Tango01 | 06 Feb 2016 11:20 a.m. PST |
… M113A2 APC with 25mm automatic cannon. "The Mechanized Infantry Division (MID) of Philippines Army is looking at the possibility of installing 25mmm automatic cannons to some of its newly-refurbished M-113A2 armored personnel carriers (APCs) of which 114 were formally accepted for service Thursday, February 4, 2016. We are looking the reconfiguration of some of the APCs into armored infantry fighting vehicles (AIFVs), meaning that their .50 caliber machineguns will be replace with 25mm automatic cannons, so they can be use for internal security and territorial defense operations," MID head Major Gen. Edgar Gonzales said in Filipino. The 25mm automatic cannon is much lethal, longer range and has more killing power than the .50 caliber machineguns…"
Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 06 Feb 2016 12:04 p.m. PST |
Upgrading thinly armored vehicles into some tank killer is not the smartest idea. My first assumption is the DoD is probably running a surplus sale on 25mm cannons and they'll be sold for almost nothing to the Philippine military, which practically gave them the APC's to begin with. If the Chinese do make some amphibious landing, better off with a TOW missile launcher – fire it and drive like hell to get away. |
Mako11 | 06 Feb 2016 1:00 p.m. PST |
Territorial defense I get, but needing something bigger than a .50 cal for "internal security" seems a bit much. Yea, TOW launchers would be a good idea too. |
cwlinsj | 06 Feb 2016 2:21 p.m. PST |
They are for fighting the Moros' full scale insurgencies in the southern islands. Need something to cut through super dense jungle plus kill watercraft. These wouldn't be to fight China. The USA is for fighting China. |
Sudwind | 06 Feb 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
Those would be horrible in the jungle without a lot of solid infantry support. They should look for something heavier armed and armored, but cheap. Maybe some surplus early Cold War era tanks to back the M-113's? Or add some heavier armed surplus light tanks or armored cars to the mix? |
cwlinsj | 06 Feb 2016 3:47 p.m. PST |
M113s fought in Vietnam without tank support. Heavy armor is not what you want in jungle and mud. |
79thPA | 06 Feb 2016 6:40 p.m. PST |
I agree with cw. They have enough internal problems that a 25mm auto cannon makes sense. |
Bangorstu | 07 Feb 2016 3:06 a.m. PST |
M113s did fight in Vietnam – how well did that work out (genuine question). And note that the Moros Islamic Liberation Front (now there's a fun acronym to Google) possibly has better anti-tank wepaons than the VC did.. But if you're the Philipines, beggars can't be choosers. |
cwlinsj | 07 Feb 2016 10:09 a.m. PST |
They did rather well actually. It was the ARVN who modified them into ACAVs, which turned this APC into an IFV. This fighting design was later adopted by Isreal and we now have all-around turrets and gunshields on fighting vehicles as a result. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 07 Feb 2016 12:33 p.m. PST |
M113s did fight in Vietnam – how well did that work out (genuine question). It was said that the armor was thin enough to let the projectiles through, but thick enough to keep them from exiting the other side, so they just bounced around the inside. |
cwlinsj | 07 Feb 2016 2:44 p.m. PST |
Old wives' tale. Early M113 armor was proof against 12.7 -14.5mm. Current versions like M113A3 is even better. Anything that can get through kinetically will go all the way through, or rpg type weaponry will send jet of molten metal to burn-out the insides. |