Western/Israeli MBT HEAT armor too high?

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by Companion

But still, it's quite a feat. People wouldn't put additional armor for no reason.

On the other hand, it is also true that one newspiece cannot prove effectiveness of a weapon system especially since the journalist credibility is at question (mentioning nonexistant ERA)
and specific place and angle of the impact is unknown (as we all know, not all rounds hit the best protected part)

It is probably best that the specific place and angle of any penetration remains secret. In any case, the CR2 was neither blown up nor immobilised by the alleged rpg and thankfully no crewmen were killed.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by CarpathianDragon

If that were true, that would mean the performance of the IDF in the Lebanon War was nothing short of abysmal if they allowed themselves to be hit from the REAR. I mean this either means the Merkavas were advancing in reverse, WW2 Italy-style (no offense to Italians here) or that infantry support and combined arms operations were completely absent, which I am reluctant to believe.

That's what actually happened, though the extent of israeli incompetence should not be blown out of proportions. An attack in complex terrain will lend itself to exposing the weakest parts.

http://israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=3749

"The Hezbullah fighters were firing missile after missile from vantage positions at the
vulnerable points in the armour. Tank commanders were frantically calling for air and artillery support, but because of the large number of Nahal infantrymen present, Northern Command refrained from calling for assistance from artillery or helicopter gunships, fearing to hit friendly forces."

"Two rather remarkable incidents happened in the heat of battle and are worth recounting: one Mk 4 tank was hit by a tandem missile which penetrated into the rear compartment, hitting a stored HEAT round setting it on fire, which activated the automatic fire suppression system, but wounding two of the turret crew, who were evacuated and replaced by a reserve crew"

Several flank and rear shots did happen.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Companion

Damn, Hull penetration AFTER ERA? Didn't know 29 was that powerful. (I might actually buy into RHA 1200mm performance claim )

Maybe it could be the case that the RPG impacted at such a angle that the glacis' angled armor advantage was negotiated enough for penetration.

I don't think so. The RPG-29 has a 105mm or so main warhead with a small precursor charge. This means it can deal with ERA but while penetrations in excess of ten warhead diameters are supposed to be possible now (or so it has been claimed) they were definitively not possible on a production weapon when the RPG-29 was developed.

The Challenger 2 was developed during the Cold war. Hull down defense against a numerical superior enemy advance would be a common engagement in this scenario. This required fairly impenetrable turret fronts even at the expense of the rest of the armored scheme, which while generally quite good, might not always be impervious to the greatest and latest OPFOR weapons.

[thatguy96]

Originally Posted by CarpathianDragon

Also, I'd appreciate a link to the article stating that the Merkavas only suffered damage from the sides or rear, because I was under the impression of the exact opposite. If anybody was in a position to execute flanking attacks, it was the IDF, a conventional,mechanized force, and one of the world's best at that, not Hezbollah, a force that is basically light infantry at best. If that were true, that would mean the performance of the IDF in the Lebanon War was nothing short of abysmal if they allowed themselves to be hit from the REAR. I mean this either means the Merkavas were advancing in reverse, WW2 Italy-style (no offense to Italians here) or that infantry support and combined arms operations were completely absent, which I am reluctant to believe.

Why are you reluctant to believe that this could happen? Southern Lebanon is not the Sinai, and offers very good hiding spots and vantage points to get the drop on an aggressor. Its very mountainous and in parts heavily wooded. I find it surprising that you think that side and flanking shots immediately mean that the vehicle must've been in reverse or without infantry support. Its not like there are a lack of examples of vehicles with infantry support and pushing forward being assaulted by units in relatively close quarters, whether it be an urban scenario or natural terrain that provides the same advantages.

I think you've underestimated the capabilities of Hezbollah as much as the IDF as well. Hezbollah is an infantry force, but one that can be quite heavy, and which is disciplined, motivated, and pretty well equipped. These guys are not Hamas gunmen in the Gaza Strip.

[Marek_Tucan]

The Lebanon situation was also worsened by indecision of Israeli leadership - leading to a situation where IDF danced around in a relatively limited region close to borders, that meant prepared firing positions and good knowledge of terrain allowed for generally unavoidable ambushes.

[Skirmisher]

The Hezbollah had hidden underground bunkers as well. IDF would move through and area, then hezbollah fighters would emerge and attack from the rear.