31

In a video for Al Jazeera (at 6:16), Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda explained that the IDF was able to cause massive destruction by stuffing armored personnel carriers (APCs) with bombs and using them to blow up large areas of land. She said that 10–15 were used for this purpose daily for a period of two months.

To a layman like me, this seems incredibly wasteful for an army. Even if we consider the lower end of her estimate, 10 per day for 1.5 months, that amounts to 450 blown up APCs. On the other hand, this is a reputable journalist and probably wouldn’t say something without any sources.

So, is the claim true?

Improve this question
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
41

In the video by Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda, the destroyed vehicle appears to be an M113 armoured personnel carrier, based on its resemblance to a 2015 photograph of an Israeli M113 showing a similar plate number placement [1] and curved front lip [2].

M133 APC

The M113, which entered service in the 1960s, has struggled to counter modern anti-tank weapons. During the 2014 Battle of Shuja'iyya in Gaza, an RPG-29 anti-tank rocket struck one of these vehicles, resulting in seven soldier fatalities. Two months later, the Israel Defence Force subsequently sought to phase out the M113, yet as of 2024, approximately 5,000 units remained in storage.

This would be why the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are happy to use them as robotic explosive devices, as they are considered unsafe for combat and have plenty in storage. In October 2024, the Israel Aerospace Industries demonstrated an unmanned M113. Then, in September 2025, unnamed IDF officers confirmed the practice to the media:

  • APCs packed with explosives become key IDF weapon in Gaza war (The Jerusalem Post, 2 September 2025)

In recent days, the IDF has significantly increased its use of explosive-laden armored personnel carriers (APCs), that are composed of older M113 models rigged with explosives, which can also be operated remotely, as part of preparations for a ground maneuver in the heart of Gaza City.

  • IDF deploys robotic APCs ahead of Gaza City offensive (Jewish News Syndicate, 22 September 2025)

The Israeli army has deployed these robotic APCs at “industrial scale” in recent days, especially at night, according to Israel’s Army Radio correspondent Doron Kadosh. The IDF estimates that this tactic has neutralized thousands of explosive charges throughout the enclave, saving the lives of many troops.

It is unclear if the M113 in Bisan Owda's video was specifically used as a robotic explosive device, but the majority of the damage appears to come from within the personnel compartment. In other M113s, this section was previously reported to have held barrel bombs.

Unnamed IDF sources only go as far as confirming the existence of the practice, so I could not verify its duration or the total number of M113s lost while employing it. However, unconfirmed reports on social media go back to July 2024.

Improve this answer
25
  • 13
    [This is not an attack on the answer, but a bewildered question from ignorance about explosive weapons.] If you put explosives inside an armoured shell, won't it contain much of the blast (and send a lot of the explosive force straight upwards)? If it all blew the whole chassis apart, that would be one thing, but the structure in the photo looks intact. Are they putting the explosives on top? Commented Oct 19 at 6:38
  • 16
    @Oddthinking I don't know anything about explosives either but note that a typical hand grenade consists of explosives inside a solid metal shell. I think the idea is to produce lots of deadly metal bits flying around. Commented Oct 19 at 7:30
  • 3
    @Oddthinking In the video, it looks like the IDF placed the explosives in the troop compartment. One thing I could clarify in the answer is that I was unable to confirm whether the M133 in the video was used as a remote explosive device or destroyed in combat. Commented Oct 19 at 8:11
  • 5
    @Oddthinking I understand that confining an explosion has a stronger effect, for example a heap of gunpowder doesn't have the same explosive force as when contained by say a shell and a cartridge case. The expanding gases just dissipate. Commented Oct 19 at 9:35
  • 11
    @Oddthinking I'd bet a good sum that image is not an M113 that had that much explosives set off inside it. That much explosive is going to do something like this: youtube.com/watch?v=VHhB2XoCeP4&t=145s Commented Oct 19 at 12:45
-6

The claim is true. Netanyahu explains it here. Tldr: Hamas booby traps all the buildings before leaving an area, so the IDF evacuates everyone from the area and then sets off the booby traps using APCs loaded with explosives.

Improve this answer
12
  • 18
    I don't want to get into an edit war. This answer provides no context (who are you linking to? why would we trust it? How long do we have to listen to a video with no timestamps before we hear it? Exactly what did he say? How do we know it isn't fake?) I added some of that context, while preserving the intent of the answer. Why did you roll it back? Commented Oct 20 at 3:11
  • 1
    If the goal is setting off booby traps, why would they want to load the APC with explosives? Commented Oct 20 at 7:49
  • 7
    @FedericoPoloni en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_detonation - bearing in mind they want to set off all of them and not just those can reach directly with a vehicle, in the context that they're not trying to capture the building intact Commented Oct 20 at 8:14
  • 12
    Downvoted because the edit adding more context was rejected. Commented Oct 20 at 11:14
  • 5
    @Oddthinking: Those are substantially not the same meaning as the original. To be clear, an edit giving the name of the source instead of just a link (which you did), and adding a transcript of the relevant parts of the video (which the answer author should do), definitely add value. But changing the meaning from "Hamas booby-trapped buildings, putting their occupants at risk, and the IDF took at least some steps to reduce the risk to civilians" to "the booby-traps were in already-unoccupied areas; no one was at risk" is a monster of a change. Your rewording was not equivalent. Commented Oct 21 at 15:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.