Philippines Army Discussions and Updates

Beholder

Member
Elbit to supply Sabrah light tanks to Philippine Army

Philippine blog MaxDefense reports that the country's military decided in early 2020 to purchase the Sabrah light tank produced by Israel's Elbit Systems. However, the spread of the coronavirus epidemic is said to be preventing the final signing of the agreement. The blog estimates that the value of the first shipment is about $30 million.
-------------

Info about Philippines release of money for initial payment:

Here at the end recent update from 21/10

------------

Info about light tank:

Elbit broshure
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
MaxDefense is reliable, but I do not know how well connected the writer, or writers, is/are to relevant military officials.
Better take with a grain of salt.

Actually... Elbit does dominate the Philippino market so I'm not surprised.
But the turret offered by them has a very high dynamic range of capabilities, from very low end to very high end.
The platform itself is going to be interesting.
 
Last edited:

Beholder

Member
MaxDefense is reliable, but I do not know how well connected the writer, or writers, is/are to relevant military officials.
Better take with a grain of salt.
Well, it's official government fund allocation:

Update Saro

Then look for "SARO-BMB-D-20-0017126"

Purpose:
To cover the funding requirements for the fifteen percent (15%) Advance Payment of the Light Tank Acquisition Project for the Philippine Army under the Revised Armed Forces of the Philippines Modernization Program.

Someone did win that contract. And will get this contract.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
What do you think? A wheeled platform will do with that extra weight? Because I'm only aware of the ASCOD as a tracked option.
 

Beholder

Member
Why not? Pandur II designed to take 105mm from start. Plus i don't think Elbit will offer, what she can't deliver, or Philippine Army allow such thing.
On the other hand while it(105mm) was tested i don't think they used such variant in the end.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
Why not? Pandur II designed to take 105mm from start. Plus i don't think Elbit will offer, what she can't deliver, or Philippine Army allow such thing.
On the other hand while it(105mm) was tested i don't think they used such variant in the end.
Yeah I just don't know what's the general weight and weight distribution limit for the Philippines.

I didn't understand your second sentence. Can you rephrase? Thanks.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
Thanks.
On one hand, Elbit does have 120mm guns in its portfolio.
On the other hand, all available information on the turret points toward a 105mm gun option only, and the Philippines hardly needs anything stronger.
 

Beholder

Member
You're welcome.

120mm is no better then 105mm unless you expect large number of modern tanks as adversary.
If i understand correctly they need it as support for urban warfare. 105mm is not bad at all.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You're welcome.

120mm is no better then 105mm unless you expect large number of modern tanks as adversary.
If i understand correctly they need it as support for urban warfare. 105mm is not bad at all.
But are the 120 mm guns high velocity or low velocity? I believe that it makes a difference because from what I understand the 8 x 8 vehicles cannot withstand the recoil of the high velocity 105 mm gun, so a high velocity 120 mm would definitely be a problem. It's something that I read ages ago that keeps nagging at the back of my brain. Fairly sure that the Cockerill 105 mm turrets have low velocity guns.
 

Beholder

Member
But are the 120 mm guns high velocity or low velocity? I believe that it makes a difference because from what I understand the 8 x 8 vehicles cannot withstand the recoil of the high velocity 105 mm gun, so a high velocity 120 mm would definitely be a problem. It's something that I read ages ago that keeps nagging at the back of my brain. Fairly sure that the Cockerill 105 mm turrets have low velocity guns.
All such guns for wheeled platform are low-recoil. I don't know velocity, but effective range of 3600m is telling. And apparently it can use all NATO ammunition.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
All such guns for wheeled platform are low-recoil. I don't know velocity, but effective range of 3600m is telling. And apparently it can use all NATO ammunition.
Ok thanks. That's probably where I got confuddled.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hard to take Philippine Army and Marines ground force modernisation efforts seriously, when they go into the 2017 Battle of Marawi with poorly assembled hill-billy upgrades to their V150s that were had re-powered Cummins engines but was originally built by Cadillac Gage that make ISIS look good.

Just for contrast, see the Australian take on spacing and distance required for slat armour to disrupt the RPG before it hits the base armour of the much better protected Hawkei. Australia, Singapore and the US provided technical assistance to the Pinoys during the 5 month long Battle of Marawi.
Slat armour, chain link fabric, fences and so on, are used as additional protection against older RPGs because they crush the outer casing, short-circuiting the fuze; but they are not really effective against modern ATGMs.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
All such guns for wheeled platform are low-recoil. I don't know velocity, but effective range of 3600m is telling. And apparently it can use all NATO ammunition.
Yes, low recoil, but high pressure:

Exactly what constitutes high pressure, I do not know, but it is said it can fire all NATO standard APFSDS. And the gun length is L45, not the standard L44, so it should in theory have a tad more pressure than the typical MBT gun.

Recoil dampening systems take space, a precious commodity for MBT. Not so much for AFVs that rely on careful weight and pressure balancing to remain structurally intact.

@OPSSG That's not really the "australian take" on slat armor.
The Hawkei's entire protection scheme is developed by Plasan, an Israeli company with an American subsidiary that shares the R&D workload.
In terms of the defeat mechanism, it doesn't do anything new against RPGs. The fence layout remains identical to many before it.

What it does innovate in, is the use of clip-on bars and spring mechanisms on the arms. That way when you hit a physical obstacle, it doesn't stop the vehicle or crash the bars - it folds the fence onto the vehicle and returns it into its original location after passing through the obstacle.
It's a neat idea.

I believe NII Stali experimented a while ago with some soft cage armor with vertical lines as well, fitting high hardness steel "dots" as the cutting mechanism rather than whole bars. But I cannot find it anymore.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@OPSSG That's not really the "australian take" on slat armor.
Sorry about the colloquial expression.
The Hawkei's entire protection scheme is developed by Plasan, an Israeli company with an American subsidiary that shares the R&D workload.

In terms of the defeat mechanism, it doesn't do anything new against RPGs. The fence layout remains identical to many before it.
Plasan does great work. And we are agreed that it doesn't do anything new against RPGs.
What it does innovate in, is the use of clip-on bars and spring mechanisms on the arms. That way when you hit a physical obstacle, it doesn't stop the vehicle or crash the bars - it folds the fence onto the vehicle and returns it into its original location after passing through the obstacle.
It's a neat idea.
Cool, did not know that. Thanks for educating me.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
I just thought, this modern bar armor might be useless against RPG-7VR, which should be quite abundant. The precursor warhead is more than enough to pierce a vehicle like a Hawkei, and its diameter makes it sufficiently small to bypass the bar armor.
 

Beholder

Member
Yes, low recoil, but high pressure:

Exactly what constitutes high pressure, I do not know, but it is said it can fire all NATO standard APFSDS. And the gun length is L45, not the standard L44, so it should in theory have a tad more pressure than the typical MBT gun.
High pressure is ability to handle pressure, that quality of any normal tank gun, so they can fire all tank ammo, in contrast to artillery, or mortal.

In our case we have low recoil, coiled barre, 52 calibres 105mm(from Elbit brochure).

Recoil dampening systems take space, a precious commodity for MBT. Not so much for AFVs that rely on careful weight and pressure balancing to remain structurally intact.
This i'm not sure. There is no problem to make or install low recoil gun for tank, they actually used muzzle breaks till APFSDS came.

This specific gun(Elbit one) use integrated muzzle break(this does not reduce velocity by itself, unless made on expense of barrel).

I don't know if it use some sort of hydraulic system to reduce recoil(those can reduce velocity).

Israel for example have ammo with range more then 3600m in 105mm category. And FCS of this tank is very good.

So why effective range is only 3600m?
For comparison regular L-7 105mm, also rifled, also 52 calibres effective range is 4000.

My guess is either modern muzzle breaks compatible with APFSDS reduce velocity, or they count it as barrel length(this in effect shorten barrel length), or there is sort of hydraulic system to reduce recoil that reduce energy.
Or something i don't know and actually 3600 = 4000(for example with different method of calculating such range)
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
High pressure is ability to handle pressure, that quality of any normal tank gun, so they can fire all tank ammo, in contrast to artillery, or mortal.

In our case we have low recoil, coiled barre, 52 calibres 105mm(from Elbit brochure).



This i'm not sure. There is no problem to make or install low recoil gun for tank, they actually used muzzle breaks till APFSDS came.

This specific gun(Elbit one) use integrated muzzle break(this does not reduce velocity by itself, unless made on expense of barrel).

I don't know if it use some sort of hydraulic system to reduce recoil(those can reduce velocity).

Israel for example have ammo with range more then 3600m in 105mm category. And FCS of this tank is very good.

So why effective range is only 3600m?
For comparison regular L-7 105mm, also rifled, also 52 calibres effective range is 4000.

My guess is either modern muzzle breaks compatible with APFSDS reduce velocity, or they count it as barrel length(this in effect shorten barrel length), or there is sort of hydraulic system to reduce recoil that reduce energy.
Or something i don't know and actually 3600 = 4000(for example with different method of calculating such range)
Yeah but for a while low recoil guns were synonymous with low pressure ones, perhaps erroneously. No reason to think the "low recoil" label has any bearing on the performance of the gun, so far.

The choice of using a muzzle brake is odd. Elbit also makes 120mm guns, particularly the MG253 fitted to the M60 Sabra is a long recoil one with no muzzle brake.
Muzzle brakes are also traditionally considered a hazard when firing APFSDS, so are not used. But this one is said to be compatible with all APFSDS munitions, so perhaps its construction is unique.

The effective range stat is odd to say the least, usually ignored. A 105mm gun can obviously fire farther than that, with good accuracy.
When it was first unveiled, the Merkava 4 was said to have an effective range of 3km, but no gunner passes a basic gunner course without slinging some dummy HE-MP-T shells to 5km, let alone in a Master Gunner qualification course.
HE-MP shells are balanced in a way that allows them to better maintain stability over long range, but the velocity of an APFSDS allows it to hit targets reliably farther than merely 3km away.

So I'll take this with a grain of salt. It might refer to the sight's capabilities, but even that depends on whether they're referring to the basic, cheapest sight version, or some median variant.

I personally wouldn't give the muzzle brake too much weight here. Besides, muzzle brakes are usually not considered part of the barrel length so...
 

Beholder

Member
The choice of using a muzzle brake is odd. Elbit also makes 120mm guns, particularly the MG253 fitted to the M60 Sabra is a long recoil one with no muzzle brake.
Muzzle brakes are also traditionally considered a hazard when firing APFSDS, so are not used. But this one is said to be compatible with all APFSDS munitions, so perhaps its construction is unique.
This is difference in platform. M60 can take more recoil. Also in recent years several companies said that they solved APFSDS issue(Rheinmetall for example).

The effective range stat is odd to say the least, usually ignored. A 105mm gun can obviously fire farther than that, with good accuracy.
When it was first unveiled, the Merkava 4 was said to have an effective range of 3km, but no gunner passes a basic gunner course without slinging some dummy HE-MP-T shells to 5km, let alone in a Master Gunner qualification course.
HE-MP shells are balanced in a way that allows them to better maintain stability over long range, but the velocity of an APFSDS allows it to hit targets reliably farther than merely 3km away.

So I'll take this with a grain of salt. It might refer to the sight's capabilities, but even that depends on whether they're referring to the basic, cheapest sight version, or some median variant.

I personally wouldn't give the muzzle brake too much weight here. Besides, muzzle brakes are usually not considered part of the barrel length so...
Elbit gave FCS details and they are good.
Identification is 4000m. And this is automatic one day and night. Recognition is 8000m and rangefinder 7000m.
No problem here.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This is difference in platform. M60 can take more recoil. Also in recent years several companies said that they solved APFSDS issue(Rheinmetall for example).



Elbit gave FCS details and they are good.
Identification is 4000m. And this is automatic one day and night. Recognition is 8000m and rangefinder 7000m.
No problem here.
Do you have the source for this?
 
Top