August 28, 2006

Israel Deploys Top Secret "Fast Rust" Missiles

Reuters claims this armored car was hit by two missiles from an Israeli helicopter.


As you can see, Isreal's new missiles are quite different than the standard Hellfire and TOW ATGMs of the past, both of which, designed for tanks, would have minced an armored car such as this one. Ths armored car is said to have been hit not once, but twice by missiles, and the only apparent damage is a hole that seems to be surrounded by rust. Corrosion, or explosion?

I think it is fairly obvious that if the Israelis did fire two missiles at this armor car, that the car did not take a direct hit. Tanks can't survive the ATGMs Israel uses on their helicopters, and armored cars have much thinner armor than tanks. It would have cut through one side, detonated, and left a shattered, burning hulk. There was no explosion, and even a dud would have completely punched through the vehicle, exiting the other side with a noticable hole. The photo below shows no such penetration on the opposite side.


Powerline has more. I'd consider the possibility of a near miss causing some damage, but this vehicle was not directly hit by any known missile, and I don't know of any weapons system that would cause a vehicle to apparently rust by the next morning.

To put it mildly, I view the Reuters claims of an successful pair of Israeli missile strikes on this vehicle as highly unlikely.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at August 28, 2006 06:29 AM | TrackBack

Oh for God's sake, the windows aren't even shattered.

They aren't even trying any more.

Posted by: monkeyboy at August 28, 2006 08:29 AM

"highly unlikely" is a good way to state it. Understatement is fun.

Posted by: brando at August 28, 2006 08:36 AM

Pretty cheesy "armored" truck. The damage looks like something done with a can opener. Maybe a near-miss from a case of UN-provided relief supplies.

Posted by: old_dawg at August 28, 2006 10:28 AM

Is it possible that the vehicle was entirely rusted out, only to be painted over by Reuters hastily (w/o removing the rust), so that when it got hit, the blast simply ripped off the paint, exposing the pre-existing rust?

Posted by: Bret at August 28, 2006 11:17 AM

If this is the damage that two anti-armor guided missiles do, then I'd say Israeli weaponry is not even as useful as the Hezbolla rockets.

Love the quick-rust chemical they add though. Those Jooz, what evil will they think of next?

Posted by: Mark at August 28, 2006 11:45 AM

What's amazing is they're puling this crap even after all the negative exposure they've received recently. And it's such lame crap. What are they thinking? And do you think they ever actually manage to do a good job faking the news? Imagine what they could accomplish with a little effort.

Posted by: Mark at August 28, 2006 12:00 PM

Two missle hits and this is the level of destruction? No one killed? After two explosive missle hits, the white paint is still white...

Who makes these vehicles and when can we rearm our troops in Iraq with them?

We would be invincible.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at August 28, 2006 01:02 PM

Another reutered incident!

(I linked to your post but I don't know how to do trackbacks)

Posted by: Helmer Fudge at August 28, 2006 04:16 PM

I wish Adnan Hajj was still around to help clear this matter up.

Posted by: jay at August 28, 2006 07:00 PM

Rust is commonly seen where explosives or high-velocity debris has made contact with steel. The phenomeon is known as heat oxidation. Look at any welding job, vehicle burned in a wildfire, or detonation of military ordnance, and oxidation is readily evident.

The nature of the hole in the roof of the Reuters vehicles is inconsistent with penetration by shrapnel. There would be more than one hole, a larger one surrounded by many smaller ones. This single hole, its shape and the initial gray color of the damage area are more consistent with a vehicle struck by a large piece of masonry striking the top of the vehicle at high velocity, possibly dislodged by a rocket blast. It is clear that the vehicle, itself, was not struck by missiles or rockets (there is an important distinction between the two).

I implore all bloggers who keep making an issue of rust in this case and that of the Qana ambulances to refrain from speculation. The media is thoroughly clueless about anything military, particularly weaponry. They will mix the terms rocket and missile without any inkling of the important distinctions, and they will claim that something "hit" a vehicle or other target when it actually just got close or was nearby. It is not necessarily dishobesty, but often inexcusable ignorance. Their credibility is gone. Please don't let the bloggers wind up in the same situation by wild speculation.

I do not like to use the term "expert" because it is overused and presumptuous but, for purpose of establishing credentials, I can be considered a subject matter expert on ordnance. delivery systems, military vehicles and weapons effects.

Credentials: 6 years USAF Armament Systems Technician
6 years USAF imagery interpretation with heavy BDA of targets
1 year Army Battlefield Intel Analyst
13 years Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) analysis

Ronald Lewis

Posted by: RONALD LEWIS at August 31, 2006 12:28 PM