Missiles neutralizing Israeli tanks

[ECH1969]

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.

Experts say this is further evidence that Israel is facing a well-equipped army in this war, not a ragtag militia.

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.

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

[Dover]

1. Yeah........Hezbollah is big and bad. Israel must be terrified.

:sarcasm:

[jpkenny]

17. If they had air power Israel would not even have attemped this attack.

[Fozzledick]

21. Iran and Syria HAVE air power

They prefer using civilians as cannon fodder rather than risk their own forces in open battle.

[TheWatcher]

34. Absurd logic post of the day.

:eyes:

[burrowowl]

2. I thought all our US tanks

which are the same as Israeli tanks had lots of sophisticated counter-weapon stuff. Old non-guided missilles (sophisticated stuff needs regular maintenance, like keeping the gyros adjusted and are keep under nitrogen until used, etc.) should not be a match under US/Israeli technology.

""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."
??????!

[IntiRaymi]

5. Merkava is good, but not as good as the M1 Abrams.

If I recall correctly, there were rumours being mongered that advanced russian ATGMs had been acquired by Hezbollah, via some unknown route. Syria/Iran, presumably.
The Merkava is a troop carrier + Main Battle Tank, whereas the M1 is just an MBT. They are used differently, and have different expectations of combat. The M1 is coated with Chobham Armor, the composition of which is a top secret thing, and the Merkava is not, and which would constitute its weakness. On the topic of the armor - if any of you look at stock photographs of the actual war, in 2003, you will see that M1's that were knocked out by RPGM's had the main skin virtually intact. The M1 is a really tough tank.
If the israelis are realizing that their weaponry is not adequate against a foe that has real weapons, then this would belie statements made by Gulf War I officers, who said that the IDF "were a bunch of arrogant pricks who wouldn't last 10 minutes in a european battlefield."

[kurth]

8. 80 M1s have been put out of service, 5 crew killed inside by IEDs

In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

At least five soldiers have been killed inside the tanks when they hit roadside bombs, according to figures from the Army’s Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky.

http://www.afvnews.ca/cgi-bin/web-bbs/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/62043

[IntiRaymi]

9. Was not aware of the numbers.

However, it does have vulnerabilities.
Any word on the state of the skin - the armor plating zones on the tank itself?
The armor plating appears to be headed for recycling, as there is a mention of the hulls of the lost tanks being used for that purpose.

[kurth]

18. Safe to assume the Chobham plates did their job

As demonstrated in Desert Storm, an Abrams can take a direct hit on its Chobham armor from another Abrams without being damaged (this was a friendly fire incident). But a large IED - like a couple of artillery shells - detonated directly below the hull is something else...

Some interesting photos from the U.S. Army:
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/new/07sr01.html

[Karmakaze]

20. That report PROVES the armour is NOT doing its job...

That report was on a M1 knocked out in Iraq by an unknown weapon. The weapon most likely had a shaped charge warhead that created a plasma projectile that no only penetrated the side skirt then the side armour, it carried across the compartment passing through anything it met, including the gunners flak jacket, and then buried itself 1 1/2 to 2 inches deep into the armour on the other side.

The only thing "doing its job" on THAT M1 was the seperated ammo compartment that prevented the tank from being blown to bits.

[Stella_Artois]

31. Not at all

That part of the tank may not be covered by Chobham. Only the front arc is, the rear and much of the side is traditional armour plate. You can hardly hold a single or even a handful of examples of M1's being knocked out as proof the armour doesn't work when M1's have been hit by RPG type weapons hundreds if not thousands of times with no serious damage.

There isn't a tank in existance that is totally invulnerable, such a tank would weigh over a hundred tons and be practically useless.

[Karmakaze]

35. Its DOZENS of M1's knocked out

In fact there were pictures that someone posted showing a train in the US hauling at least half a dozen completely destroyed M1's to be disposed of. The reason the pictures were posted was because the tanks had radiation hazard signs all over them because of the damage to their DU armour, and the person who took them thought that it was wrong that such hazardous waste was being openly transported through a built up area.

That was at least a year or two ago.

If you spend time searching, you can find hundreds of pictures of destroyed M1's in Iraq, showing dozens of different occasions.

One thing to note, attacking the frontal armour of tanks has been avoided for a LONG time. In fact many modern anti-tank missiles are top attack weapons, and most infantry attacks on tanks are side or rear attacks where visibility is very limited - that has been standard tactics since the second world war. The frontal armour of a tank is really only used in tank on tank engagements.

Did you know that one modern version of the RPG grenade actually has two warheads in tandem. The first one detonates at a longer stand-off range which causes any reactive armour to fire, clearing the way for the second warhead to fire at the optimum range for penetration. Each one of these sub-warheads is capable of penetrating over half a metre of steel.

The best defense against infantry with missiles or RPG's is not armour, but a protective screen of infantry. Did you know that the greatest surface threat to the tank has and always will be infantry? They can hide, then outflank and approach tanks in their blind spots. The blind spots also happen to be the weak spots.

[Stella_Artois]

41. The vast majority to IED

Stacked 155m artillery rounds going off underneath the M1 are in no way shape or form effective commentary on the supposed failure of the armor. Quite the opposite in fact. It seems that this is the only reliable way they have of destroying them. Thanks for the lesson on tandem warheads, not really relevant to a discussion around a vehicle that until very recently was not equipped with reactive armor.

Dozens ? Thats still in the order of 1% of the attacks against the M1.

[Pavulon]

10. 80 * 4 320 crew

5 dead. The armor does its job.

[Ghost Dog]

13. That secret armour is DU, isn't it? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. A DU alloy may be part of it

But there's far more to it than that:

From Wikipedia (hey, for a secret, it's as good as anything):

Chobham armour is a composite armour developed in the sixties at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common. Although the exact composition of Chobham armour remains a secret, it appears to be a composite armour of ceramic tiles within a matrix that is layered between steel armour plating, a combination that is excellent at defeating high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. Possible ceramics for such armours are: boron carbide, silicon carbide, aluminium oxide (sapphire or "alumina"), titanium boride or Syndie, a synthetic diamond composite. Of these boron carbide is the hardest and lightest, but also the most expensive and brittle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Would it "belie" those statements, or confirm them?

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

33. Merkavas are also meant to take damage differently

They place their engine compartments in the front, not the rear - this means it's a bit more likely to lose them on a hard front hit, but it also places the engine between the enemy and the tank crew for most hits. You lose the tank more easily, but it gives the tank crew - who are much harder to replace in a low-population country like Israel - several extra feet of protection in a lot of cases.

This isn't to say that Israeli tanks aren't very tough armor-wise in any facing, of course. They're still top-tier armor by world standards.

It's a difference from how the US handles survivability. With a lot of US vehicles, you make the machine as hard to destroy as possible to keep it in the fight. With Israeli ones, they're designed to take hits in ways that keep the crew alive, and they're willing to write off the more replaceable vehicles to do so.

[Zynx]

7. The AT-13 is very much a guided, dangerous weapon.

It'll defeat about a meter of RHA armor. Less (in some cases such as Chobbam, much less) against more advanced armors, but it certainly packs a real punch.

[Karmakaze]

19. Do you know how many US tanks have been destroyed in Iraq...

by those old non-guided missiles (I assume you are talking about RPG's or Rocket Propelled Grenades)? Add to these the sophisticated guided missiles and you will find that there have been dozens of US tanks destoryed.

[Sven77]

3. doesnt Isreal have the 5th best military in the world ?

their calling home-made rockets missles ?

[minkyboodle]

6. most definitely not home made

If the article is accurate than Hizbollah has
both the Milan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILAN
and the AT-13 Metis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-13_Metis-M
these are definitely not home made missiles
(you may be thinking of the Qassam rockets used
in Gaza)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rockets

[Lurking Dem]

23. According to who?

Who rates this stuff and how is it rated?

[BrotherBuzz]

26. Jane' s, and they have been doing it for over a hundred years...

with an unrivalled reputation of accuracy, authority and impartiality. No joke.

http://www.janes.com/company/about/

[teryang]

4. Interesting post on capabilities

Can the IDF cut off the Hez. from its suppliers? I wonder about the relationship of cutting off the entire country of Lebanon from outside commerce as opposed to isolating a particular tactically significant area from military supplies.

Unlike Bosnia, I don't think the application of force to cut off civilian populations is going to have the desired political effect. So is cutting off Lebanon's lines of communication generally going to be effective in cutting off supplies of very specific weapon systems?

I don't think it will. Who monitors the border areas? Can one of these things be backpacked or moved offroad?

[daleo]

11. I imagine the weapons industry is watching this with great interest

As are the various militaries of the world. There is nothing like a real life test of tank against anti-tank weapon.

I wonder if these weapons will show up in Iraq or Afghanistan (or if they already have).

[Just Me]

12. Mind-bending. FACTUALLY speaking, who's done the worst damage?

More "rationalizing"?

The greater oppression by any bully, the greater likelihood people will unite to eat away at the feet such that the bully can no longer stand.

CEASE-FIRE!!!! CEASE OPPRESSION!!! CEASE POWER-MONGERING!!!

[SweetLeftFoot]

14. The mighty 'Merkava'

Its mighty against kids throwing rocks and untrained Hamas/Al Aqsa militia firing 50s era RPGs, but come up against some well trained, well armed professional soldiers, and they don't seem so hot.

The great myth of Israel invicibilty - never really tested since 1973 when they needed the US to bail them out anyway - has been shattered. The IDF is great at pushing around lightly armed militia in areas where it has complete full spectrum battlefield dominance, but seemingly not so great in a more equally matched fight.

In fact, the IDF has only really won one war against other proper armies decisevely, and that was 67 - when they hit first.

I certainly don't want to see Israel pushed into the sea or any jihadi crap like that, but I must say I am enjoying seeing the bullies of the IDF copping a few on the chin for a while.

[drduffy]

15. I have never liked bullies......

so I can't help but agree....

Plus, since I don't desire WW III or IV or whatever right now, I am hoping Hez stops the Israeli advance to Syria...

Listen to: Malloy interviews Tarpley - 8/3/2006, available on white rose society

[hogwyld]

24. I am certainly enjoying the bully getting his A** kicked

The funny thing about bullies is that once they've had their clock cleaned, they aren't so agressive anymore. Wipe out their military, and they will be forced to negotiate with the arab world, and give up the west bank, the golan heights, etc. Then there will be peace.

[54anickel]

25. While I don't enjoy seeing anyone getting their A** kicked, I certainly

can understand why Iran/Syria would want to arm Hez. It's been no secret as to the amount of support the US has been shipping to Israel. Makes me wonder if they didn't feel the need to "step up the pace" of arming Hez after Cheney made that comment about Israel possibly striking Iran on their own.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

27. Yep

This conflict is rapidly turning into a proxy war between the US and Iran.

[IndianaGreen]

28. IDF is losing this war for it cannot keep the current kill ratio to Hez

Simple math says that IDF cannot maintain the current kill ratio to Hezbollah fighters. IDF's failure to achieve victory on the ground against Hezbollah, coupled with increased Israeli angst about the military operation in Lebanon, could bring about a ceasefire and an end to the killings on both sides.

Politically, this is as much a defeat for Israel as Iraq is for the US.

Strategically, this is a disaster for the IDF, millions of Arabs have now realized that IDF's vaunted military machine can be defeated.

This is also a warning to the war planners in the Pentagon. Hezbollah follows Iranian military doctrine. American troops are likely to have more trouble than IDF were they to invade Iran. Unlike the highly motivated IDF, the US military is demoralized and nearly broken from its military adventures in Iraq. Defeat is a real possibility!

[David__77]

29. Israel could be defeated outright.

A combination of:

Conventional military attacks - rockets, missiles, etc. targeting Israel
Guerrilla infiltration into Israel
Coordination with Palestinians near Israel proper

[IndianaGreen]

30. It is impossible for a country with nukes to be defeated outright

If Israel was invaded, and the attack could not be repelled (an impossible scenario IMHO), Israel would use nukes as last resort.

No, the nightmare scenario is another quagmire in Lebanon!

[bemildred]

32. I must disagree.

To use nukes one must have suitable targets, sufficiently distinct from oneself so as to avoid nuking oneself. For example nuking Gaza or the West Bank would be tantamount to nuking Israel itself, nukes are not precision weapons. The same applies somewhat to southern Lebanon. So as long as the guerillas remain dispersed and nearby. or interspersed, they cannot be nuked without Israel nuking itself too. This was one of the concerns in the Fulda Gap scenarios, that the Russians would be too close before we could nuke their ass.

Of course, there is the "if thine right eye offend thee, pluck it out" approach, I suppose. And if thatis what you mean by "avoiding defeat", than you are correct, they do have the "Samson option". One could argue on the other hand that getting Israel to nuke itself would be seen as a big win by the islamic fundies.

I'm not saying that its likely, there is no reason to think Israelis would be worse at defending their territory than the Lebanese are proving to be at defending Lebanon. My own opinion has been for some time now that Israel's demise will come from within, if it comes at all, and not from any external conquest.

It is too easy and wrong to think nukes are some sort of panacea for military defeat.

[krispos42]

36. Lots of nuclear targets around

It depends on the yield of the weapons Israel chooses to use, IMHO. A few one-kiloton nukes might be used downwind of Israel. Or it could be that Israel decides to used bigger stuff on the logistical support centers. Like, say, Damascus.

Of course the very fact that they are fighting guerrillas means that their enemies are pretty dispersed, which supports the "no distinct target to use nukes" theory. And Hezbollah is not advancing into Israel, but retreating before Israeli tanks and planes, so we have a while to go before Tel Aviv is desperate enough to start dropping nukes.

I just really hope the "October Surprise" is not a mushroom cloud.

[bemildred]

37. Never said there were not.

You can nuke anything you like. You can shoot trees and bomb rubble too. The question is whether doing so serves any tactical or strategic purpose. Nukes leave a big mess too, they can serve as area interdiction weapons, assuming it is an area you want (somewhat) permanently interdicted. My point was that using nukes in situations where it is likely to cause lots of "friendly fire" casualties, or to irradiate large portions of your own territory, has severe drawbacks. Making the Litani river radioactive would not be a good thing for anybody. I wasn't saying you can't do it, I was saying it's stupid. Also, once you use them, you give everybody else permission to reply in kind. That's what MAD is all about.

[bemildred]

38. Hezbollah anti-tank fire causing most IDF casualties in Lebanon

The majority of Israel Defense Forces ground troops casualties, both infantry and armored, were the result of special anti-tank units of Hezbollah, according to intelligence sources.

The same sources note that these units have not retreated from southern Lebanon following the deployment of large IDF ground forces in the area.

The Hezbollah anti-tank teams use a new and particularly potent version of the Russian-made RPG, the RPG-29, that has been sold by Moscow to the Syrians and then transferred to the Shi'ite organization.

---

The IDF believes Hezbollah also has an advanced anti-aircraft missile, the SA-18, from Iran. It is particularly lethal against helicopters, and even though none of the missiles have been fired against Israel Air Force aircraft, the flights over Lebanon are taking the necessary precautions.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746929.html

[eagler]

39. And just think. If they run out of missles

they can always use their young to carry suicide bombs into Israeli territory. Its been effective for them in the past.

[LivingInTheBubble]

40. Thats always the difference between terrorists and armies

whether they can afford (or the US will give them free) planes to strap their bombs to, or if they have to carry them in on foot.

[Stella_Artois]

42. This is a nonsense article anyway...

***BREAKING NEWS *****

Anti-tank weapons bad for tanks !!!

Thanks for the heads up.