There has been quite a bit of debate in the blogosphere surrounding this story (note: link has been deactivated) of several days ago: An Israeli air strike hit a Reuters vehicle in Gaza City on Saturday, wounding two journalists as……

This one looks like Apaches are on review.

Flying overhead and firing off a Hajj.

Another pic showing the “standard configuration”

I don’t mean to harp on this, but I just can’t believe they’re using FFARs in urban combat. FFARs are a wide area weapon—not intended for pin-point attacks, and inconsistent with a fighting force that warns everyone before it attacks.

Agreed!

Kaltes,

I think my theory is as good as any. It’s always possible the palestinian just put a chunck of C-4 on the roof to make the hole. There are many possibilities here, but I think the most probable is an Israeli attack. I can respect that others might have different views. I still maintain that the damage is consistent with a 2.75″ rocket, though that is certainly far from proving anything.

Hopefully the Israelis will release the video of the attack from the helicopter’s perspective. That would certainly settle the matter.

It’s also important to note that our debate here is not taking place anywhere in the Muslim world.

Ain’t that the truth.

As for the rest, I’d sure like to hear from the IDF in their post-reflexive apology mode.

Well see that is the problem, we are coming at this from two very different perspectives. My perspective is, what is the most likely explanation for these photos? Your perspectives seem to be: is there any possibility that the palestinian allegations could have been remotely accurate?

Explosives can do some strange things, but the vast majority of the time they do what they are supposed to do. That is why I think the far more likely explanation is that the palestinian sources are being dishonest, and that this vehicle was not attacked by the Israelis.

I have seen what fragmentation damage looks like. I know it doesnt leave gaping holes. It will tend to leave a vehicle pock-marked, with more (small) holes the closer the weapon hits. The shrapnel would not merely scratch this vehicle. Look at the roof, regardless of what you believe about the armor of the vehicle, the outer skin of the vehicle is obviously thin, because you can see the torn metal skin and the hollow area underneath. Shrapnel would not deflect off of that. Now since you EOD guys have seen a lot of strange stuff, maybe that is because of defective weapons, especially since EOD guys get called in when rounds/rockets/etc are defective, so you guys can clean up the unexploded ordinance. I think it is really stretching to construct very unlikely scenarios where something resembling the palestinian story might have taken place when there is a far more likely theory that neatly fits the facts.

Car Rust happens very fast after an accident. I’ve been an Insurance Adjuster and have seen quite a few accidents. They can rust in less than 24 hours in humid weather.

Here is a fresh night time photo of the Rover taken with a Flash. It clearly shows no rust.

I agree that a 2.75mm rocket using a fragmentation warhead can bounce and then explode.

Maybe the first strike hit the Rover causing the people to jump out and were fragged by the second warhead shot.

The blast can strip off paint

The problem with interpreting these photos is that most EOD techs have seen explosives do some really strange things, so the longer they’ve been around, the more explanations they can find for the same event. Add to this the misleading captions and poor photography, it becomes more and more difficult to conclusively rule out possibilities. (that’s the beauty of an open discussion forum, though – your opinions are subject to peer review)

That’s an important point – thanks for making it.

I’m not convinced it was shrapnel, but I’m willing to concede it’s a possibility. As I said in the “Don’t be stupid” thread, if that’s the case then we are no longer looking at 70mm rockets.

This would also be more consistent with the Israeli policy of minimizing collateral damage.

Kaltes:
There is what appears to be some fragmentation damage to the roof of the vehicle (the grey speckles that look like a splash on the roof) and some possible damage to the roof rack. Depending on the type of fragments that hit it and the velocity, you wouldn’t necessarily see gaping holes, yet still could have hits – This, for example, could have been caused by a large chunk of the warhead (ashtray-sized) hitting the vehicle, some distance away from the actual detonation. It could also have been caused by secondary frag, like a chunk of building, propelled towards the vehicle by the explosion (which could give it that whole peppered look that it has – the chunk wouldn’t come alone, rather it would be accompanied by gravel and other bits.)

The level of damage also is consistent with my original theory, that they may have been near to the actual target when the damage happened (rather than being the target of the attack)

The problem with interpreting these photos is that most EOD techs have seen explosives do some really strange things, so the longer they’ve been around, the more explanations they can find for the same event. Add to this the misleading captions and poor photography, it becomes more and more difficult to conclusively rule out possibilities. (that’s the beauty of an open discussion forum, though – your opinions are subject to peer review)

I agree. It seems to me there are a few questions here:

Did a piece of Israeli ordnance hit the Reuters vehicle?

If yes, was the attack deliberate?

If yes, did the Israeli’s know it was a press vehicle?

If yes, then the Israelis deliberately tried to kill those “reporters.” If no to any of those questions, then they didn’t.

It’s also important to note that our debate here is not taking place anywhere in the Muslim world. As far as 99.9% of people in the region are concerned, it’s a given that Israel deliberately attacked the press.

I think the possibility of this being an ambulance-style information operation to be remote.

I agree. That one was cut from whole cloth, and it’s incontrovertible. I suspect this has been spun into something it was not, namely that Israel targeted the press. In fact, I’m certain that’s true (as they wouldn’t have been able to see the markings), but not certain exactly which facts are wrong.

I know that the Israelis have 2.75″ rocket capability. I’m just questioning whether they would use them in urban conflict. I suspect not (with no corroborating evidence).

I think it’s the most likely possibility based on the evidence I’ve seen. I don’t think it’s definitive, but I don’t know of any other weapon in the Israeli arsenal that would cause that kind of damage. I think the possibility of this being an ambulance-style information operation to be remote. I don’t discount it entirely, but there isn’t anything that definitely shows this as fraudulent unlike the ambulance scam.

As for the fireball, there isn’t much of one. I’ve seen a couple of these (not from real close, admittedly), and I don’t remember a fireball at all. One of the EOD guys could give you a definitive answer, but I believe that comp b (the explosive in these rockets) isn’t going to burn any paint that isn’t blasted off – IOW, most of the explosive energy is blast energy, not heat energy.

Niko,

My point was the Israelis thought it was a threat and didn’t know it was armored. Why they didn’t reattack, I can’t say. The pilot may have assumed that since one rocket hit the vehicle directly, then the vehicle was destroyed. Again, it’s sometimes hard to discern this stuff through only IR sensors. I don’t know the Israeli rules of engagement so I won’t guess at what methodology or criteria they use to determine whether a vehicle can be attacked.

Is there a reason for that which I’m missing?

I didn’t make it clear in my email to Allah, but the rocket itself certainly did not penetrate the vehicle before exploding. It detonated at, or just above the roof. The ‘crater’ seen in the pictures with torn metal is consistent with blast damage pushing the metal down and tearing it. In other words, the “crater” was caused by the blast, not the impact of the rocket itself. If the weapon had penetrated the roof and exploded, everyone inside would probably be dead and the hole would be blown outwards, not inwards. Another indicator (that I should have noticed earlier) that the weapon had to have detonated at or just above the roof is the lack of much, if any, frag damage on the hood of the vehicle. This also rules out the Hellfire, which would have detonated about six feet above the vehicle.

So why exactly would an Apache or Cobra of the IAF equipped with such an ordnance target an invalid vessel at night? Let me get this straight: You described the inherent attributes of the ordnance as causing the damage as described, i.e. very little. Which means that regardless of the enemy status of the vessel, there could’ve been no explosion or any other area damage but the one we’ve seen in the photographs, right? Again, why would the IAF do such a thing? Why shoot with low-damage ordnance when it could’ve been terrorists, i.e. the assumed combatant status of the vessel’s personnel?

You’re making two big assumptions here: One, the IAF made a mistake in the assessment of the vessel’s combat status, and two, they didn’t even kill the personnel. I’m not an expert on military, and I don’t mean to be rude, but I believe you’re wrong on both ends.

Yes, the IDF uses that rocket on their Apaches and Cobras. So do we, actually. And yes, the 2.75″ and 70mm rocket are the same thing, just different nomenclature.

Riehl World View

As the originator of the Red Cross Ambulance story, I would urge the elements of the blogosphere still running with the story to at least slow down, if not back up. They are increasingly looking like the very drive by media against wh…

What are we to make of the photos of a vehicle hit by an Israeli missiles and why does it matter if some of the specifics of the attack are wrong when the Israelis admit to firing on the vehicle?……