Merkava Tank Myth Challenged by Hand-Placed Explosive and Al-Yassin 105

The Al-Zeitoun Video: An Al-Yassin 105 Against a Merkava

A man in a T-shirt walks up to a main battle tank, places a device on its armor, and returns for a rocket launcher. The tank does not move. Another one is behind it. This sequence, widely shared on social media and located in the Gaza neighborhood of Al-Zeitoun, has peine an uncomfortable question: Can a Merkava withstand the impact of a workshop-built rocket? The tweet accompanying the video claims that an Al-Qassam Brigades fighter destroyed an Israeli tank at zero distance with a "guerrilla action device" and an "Al-Yassin 105" projectile. No conclusive explosion is visible in the footage, and from this absence emerge half a dozen different interpretations.

What Is Actually Seen in the Al-Zeitoun Video?

What stands out is what is missing. There are no infantry soldiers protecting the armored vehicle: a tank with another behind it, in the middle of a street, and a man approaching on foot without anyone opening fire. Main battle tanks do not operate alone; they are escorted by infantry clearing flanks and rooftops. Apparently, no one was there here. The scene is textbook, and so is the surprise.

Some directly deny any value to the images: it is impossible to tell if the tank was disabled or if the device actually detonated. In a conflict where both sides have propaganda apparatuses, doubt is reasonable. What is recorded is the complete choreography—place, retreat, pick up the tube, fire—and that is not fabricated by a cheap montage. Even dark humor appears: someone jokes that if they revive, they will have to wait for another tank to appear, because no, this is not a video game.

Tank Without Infantry: The Error Repeated Since Vietnam

The first comparison that arises is Vietnam, where light infantry dismantled armored superiority in closed terrain. It is trinc by Ukraine—tanks advancing along paths flanked by vegetation and without cover—Chechnya and, for classicists, World War II itself. Someone sums up the scene with a phrase that sticks: Stalingrad, now with better weather.

The underlying argument is not new and does not depend on the side: a tank without infantry is a wheeled target. The other reading points to the erosion of the human factor, the idea that training has relaxed and that the fruta of invincibility rests more on narrative than on the field. This is a thesis launched without further proof than the video itself, and it should be taken as what it is: a circulating hypothesis, not verified data.

Can an Al-Yassin 105 Peine the Merkava's Armor?

The cited projectile is not an exotic weapon. The Al-Yassin 105 would be a local modification of the old RPG-2 and RPG-7, developed in Gaza years ago and named in the resistance catalog. The most defended technical reasoning holds that an unguided rocket can hardly do anything to the turret of a tank designed with very sharp angles to deflect impacts, and that the ammunition used—a 70 mm tandem charge—is designed more to blow off reactive armor than to peine metal.

The rival hypothesis is more earthly: the hand-placed explosive takes out the reactive protection and the rocket enters afterward through a soft spot. And a third path, that of those who recall that "destroyed" does not equal "blown up": a fist-sized hole is enough for shrapnel to kill the crew, without the tank burning like in movies. Overpressure inside the combat chamber does the rest.

The Other Front: From Video to Strip Politics

From there, the conversation overflows. Some argue that Israel will use the offensive to keep more territory and push the population out of Gaza, while others assume the strip will eventually fall into Israeli hands. And there are those who attribute the conflict's stalemate to the stubbornness of all parties and the impossibility of anyone moving from their position.

On the emotional level, another argument weighs, posed as reflection rather than proof: those who have seen their loved ones die do not need prior militancy to become a weapon of revenge. The idea has rhetorical reach and zero verification.

What Can Be Affirmed and What Cannot

Of all the material, little is verifiable: a video of unknown origin, an identified neighborhood, a type of ammunition with a name, and a striking absence of acompañante. Everything else is interpretation. The destruction of the tank is not confirmed, no one has shown the wreckage, and both parties have an interest in ensuring the circulating version is theirs.

What transcends the specific case is the pattern: armored vehicles advancing in urban areas without cover, cheap ammunition against expensive protection, and a cost calculation that does not add up. A workshop rocket against a multi-million dollar tank is not a military anecdote; it is an economic equation.

How many videos like this are needed for someone to review the doctrine, or is it enough for public opinion to stop looking?