It has a proven design that had withstood the test to time and technology, the T34 Russian Medium Tank that had wrought havoc in WW2 mainly against German armor is still being used is some parts of the world most notably in the various African countries. In Sarajevo, the Serbs, if I am not mistaken used this tank up to 1996 and did fairly well.

The Russians were able to build this tank in numbers due to its simple design and mechanism. Its short barrel most particularly the 76mm seen in the T34/76 is perfect for jungle warefare since its short barrel will not have any trouble tagging nearby trees as opposed to the extremely long barrels of modern MBT.

I know there are some 3D graphics designers among the members, can someone (if you have the time) generate a basic T34 chassis and add a little personal modifications to it. If the current Steelcrafts projects (Gagamba, Kalakian and Barako) goes into full production (sana nga) , then Steelcraft might want to dabble into this idea of tapping an ancient but proven design and incorporate it with a little modifications to suit the AFP's needs. Once done this can be the RP's "MBT". It was classified as a medium tank back in WW2 but its weight of 26 - 30 tons would more likely reclassify this as a light tank. An added feature that can be incorporated is making it amphibious. A better or more powerful engine would make it run faster. Based on history, Russians in WW2 had little trouble maintaining this beauty as compared to the very complex German Tiger and Panther Tanks that it battles with.
Another item for modifications would be to "flatten" its existing turret design to give it an even more lower silohoutte. The 76mm can be upgrade to a 90mm short barrel to remain consistent of the short barrel idea.



[Type Medium tank
Place of origin Soviet Union
Specifications
Weight 30.9 tonnes (34.1 short tons)
Length 6.75 m (22.1 ft)
Width 3.00 m (9.8 ft)
Height 2.45 m (8.0 ft)
Crew 4


Armour 70 mm (2.75 in)
Primary
armament 76.2 mm (3.0 in) F-34 tank gun
Secondary
armament 2×7.62 mm (0.308 in) DT machine guns
Engine 12-cyl. diesel model V-2
500 hp (373 kW)
Power/weight 16.2 hp/tonne
Suspension Christie
Operational
range 465 km (289 mi)
Speed 55 km/h (34 mph)


What do you think?

:specool:

Akimima,

All variants of the T-34, including the T-34 with 76mm gun and the T-34 with the 85mm were cutting edge, BUT FOR THEIR TIME. They are NOW OBSELETE. Even the T-55s used by the Taliban prior to the 2001 Coalition invasion of Afghanistan could destroy a T-34!! And I even doubt the RP govt. would want to get a license from Russia to mass produce an outdated WW2/Cold War design!!You also forgot that many modern anti-tank weapons are in use with many world-class armed forces as well as rebel groups of the various insurgencies throughout the world. A Russian-built Sagger Missile launched from a Hind helo could PULVERIZE a T-34; the same could happen to a T-34 struck by either a TOW missile from a US Bradley, or even a SABOT round from a US Abrams tank!

The reason why the T-34 was so cutting edge during the Russian/ Eastern Front Campaigns of World War II was because it featured sloped armor, a relatively small silhouette compared to other German tanks with similar calibre guns, and an astonishing speed of 55mph, while the best Nazi German Panzer IIIG and Panzer IVD of the earlier Blitzkrieg campaigns could do 40 to 40mph at best. In fact, the German Tiger and Panther tanks were thought to be the German answer to the T-34, though both were terrible Gas Guzzlers and were not as nimble as the T-34, though their armor was supposedly thicker and they had heavier guns.

Another reason why the T-34 was so advantageous to the Soviets during World War II was because the SHEER NUMBERS OF T-34s produced (50,000 total produced, if I can recall correctly/IIRC)at Tankograd in the Urals during WW2, and even after WW2.

The T-34 did prove itself even after World War II, used by North Korean armies during the Korean War, used sparingly by the NVA against the US and allied forces (ROK, RP, ANZAC) during the Vietnam War.

The T-34 was even used during the Budapest Uprising of 1955 (IIRC), when a few were captured by the Hungarians, but the Soviets' massive concentration of both armor, artillery and airpower crushed the Hungarian uprising. Some were even present in Cuban colors fighting for Castro in the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the early 1960s.

Even up to today, many Third World Nations' armies still use them; Cuba, Angola and many African republics use them.

Even China's People's Liberation Army uses about 500 examples last time I checked, though the numbers of their Type 59s and Type Type 69s outnumber (over 2,000 Type 59sm, IIRC) the T-34s as well as their Modern Type 85 and Type 98 Tanks.

Still, the T-34 is a BAD IDEA for the Philippines, since the RP is an island nation and thus needs amphibious APCs more, such as the USMC's AAV/LVTP7s, in order to fight a counter-insurgency war against the Reds and the ASG/Muslim radical groups.

The Philippines does not need MBTs of any sort yet, since there is little when it comes to WIDE OPEN TERRAIN ideal for MBT vs. MBT combat save for parts of Luzon and Mindanao.

Akimima, please think of more reasonable, MODERN alternatives to the T-34; it is outdated.

:headbang:

Like I said before, if there is something the RP must focus on, it must first wipe out the Reds, then buy MRFs to improve its external defense capabilities.

Msantor:

That is why I brought up this topic and that is to improve its previous design. Yes, I agree that this tank was superior during WW2 and even the early stages of the Korean war. If you read through other websites about this tank, most modern MBT's are derived from the basic T-34 design namely low silohoutte and speed. Steelcraft or any other local would be manufacturers can follow this path as well.

Like most forum members including yourself agree that MBT's are out of the question due to the geographic and topographic features of the Philippines. MBTs are huge, eat a lot of gas and are expensive to maintain. I did not say buy the T-34 or get a license from Russia to mass produce it, all I am saying is that use the design as a basic platform and upgrade or improve on it and thereby creating something new and practical for the current and future needs of the AFP. That is why I am suggesting an amphibious version, lowering its current turret design, increasing its gun caliber, etc. This of course will depend on the AFP if its willing to support the R&D progam. If the AFP is 100% supporting it then why not give it a try who know what the Philippines might come up with. The 3 prototypes from Steelcraft are proofs that the Philippines is capable of making its own if given the proper funding and support from the government.

The current Scorpion tanks that the AFP has with its thin aluminum armor will definitely get balsted by rebel RPGs and higher caliber guns but at least a T-34 derivative or hybrid will fare better.

Get the point!!!

Why spend limited the defense budget on armored vehicle R & D when there are other, ALREADY PROVEN, amphibious AFVs on the market? What's wrong with the American AAV?

Or an upgraded V-150? Or even a Russian BMP, if the govt. is that cash-strapped?

MRFs should be a priority for any PAF budget after the Reds are crushed; home-grown MBTs can come later when the economy is better and probably closer in size to that of Asian Economic Tigers such as Taiwan or South Korea.

This is the way to go and that is to be self reliant. You and I and most of the forum members here collectively agree that the US mostly sells to the Philippine government half baked products at ridiculous prices. I don't know about other countries but surely their price tags would be a lot higher as compared to home-made hardwares.

Law of economics tells us that producing a prototype will definitely cost more but hey once and if the AFP agrees or have confidence in locally made hardware that's when savings come into place. Think long term!!!

Of course this thread topic need not be done immediately...its when the economy starts to improve.

MRF's are definitely if not urgently needed but for the sake of this thread let us just stick to the topic.

Hi Akimama,

I think the T34 will also not be able to withstand RPGs, even the M1 abrams has problems when dealing with RPGs. I think old rpgs can penetrate upto 200 to 300mm of old armor similar to that used by the T34.

Light battle tanks with reactive armor should do, but reactive armor is very dangerous to personnel standing outside of the tank. Laminate as used by the M1 is very expensive. Ugly slats i believe is the most practical for our use.

Sgt. Bilko,

All tanks, apcs, IFV, etc are not immune to RPGs but what I was saying that a modified T34 tank will have a better survivability than the Scorpion tanks and the M113 APC that the AFP has. Since you have a friend who works for Steelcraft, maybe you can tell him of this suggestion. Modifying a proven WW2 design to adapt to modern warfare and adding reactive armor or slats may make this design survive way into the 21st century. Just a thought.

As Msantor and I have discussed in this thread, yes it is an obsolete tank but it can be modified or developed to adapt to modern times. I know the guys in Steelcraft are very creative and resourceful and maybe they have a better a idea how to work with this ancient design.

Its a great idea akimama.

But i think if a fully-local tracked vehicle is to be made, it should start small, like a wiesel. then get bigger.

I doubt if EVER there'll be funding for a light MBT for our AFP.

Did you hear about the tracked vehicle dug-up in Bulacan, it was a japanese small tank, same size as the wiesel. old folks said it went bully-up and the japs abandoned it. it was just beside mcarthur highway. But the local mayor got it and sold it for scrap.

sgt. bilko,

I agree with you about that approach by starting small. Gee I did not read about that news. Was it featured in any of the local Philippine newspaper? Was that dug up tank in good condition? If it was sayang it could have been a museum piece of some sort, but I guess dahil sa gutom they had to do it. Would have been nice though for a local manufacturer like Steelcraft to get a first hand look at it and thereby start producing some prototype of a modern version of it.

:specool:

the right term is to just use the design of the T-34 light tank for our future light tank needs but it does not mean that we will copy the T-34 for inside out. what we possible modernizations can we give to our T-34-based light tank? :armyeek:

Like to see something similiar to the M50 Ontos. Put six 106mm (three on each side) with maybe a 20 mm cannon or a .50 cal slung under each side for use against infatry. :asniper:

I do agree about building our own tank suitable to our requirements bec it does not take much to build one. But i do disagree about licensing the T34, here are my reasons.


1. As much as the T34 was innovative (much hore its descendant the kharkov heavy tank), it was not manufactured intelligently, from production planning point of view it was designed to entail dumb proof manufacturing. The chassis and other panels of the T34 and its turret is formed by sand casting steel. The soviet idea is to churn these tanks in the front door with a steel smelting plant at the back. It is known fact that special steels plates tig or mig welded can withstand better than sand casted components. The initial problem the soviets have with the T34 was that 50% of castings were deformed or distorted whereas 99% of the sand cast used were exact copies, the problem lies in the cooling of steel inside the cast and its heat distribution somehow distorts the casting.

2. The old method of machining the turret and the hull attachment is to mount it on a huge vertical lathe machine, it has several drawbacks, centering the tank so that the turret rails are concentric is one hell of an effort. vertical lathe are special order machinery which is currently used to machine large ship propellers. They cost a lot just like the steel smelter

3. Once the T34 has been built with its innovative swing arm suspension, 80% of the time the chassis is not centering properly in it axis, thus the individual swing arms are shimmed with washers. This is mainly caused by the distorted castings.

4. Heavy modifications will have to be made once the tanks were made to lighten it and each user have made his own lightening cuts to the specific tank in question.

5. Lastly, the T34 turret is still a 2nd generation design where the elevation mount has to be mechanically locked once the tank is in constant motion as the breech mechanism may snap off and hurt the tank crew. Innovative means were done to address this by installing a hydraulic piston to lock the elev mount and lately hooked to a gyro and elevation stabilize the main gun. Hydraulic equipment usually takes the space bet the gun crew position and the driver + hull machine gunners position. In later rear engine designs, the hull gunner position was removed, crew cabin spaces were isolated with the driver position to mount the rotating hydraulic gear, thus if the tank was disabled, the driver can evac only thru his hatch while the rest can evac in an undercarraige hatch (if one is provided). The Isrealis solve this problem by mounting the engine up front, removing the driver off center, mounting a rear access hatch and extra space to accomodate another tank crew team.

I agree that the AFP need not an MBT, I also believe that a tank with a 90mm gun capable of shooting saboted projectile can disable an MBT with terrain such as ours.
A medium tank is a good start, but I also believe that a common chassis approach should be taken where a medium battle tank, command tracked vehicle, armor recovery vehicle, amphibous infantry fighting vehicle for marines and armored personnel tracked vehicle be made using a single chassis design built around a common propulsion and suspension package.

But I disagree the T34 is the answer. I truly believe we can design our own tank if we put our minds and hearts into it.

You know since I read this tread, tank based on T-34, it made me think why not base it on the M-41s the PA had? Its old design but with a few changes it will be good enough for our needs... I picture a light tank that has the engine upfront , light version of the merkava. more amo but with a turret with a co axial of a 30-40mm gun.

Why not learn from other 3rd world nations that build their own "light" tanks. Some of these countrys have both a smaller economy and miltary budget while at the same time being much as if not more corrupt than the Philippines. :headbang:

It will not happen soon as the current administration does not have any intentions in giving the AFP a special waiver to appropriate a portion of its budget for SRDP. SRDP will only work like in the marcos years when a portion of the AFP budget was automatically appropriated to SRDP borne materials i.e. Vetronix URC-187 radios, ELISCO M-16A1s, 40mm ammo, 5.56mm ammo etc.

Same will be true if we intend to develop a tank, no commercial or R&D outfit will risk capital without guarantee of "POSSIBLE" purchase. The AFP comptrollers office (it has a new name) frowns upon the idea bec it violates RA9184 daw (:lollol:). Just a note, AFP back in the 70s even strengthened their commitement to SRDP by letting AFP controlled financial institutions buy equity into these SRDP companies and mortalize the commitment to purchase bec these financial institutions must recover their investment. Then the bright office boys came in the cory admin and abused the scheme instead of investing on SRDP companies they instead got themselves involved into real estate deals hanging the SRDP commitments dry.

My advice to steelcraft be careful its a minefield where you are trotting

Takes a bit of space to quote your numbered points a few posts up but I get the impression you really know your stuff. I've had to google or will still have to google half of what you said though hehe.

Anyways, 90mm knock out an MBT? If only a flank/rear shot probably?

Alternatively, what do you think of the turreted 120mm mortar that's getting some attention from other countries lately? It could use new ammo like IR-guided Strix rounds and Israel's gun-launched LAHAT missile if we're thinking of knocking out out MBTs. Primarily though, it's a short-barrel weapon (relative to big cannons) that's good enough for bunker-busting and flattening some structures out to 1km. And it retains the option of indirect fire. Plenty of ammo development here by other nations too like more types of precision-guided munitions and even as a possible replacement for the 105 howitzer on the AC-130.

Looking forward, if we're going to have new armor, I agree with developing or buying a common family. But, considering our terrain, I'm thinking more of the sub-20-ton-class than medium tank-class (~30 tons). The SEP modular series under development seems to fit the bill for having a common family of vehciles, and for both tracked and 6x6 types at that.

I believe 90mm anti MBT round will be available soon. A 155mm HEAT round only uses a 40mm tungsten dart saboted to fit a standard 120mm shell. A 40mm dart should fit a 90mm shell if 90mm smooth bore barrels are available. This is the rational why they compacted the Stryker automatic main gun to 105mm the objective I was told is to even bring it down to 90mm. Some armor experts foresee that air deployable wheeled armor with a 90mm main gun will soon run smack against MBTs at 2000 yards engagment distance. They also forsee that new 90mm chamber dimensions with a longer shell and high length to diameter ratio penerating projectiles is not far in the future.

Issue there is, tank gun makers like Rhinemettal (which supplied main guns for the M1A1 and german MBTs) does not make smooth bore tank gun barrels smaller than 155mm bore diameters. HEAT rounds does not work well in rifled barrels bec of gas blow-by leaking thru the grooves.


As for tank buster missiles, anti IR luminance technology and coatings are now defeating hellfire type seeker cones. That leaves us with wire guidance, which is cumbersome for cost to performance ratios compared to MBTs. Armor with wire guided missiles is actually more cumbersome and costly to deploy than a humvie or light armor wheeled vehicle with wire guided missiles. Wire guided anti tank tech is still mainly tank busting infantry territory.

Anti armor mortar is still in its infancy, it is good for anti armor standoff (specifically the new developments in turret buster rounds) from static firing position but there is no viable 120mm targeting technology that allows the turreted 120mm mortar to fire while moving and 120mm mortar rounds still have slow muzzle velocities and munition ballistics to give 80% probability of a one round hit on moving targets (the travel arc is just too damn slow). The more they push the envelope the closer they get to a direct firing 120mm smooth bore main gun.

That's interesting about the 90mm. I thought most development was going into the 105mm and low-pressure 120mm for light/medium armor. That would mean more rounds carried if they can develop such ammo for 90mm, which is already capable as a bunker-buster/breacher. Also less recoil to manage, so can be installed in lighter vehicles. You're also referring to the Cockerill Mk8 and Giat, not the low-pressure Mk3 in use by the PMC, I presume? About the Stryker MGS, though, didn't the 90mm already lose out to the 105mm, and wouldn't the Americans already have too much invested into the latter.

Ah yes, IR countermeasures. There's also the LAHAT missile, which uses semiactive laser-homing and the vehicle itself doesn't have to do the laser-painting. If the Israelis plan it for 105, 120, 106RR, even 2.75" rockets, I suppose they can do it for 90mm too. That would be a good mix of rounds for a 90mm: HEAT (APFSDS? FAPDS?), LAHAT for up to 8km, and others like HESH, flechette/canister, maybe even thermobaric, etc.

The stryker 105mm is a rifled barrel main gun, I was told that the 90mm lost out bec the requirements specs was for a rifled gun without any change on current 105mm shell and projectile dimensions intended for multipurpose roles. Have they specified a smooth bore anti tank gun and open cartridge profile clause, bidders would jump on the 90mm solution as the weight penalty for the stryker is quite high. The weight reduction from a 105mm breech system to 90mm breech system in the stryker entails approx 40% reduction in main gun weight and 15% reduction in volume (a smaller rotary breech loader). Further a 90mm gun will provide a smaller outline than the currently deployed 105mm.


If they go 90mm its definitely not rifled so the old inventory of projectile does not apply they may reuse the shell profiles but may adjust headspacing using sabot projectiles.

My opinion on semi active lasers seekers is still open, it may be defeated by a smoke screening/dusting tank as they effect directivity of laser backscatter crucial to projectile tracking of moving targets. Let us see how these new devs will pan out.

i dont think so the designs are old as my lolo with new weapons coming out its hard for a country like us to maintain an good light tank brigade even against terrorist and rebels but its not bad idea just maintain it for 10 to 5 yr then change it