Thanks,…

NPP out.

I see what kaltes calls the underlying frame. I agree that’s probably what we’re seeing. Looking at the shadow beneath that frame tells us that whatever is under it is not attached to the frame. This is no way to attach armor. If I was an armored car manufacturer, I’d put the armor on the outside…makes replacement so much easier.

I think we’re looking in at the soundproofing and not armor at all. I know I’m way out on a limb here but I don’t think the roof is armored at all.

Anyway, interest is waning….it’s been fun, all.

That’s just wrong. You’re comparing apples and oranges again. You’re comparing a weapon that relies on kinetic energy to one that relies on blast. They are two completely different physical processes and effects.

Actually NPP Im sure you know that blast isnt really the point of the blast/frag warheads, the fragmentation is the mroe dangerous part. All the shrapnel relies on kinetic energy just like EFPs, it just gets sprayed all over the place. This vehicle just has some paint scraped off, the shrapnel from a rocket would do more than that, don’t you agree?

My question is this – what broke through that armor and took out a chunk of the dashboard?

That is a good question, of course it is easily explained if you are willing to believe the palistinians wrecked the interior on purpose to make the “wounds” of the “reporter” seem more credible.

However, some of the comments – like comparing an AK-47 round to an HE warhead, show a fundamental ignorance of basic physics.

Not really. Ignoring the fragmentation and talking only about the blast would show a “fundamental ignorance” the rocket warhead, but I wouldn’t accuse you of that.

It’s been shown in this thread several times that the size of a warhead means little when talking about armor penetration and demonstrated examples have been given, yet this evidence is dismissed out of hand.

No, your mistaken assumption is that you assumed I knew almost nothing, and you assumed I ignorantly thought that a javelin and a rocket were identical. Obviously not. I knew they are very different. I linked that video because it was cool, and because it gives someone an idea of the scale of the explosion a warhead of that size creates. Now you take a warhead over half that size, you detonate it close to a land rover, and all you get is a smallish hole in the thin outer roof, scuffed paint, and some cracked glass? That is hard to swallow.

Kaltes, you’re beating a dead horse on this one

All this credential waving and chest beating is turning dangerously close to a flame war, and I’d like to think that we’re better than that, as a whole.

You are right, hot air is better than that. I agree it seemed headed in that direction, I didn’t take the bait. The comments on this site generally impress me a great deal and I would not want to sully the site with such things.

I’d like to thank you for your expertise as well, reader-experts are the backbone of blogger fact-checking, and it is great that hot air has such resources to draw upon.

You’d expect blast damage to the guy and vehicle interior as the blast gasses would expand inside the vehicle once the roof was breached.

jdpaz, do you think the roof was breached? I never thought it was. The way I see the pictures, the roof is comprised of a thin outer layer, a hollow area beneath that, and an inner layer. This makes sense, because the stock land rover defender has these aluminum outer layers, with the “hollow” portion in between containing the steel frame. I do not see, from the pictures, that the inner layer was breached.

To me it looks like whatever hit the vehicle hit near the corner 1st, bent the outer roof downward tearing it towards the left-rear (I think rustmouse mentioned this in an earlier topic), until it hit the frame. If you look at the picture on this post, there is a little piece of metal you can see under the edge of the tear on the right side. That looks like it would be part of the frame. It makes sense that whatever hit the vehicle would stop there.

I dont know what caused the hole, maybe falling debris, maybe a rollover, I dont know. I think it is far easier to say what did NOT happen than what did happen, because there are just so many possibilities.

The size and composition of the warhead determines how much energy is released in the explosion.

Yes – a bigger warhead means more energy. A bigger warhead does not mean better capability against armored targets. That’s why a 2 pound EFP warhead can cut through modern tank armor, but 38 pounds of C-4 can’t cut through 60 year old tank armor. In shaped charged explosives (like in the javelin), the explosive is not defeating the armor. The explosive creates a superheated beam of plasma that cuts through the armor. The EFP warhead use explosives to form and accelerate a piece of metal, which penetrates the armor. The explosion doesn’t penetrate the armor, the projectile and it’s kinetic energy do. A simple HE round does not focus energy at all, so explosive energy that hits any one point on a the armor is much less – therefore more explosive is required to penetrate the armor – several orders of magnitude more. Furthermore, steel tends to reflect the blast shockwave and it’s very good at absorbing that blast energy. This is one of the principle reasons that 38 pounds of C-4 didn’t do much to Bomb Doctor’s tank – the energy of the explosion was reflected away from the tank.

Even assuming the vehicle was armored up to the CEN B6 standard, that is just enough armor to stop something like AK47 rounds.

Yep.

A rocket with a 10 lbs warhead isn’t going to be stopped by armor that can barely stop rifle rounds, and the roof is the least armored part of the vehicle.

That’s just wrong. You’re comparing apples and oranges again. You’re comparing a weapon that relies on kinetic energy to one that relies on blast. They are two completely different physical processes and effects.

We’ve got the highly irregular situation of using a FFAR in an urban environment. The IDF guy says—and all the pictures show—the Apaches carry fuel tanks and hellfires, they don’t run the Cobras at night. These mitigate against it being a FFAR rocket blast.

I agree with that, which is one reason why I started looking for alternatives. I’ve said a few times now that the primary reason I originally picked the 2.75 is becuase the damage to the van is consistent with that piece of hardware. My research has shown that UAV’s and possibly helicopters are using a new type of missile that has a small non-armor penentrating warhead designed to kill small groups or individuals with little collateral damage. To do that would probably require a small warhead (like the 2.75) with a limited number of small frags that would be lethal up close with greatly diminished lethality further out. We know the Israeli’s have such a missile becuase it’s been used many times, it’s been seen coming off the rails of UAV’s, and senior Israeli officials have talked about new weaponry to reduce collateral damage in urban areas.

I can also respect the former IDF guy and his statements about identification of targets. I’m sure the Israelis go to great lengths (as do we) to mitigate targeting non-combatants. Despite our best efforts, however, it still happens, whether through confusion, mistakes, or actions of the enemy.

The roof armor is very questionable. We’ve got sheet metal bent over double on itself—the picture quality is sufficient to see this. 1/3 inch thick hardened steel can’t do this without metal failing and the paint cracking and chipping off. After-market armor is more likely bolted on the outside. This isn’t the case with this vehicle. Thus we’re left with stock .090 thick aluminum (possibly steel).

Regardless of whether it looks like the damage a rocket could make, it also looks like the damage a chunk of building material would make falling from, say, a couple stories up.

If the roof armor is standard vehicle skin, then falling debris could cause that outside damage to the skin. However, it’s obvious from the pictures that the cinderblock, or whatever, did not go all the way through the skin of the vehicle, only partway. If the skin itself is not armored, then the armor must exist below the skin. That armor would probably be steel plate, kevlar blankets, or some kind of ceramic composite (this is based on the materials armored car manufacturers use). My question is this – what broke through that armor and took out a chunk of the dashboard?

I still think the armor on the vans roof is probably 1/4″ steel. The manufacturer on CY’s website said so, and looking at similar vehicles with the same level of protection indicates this is usually the case. The exceptions are vehicles that look stock from the outside – certainly not the case with the reuters van.

I’m not sure what you mean about failing metal. The metal did fail, as can be seen in the photographs. Just because metal is certified to a certain strength and hardness or it is thick does not mean it can’t bend. In this case, the metal deflected, failed, and tore open.

All this credential waving and chest beating is turning dangerously close to a flame war, and I’d like to think that we’re better than that, as a whole.

I understand the danger of credential waving, especially in an anonymous comment thread. I’ve tried to stay away from credential waving as much as possible. However, some of the comments – like comparing an AK-47 round to an HE warhead, show a fundamental ignorance of basic physics. How much effort should the so-called “experts” be required to go through if people don’t seem willing to do some basic research on their own? It’s been shown in this thread several times that the size of a warhead means little when talking about armor penetration and demonstrated examples have been given, yet this evidence is dismissed out of hand. If you think the evidence is wrong, then do the research yourself and disprove it.

I’m certainly amendable to other theories. The two most prominent ones are the falling cinderblock and shrapnel. I’ve stated what I believe are obvious problems with those theories but have yet to hear replies to those answers.

Finally, I think this is it for me in this thread too. Unless the Israeli’s come out with something definitive, and I seriously doubt they will, we won’t know the whole truth. I’ve stated my theories, and have amended them with good input from others. Although I still believe the damage to the vehicle is consistent with a 2.75 rocket, I’m more inclined to believe it was caused by the new missile on the UAV’s because of the valid points about operating in an urban environment.

All this credential waving and chest beating is turning dangerously close to a flame war, and I’d like to think that we’re better than that, as a whole.

Yes, please.

It’s that ‘expert syndrome’, you see it very commonly in EOD (particluarly among the old-timers). They’ve made their pronouncement, and there’s nothing you can do to sway their opinion.

I don’t believe it’s a direct hit from any sort of missle/rocket warhead. I’ve seen what a few pounds of HE from a mortar round dropped off an overpass does to a fully armored Hummer. This doesn’t come close.

Though it remains a possibility, because it can’t conclusively be ruled out (and that opening is what allows the discussion to continue), between the armored vehicle manufacturers responses, the Singapore Times article and my personal experiences in Iraq, I’m still convinced it wasn’t a direct hit of any kind.

All this credential waving and chest beating is turning dangerously close to a flame war, and I’d like to think that we’re better than that, as a whole.

We’ve got the highly irregular situation of using a FFAR in an urban environment. The IDF guy says—and all the pictures show—the Apaches carry fuel tanks and hellfires, they don’t run the Cobras at night. These mitigate against it being a FFAR rocket blast.

The roof armor is very questionable. We’ve got sheet metal bent over double on itself—the picture quality is sufficient to see this. 1/3 inch thick hardened steel can’t do this without metal failing and the paint cracking and chipping off. After-market armor is more likely bolted on the outside. This isn’t the case with this vehicle. Thus we’re left with stock .090 thick aluminum (possibly steel).

Regardless of whether it looks like the damage a rocket could make, it also looks like the damage a chunk of building material would make falling from, say, a couple stories up.

You’d expect blast damage to the guy and vehicle interior as the blast gasses would expand inside the vehicle once the roof was breached. All we see is some audio tapes thrown around and some bits of junk here and there. The head injury is consistent with the guy pitching forward into the jagged sheet metal.

Anyway, I think I’ve beaten this one to death. Time for me to move on.

There is more to warhead performance than the size of the warhead.

The size and composition of the warhead determines how much energy is released in the explosion.

The javelin and other missiles used against tanks have some kind of shaped-charge or EFP warhead that is specifically designed to defeat armor.

Yes, the energy from the javelin is focused better in order to penetrate armor, but the comparison I was making is apt as far as the energy released is concerned.

The Van was not hit with this type of warhead, but a standard HE warhead. HE warheads are much less effective against armor because they don’t have any inherent penetrating ability.

Even assuming the vehicle was armored up to the CEN B6 standard, that is just enough armor to stop something like AK47 rounds. A rocket with a 10 lbs warhead isn’t going to be stopped by armor that can barely stop rifle rounds, and the roof is the least armored part of the vehicle.

There was quite a bit of sarcasm on my part in that post. I was trying to make the point to kaltes that he/she doesn’t know nearly as much about explosives as he/she thinks.

Good night, I was up at 3:30 am.

I’m off too. Your replies to him weren’t up when I replied – comment lag is a bit annoying!

There is more to warhead performance than the size of the warhead.

There was quite a bit of sarcasm on my part in that post. I was trying to make the point to kaltes that he/she doesn’t know nearly as much about explosives as he/she thinks.

Good night, I was up at 3:30 am.

Now that is what 18.5 lbs warhead does to a TANK, we are discussing what a 10 lbs warhead does to a land rover

There is more to warhead performance than the size of the warhead. The javelin and other missiles used against tanks have some kind of shaped-charge or EFP warhead that is specifically designed to defeat armor. The Van was not hit with this type of warhead, but a standard HE warhead. HE warheads are much less effective against armor because they don’t have any inherent penetrating ability.

After looking at your link to the SPIKE missile, I have to say, no way! It really is very similar to Javelin.

Thanks for looking. The UAVs are firing some kind of guided missile that’s pretty small and is taking out individuals and small groups of terrorists with little collateral damage. Perhaps it’s a completely new design, though I think that’s unlikely. Whatever it is, this would be my alternative to the 2.75 rocket in this case.

Kaltes,

I looked at the vehicle pictured in your link and the “news” vehicle side-by-side and they look quite different. The news vehicle looks flimsy compared to what you have in that link. The vehicle in the link looks more like the classic armored cars you see companies like Brinks using.

I don’t know what to say to that. They are virtually identical. I don’t know how a vehicle that’s obviously armored with plate steel can look “flimsy.” Take a look at each vehicle: the grill – the same. The windshield – the same, in cluding three large bolts on each side of the windshield and the box extension underneath where the windshield wipers would be. The armored rear hatch – the same, except the hinges are on different sides. The doors – exactly the same except for the door handles. What more do you want?

I wouldn’t want to let a simple explanation get in the way but… grey would also be the color of the metal underneath the stripped paint.

I’m talking about the gray that is on top of the paint, not the paint that was stripped away.

I’m willing to look at alternatives, but so far the alternative theories seem lacking to me. Shrapnel from the sky? A cinder block that punches through 1/4″ steel, continues on and partially wrecks the interior?

You really have issues with people that have done something you haven’t don’t you?

Don’t worry, Im not going to respond in kind, I have too much respect for this site.

The armor wouldn’t stop any German tank round.

Actually it would and did, just not later in the war. It wasnt designed to fight other tanks.

I never said that or linked to any armored car.

I was quoting different people in the same post. That was NPP. If you know you didn’t say something, don’t assume I am trying to falsely attribute something to you. There is that common sense issue again.

Umm, steel isn’t gray.

That color is far more easily explained as dirt-covered metal under the stripped paint than as explosive residue. Besides you are assuming the mtal is steel, Defenders are made with an aluminum body on a steel frame, so that outer metal skin is almost certainly aluminum. If there is an armor upgrade, the armor would be added to the interior of the vehicle.

Now that is what 18.5 lbs warhead does to a TANK, we are discussing what a 10 lbs warhead does to a land rover…

Earlier you said that I was comparing a Land Rover to a tank. Even though I have been saying all along that the Land Rover took a 2 pound HE hit and the picture I linked to took a 37.5 pound hit. Now you are saying that 18.5 lb hit on a semi-modern MBT is better than 37.5 pound hit on a MBT from 60 years ago?

Look at this video, you have probably already seen it:

I have the original video from the test, not the internet video. I know many people involved in that test.

Now that is what 18.5 lbs warhead does to a TANK, we are discussing what a 10 lbs warhead does to a land rover…

You are mixing apples and oranges. The warhead(s) in the Javelin the total weight of both warheads. The M-151 2.75″ warhead is a total weight of 10 pounds, the explosive weight is about 2 pounds. Really, I’m done with you. Believe what you want. You have used your “expert” opinion since this story first came up regardless what people with real experience in this field know.

After looking at your link to the SPIKE missile, I have to say, no way! It really is very similar to Javelin.

Look at this video, you have probably already seen it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-689902620988043628&q=Javelin

Now that is what 18.5 lbs warhead does to a TANK, we are discussing what a 10 lbs warhead does to a land rover…

I work with expert witnesses, so I challenge experts all the time

Fine, show me how I’m wrong. You keep making an unexperienced opinions, show me how my opinion is wrong. BTW, every single time I testified in court as an SME, we got convictions.

No, it’s absolute refusal to listen to people who that for a living.

Bomb Doctor, I value and appreciate all the expert input on this subject, including yours. That doesn’t mean I am going to agree with all of it, and of course even the various experts are coming up with very different opinions.

I work with expert witnesses, so I challenge experts all the time, including my own. It is important to challenge expert opinions so that you can get at the basis of those opinions and critically evaluate them. You are going to get experts on both sides of almost every issue.

Shrapnel from a rocket would bounce off a tank, sure, but not a land rover, for the same reason that a .50 cal burst would bounce harmlessly off the tank while shredding the land rover.

You really have issues with people that have done something you haven’t don’t you? Have you ever seen what .50 cal does to steel? The tank in my photo link was a WWII Sherman tank. The armor wouldn’t stop any German tank round. US troops called the Sherman “zippo” because it would go up in flames after almost any hit. .50 cal left 1″ wide by 1″ deep holes in the armor.

I looked at the vehicle pictured in your link and the “news” vehicle side-by-side and they look quite different. The news vehicle looks flimsy compared to what you have in that link. The vehicle in the link looks more like the classic armored cars you see companies like Brinks using.

I never said that or linked to any armored car.

I wouldn’t want to let a simple explanation get in the way but… gray would also be the color of the metal underneath the stripped paint.

Umm, steel isn’t gray.

If the vehicle is armored, it could be that the armor was bolted on the inside, underneath the hollow gap you see past this thin outer layer. The armor experts weren’t looking at all the pictures, just the one photo yankee sent them.

No, the armor on the vehicle is appliqué’ armor, it’s on the outside. Really, why are you so afraid to admit that you may be wrong?

Or how do you explain this photo? Why isn’t there scorch marks? Why no frag hits? There was 37.5 pounds of C-4 against the side of this tank.

See, it figures that you would compare a land rover to a tank. All that expertise but where is the common sense? Shrapnel from a rocket would bounce off a tank, sure, but not a land rover, for the same reason that a .50 cal burst would bounce harmlessly off the tank while shredding the land rover.

Based on the this link the van was either a level or 5 or 6 armored vehicle, not level 4.

I looked at the vehicle pictured in your link and the “news” vehicle side-by-side and they look quite different. The news vehicle looks flimsy compared to what you have in that link. The vehicle in the link looks more like the classic armored cars you see companies like Brinks using.

Also, Bomb Doctor said that the gray residue on the white paint in the picture at the top of the page is consistent with explosive residue.

I wouldn’t want to let a simple explanation get in the way but… grey would also be the color of the metal underneath the stripped paint.

I’m not buying the level 4 or 5 armor thing. The metal just doesn’t look like it’s a 1/3 of an inch thick. Look at the wrinkle in the skin just above the “P” above the windshield. The metal is bent right over tight on itself. Hardened steel of that thickness couldn’t do that without rupturing.

Even better, look at the angled pictures where you can see the hole more from the side than the top, the skin looks very thin, like you would expect from a typical, unarmored land rover. If the vehicle is armored, it could be that the armor was bolted on the inside, underneath the hollow gap you see past this thin outer layer. The armor experts weren’t looking at all the pictures, just the one photo yankee sent them.