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.
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.