At 20 seconds we see the reactive armor detonate, likely preventing the RPG from doing much of anything.
At 21 seconds it cuts to immediately before, not showing any aftermath, effectively confirming.
Thank god they can add “slick editing” to make the video have some production value else it would just be “another Israeli tank survives an RPG strike” video.
Had a good video I posted on the previous combat footage sub of an IDF broken tank yard when there was a doubter like you. IDF soldier filming massive holes and burnt tank insides. People got cooked in thst thing. This was almost a year ago. Might search my comment history for it later but the sub got deleted so not sure if the link there works.
Nobody said they’re invincible, and it shouldn’t be controversial to suggest that a tank can survive an RPG round. Besides, it looks to me like the round hit the turret, which was turned sideways, such that the ERA was exposed to the shooter.
We’ve seen videos of tanks being taken out by RPG fire, but we’ve also seen them survive much heavier weapons. To conclude regarding what happened here we’re going to need more than a video that cuts before the smoke clears.
It’s also a commonly used editing tactic by any part in a modern war to cut the video before the smoke clears if the aftermath isn’t favourable to what you want to show. The tank or crew may have taken damage, but this video doesn’t show that: It shows that a heavily armoured vehicle was hit. Pretending otherwise just makes it seem like you’re pushing an agenda.
Hamas uses a two stage tandem Yasin105 warhead to penetrate penetrate the reactive armor. They also have single explosion fragmentation warheads which are used against infantry.
The videos never show impact damage because Hamas is not going to stick around until the smoke clears. They will get bombed by a drone if they do. This is what hit and run is all about.
The warhead hitting is what matters for the video.
As I said: It is absolutely possible that this tank and/or its crew took damage. There are plenty of weapons designed do breach modern armour.
My point is that no matter what you shoot at an MBT, you generally don’t assume that the tank is taken out unless it’s “burning or has changed shape” (quote from a tank commander regarding when to stop shooting at the enemy tank). The tanks are designed to withstand AT weapons, just like AT weapons are designed to defeat them.
I understand why they wouldn’t stick around to film the aftermath. I’m just pointing out that this video does not conclusively show that the tank is damaged or destroyed, as you seem to be indicating that it does.
At 20 seconds we see the reactive armor detonate, likely preventing the RPG from doing much of anything.
At 21 seconds it cuts to immediately before, not showing any aftermath, effectively confirming.
Thank god they can add “slick editing” to make the video have some production value else it would just be “another Israeli tank survives an RPG strike” video.
This is a direct strike on the back of the tank which is the Merkava weak spot. The reactive armor is on the side.
You appear to believe the IDF is invincible or something. There are plenty of videos of these tanks in destroyed aftermath state.
A cut after showing a massive explosion definitely is not “editing”.
No I don’t believe they’re invincible I just am pretty capable of see and calling things for what they are.
Ineffective is ineffective
Those Merkavas holes must come out of thin air.
Which holes?
Show us these holes.
It’s the clear and deliberate lack of aftermath from all your footage that tells the tale my dude.
I wanna see the IDF tanks with holes, please show me?
Here you go dude enjoy the invincible Merkava against those puny Yasin105 rockets. Be sure to watch all the way to the end.
https://i.imgur.com/mrAaS0U.mp4
Neat, thanks.
Positive ID on the vehicle type anyone?
Had a good video I posted on the previous combat footage sub of an IDF broken tank yard when there was a doubter like you. IDF soldier filming massive holes and burnt tank insides. People got cooked in thst thing. This was almost a year ago. Might search my comment history for it later but the sub got deleted so not sure if the link there works.
Nobody said they’re invincible, and it shouldn’t be controversial to suggest that a tank can survive an RPG round. Besides, it looks to me like the round hit the turret, which was turned sideways, such that the ERA was exposed to the shooter.
We’ve seen videos of tanks being taken out by RPG fire, but we’ve also seen them survive much heavier weapons. To conclude regarding what happened here we’re going to need more than a video that cuts before the smoke clears.
It’s also a commonly used editing tactic by any part in a modern war to cut the video before the smoke clears if the aftermath isn’t favourable to what you want to show. The tank or crew may have taken damage, but this video doesn’t show that: It shows that a heavily armoured vehicle was hit. Pretending otherwise just makes it seem like you’re pushing an agenda.
Hamas uses a two stage tandem Yasin105 warhead to penetrate penetrate the reactive armor. They also have single explosion fragmentation warheads which are used against infantry.
The videos never show impact damage because Hamas is not going to stick around until the smoke clears. They will get bombed by a drone if they do. This is what hit and run is all about.
The warhead hitting is what matters for the video.
As I said: It is absolutely possible that this tank and/or its crew took damage. There are plenty of weapons designed do breach modern armour.
My point is that no matter what you shoot at an MBT, you generally don’t assume that the tank is taken out unless it’s “burning or has changed shape” (quote from a tank commander regarding when to stop shooting at the enemy tank). The tanks are designed to withstand AT weapons, just like AT weapons are designed to defeat them.
I understand why they wouldn’t stick around to film the aftermath. I’m just pointing out that this video does not conclusively show that the tank is damaged or destroyed, as you seem to be indicating that it does.