South Korea plans to build up to 500 new tanks in 2 - 3 years. The K2 prototype tank has been completed and will replace their older American T48 tanks, the Korean version was the modified M48A5K fitted with an improved 105mm gun, additional armor and significant fire control upgrades, making it on par if not more capable than the early M60s

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/art...s/20061009.aspx

It's time to ask our Korean ally to sell some of their M48s at friendship price!! This Tank is about 48 tons, maybe our bridges cannot support such weight but if we can get this at a bargain price then by golly we should get em! I'm sure our military engineers can figure out a way to deliver this tanks where ever they may be needed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../ground/m48.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1RBDXR__dQ...related&search=

With all due respect I am always against our country acquiring hand-me-downs no matter from what other nation only because (FUNDS should not be something we should beat to death, we already know that), it is old iron and technology.

You already mentioned that more probably our present highways cannot support its weight, so now that one definite aspect is a deployment issue.

The next would be is logistical and supply support...how many spare parts are available for this and most of all (despite training) can it be supported (i.e. build it, supply it,. you name it)? Shall we air / seaborne lift this beast and can it fit the ships / aircraft we have available?

If one just needs such, there are other alternatives squad operations wise including APC's that are so far being adapted to our present terrain (until we further noticeably afford something better).

It is still a good idea though...so let us leave it up for further discussion in this forum. I would rather be wrong and see it happen because it will obviously help protect our ways of life. :ssalute:

:snipemo: I dont need an MBT . and I also agree that its old and maybe hard to maitain .what our army needs are are more rmoured fighting vehicles for apc and fire support purposes. we started to develop our own ( mx kalakian and hari digma ) too bad we did not continue it and improve it.

Well sir, it is "old iron" if you're thinking about when the original M48 was built. But the ones that S. Korea plans to replace is one of the latest variant - M48A5K which were made in the mid 70s. Also, if you look at the US army tanks, prior to the M1 Abrams which is in service right now, there was the M60 and prior to that was the M48. So thats not really old, is it? Now as was mentioned, the SOKOR variant is at par if not more capable than the early M60s. Comparing the M48A5K with all its upgrades to whatever armor the AFP has in service, you can say this is "high tech".
On the logistics/suppy issue? the M48 is still in service with 15 other countries so spare parts may still be available even in 10-15 years, as for transporting it? that was why I added the YOU TUBE link showing the SOKOR military transpoting their tank. We may not have the air assets to carry it at a moments notice but we have 2 besson class transport plus 6 or so LSTs for shipping the tanks around the country. And to places where the bridge is not strong enough to carry the tanks weight then we follow the sample shown in YOU TUBE. The M48 is a medium size tank its not really that heavy, if you compare the reconditioned LVTH6s which is over 38 tons the difference is only over 10 tons. And come to think of it, I remember reading on the other forum where the LVTH6 was transported by a big rig to Crow Valley for testing, for sure the transport truck had passed through more than just two bridges to get there. So that means maybe our bridges can support the tanks weight after all!?
We're not gonna ask the SOKORs for hand me downs, a friendship price is still a price we need to pay for, technically were buying not asking. And if we are not gonna be asking our allies for friendship prices of their excess military hardware, what would happen to us? we wont have those Jacintos and PKMs and even those F5s we once have. I prefer to think of us as budget conscious shopper.

QUOTE=gemini1,Oct 12 2006, 07:38 AM]Well sir, it is "old iron" if you're thinking about when the original M48 was built. But the ones that S. Korea plans to replace is one of the latest variant - M48A5K which were made in the mid 70s. Also, if you look at the US army tanks, prior to the M1 Abrams which is in service right now,  there was the M60 and prior to that was the M48. So thats not really old, is it? Now as was mentioned, the SOKOR variant is at par if not more capable than the early M60s. Comparing the M48A5K with all its upgrades to whatever armor the AFP has in service, you can say this is "high tech".  
On the logistics/suppy issue? the M48 is still in service with 15 other countries so spare parts may still be available even in 10-15 years, as for transporting it? that was why I added the YOU TUBE link showing the SOKOR military transpoting their tank. We may not have the air assets to carry it at a moments notice but we have 2 besson class transport plus 6 or so LSTs for shipping the tanks around the  country. And to places where the bridge is not strong enough to carry the tanks weight then we follow the sample shown in YOU TUBE. The M48 is a medium size tank its not really that heavy, if you compare the reconditioned LVTH6s which is over 38 tons the difference is only over 10 tons. And come to think of it, I remember reading on the other forum where the LVTH6 was transported by a big rig to Crow Valley for testing, for sure the transport truck had passed through more than just two bridges to get there. So that means maybe our bridges can support the tanks weight after all!?
We're not gonna ask the SOKORs for hand me downs, a friendship price is still a price we need to pay for, technically were buying not asking. And if we are not gonna be asking our allies for friendship prices of their excess military hardware, what would happen to us? we wont have those Jacintos and PKMs and even those F5s we once have. I prefer to think of us as budget conscious shopper.[/QUOTE]

I really admire that Gemini, but that is still at least 25 to maybe 30 plus years old (can you imagine driving or even operating a tractor or vehicle that old? Come on think about it?). Imagine You and I in a maintenance team with a highly motivated and dedicated group making sure every piece of old hardware being band aided to face modern artillery / guerilla warfare. We will definitely be able to put up a fight, but will obviously (no matter whose tactics) will lose. So let us not go there nor tempt fate for a change. Here's something for us to ponder, exactly why are the SOKORs phasing them out?

We are not even talking about an aircraft carrier here ( that can be also deceiving on the outside at that stage/age) that has been around longer because what matters in such cases are the abilities it can PRESENTLY support compared to its opponents.

It is nice you think about the prices it may cost if we take this route, but how about the prices maintaining and supporting it? Better yet how about we being presently there supporting and making sure it does its job instead of recommending it and be there face to face with it? No insult intended Bro, but just a sample of what I am trying to emphasize Man!? :exactly:

[QUOTE]maniegom Posted on Oct 12 2006, 05:28 PM

I really admire that Gemini, but that is still at least 25 to maybe 30 plus years old (can you imagine driving or even operating a tractor or vehicle that old? Come on think about it?). Imagine You and I in a maintenance team with a highly motivated and dedicated group making sure every piece of old hardware being band aided to face modern artillery / guerilla warfare. We will definitely be able to put up a fight, but will obviously (no matter whose tactics) will lose. So let us not go there nor tempt fate for a change. Here's something for us to ponder, exactly why are the SOKORs phasing them out?

True, those tanks are old, but so is our own existing assets. and yet we still manage to operate a number of them. The SOKORS compared to us has the budget/funds to maintain their assets, to quote a statement from this link; http://www.photius.com/countries/korea_sou...urity_army.html
"In 1980 the army had approximately 1,200 United States-produced M-47 and M-48 tanks"
" By 1990 South Korea had manufactured 200 of the domestically produced T-88 tank and had upgraded most of its M-48s to M-48A3s or M-48A5s"

Of the 1200 mixed M47s and M48s, 950 are the upgraded M48A5Ks. Thats 950 M48s all in perfect condition. Sure they're old but if its properly maintained (and in this case, even upgraded) those tanks should still last 10-15 years.

Now, as for the friendship price. Assuming they sell it to us at a price like they did with the F5s, a $100/unit. Lets buy 100 units, if budget will keep us from mainting all of them then keep 50 in reserve for spares. Our Marines even on a very tight budget was able to bring back 4 or 6 LVT6 back to life.

The upgraded M48 has a 105mm gun and fire control system. That's still a big bang in the eyes of an advancing infantry. But lets not go in an invasion/war scenario. Forget about matching this old iron against a more modern MBTs. Since we at the moment cannot afford modern MBTs, lets focus more on training. Our LABde has got nothing but APCs and a handful of Scorpions, if we acquire those old irons and have the US join/train our guys on manuevers during those annual balikatan exercise, we can at least say that we have an experienced/competent armor crew by the time (hopefully) we can acquire a more modern assets.

I admire your point and logic on this Man. Thanks for waking me up. The only thing though will still depend on South Korea if they will be willing to sell such to us at such "Friendship Prices" and also if the US will accommodate this proposal. It is still going to be up to them if they will, so this will obviously be a must wait and see scenario. Do you agree?

Given that if such a batch is in our arsenal (and let's say it did push through :banana:) with all the training, spare parts and whatever needed falls into this proposal / plan comes into play will of course spell one more thing out for us....(please help me out) how to logistically use these assets where it will be gainfully employed by our AFP?

The F-5's we got before from such a deal did not last so long and were not utilized as much. Even then, these A/C's were already sitting ducks to any aggressors who would've dared because they were no longer in tune with the times against their own counterparts invading our air space (that's mainly why they got sold for such prices, please don't be fooled).

In fact, these acquisitions spent more time in the hangars for repairs or due to lack of funds to be airborne. Some even shamefully crashed when they were being utilized for some of their flying capabilities and caused our beloved AFP a lot of pain in return. So later on, the surviving batch of course fell into the category of just in case emergency response purposes until to where it is now. No wonder why they had a Catholic priest bless these aircrafts when we first got it...we were really hoping for a miracle.

Fill us in if you can with more details regarding this plan? Thanks. :armycheers:

I admire your point and logic on this Man. Thanks for waking me up. The only thing though will still depend on South Korea if they will be willing to sell such to us at such "Friendship Prices" and also if the US will accommodate this proposal. It is still going to be up to them if they will, so this will obviously be a must wait and see scenario. Do you agree?

:thumb: :agree: 101%

how to logistically use these assets where it will be gainfully employed by our AFP?

I was thinking of strategically positioning this assets all around the country, particularly at hot zones (of course that is after the training and experience we can gain on manuevers with the US or any ally for that matter.) Now since this MBTs will can only go as far as the terrain permits, we can use it as fire support in leiu of our over used howitzers. Posters on the other thread said that this maybe another burden in ammo procurements stating that the PA can't buy enough ammos for the howits to last a few weeks of operation. Well our present artillery pcs are aimed at targets manually by experience cannoneers hense they tend to fire more rounds to get the job done. The M48 with its upgraded fire control system may actually be a savings in terms of rounds being used.
" A good crew in Europe was able to put the first round on target 90% of the time, but this required excellent teamwork and communication on the part of the entire crew. In peacetime qualification, it was possible to stop from a speed of 20 mph, acquire the target, and get off a first round kill at 2,000 yards in seven seconds
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m48.htm

The old F5s I think, costs more to maintain than a tank. Those tanks are technically newer, having been modified in the 90s, so its maintenace may not be as frequent as the 60s era F5s. Oh and isn't it that you can only go so much on a plane before it has to undergo a major major check up?.
The tanks 105mm gun may be outgunned by those modern MBTs but then hey, thats whys we're emphasizing learning through joint manuevers. Theres ways and means to knock out a stronger opponent, as long as you know what you're doing.

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 "the other forum".

LVTH6: +59° to -4.1°
M48: +19° to -9°

The breadth of the elevation options on the howitzer allow the artilleryman 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 used for both direct and indirect fire. This is also why I said, on the other thread, 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.

As for accuracy of our howitzers. All that artillerymen need to hit an ant on a table is a theodolite; a map; and awareness of the presence of trees and similar obstructions. Artillery bombardment is a science, it has been like that since WWI -- you don't need high tech gear for it. There is very little you can do to improve upon that other than speeding up the artillery battery setup process (e.g., GPS obviates the need to get your point of origin through triangulation).

You can't compare tank gunners with artillerymen. Tankers can only hit what they can see. Artillerymen work best if your hiding behind a hill.

Check this out: There's more to artillery than the howitzers

I remember seeing the recent takeover o the Thai government by their Military. They are still using M-41 tanks, which is already a museum relic in our case. But used and maintained properly, it will still be useful even in our local conditions.

Take note that Thailand still uses M-41s, M-60s and even Chinese tanks, together with the newer Stingray tanks. And still they pose a great opposition against Vietnamese and Malaysian armies.

I think maintaining M-48A5K tanks, though old (at almost 30yrs) will still be a good proposition for the Philippine Army, more so if it is offered at a very "friendship" price. Our only threat right now of external attack is from China, which might still have problems transporting their new tanks across the South China Sea.

Once we have the right budget for a new one, it is possible to acquire a new tank to replace these "old" tanks....but a new tank is not yet possible for us right now....

instead of pursuing heavyweight M48s and M60s, what if we just focus on getting some of the Brazilian M41s? we've seen how the Thais properly maintain and use those old light tanks and that we've experienced operating them in the past so i think there will be no issues whatsoever regarding the M41s making a comeback in the Army. :armywink:

by the way, are the SoKor M48s available for purchase if ever? as far as i know, the surplus M48s available for possible purchase by other countries are those of Israel and Greece. :drunk: