Just heard that a Merkava II was destroyed by a land mine in Lebanon. I have two questions about the incident. Why would the Israelis even be using the mk.II in front line combat when they have the much more modern mk.III and mk.IV Also, aren't the Merkava's supposed to be among the best protected tanks in the world?
Israeli Armor
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
You can't make a tank totally protected from every direction. When you increase the anti landmine armour, that makes it heavier and you have less "free weight" for the frontal armour for example. And you can't just make it heavier and heavier because the agility will decrease and you will need more fuel.
It is always an compromise.
What makes the Merkava special is that it is the only modern MBT with the engine in the front. That gives the crew more protection from frontal attacks but at the same time makes the engine more vulnerable.
So in a way the designers of the Merkava chose to increase the survial chances of the crew by reducing the survival chances of the tank itself. That makes sense, but it shows that you just can't have everything.
It is always an compromise.
What makes the Merkava special is that it is the only modern MBT with the engine in the front. That gives the crew more protection from frontal attacks but at the same time makes the engine more vulnerable.
So in a way the designers of the Merkava chose to increase the survial chances of the crew by reducing the survival chances of the tank itself. That makes sense, but it shows that you just can't have everything.
The way I heard it, that was no land mine, it was a massive amount of explosives buried in the road and command-detonated. Anti-tank mines are desighned to break treads, and only wiegh about 10 kg. This was much more, and no tank can survive hundreds of pounds of explosives from underneath.
It seems similar to what the Japanese did in the Pacific, burying a torpedo warhead where teh Sherman tanks were bound to go, and them blowing them sky-high.
It seems similar to what the Japanese did in the Pacific, burying a torpedo warhead where teh Sherman tanks were bound to go, and them blowing them sky-high.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It certainly is. ZVirtually any sort of explosive device that is not designed as a specific munition is an "IED".Scorpius said:
fylr71 said:
The thing is,there are no good armor tank.Every tanks have it's weakness but there's 2 weakneses that all tanks has,1}It's wheel 2}The tank under{i dont know how to said it in english so hope you guys understand
: }About why the Israel do not send the mire advance tanks is maybe because they underastimade theire opponet or they do not want the much expensive tank to be destroy.But one thing for sure,if Merkava can be destroy by the FREEDOM FIGHTER NOT TERRORIST,that's mean any tanks can be destroy.Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
noves said:
Mate every opressive regime built on hate and intollerance once called themselves "freedom fighters". would richeous freedom fighters deliberatly attack civilians and hide behind the civilian population in the country that they've imbedded themselves in? No i think the last bit of that statement is more accurate.
P.S. watch the political talk or the WebMaster will kick your butt!!!
watch the political talk your self dude. Sounds like the israel ministry of defence statement.
On another note a Merkava 4 was hit and diabled by what the IDF suspect was a Sagger guided missle, two of the crew were badly wounded, one lost his legs, does anyone know what the capiblities of the sagger?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741318.html
Funny thing is... the Israelis did pretty much the same when they took Israel, or Palestina as it was called back then, from the British.
So did all the resistance movements during the nazi occupation of Europe. It is often a hard to follow selective decision to call one group freedom fighters and the other terrorists while they are doing just the same. Usually the only way to discriminate between the two options is whether they are fighting against you/people you like, or against people you don't like. And that is pure hypocrisy.
So did all the resistance movements during the nazi occupation of Europe. It is often a hard to follow selective decision to call one group freedom fighters and the other terrorists while they are doing just the same. Usually the only way to discriminate between the two options is whether they are fighting against you/people you like, or against people you don't like. And that is pure hypocrisy.
to Ozzy Blizzard
Now it is a totally different situation at the moment in the Lebonan, but remember if you have been invaded and colonised by a larger and stronger power it gives you a different out look on who is a terroerist and who is a freedom fighter.
Thats all i want to say on this, I dont what a flame war, and i understand why you would think like that, also i think Hezbullah brough a lot of this on them selfs and my sympathy for them is minimal at he moment.
I could'ent agree more, Being Irish we fought a vicious girrilla campain against the british in the 1918/21. Being of the people of course they were imbedded in the population, thats the way it is. It was'ent pretty and the British forces used terristic methods to try and break the resistance, they failed thank God. Now I live in a peaceful modern Democracy that is firmly imbedded in Europe, thanks in no small part to those "Terrorists" as the British at the called them at the time.
Now it is a totally different situation at the moment in the Lebonan, but remember if you have been invaded and colonised by a larger and stronger power it gives you a different out look on who is a terroerist and who is a freedom fighter.
Thats all i want to say on this, I dont what a flame war, and i understand why you would think like that, also i think Hezbullah brough a lot of this on them selfs and my sympathy for them is minimal at he moment.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
TrangleC said:
Fair enough on the political call but i think its a bit more complx than that. Personally i draw the line between freedom fighter and terrorist on an hatefull and intollerant ideals and deliberate attacks on civilians. where the french resistance in WW2 terrorists, who only attacked political/millitary targets and simply want to regain their soverianty? Or is Al Quaida a group of freedom fighters who hate the western world and are compleatly intollerant of other religions, and now primarily attack civilians? in my opinion Hizbollah fits two of the latter criteria. They might be trieing to recliam thir land but that means the destruction of antother nation and its people. If you cant see the differance then we look at the world verry differantly.
By the way i'm no posterboy for the Isrealies. Personally I dissagree with most of their actions concerning the palistinians, and i can see the palistinian point of view. And their actions now just outline their compleat disreguard for the lebonese people who have nothing to do with their war. I just hate it when people bring up the whole terrorist/freedom fighter thing!
Sorry about keeping on this topic i just had to explain myself.
Last edited:
I think that is a result of the increasing invulnerability of the occupying forces. When the army that is occupying your land is so powerful that you just can't do anything against them, that leaves you with two options: Either you just give up or you attack those targets that are still vulnerable to you.
After all the people later forming Al Quaeda did fight russian soldiers and not civillians in Afghanistan first. They were able to do so because the american support gave them the abilities they needed to really engage the enemy army.
The rebels in Chechnia are just the same kind of people fighting the same enemy, but without enough support and what do they do? They start terrorist attacks against russian civilians, which never happened during the first war in Afghanistan, as far as i know.
And about the resistance forces against the Nazis... there the technological advantage of the occupiing force was not as big as it is today. Also the occupation only lasted a few years instead of decades. Who knows what the french resistance would have done after decades of occupation and an increasingly invulnerable occupation force? Do you think it is so unlikely that they would have started terrorist attacks against german civilians or french traitors some day?
When the enemy is so superiour that firing homemade rockets from some hole in the ground at the raw direction of his villages is all you could possibly do against him, then that is what you do.
Who wouldn't? Would you just give up and say: "Well, they are just better than us and deserve to occupy our land and rule us. Let's go home and just hope they won't send a bulldozzer to tear it down." ? Actually the majority of palestinians is doing just that, but naturally there are young men who don't.
I feel pity for the victims of terrorist attacks, but i can't help to understand those terrorists, because it is my nature to try to see through the eyes of others and i just don't see that i would do anything else in their situation.
After all the people later forming Al Quaeda did fight russian soldiers and not civillians in Afghanistan first. They were able to do so because the american support gave them the abilities they needed to really engage the enemy army.
The rebels in Chechnia are just the same kind of people fighting the same enemy, but without enough support and what do they do? They start terrorist attacks against russian civilians, which never happened during the first war in Afghanistan, as far as i know.
And about the resistance forces against the Nazis... there the technological advantage of the occupiing force was not as big as it is today. Also the occupation only lasted a few years instead of decades. Who knows what the french resistance would have done after decades of occupation and an increasingly invulnerable occupation force? Do you think it is so unlikely that they would have started terrorist attacks against german civilians or french traitors some day?
When the enemy is so superiour that firing homemade rockets from some hole in the ground at the raw direction of his villages is all you could possibly do against him, then that is what you do.
Who wouldn't? Would you just give up and say: "Well, they are just better than us and deserve to occupy our land and rule us. Let's go home and just hope they won't send a bulldozzer to tear it down." ? Actually the majority of palestinians is doing just that, but naturally there are young men who don't.
I feel pity for the victims of terrorist attacks, but i can't help to understand those terrorists, because it is my nature to try to see through the eyes of others and i just don't see that i would do anything else in their situation.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
i can understand the reasoning behind terrorist attacks but i dont think that makes them right (i'm not saying you are). Any morall high ground that so called "freedom fighters" have, the name alone seems to give them that, is forfeted the moment they switch attacks to civilian targets. That might be the most effective thing to do but its still wrong. And i think an organisations motives are important. Theres a difference between fighting to regain your country and fighting out of hate for those that are different than you.
Anyway arn't we just argueing ofer semantics? Isnt a terrorist someone who uses terror in the civilian population to achieve a political goal? by that reasoning you could pretty easily define who is a terrorist.
Anyway arn't we just argueing ofer semantics? Isnt a terrorist someone who uses terror in the civilian population to achieve a political goal? by that reasoning you could pretty easily define who is a terrorist.
Um... if that is the definition of a terrorist, then the Israelis are terrorists too, because the goal of their attacks are, among others, to make the civililian population to abandon the Hezbollah by terrorizing them.
Or what about the bombing attacks on german and japanese cities during WW2?
Would you call Churchill, Eisenhower and all the other allied leaders and the soldiers terrorists too?
Following your definition you would have to.
Then every single person, from the commanders and the political leadership, over the bomber pilots down to the people working in the factories building the bombers and the bombs would have been a terrorist.
Yes, we are talking about semantics because they are extremely important in this case. If we would stop calling the terrorists that way and start calling them freedom fighters, although they are fighting against us (the west), then that would certainly have a profound influence on our thinking about the matter, don't you think?
Maybe then we would think about stopping to support the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other countries, instead of just thinking about how we can kill as many of them as possible because they are just terrorists after all.
You have to demonize your enemy, using words, to fight a war. Because if you respect your enemy as a human being with plausible motivations then you are in danger of feeling compelled to solve the problems in a peaceful way.
That would be rather bad for the people who sell weapons and fund our politicians on our side and for the religious fanatics on the other side.
Or what about the bombing attacks on german and japanese cities during WW2?
Would you call Churchill, Eisenhower and all the other allied leaders and the soldiers terrorists too?
Following your definition you would have to.
Then every single person, from the commanders and the political leadership, over the bomber pilots down to the people working in the factories building the bombers and the bombs would have been a terrorist.
Yes, we are talking about semantics because they are extremely important in this case. If we would stop calling the terrorists that way and start calling them freedom fighters, although they are fighting against us (the west), then that would certainly have a profound influence on our thinking about the matter, don't you think?
Maybe then we would think about stopping to support the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other countries, instead of just thinking about how we can kill as many of them as possible because they are just terrorists after all.
You have to demonize your enemy, using words, to fight a war. Because if you respect your enemy as a human being with plausible motivations then you are in danger of feeling compelled to solve the problems in a peaceful way.
That would be rather bad for the people who sell weapons and fund our politicians on our side and for the religious fanatics on the other side.
I agree with a lot of what you have said and I also think your analysis of Hezbullah is wrong, Hezbullah Primarally attacked military targets, true they hate
Israel like Poision, but they have also negotiated with Israel for things like priosner swaps and cease fires. They are not Al Quada, they have Members of Parilement and are respected by all elements of Lebonese Socity(although a lot of them dont agree with what there doing at the moment). True they are launching unguided missle attacks on Israeli citys but the Israelies are know saints when it comes to avoiding civilians causties. Most of the Israeli dead have been soldiers this has not been the case on the other side. They have only attacked Israel during there existance(formed during the Israeli invasion of 1982), and maintain cordial relations with the Christian and sunni community in the Lebanon, is that Al Queda?
They are not a nialistic terrorist organisation, they maintain schools hosptails care centers olds age homes ect. Those are facts you can look them up if you want. I dont really care to much about the situation one way or the other, but i do feel if you dont have a strong grasp of the facts on the ground then your expectations will always be confounded. If Hezbullah do enter into a dialoge with Israel I believe they would negotate in good faith, they are not religious fanatics in the sense of some islamic groups and have always show themselfs to be quite pragmatic. Nor are the Iranian/syrian puppets. In the 1990's Hezbullah restructered them selfs in order to eliminate iranian operational command, this was done to make the organisation more excepible to the other Lebanonese religious groups. The result was near unanimaty in Lebonese socity that Hezbullah was a legitimete resistance group. Finally only Israel and the US Canada and the UK have Declared Hezbullah a terrorist organisation.
this is a Good resorse for general info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbullah
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Your right that was a massive oversimplification. I guess i made my point rather badly, and to be honest i agree with you. It seems the simple words "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" seem to carry alot more baggage than thier litteral meaning. Any time anyone mentions the word freedom fighter it creates immages of the noble gurrilla fighting an evil oppressor, when in reality they can be just murdering bastards. And the word terrorist seems to mean someone who simply wants do spread hate, death and destruction on inocents in the name of some cause and can be exterminated for the good of mankind. And yes if you dissreguard all that baggage then every major combattant in world war 2 could be called terrorists. But only some could be classified as freedom fighters or a similar name. Mainly the western leaders because they, for the most part, held the moral high ground.
I think in the real world its niether black or white, but a murky shade of grey. And the fact that people on both sides use such terms, and their implied meanings, to describe themselves or their adversaries in an appropriate light means that we should all be carefull when useing them especially on this site. However IMO there is still a differance between millitant organisations fighting an opressive nation or differant nations in a real war. They all do horrible things, but thir reason for doing them and the manner in which they do it are
still important. We cant just say that making judgement one of them, and yes using the words "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", or even deciding who's right or wrong is irrelivent because both sides may have allready done so to further their own interests. Even though the western allies did some terrible things in WW2, but they were still the so called "good guy's". They represented freedom, tollerance and a liberation of conquered nations to democratically ellected goverments. The Nazi's on the other hand represented racism, hatred and german superiority, and exploited every nation the conquered and allmost exterminated an intire race of people. We cant just say that judgement lays in your point of view.
The western powers should absoloutly stop supporting corrupt monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, or iether drom the liberty and freedom act. The fact that they (or should i say we) invaded Iraq in the name or "regime change", while supporting similar regimes in other nations is rediculose. Personnal i'm glad Saddam's gone but to do it in the name of freedom is pure hipocracy.
I think in the real world its niether black or white, but a murky shade of grey. And the fact that people on both sides use such terms, and their implied meanings, to describe themselves or their adversaries in an appropriate light means that we should all be carefull when useing them especially on this site. However IMO there is still a differance between millitant organisations fighting an opressive nation or differant nations in a real war. They all do horrible things, but thir reason for doing them and the manner in which they do it are
still important. We cant just say that making judgement one of them, and yes using the words "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", or even deciding who's right or wrong is irrelivent because both sides may have allready done so to further their own interests. Even though the western allies did some terrible things in WW2, but they were still the so called "good guy's". They represented freedom, tollerance and a liberation of conquered nations to democratically ellected goverments. The Nazi's on the other hand represented racism, hatred and german superiority, and exploited every nation the conquered and allmost exterminated an intire race of people. We cant just say that judgement lays in your point of view.
The western powers should absoloutly stop supporting corrupt monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, or iether drom the liberty and freedom act. The fact that they (or should i say we) invaded Iraq in the name or "regime change", while supporting similar regimes in other nations is rediculose. Personnal i'm glad Saddam's gone but to do it in the name of freedom is pure hipocracy.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Sorry! someone mentioned freedom fighters and this is kind of where it ended up! we're playing nice? But if you want everyone to get back to the Merkava thats cool. (i was wondering when you were gonna say something)