NationStates Jolt Archive


Proof that there will never be enough armor against IED attacks

My Gun Not Yours
16-12-2004, 19:45
IED = Improvised Explosive Device. As a side note, nearly all IEDs in Iraq are in the "scores of kilograms" range. And the targets are trucks (in some cases armored trucks) not tanks. A tank will always be far, far more protected than any armored truck.

IDF Downplays Merkava Hit, But
Palestinians Have Struck Israel's
State-Of-The-Art Tank
By Amnon Barzilai
Ha'aretz Correspondent
and Ha'aretz Service
February 16th, 2002

IDF officers on Friday downplayed the fact that the Palestinians had succeeded in penetrating Israel's state-of-the-art Merkava 3, but the army, clearly concerned, continued to investigate how the world's most protected tank had been penetrated, after three soldiers were killed in the Gaza Strip on Thursday when a large bomb was detonated under their tank.

"The blow is painful, but I say to you honestly that I am not surprised that it happened," Brigadier General (Res.) Hanan Bernstein, former head of the IDF's Merkava division and commander of the tank training school, told Israel Radio on Friday morning. The Merkava will continue "to be considered amongst the world's best tanks" Bernstein said, but added that the attack demonstrated the ongoing struggle between those developing protection for the tank crew and those developing weapons designed to harm them.

"We all need to understand that there is no end to this battle between... the ability to protect [the tank crew] and the ability to harm [them]," he said. "And this time, like in the past, those who want to kill us found a way to pinpoint a weak spot, and the Merkava, like any system, no matter how advanced, also has weak spots."

The Merkava 3 - the third generation in a line of tanks which has been specifically designed to meet the operational demands of the IDF - is considered to be the most protected tank around. The last time a crewmember was killed in a Merkava was in southern Lebanon about five-and-a-half years ago, when the tank was hit by an anti-tank missile.

Israel Radio reported that in Thursday's attack, the tank's turret was blown off, landing several meters away, and that the blast gouged a 1.5-meter hole in the ground.

The father of the Merkava, who also served as the head of the project until two years ago, is Major General (Res.) Yisrael Tal. To date, more than NIS 20 billion has been invested in the Merkava's development and more than 100 Israeli factories take part in constructing the tank.

The tank's development was based on the lessons of the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The main goal of the latest model was to better-protect its four-member crew - driver, gunner, loader-signaler and commander. The project primarily attempted to prevent, even in cases of a direct hit, the spread of fire inside the tank, which has in the past led to the deaths of the crew. With this in mind, the tank was designed with no hydraulic systems whatsoever, but only electrical systems.

The Merkava's turret, for example, is rotated by an electric motor developed by Israel's Elbit Systems, which replaced the hydraulic motor that ran on oil and often burst into flames when hit.

The tank's protective shell is one of the most closely guarded secrets. In order to increase the tank's chance of survival against bombs or mines that detonate alongside or underneath it, or against hits by anti-tank missiles, an especially thick armor was developed to cover the Merkava. In some parts of the tank, that armor is almost one-meter thick.

The emphasis placed on its armor makes the Merkava one of the heaviest tanks in the world, weighing in at about 65 tons. It has a 1,200 horsepower engine and carries 1,000 liters of fuel. Even so, it is considered to be fast, capable of reaching speeds of 65 kilometers (40 miles) per hour. The tank carries 50 shells with a 120-millimeter diameter, mortars, smoke bombs and thousands of rounds of light ammunition.

Yet despite all these features, the tank is not impregnable, as Bernstein concedes. He refrained from revealing "to those who want to kill our sons" the specific points of vulnerability, but said those who had carried out the attack "found a point, or one of the spots, it would be more correct to say." He did add that the Merkava's underbelly is less protected than the rest of the tank.

He also said that it was always possible to increase protection for the tank crew, but that this comes at the expense of the tank's speed and maneuverability, due to the weight of the armor and, consequently, the larger engine that would be required. These considerations, he said, had been taken into account in the past and that they "are always reopened for discussion in light of new circumstances," such as Thursday night's attack.

The game of cat and mouse, he concluded, would continue no matter what changes were made. "Just as in Lebanon, after a Merkava tank was damaged and a crewmember was killed, the development team was asked to provide an answer," Bernstein said. "I am sure that the current team will provide an answer to [what happened on Thursday], but I am sorry to say that it will not end there."
You Forgot Poland
16-12-2004, 20:02
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's possible to make an entirely bomb-proof vehicle, but if I understood the soldier's question to Rumsfeld correctly (which I assume you're referencing), his request was based on worry about roadside IEDs and their resulting shrapnel (which can be stopped with armor), not worry about under-vehicle IEDs (which can't).

I think that the argument with Rumsfeld is that while he may have been technically correct, he was essentially evading the soldier's question.
My Gun Not Yours
16-12-2004, 20:05
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's possible to make an entirely bomb-proof vehicle, but if I understood the soldier's question to Rumsfeld correctly (which I assume you're referencing), his request was based on worry about roadside IEDs and their resulting shrapnel (which can be stopped with armor), not worry about under-vehicle IEDs (which can't).

I think that the argument with Rumsfeld is that while he may have been technically correct, he was essentially evading the soldier's question.

If Rumsfeld had answered the question correctly, I don't think this would have made the news.
Erehwon Forest
16-12-2004, 20:05
IED = Improvised Explosive Device. As a side note, nearly all IEDs in Iraq are in the "scores of kilograms" range.That ain't a whole lot, though. The blast referred to in the article must have been huge. Absolutely a 3-digit number of TNT-kgs, and quite possibly crudely directed upwards. A 1.5-meter hole is fricken huge. The barely 0.5-meter holes the old Finnish DF anti-tank mines (9.5kg of TNT) create hardly compare, and those are dug into the ground non-directed.

Anyway, you obviously cannot armor a mobile vehicle heavily enough to be immune to explosives. Attack > Defense, and certainly in this day and age Explosives > Armor. Even the best modern Main Battle Tanks have serious trouble handling a direct hit from a heavy ATGM to the front plate, and not a single one can handle a decent ATGM to the sides, rear or top. M1 side armor has been penetrated with RPG-7 warheads in Iraq. Modern heavy personal anti-tank rockets (technically still LAWs, I suppose, but I'm referring to the ones in the 8+kg range) will easily penetrate most MBT armor from the sides and the rear. In fact, weapons like the AT-4 can manage this at good angles, as can even lighter weapons at straight angles, as long as you don't hit reactive plates.

The thing is, though, that a well armored vehicle designed to minimize the threat of these attacks will still increase survivability immensely. A direct RPG HEAT-hit to an unarmored sedan's door is almost guaranteed to kill/seriously maim everyone inside, while in an armored HMMWV it's more likely to just blast a hole through the passengers right in its path and slightly injure others. Even the lightest armor on trucks and HMMWVs will be immensely useful against near-hits from grenades, rockets and missiles. Light armor plating can easily mean the difference between the life and death of everyone inside when dealing with "light" IEDs (10kg-30kg TNT-equivalent) -- at little to no reduction of mobility.
My Gun Not Yours
16-12-2004, 20:11
As long as you're not driving the fuel truck, in which case you'll be a human hibachi under any circumstances.

IIRC, the unit that refused to drive on a mission a little ways back was a fuel unit. Their complaint was that they didn't have enough armor.

How can you have enough armor when you're sitting on 60,000 gallons of gasoline?
You Forgot Poland
16-12-2004, 20:11
I agree with that. Something like, "We're doing everything in our power to get you the necessary equipment," bang, no news. But it was like he was trying to talk the soldier out of what he wanted.

A parallel argument would be for a police officer to ask for body armor and the commissioner to reply: "You don't want that because it won't stop a high powered rifle round." You want protection for what it will stop, not what it won't.
Erehwon Forest
16-12-2004, 20:14
How can you have enough armor when you're sitting on 60,000 gallons of gasoline?Maybe not on land, but on the sea (http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html)...
My Gun Not Yours
16-12-2004, 20:17
Yes, I agree that if Rumsfeld had said, "Well son, I've just been talking to your commander about that very subject, and we're working hard at the Pentagon to make sure that armor kits and uparmored trucks will be sent to your unit on an expedited basis," most people would have STFU and that would have been the end of the story.
Armed Bookworms
16-12-2004, 20:17
Maybe not on land, but on the sea (http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccioni.html)...
And how much do battleships weigh again?
Erehwon Forest
16-12-2004, 20:19
And how much do battleships weigh again?Just the right amount for it to work as a humorous comment.
Chess Squares
16-12-2004, 20:20
might as well lock this topic, there is no reasoning with the blind and insane aka my gun
My Gun Not Yours
16-12-2004, 20:21
might as well lock this topic, there is no reasoning with the blind and insane aka my gun

I guess I'm completely irrational for making the comment that Rumsfeld is lousy at PR, and that uparmoring isn't really the answer.

If you want me to bend over, then please give me a reacharound.
Erehwon Forest
16-12-2004, 20:25
[...] uparmoring isn't really the answer.Not the only answer, anyway.
You Forgot Poland
16-12-2004, 20:26
My Gun isn't irrational or insane in this case. I don't think the flap over this issue was ever about what armor can and cannot do. I think it was about Rumsfeld lacking basic communication skills and how he came across as a greasy issue-dodger in this press conference.
My Gun Not Yours
16-12-2004, 20:31
My Gun isn't irrational or insane in this case. I don't think the flap over this issue was ever about what armor can and cannot do. I think it was about Rumsfeld lacking basic communication skills and how he came across as a greasy issue-dodger in this press conference.


I think that Chess' point is that on one hand that we have spent far too much money on the war in Iraq, and on the other hand we haven't spent enough money on the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld, in Chess' opinion, is a screwjob no matter what he does (did) or says (said).
Siljhouettes
16-12-2004, 22:22
Hmmm, sounds like a desperate attempt to defend Rumsfeld.

Good work, My Gun Not Yours.
Soviet Narco State
16-12-2004, 22:48
That ain't a whole lot, though. The blast referred to in the article must have been huge. Absolutely a 3-digit number of TNT-kgs, and quite possibly crudely directed upwards. A 1.5-meter hole is fricken huge. The barely 0.5-meter holes the old Finnish DF anti-tank mines (9.5kg of TNT) create hardly compare, and those are dug into the ground non-directed.

Anyway, you obviously cannot armor a mobile vehicle heavily enough to be immune to explosives. Attack > Defense, and certainly in this day and age Explosives > Armor. Even the best modern Main Battle Tanks have serious trouble handling a direct hit from a heavy ATGM to the front plate, and not a single one can handle a decent ATGM to the sides, rear or top. M1 side armor has been penetrated with RPG-7 warheads in Iraq. Modern heavy personal anti-tank rockets (technically still LAWs, I suppose, but I'm referring to the ones in the 8+kg range) will easily penetrate most MBT armor from the sides and the rear. In fact, weapons like the AT-4 can manage this at good angles, as can even lighter weapons at straight angles, as long as you don't hit reactive plates.

The thing is, though, that a well armored vehicle designed to minimize the threat of these attacks will still increase survivability immensely. A direct RPG HEAT-hit to an unarmored sedan's door is almost guaranteed to kill/seriously maim everyone inside, while in an armored HMMWV it's more likely to just blast a hole through the passengers right in its path and slightly injure others. Even the lightest armor on trucks and HMMWVs will be immensely useful against near-hits from grenades, rockets and missiles. Light armor plating can easily mean the difference between the life and death of everyone inside when dealing with "light" IEDs (10kg-30kg TNT-equivalent) -- at little to no reduction of mobility.


From what I read, the Mekerva tank was destroyed by stacking 3 anti-Tank mines on top of each other which would destroy just about anything. However in the entire Intifada only 1 freaking tank along with a few Armored personel carriers have been destroyed. Obviously that is because of the armor.

Rumsfeld such is a dolt. Tanks getting blown up is such a minor concern in Iraq. A few have been disabled but most of the time RPGs just bounce off and
most IED's do absolutely nothing against them. The real danger is for all the troops driving in unarmored humvees, many of which have no armor what so ever, which are blown up on a daily basis.
Cannot think of a name
16-12-2004, 22:57
I think that Chess' point is that on one hand that we have spent far too much money on the war in Iraq, and on the other hand we haven't spent enough money on the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld, in Chess' opinion, is a screwjob no matter what he does (did) or says (said).
This is a misunderstanding of the issue. The thought is that we shouldn't have spent the money to go in the first place, that we shouldn't be there-but if we are there don't get our soldiers, who we are conserned about wether the right acknowledges it or not, killed by half stepping with their safety.

To re-iterate, we shouldn't have gone for a number of reasons. Primarily our soldiers, but the cost was an issue. But if we do go, make sure that the soldiers have what they need to have the best chance to come back alive.

And no, no one was saying that armor would make them invulnerable. Seatbelts don't garauntee that you'll survive a crash, but they help.
Upitatanium
17-12-2004, 00:20
I don't understand the point of this post.

I mean, is Gun trying to say "it's pointless to uparmour the vehicles since you can die anyway so STFU soldier boy"?

Am I wrong in this interpretation? Is he honestly trying to defend Rumsfeld in such a disgraceful manner?