

[imported_Zamboni]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
By nature a tank is an offensive weapon---but study after study has shown equally equipped tanks taking a dug in concealed defensive position will out detroy enemy tanks by about a 2 to 1 ratio or better. In the current fighting in Southern Lebanon the Israelie tanks are offensive in nature--and hence in danger to well equipped defenders using anti-tank weapons.

The Merkava was also designed to fight a defensive tank battle, driving in reverse as it moves from one defensive position to another. All damage is assumed to be coming from the front. The engine is in the front for even more protection. Side and rear protection is actually less than average is some cases - the back of a Merkava is a set of doors opening into a passenger compartment, not an armor plate. In a knife-fight with fire coming from all directions, the Merkava units can expect to take casualties.

 

[Itchrelief]

A tank that is invulnerable to all known, existing weapons from all aspects cannot move.

It becomes a pillbox which you can just drive around.

The pillbox dies when someone drops a few large bombs on it, or a more powerful weapon is developed to defeat it.

After all, a weapon to defeat a given amount of armor will always be lighter and smaller than the armor it is defeating.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is impressive stuff, a single tank lost in 20 days of battle. Hizbollah keeps this up and they may be able to decimate Israeli tank forcces in a few hundred years.

Hezbollah doesn't need to knock out anymore tanks. They don't need to kill anymore IDF soldiers. They don't need to murder any more Israeli civilians with their indiscriminate anti-personnel rockets. They have already won a huge victory. They know it and so do the Israelis.

Hezbollah is firmly entrenched and has the support of not only the over 1 million Lebanese Shiites, but also the vast majority of Lebanese Sunnis, Christians and Druze. In the span of 3 short weeks, Hezbollah has gained exactly what they have longed for. They will now have swelled ranks and plentiful armaments for years to come. They have the cred on the street that they so desired.

You usually can count on the Israelis to be smart, but this time it seems it got a nasty case of Bushitis. Stupid to think that massive bombing campaign wasn't going to galvinize Hezbollah support and move the populace behind them. Stupid to think that if they wipe out current arms stockpiles that they are not going to be replenished ad in finitem by the Iranians, Syrians, or even Sunni sponsers at this point in time. Stupid to think that they wouldn't get drawn away from the border, into the Lebanese interior, and have to fight on a battlefield of their enemy's choosing. Oh the IDF will kill 500 or 1,000 militants, but they will be replaced ten-fold because of the heavy handed tactits.

Really disconcerting that the Israelis didn't think this through. Really disconcerting that they planned the operation like they were going to be fighting Hamas instead of Hezbollah. Hamas is a joke. Hezbollah is not.

And in the grand scheme of things, what the Israelis have done is empower a fundamentalist movement that is growing across the region - the so-called Shiite arc. This movement may ultimately threaten the somewhat moderate governments in Egypt, Jordon and Saudi Arabia, amongst others. Never expected to see this kind of shortsightedness out of the Israelis. Its like they got infected by Bush's stupidity/incompetence.

 

[IrateLeaf]

Originally posted by: strummer

Originally posted by: Genx87
That is impressive stuff, a single tank lost in 20 days of battle. Hizbollah keeps this up and they may be able to decimate Israeli tank forcces in a few hundred years.

Hezbollah doesn't need to knock out anymore tanks. They don't need to kill anymore IDF soldiers. They don't need to murder any more Israeli civilians with their indiscriminate anti-personnel rockets. They have already won a huge victory. They know it and so do the Israelis.Actually Hezbollah does not know anything. You actually think the Israeli`s
care about a "moral" victory
We could care less. Hezbollah knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there days are numbered. Hezbollah knows that wherev there cowardly freedom fighters hide whether it be in schools or in daycare centers or surrounded by children playing that Israel will go after tem no matter the cost. We will chalk it up to casualties of war,

Hezbollah is firmly entrenched and has the support of not only the over 1 million Lebanese Shiites, but also the vast majority of Lebanese Sunnis, Christians and Druze. In the span of 3 short weeks, Hezbollah has gained exactly what they have longed for. They will now have swelled ranks and plentiful armaments for years to come. They have the cred on the street that they so desired.
YES Hezbollah is firmly entrenched amongst women and helpless children, pathetic isn`y t it?
hezbollah has achieved nothing. There will come a time when those providing arms to hezbollah to fire and Israeli civilians because they are too cowardly to confront the Israeli army mano a mano. Instead they confront the Israeli army usinh children as human sheilds...pathetic huh?

You usually can count on the Israelis to be smart, but this time it seems it got a nasty case of Bushitis. Stupid to think that massive bombing campaign wasn't going to galvinize Hezbollah support and move the populace behind them. Stupid to think that if they wipe out current arms stockpiles that they are not going to be replenished ad in finitem by the Iranians, Syrians, or even Sunni sponsers at this point in time. Stupid to think that they wouldn't get drawn away from the border, into the Lebanese interior, and have to fight on a battlefield of their enemy's choosing. Oh the IDF will kill 500 or 1,000 militants, but they will be replaced ten-fold because of the heavy handed tactits.
So you admit that women and children are fair game in war? You just stated and i quote --

Stupid to think that they wouldn't get drawn away from the border, into the Lebanese interior, and have to fight on a battlefield of their enemy's choosing.

Its sad that the cowardly hexbollah fighters have to us women and children as human shields.

Really disconcerting that the Israelis didn't think this through. Really disconcerting that they planned the operation like they were going to be fighting Hamas instead of Hezbollah. Hamas is a joke. Hezbollah is not.
Hamas and Hezbollah are both jokes...plz get your histpry correct. Yhanks!

And in the grand scheme of things, what the Israelis have done is empower a fundamentalist movement that is growing across the region - the so-called Shiite arc. This movement may ultimately threaten the somewhat moderate governments in Egypt, Jordon and Saudi Arabia, amongst others. Never expected to see this kind of shortsightedness out of the Israelis. Its like they got infected by Bush's stupidity/incompetence.

Actually just the opposite has taken place. hezbollah as well as iran and Syria are dumbfounded becuase they now realize they have messd with a hornets mest that in all likelyhood they cannot deal with.
Both Syria and Iran want no part of the IDF!!
The only reason hezbollah is fighting is because they screwed up and didn`t count on Israel saying enough of this petty crap.
See until you have lived in the middle east you have no clue what you are jabbering about.
Shalom

 

[edfcmc]

Wow.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_.../mideast_fighting_hezbollah_s_missiles

 

[dmcowen674]

There are so many threads on this "conflict" as they call it I don't even know where to put this.

Anyway it is pretty clear that Russia/Syria/Iran is kicking Israel's ass.

Where is the weaponry that we have supplied Isreal and what are they doing with it?

Israel is losing just like the U.S. is getting it's butt handed to it in Iraq.

8-5-2006 Hezbollah's Missiles neutralizing Israeli tanks

JERUSALEM - Hezbollah's sophisticated anti-tank missiles are perhaps the guerrilla group's deadliest weapon in Lebanon fighting, with their ability to pierce Israel's most advanced tanks.

Hezbollah has fired Russian-made Metis-M anti-tank missiles and owns European-made Milan missiles, the army confirmed on Friday.

In the last two days alone, these missiles have killed seven soldiers and damaged three Israeli-made Merkava tanks ? mountains of steel that are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might, the army said. Israeli media say most of the 44 soldiers killed in four weeks of fighting were hit by anti-tank missiles.

"They (Hezbollah guerrillas) have some of the most advanced anti-tank missiles in the world," said Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior military intelligence officer who retired earlier this summer.

"This is not a militia, it's an infantry brigade with all the support units," Kuperwasser said.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

:laugh:

3 tanks isn't even a single armored platoon! How many tanks has Hezbollah lost so far? Oh right, they don't have ANY. NONE. Here we go, let's celebrate a single hit on a warship that will be repaired next week...

See this map? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...nese_Areas_Targeted_7-15_to_7-27.jpg)?
That's Lebanon, not Israel. Looks like losing those 3 tanks really stopped them cold! :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
:laugh:

3 tanks isn't even a single armored platoon! How many tanks has Hezbollah lost so far? Oh right, they don't have ANY. NONE. Here we go, let's celebrate a single hit on a warship that will be repaired next week...

See this map? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...nese_Areas_Targeted_7-15_to_7-27.jpg)?
That's Lebanon, not Israel. Looks like losing those 3 tanks really stopped them cold! :roll:

Nice try 7/10

 

[Gamer X]

Hizbullah destroyed around 30 Israeli tanks so far. Just today they destroyed 9 tanks, an armored bulldozer, and a troops carrier. All soldiers in the troops carrier were injured or killed. Neither Israel nor western news networks report these incidents.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
:laugh:

3 tanks isn't even a single armored platoon! How many tanks has Hezbollah lost so far? Oh right, they don't have ANY. NONE. Here we go, let's celebrate a single hit on a warship that will be repaired next week...

See this map? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...nese_Areas_Targeted_7-15_to_7-27.jpg)?
That's Lebanon, not Israel. Looks like losing those 3 tanks really stopped them cold! :roll:

Nice try 7/10

I really deserved at least a 7.5. I brought a map...visual aids count extra.