Should we not consider buying some of these?

PT-76 light/amphibious tank

and maybe this one:

M-2001 MBT (for urban defense)

The PT-76 is Cold War-era, outdated Soviet relic and A PIECE OF CRAP. If I can recall correctly, some North Vietnamese PT-76 Light tanks were destroyed by some US Army M48 Patton tanks stationed at the joint ARVN-US Special Forces camp at Lang Vei during the Vietnam War.

http://stason.org/TULARC/history/vietnam/0...r-The-role.html



Why buy a piece of crap like the PT-76 when you can buy a Russian BMP- some versions are also amphibious- for nearly the same price? Also, why stop there? The Chinese Type 63 tank shown below is also amphibious, though I doubt the PLA and PLA Marines would sell some of their amphib. tanks to a potential enemy- the AFP.



Of course the PT76 is amphibious and that is one of its main advantages, BUT the Philippine Marines already has the LVTH5/6s and those are amphibious too, so that negates the need for the PT76. Also, the USMC may retire its current Amphtracs/AAVs as the new AAAVs (yes, AAAVs*, no typos this time) come into service.

As you can see from the pics below, the AAAV seems to have performed well in trials with the US Marines, but I doubt it will be in reach of either the Philippine Marines or the Philippine Army for some time to come, partially because of THE COST.

:headbang:

Let's go BMP then.

Wow, you just wasted that much bandwidth just to signal your agreement. Could at least you give us more reasons why you think the BMP would suit the AFP's needs? The BMP, is an APC, after all, not a tank.

Why did you choose the PT-76 and the MBT-2001 vehicles in the first place?

Why not choose the M-2001? It's modern. And I think - as it is a Serbian product - probably cheaper than Leos or Abrams.

As for the PT-76: It's older, but I think it could still be of use: even if it was just to be experimented on by our own engineers as e.g. CityHunter has proposed with the F-20.
Due to it's older age, I'd assume it's cheaper to acquire also...

Did you even read my links about the PT-76's use in action by the North Vietnamese against ARVN and US troops? The PT-76 has no other advantage going for it other than the fact it is amphibious and the fact that probably around two can be carried by a Russian IL76 Candid transport plane; I generally dislike Soviet-era light tanks because they are fodder for LAW or TOW rounds, and even more so from AP shells from MBTs.

Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean you should buy it. The fact that it's a design that is more than 40 years old means it has no place in the AFP; if you're going to get a light tank, get one that is of a newer, probably US or Western European design. It's time the AFP stop using stop-gap FOURTH RATE equipment that is already obselete.

Besides, if the AFP had money for a light tank, they would probably just buy more Scorpions or they would do something better by probably buying retired AAVs from the USMC for use by the Philippine Marines. IMO, amphibious armored vehicles/amphibious APCs should be a priority considering the Philippines is an archipelago nation, and more APCs would be useful in the current COIN operations the Philippine Army and Philippine Marines are currently fighting against the NPA. Also, the chance of tank vs tank combat on the plains of Luzon, with PLA Type 88 MBTs engaging a Philippine Scorpion tank in a future war, is VERY, VERY REMOTE.

The PMC had resportedly evaluated the BMP, but reportedly rejected it since it did not satisfy doctrinal requirements.

Just out of curiosity, has the AFP ever considered the Stingray II light tank? Its less than 30 tons (somewhere between 22 to 24 tons) so most bridges in the Philippines can take its weight, its fast and packs a hard punch with its 105mm gun.

Akimima,

Do a search on previous threads about future armor possibilities for the AFP and you will see the Stingray II tank has already been discussed at least once before here on PDFF. And it definitely would have been discussed in the timawa.net forum as well.

Yes, it has been discussed in this forum as a matter of fact I have introduced the subject/topic many months ago but has never been thoroughly discussed in terms of possible acquisition.

In this forum and probably timawa.net, I have never read nor seen any topics where the AFP is considering its possible acquisition and that is why I am throwing this question to other fellow posters who maybe connected to the AFP top brass and shed some light. :nono:

The scorpions that the AFP has (41 units I believe) is designed as a reconnaisance tank and not an assualt tank. Its armor is thin that a .50 AP round can penetrate it. I think its pointless to buy more of these if they are to be used down south to battle rebels. Where as light tanks such as the Stingray II and other equivalent can withstand it , unless the rebels down south have a lot fo RPG's which I doubt.

There have been some talks about resurrecting the M41 Bulldogs that are on display in several locations in the Philippines. I have talked to a tank museum curator, who also is in charge of many restoration works, here in the US and he told me that it took "thousands and thousands" of dollars (never gave me the exact figure) to get their 2 M41 Walker Bulldogs into a combat ready condition. Although the tanks that they have are just for display, they have restored them to a point where its almost 90% brand new. If the AFP plans to do so with the 7 that are on display, might as well buy something that is similar and fairly new like the one I suggested. Will cost more but in the long run will be cheaper since its almost new and maintenance will not be frequent. But again this is my opinion.

PT-76 is too old

What about this one?

BTR-90


Information:
Designation: BTR-90
Contractor: Arzamas Machinery Construction Plant, Russia
Country of Origin: Russia
Service Year: 1995
Type: 8x8 Armored Personnel Carrier
Crew: 3+7

Dimensions:
Length: 25.07 feet | 7.64 meters
Width: 10.50 feet | 3.20 meters
Height: 9.78 feet | 2.98 meters
Weight: 23.1 tons (US Short) | 20,920 kilograms

Engine:
Powerplant: 1 x turbo-charged multi-fuel engine with an output of 510hp.

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 62 miles per hour | 100 kilometers per hour
Maximum Range*: 497 miles | 800 kilometers

*Values indicative of vehicle's road range (for self-propelled vehicles) OR maximum effective firing range (for stationary towed-artillery systems).

Armament:
1 x 30mm main gun
1 x 7.62mm coaxial machine gun
1 x AT-5 Spandrel ATGW missile launcher
1 x 30mm grenade launcher
6 x smoke grenade dischargers

Ammunition:
500 x 30mm ammunition
2,000 x 7.62mm ammunition
4 x Spandrel ATGW anti-tank missiles
400 x 30mm grenades

Support Systems:
NBC System: Yes
Night Vision: Yes

from wiki:

Marschall,

The BTR-90 looks good but may not meet the requirements by the Marines or maybe the Army. As mentioned in previous threads, the problem with wheeled vehicles is when they start trodding into muddy areas and marshes, they usually get stuck as seen in the latest Basilan Incident. Tracked vehicles are more favorable since that's what they are designed for. MBT's may not be suitable as well as discussed in several forums such as this, by the mere fact that its weight is a problem by itself. Most MBT's whether US, European, or Asian made are just too heavy for most bridges in the Philippines to support...more so bridges in the rural areas. Even a medium tank such as the M48 may have problems crossing a bridge. Stick muna sa light tank.