Author Topic: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain  (Read 6079 times)

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14239
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Yet another sad consequence to the loss of the mother forum was the loss about the discussion on AFVs in the Philippine setting. With the following post on the FB extension of an Indonesian Leopard . . . it's high time to bring it back.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/rpdefense/permalink/1193524047400107/




adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14239
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2017, 01:50:15 AM »
The Philippines was the site of the largest tank battle in Asia in WWII (yet another discussion that has to be brought back). So a simplistic answer to the question of MBTs can be use in the Philippines is a resounding "YES".

But a more thorough answer would actually be: "It depends"



Tanks have their limits.

Rice paddies are easy. Linguasan Marsh . . . mountainous terrain that can only be reached by wooden bridge . .

wild_feather08

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2017, 10:56:19 AM »
for WW2, both sides have tanks.. Maybe, the use of tank to chase guerilla at that time is very minimal..

What would be the impact of MBT's during the Zamboanga Siege?. Securing highways? etc. Narciso ramos highway ..


Kylyne

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2017, 11:15:20 AM »
I believe that modern day tanks, MBT is heavier compared to those tanks in WWII, this most probably can make a great difference in regards to its effectiveness in regards to current Philippine terrain.

LionFlyer

  • Timawan
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2017, 05:28:12 PM »
It is about ground pressure as much as it is about absolute tonnage. Operating them in the Philippines isn't a major issue, in the general sense as adroth mentioned .

But given Philippines infrastructure, threats, medium tanks (used in fire support roles) offer better flexible with it comes to mobility.

adroth

  • Administrator
  • Boffin
  • *****
  • Posts: 14239
    • View Profile
    • The ADROTH Project
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2017, 02:08:56 PM »
When the forum focused on the limitations of MBTs (i.e., problem with bridges, impact on roads, etc.) the intention was to deal with the MBT fanboi that thinks that MBTs are answer to all conceivable problems. Back in the day, these would be the community members that would say things like: "We need MBTs to defeat the NPA and Abu Sayaff".

These folks also tend to think that MBTs can actually be bought on their own, and like to cite open source prices of individual MBTs . . . without thinking about all the supporting equipment that would be necessary for an MBT-equipped army. That has always been the context of a Timawa / DefensePH discussion about tanks and their effect on bridges and roads.

There appears to have been an interesting side-effect to this keep-it-real advocacy. The message that some folks have apparently been taking with them as they move from one community to another is that "MBTs can't be used in the Philippines".

What was "MBTs are of no use to the current COIN battle" has morphed into "We can't use MBTs in the Philippines . . .period."

This view is not only absurd given the history of armored vehicle usage in the Philippines, but also because many ASEAN nations actually have tanks. In which case, the Indonesia example is actually a good reminder of how such tanks can be put to good use in a tropical country

===

https://youtu.be/pOp5GQ6ZbUs

===

According to an IHS Jane's report from September 2016, Indonesia had by then taken delivery of 24 Leopard 2 RI MBTs. Unloading of this latest tranche in December brings the number of tanks delivered to 40.

=====


-

-

-


Photos taken from defence-blog.com
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 02:28:41 PM by adroth »

Ominae

  • Timawan
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2017, 04:54:30 PM »
Vehicles that can be used as fire support vehicles can probably be the interim if the army wants MBTs that badly.

kyuzoaoi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2017, 12:01:53 PM »
I've noticed that many of their pet peeves against MBTs are related to terrain, cost, and logistics of transporting them. What about versatility? Many think that the MBTs are end-all solutions for any military engagement with insurgent forces. I do not agree with them with the MBT having to be all-capable and having suited for jungle terrain, but this did not stop other tropical countries in South America and Africa from acquiring MBTs, even those with poor roads, so it will not be an issue for the Philippines. It is just that we need a variety of armored vehicles for different missions.

The fact that the media tend to call armored vehicles other than tanks as "tanks" also plays a factor, without knowing the difference between an APC, an IFV, and a "regular" MBT or ignoring them altogether.   ???

mamiyapis

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: Armed Fighting Vehicles that are appropriate for Philippine terrain
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2017, 02:44:00 PM »
I've noticed that many of their pet peeves against MBTs are related to terrain, cost, and logistics of transporting them. What about versatility? Many think that the MBTs are end-all solutions for any military engagement with insurgent forces. I do not agree with them with the MBT having to be all-capable and having suited for jungle terrain, but this did not stop other tropical countries in South America and Africa from acquiring MBTs, even those with poor roads, so it will not be an issue for the Philippines. It is just that we need a variety of armored vehicles for different missions.

The fact that the media tend to call armored vehicles other than tanks as "tanks" also plays a factor, without knowing the difference between an APC, an IFV, and a "regular" MBT or ignoring them altogether.   ???


True, but none of the above mentioned countries have ever used their MBTs for internal COIN operations have they? South American and African MBTs have mainly stayed inside their cities and bases, because the terrain is so unfavorable to tank operations. Even the Israelis with their vaunted Merkava tanks have suffered kills from creative Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who perform saturation RPG attacks on their MBTs in urban environments... which present the same kind of problems in our largely tropical landscape.

There is a reason the priority of the AFP was to acquire wheeled tank destroyers like the B1 Centauro equipped with a 120mm gun, and only later on, when the rest of the pieces were in place(those pet peeves like logistics and transportation), would the plan morph into acquisition of Main Battle Tanks... the kind of which is also being constantly debated behind the scenes. Even the plan of acquiring wheeled Centauros thru the "Italian Package" was hotly contested by the wheeled and tracked sides in the Phil. Army. The other side advocating for light or even medium tracked vehicles equipped with a similar large gun.