MBT's for AFP

I remember during combined arms training they showed us a photo of Sherman tanks with infantry, assaulting a Japanese bunker in Corregidor during WW2. Since it is western doctrine to have MBTs, and our neighbors are also acquiring them, why not the AFP? What do you guys think, for the best MBT or fire support AFV for the AFP?

BTW I prefer the Centauro or Rooikat 105.

YES, having a Main Battle Tank for the AFP will be great. It can be used for mobility bombardment. It is best anti tank in terms of ground equipment, especially if you are fighting hoards of enemy tank(because it is more difficult to use 1 javellin against 5
T 72'S tanks, than having around 1 or 2 M1's or Leopard 2). It brings a bigger punch against enemy lines.( just like in WW1, British tanks blew the crap out of the Germans holing in the trenches. Besides of this functions, i think the greatest use of a tank is that it can defeat an enemy, even w/o firing a shot, eg. By using fear.(force multiplier). Imagine yourself as an insurgent in the jungles of Mindanao. You were fighting against the Phil Army, then suddenly: a Leopard 2 Tank appears in front of you. What would you feel? (Di ka kaya maihi sa gulat at takot?) MBT's are really good for every major army.

But with the current state of our economy and politics. We can't afford to purchase MBT's. (ni anti tanks nga tulad ng Javelin, Strykers,at MRF's, Hindi tayo makabili)

Mas pratical kung uunahin muna natin ung mga mas kailangang gamit. Kung ok na lahat ng pangangailangan ng AFP, tsaka n tayo bumili ng MBT's.

If and only if, we have the funds alloted for MBT's, my best pick will be the LEOPARD 2.





This post has been edited by panzerkampfwagen on Jul 22 2008, 09:13 PM

There are surpluses of MBTs out in the world markets right now from Leopard 1s, to AMX-10s to T-72s. So they should not cost much. Especially, since the AFP is facing a conventional war against the MILF with fixed positions.

Did not the Phil Marines V-300s have trouble advancing down roadways because their 90mm guns weren't strong enough to silence the bunkers along the roads, and armor to thin against RPGs, during the 2001 offensive against the MILF?

Previous tank discussions

http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=3475&st=0

http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=26&st=0

While you think big, some think small

http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?showtopic=1220&st=0

This post has been edited by saver111 on Jul 22 2008, 11:04 PM

MBTs will be a big morale booster to the troops. Very usefull indeed against the MILF (it was in 2000) but I am not sure if it will be of any help against the Communist Terrorists.

Well not a MBT pero i think Strykers will do it look like MBT with A 105mm or Stingrey

One thing I'm worried about is someone pilfering AFP bazookas or rocket launchers, that will just end up in a religious extremist's hands. At least they can't just pilfer a tank.

Zero Wing,

You'll like this comment about the Stryker MGS;

"In addition to anti-tank and high-explosive rounds, MGS can also fire anti-personnel ammunition known as canister rounds. Each canister round fires 3,200 tungsten carbide balls that resemble 00 buck shot.

When fired, these rounds turn the MGS into a giant shotgun, shredding a path 75 meters wide out to 300 meters.

“They are also good for disabling threat vehicles,” said Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin Tucker, 4th Platoon sergeant and MGS vehicle commander. “It peppers the whole thing, obliterates the windows and anybody who is inside.”
[...]
MGS crewmen here praise the effectiveness of the system but say the design needs improving." ............ air conditioning in the Iraq.

I'm in favor of assigning 1 or 2 or even up to 6 MBTs for each Area command. For example, 6 MBTs to cover Davao/cotabato, and 6 MBTs to cover zamboanga/ Sulu, Basilan. The reasons being:

1.) psychological devastation of rebels
2.) destruction of rebel bunkers difficult to destroy with 90mm guns or bunkers in hard-to-reach places by wheeled tanks.

In other words, in the Philippine setting, MBTs are more for anti-rebel operations who currently do not have modern anti-tank weapons, and more psychological/morale boosting effect. Imagine a steel monster up-armored to the max against RPGs, and rumbling in rebel territory. They'll be quaking in their slippers.

For External defense, I am not in favor of the AFP having hundreds of MBTs for cost reasons unless we suddenly became filthy rich. The other reason is that unless these MBTs have good air and anti-aircraft cover, they will be sitting ducks for enemy air attacks. its more practical to use anti-tank weapons for external defense since the assumption is that an external enemy that has already destroyed the PAF and PN must have arrived in overwhelming force and they probably already have control of the sea and air already.

Just out of curiosity...what are the Maximum Effective Ranges of MBT Guns?

Chief;

Though an MBT is a very good fire support platform, but can our infrastructure support the weight? I'm in favor of MBTs for the AFP but my only concern in the roads or bridges might be damaged.

thats a valid point. I think some of the MBTs are lighter than others. The lighter MBTs would be more practical for us.

although our bridges are built for a certain tonnage limit, it is being violated all the time. our bridges are always overloaded. What i heard is that if you have a heavy vehicle to try to drive fast and not stop on the bridge to lessen chances of bridge collapse

In WW2, Sherman medium tanks were ll over the place flushing out the Japs. At the end of the Vietnam War, NVA forces used Soviet made MBTs to dislodge South Vietnam forces surrounding the capital of Saigon.
Why use roads and bridges when they can be bypassed. In Normandy, Shermans improvised through hedgerows. NVA forces used quick build bridge-layers to overcome deep and wide streams and crevices for their armored push through South. I'm sure Flips are as resourceful as the Vietnamese.b

I am not sure if you've already read this...lots of info.

http://timawa.net/forum/index.php/topic,5593.0.html