M48A5K MEDIUM TANK FOR THE AFP

[cylon]

adroth,

actually im assuming the scorpions have been retired due to:

a) a raw news video (date is around 2003) showing a tank park showing several rows of what appear to  be "mothballed" m113s and several scorpions (dunno exaclt where, camp aquino perhaps?)

b) numbers of the light tank being part of displays in aguinaldo, bonifacio and the pma

[Adroth]

a) a raw news video (date is around 2003) showing a tank park showing several rows of what appear to  be "mothballed" m113s and several scorpions (dunno exaclt where, camp aquino perhaps?)

Roger that.  Thanks.

Any chance parts of these videos could be "declassified" and shared?

[mordoc]

If the SOKOR will offer us the  M48A5K MEDIUM TANK for the Philippine Army I think we should get it and use it if we will worry about the expenses on operating those tank why don’t we put to tank on reserve status so that we can activate that in case of invasion of PLA the M48 is a good additional amour weapon in our country. So we will not lose anything on acquiring its for the Army go get those tank and put it on reserve status just put in on a well protected area and cover those thank with anti weathering coat or cover  to preserve the tank on operational status what do you think opus don’t you think we can do that. 

[cylon]

Roger that.  Thanks.

Any chance parts of these videos could be "declassified" and shared?

i wish i could! but its company property and in betacam 60 format.

[pedro penduko]

 

the m48 pattons would be a welcome addition to our armor assets. 

the sokors has always been a strong but silent ally of the pinoys and we should lobby and rally them to sell the soon to be surplus pattons at friendly prices like the f-5's, sea killers, ammos etc.

question:  if the sokors do sell (donation is very much welcomed) the pattons at a friendly price, what is the ideal number of units do our army/ marines need or should acquire
as to realistically maintain and operate them on their operating budget?

curahee!

 

[Wowowiee]

IMHO, it would be (amateurs opinion) that acquiring the M48 in numbers at friendship prices would be a better alternative than purchasing or getting hand me downs of AAVP7's for the Phil. Marines........if some of you say here that the M48 MBT is really not that applicable to our current situation, then why support the want for a light armored amphibious vehicle thats almost as large as a house?

 

Again, armchair general here......wouldn't it be better to have MBT's than AAVP7's , if we acquire them in large numbers the marines can get some units for their own armored unit.....it's like re-activating those LVT6's, why refurbished them? because we need the additional fire support....what would a ground commander prefer? an LVT6 or an M48 in a fire support role..btw, what's older the LVT6 or the M48?


In our current situation (G.I. joe general here) COIN operations and the dual use-strategy is applicable to the M48.....having it would have dual purpose.....an MBT to face light armored/light infantry forces of an invading force...(marines and paratroops would be the order of the day for any first day invasion) and a heavily armored vehicle for those pesky MILF bunkers and troop concentrations.


btw, with the issue of deployment...the AFP will do what it usually does with it's armored assets...deploy them as composite units to infantry brigades and have a smaller concentration of units based in one of the major islands as a reserved reactionary force.


Maintenance cost would be offset by numbers, I bet we'll just do an LVT6 on those M48's.....choose the best ones for operational status and cannibalize the rest for parts...the Sokors would be glad to get them out of their hands....storage cost is staggering....for us..they'll be put to good use.....just my fifty cents worth.

[mamiyapis]

The reason we would rather have AAVP7's is because they can do something the M48 can only dream of doing: it can carry up to 25 marines in relative safety from small arms fire and swim across waterways or land from amphibious ships to conduct amphibious landings against enemy held beaches. 

Besides, we need more mobility than fire-supprt anyways... if we can, for example, get more troops at a moment's notice to an isolated AO thru the water, the AAVP7's would be worth more their weight than a dozen M48's which can't swim. You could also use these to ourflank retreating enemy troops by surprise amphibious landings on enemy-held territory to cut of their escape. This would be especially useful down south, especially against the island hopping Abu Sayaf.

Fire support roles can be given to 25mm-90mm cannon-armed APCs like the LAV-300 series. We only need to buy more of the same to augment our fire support capabilities. Another thing that would also be a good buy is more 105mm artillery pieces. That way, we can set up more artillery batteries to provide overlapping fields of support fire for our troops.

For the anti-tank role, we can always opt for advanced ATGM systems instead of buying heavy and hard to transport MBT's. The ATGMs are not only easier to maintain and store, but are also as mobile as the infantry carrying them... this makes them smaller and harder to hit targets and gives us a fighting chance against a heavy armor force, especially in jungle and urban settings. If we wanted an AT-capability, then we should seriously consider investing in shoulder launched missiles like the new Javelin, which can pierce ERA. Or if we want to go cheaper, we can go with any number of Russian and European systems which are readily available. Heck, we can probably even rig up something with our Humvess and Scorpion light tanks for them to be able to carry ATGM's of the fire-and-forget type.

[Adroth]

IMHO, it would be (amateurs opinion) that acquiring the M48 in numbers at friendship prices would be a better alternative than purchasing or getting hand me downs of AAVP7's for the Phil. Marines

You really can't compare the AAVP7 with the M48.

The AAVP7 is an amphibious troop mover that will give back to the Marines a capability that it has lost: beach assault under armor. As per MBLT: http://timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=4452.0

The success of the Amphibious excercise in Gen San last week with MBLT2 as the landing force had awakened the Navy in having the amphibious capability of the LVTs revived. We will be starting on this within the month and should be easy - its just a matter of installations of rubber linings and bilge pumps.

They are regaining that with the revival of the LVT6. The AAV7 has better hydrodynamic performance.

what would a ground commander prefer? an LVT6 or an M48 in a fire support role.

Again, its not an apples-to-apples comparison. The LVT6 has a gun-howitzer, so it can be used for both direct and indirect fire. Its gun can be elevated further, and therefore hit targets are greater ranges. Note the following elevation differences:

LVT6H: +59° to -4.1° (source: http://www.amtrac.org/2atmc/Specs/LVTH6.asp)
M48: +19° to -9° (source: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m48patton.html)

The M-48's gun and turret are designed for the direct fire role only.

I agree with you, however, regarding its providing ground commanders with a capability we currently do not have. The question being, can we really move tanks around to where they will be needed in a timely manner? Our people-movers are few, our equipment-movers are even fewer.

So we will not lose anything on acquiring its for the Army go get those tank and put it on reserve status just put in on a well protected area and cover those thank with anti weathering coat or cover  to preserve the tank on operational status

Hmmmmm . . . now there's a thought. Storage will also cost money (e.g., re-inspections, repair, warehouse space, etc.) . . . but this part of the puzzle, at least, is something that deserves study. Its a study whose results can be used for other equipment.

[lewis nixon]

The thing is, there is no urgent and immediete need for main battle tanks  here in our tiny archipelago of a country. 

So instead, the money that would allocated in the purchase, operation and maintance of battle tanks would be better and practically be used in the purchase of much needed arms and quipment such as apc's, ifv's, artillery, anti-aircraft systems, night fighting systems etc.

Yup, having main battle tanks would be a big public relations plus for our nation, but hey, who cares about our country anyway.

[cylon]

imho its a matter of adding or restoring capabilities to support the units doing the most fighting- the infantry. amphibious capability is a big plus in an archipelago.

if the AFP cannot (or would not) afford to stand up an MBT force due to reasons of cost and practical considerations (type of enemy, terrain, etc.) why not turn to the "flying tank" concept instead? i.e. helicopter gunships or dedicated close air support (CAS) aircraft which could support multiple units fighting in a wide area of operations that feture jungle and mountainous terrain which is difficult for MBTs to operate in.

[gemini1]

Adroth  Posted on: October 12, 2006, 01:51:50 am 

If we can't get it out of Manila, then it might as well be just a PSG toy. We won't be able to use it for the war -- in which case, what's the point of having it?

When I mentioned the combined weight of the LVTH6 and its transporter that went to Crow Valley you already said that
"So the tank plus the transporter would be well over 50 tons."

That to me sounds like you concur the M48 can go in and out of the city passing through our existing bridges.
On the other hand, why do we seem to focus having those tanks in the city? If ever there is an invasion, will the enemy be establishing their beachhead at Roxas Blvd? If we ever do get those MBTs arent they suppose to be positioned strategically outside the city? (or all over the country?) The PALARBde with its APCs and Scorpions is not even based in the city (is it in Tarlac?)
Should the city needs an armor protection and the weight capacity of our bridges is still an issue then use our lighter assets like the Scorpions or V300s. But then god forbids if an enemy starts marching down the city that would only mean whatever assets we have has been destroyed.     

I'm actually backtracking even further than that. We have to first determine if an MBT is indeed a fit for the PA.

You seemed to have backtracked too far and missed my point.
Let me repeat what i said.
the issue is acquiring the tank at a friendship price. Can you get a T72 or a type 99 from the Russians or Chinese at a friendship price? I don't think so. I can think of other reasons on acquiring the M48s besides squaring off with our would be enemies. For starters, has our own armor bde ever done any exercise or manuevers using tanks? No! because we only got a sizeable number of scorpions which is not even a tank! Now if we get those SOKOR tanks for let's say the same price as when they offered us the F5s, ans say we get about a 100 or so units. We can then start asking the US for a joint manuevers during those annual Balikatan. Dont you think this is a good idea to have an armor brigade who knows how to use their armor assets?

The LVTH's main armament can be used as both a howitzer and a direct-fire gun. So it can reach out and touch a greater area. Will an MBT's gun be equally useful?

Why not? a cannon is a cannon be it howitzer or tank gun it can provide fire support to a certain degree. Besides the anti tank rounds (HEAT) The M48 also uses anti personnel rounds like HEP, Canister, Beehive.   

Based on American experience in Vietnam, MBTs were of very little use in the jungle -- which is where the enemies of the state reside.

But the question is why is the present Vietnamese armed forces who knew this by experience still maintain MBTs like the T62s?
First you tried to square off the M48 to an invading ghost army now you seem to be talking about the rebs in the south? why use an MBT when smaller armor can do the job? and if I may reiterate, we can use those tanks on joint manuevers with the US so we can learn the tactics of tank warfare.   
On your earlier post you high lighted the word "at this time" So you do agree that maybe in the futire and if we have the resources, we should get MBTs? If that is the case then why not start training the boys early?

You will also need to acquire recovery vehicles to be able to retrieve MBTs that have broken down in the field or are stuck in the mud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de8vL1QMQLg). This is a class of equipment that we do not have, and I suspect that existing recovery vehicles, like the one shown below, won't cut it.

Yes that truck you showed definitely wont cut it. But I'm sure the new ARV we bought from Turkey in 2004 would do just fine
http://www.afpmodernization.mil.ph/projects/cmtd.html#2003
Opus had provided a picture of the ARV when I asked before but cant find it now. (will search more and post it later). Anyway, if that is not enough, I'm sure our armorers can modify a couple of those tanks to become ARVs Maybe even MBLT6 could provide some tips. 

[Adroth]

If we can't get it out of Manila, then it might as well be just a PSG toy. We won't be able to use it for the war -- in which case, what's the point of having it?

When I mentioned the combined weight of the LVTH6 and its transporter that went to Crow Valley you already said that
"So the tank plus the transporter would be well over 50 tons."

That to me sounds like you concur the M48 can go in and out of the city passing through our existing bridges.

No it does not. I'm pointing out that your calculations are off the mark.

On the other hand, why do we seem to focus having those tanks in the city?

Because the only bridges you seem to include in your considerations are city bridges and fly-overs. Lots of provincial bridges are substantially less tolerant.

You seemed to have backtracked too far and missed my point.

No, I actually got your point.

You are approaching this issue from the position that: "The Philippines needs MBTs now." If we follow that assumption, then the Korean M48s are indeed a great opportunity to satisfy that requirement. Obsolete and vulnerable, but yup . .. we'll have them.

The thing is, I question the validity of that assumption. I say figure out the following first:

- Is there really a pressing need to acquire MBTs now?
- Can we afford to operate them?
- Are there any viable, more economical alternatives that will satisfy the mission that the M48 will fulfill?

Realistically, the only function that can ONLY be fulfilled by an MBT is to look impressive in a parade. Nothing can match it in that regard. For other missions, at least in the Philippine setting, there are alternatives.

I can see where your coming from man. I've been longing to see a Philippine independence day parade with real tanks. But do you really think bragging rights are that important in the grand scheme of things? Would it really be worth getting an obsolete MBT just so that we can say "Hey look . . . we've got MBTs too?"

Dont you think this is a good idea to have an armor brigade who knows how to use their armor assets? [/i]

Now your asking the right question. 

Why do you believe this is necessary at this time?

Why do you even believe it is necessary to have MBTs to learn this?

Remember, the Germans developed their blitkrieg tactics using trycycles with wooden simulated tank bodies. Bring the deactivated Scorpions back on line, and you already have units with which you can learn combined-arms  techniques.

We've already settled that the M-48 won't stand a chance against modern MBTs, so lets not even talk about tank-vs-tank engagements, because the tactics employed depend on the capabilities of the weapon system.

The same goes for basic tanker's skills like gun-loading, track repair (although our tankers still get training on this with our current assets), etc. These all depend on the specific platform. Getting the M-48 now would put us on slightly better footing for when we get an effective MBT. But, IMHO, it won't really be by much -- not enough to be worth the maintenance expense.

The LVTH's main armament can be used as both a howitzer and a direct-fire gun. So it can reach out and touch a greater area. Will an MBT's gun be equally useful?

Why not? a cannon is a cannon be it howitzer or tank gun it can provide fire support to a certain degree. Besides the anti tank rounds (HEAT) The M48 also uses anti personnel rounds like HEP, Canister, Beehive.

Keyword: "equially useful". By your own admission it can only provide fire support "to a certain degree".   For an armed force on a shoe-string budget, dual use is the key.

I have no doubt that if we had the M-48 it could be used for the direct fire role. The question then becomes: "Is it worth having a 50 ton tank -- that we can't move around much -- just for that?

If the direct-fire mission were so important, why were the Scorpions allowed to go into storage (as Cylon reported)?

But the question is why is the present Vietnamese armed forces who knew this by experience still maintain MBTs like the T62s?

That's because the Vietnamese moved up to conventional warfare already. Remember after South Vietnam fell, they invaded Cambodia, and they were later invaded by China. Vietnam needed tanks because it had moved away from guerilla warfare.

The Philippines is still at the COIN stage.

On your earlier post you high lighted the word "at this time" So you do agree that maybe in the futire and if we have the resources, we should get MBTs?

In principle, yes. We need to an effective means to meet a potential aggressor's MBTs. The best anti-tank weapon has traditionally been another tank.

If we get one, we ought to get one that can really do the job -- not a 30 year old death trap. No sense in rushing things at the expense of the basics.

If that is the case then why not start training the boys early?

For the reasons I stated earlier. You don't need MBTs to learn tank tactics.

Better to use whatever maintenance money that MBTs will consume on the current battle, and on technologies that will make a difference. (e.g., UAVs).

Yes that truck you showed definitely wont cut it. But I'm sure the new ARV we bought from Turkey in 2004 would do just fine
http://www.afpmodernization.mil.ph/projects/cmtd.html#2003

You do realize that the Turkish ARV is based on the AIFV, which is essentially an APC, right?

Think about it: A 13.6 ton recovery vehicle vs a 50 ton tank that's stuck in the mud. Still sure that it can handle it? 

[Adroth]

Why not? a cannon is a cannon be it howitzer or tank gun it can provide fire support to a certain degree. Besides the anti tank rounds (HEAT) The M48 also uses anti personnel rounds like HEP, Canister, Beehive.

Based on your post on PDFF, I now understand why you said this -- you believe guns and howitzers to be the same thing.

The M-48's main armament is called a "gun" not a "howitzer" for a reason. It is designed for direct-fire, not indirect fire. It is not, therefore, a substitute for a true howitzer.

Note comparison of the elevation capabilities of the M-48 vs the LVTH6 ("H" for howitzer) on that I posted earlier.

LVTH6: +59° to -4.1°
M48: +19° to -9°

The breadth of the elevation options on the howitzer allow the artillery man to hit targets as far as physics will allow (elevation 45 deg), or to hit closer targets but with the rounds coming in at steeper angles to avoid obstructions  like buildings and trees (elevation above 45 deg).

This is why I said that the M48 is not as versatile as the LVTPH, whose main armament can be use for both direct and indirect fire. This is also why I said that the LVTPH can reach-out-and-touch-someone at greater ranges than the M48, for the simple reason that the M48's gun can't be raised high enough.

At one point in the Korean war (or it could have been late in the war in Europe), the US Army constructed ramps so that their Shermans could be bodily placed at an angle where the high velocity 75mm guns could be brought up to 45 degrees. That's a lot of work.

Even then, the tanks didn't have the aiming systems that are standard in artillery pieces, so they weren't as effective.

[moca]

For reasons I mentioned earlier, the Philippines would not likely encounter enemy MBT on Philippines soil at the initial Phase of invasion by foreign power.

The Philippines being a group of islands means that no one can just drive their tanks over during an invasion. An invasion can ONLY come from the sea or air. And it is near impossible to amphibiously or airborne assault with MBTs.

So let's first agree that the possibility of facing enemy MBT on Philippines soil is out.

Theoretically, if you buy a lot of RPG-7 or AT-3 Sagger, you can more than cope with threats of enemy light armour.

So why is an MBT still useful?

In urban or any other terrain, in situations where you are merely facing enemy infantry and light armour, the MBT is useful because of:

its armour protection.

This is what makes the difference between an MBT and a light tank with a big gun or howitzer.

This is the reason the US still keep M1A1 or M1A2 in Iraq in operations against insurgents. This is the same reasons the Israelis used tanks to invade Lebanon.

An MBT's armour protection may still stand a chance to save lives.

It is surprising that today, after countless conflicts where MBTs were used in cities, jungles etc... There's still a lot of folks out there that say "we don't need MBTs" cos they only only think in terms of great tanks battles of the Eastern Front or the Middle East.

Contrary to what everyone holds dear, MBTs are - more often than not - used in situations other than tank on tank warfare. Most of the time it is used for dirty work like infantry support, to spearhead attack against enemy infantry, to break enemy attacks or to break enemy strongpoints.

Often, tank on tank scenarios are the exception rather than the rule.

Don't forget that even in WW2 heavy tanks were used in towns and cities all the time.

After D-Day landings, most of the tank action even with the Tiger tanks took place in villages or areas not deemed suitable for these giants. We've all seen countless pics of heavy German and Allied tanks fighting in towns and villages in support of infantry action.

While light tanks and other light AFVs were designed for the infantry support role, their thin armour were often woefully inadequate. The Israelis found the M113 to be a death trap for entire sections of men as they were so easily destroyed and its occupants all killed by enemy infantry AT weapons.

They decided to turn old and captured MBTs into IFV and APCs. For their armour protection.

If you drive a Scorpion into an enemy-held town, it can be killed by just one RPG round or a 12.7mm HMG. Light tanks, APC, IFV etc would be slaughtered by enemy infantry AT weapons.

Furthermore, fighting in the city, the M48 tank gun can still demolish a enemy held strongpoint in urban area faster and better than any 25mm cannon, infantry RR or ATGM.



The M48 would need some work on its existing armour protection, but it'll be a great thing to have these than nothing.

The M48 is less than ideal, but if it's available....

Of course you don't need MBTs, now, no funds etc. You also don't need an airforce, no funds etc... But there is a saying, "you feed an army for 1,000 days, just to use them for one day."

[rock]

    Some medium tank/mbt is needed to clear the Narciso ramos highway in the future. the vulnerability of the AFP's armor asset including the employment of the PMC V300 FSV90 and Scorpion 76 to spearhead a combined infantry armor assault against dug in will armed rebels armed with locally made RPG's,HMG, and mortars.
   The South Korean M48A5K could fill this role and can help the AFP in developing it's own armor doctrines to suit
 the Philippine military needs.
   The Tanks impact is more psychological in Counter Insurgency operation. It boost morale for the troops and fear on the rebels and it's supporter.
   I remember from way back the impact of a 2Scorpion 76,2 M113  and 4 V-150 on a convoy escort while transporting M14's,Garands,.30 cal. carbine and it's ammunition bound for a CAA unit in Panay Island.
   Most of the UzIssseros,school kids and local populaces keep notices of the convoy thereby it shows some strength and moral boost to the Cafgu's and CVO's.
   psyops indeed but the 105mm rifled gun of the M48 could speak i mean blast a concrete bunker emplacement
 of the rebels if needed especially in the south.
    who knows they might sell $100 dollars for each tank for friends but not likely soon if the NK leader is doing some crazy things.