Talk:Philippine Army/Archive 1




 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hyperlink
What is with the blacklisted hyper link that disables editing of the page? Contralya 04:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The "invisionfree.com" forum site has recently been added to the Spam blacklist. I have removed a link to a forum found there from this article, so editing can continue.  I have no opinion on whether the site should be blacklisted, so please don't take my removal as a statement either way: I merely wanted to continue editing. Thus, of course, I have no prejudice against adding the link back to this article, should it be removed from the blacklist, or whitelisted.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection needed
Somebody needs to put edit protection temporarily in this page. The Philippines does not have F-18 Hornets, so does that F-35. STOP THIS MADNESS NOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.155.230 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanian trucks
Is it true that the PA acquired Romanian trucks in the 1970s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.115.209 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I`ll go look up on it.

No they didnt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.90.48 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian Trucks
The Philippine Army does in fact use Armored trucks aquired from Russia 2 years after the Soviet Union. I`ve been inside one once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.166.250 (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How many and do you have a reference? Do you think they deserve to be placed under "Major equipment"? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pilipino
Bakit waláng bersyóng Pilipino ang itóng lathalà? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MSSR, Floro Mk.9, FN MINIMI, M24 Chaffee

 * MSSR - Please provide references that the MSSR is widely used by the Philippine Army --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Floro Mk. 9 - Please provide references that the Floro Mk.9 is widely used by the Philippine Army --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FN MINIMI - The M249 is the version of the MINIMI which is most widely used in the Philippine Army. If there are individual examples of FN MINIMIs in the AFP, then it isn't necessary to list them as a major weapons system. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * M24 Chaffee - These are no longer in service, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Philippine army using Floro Mk. 9
For evidence that the Philippine army uses Floro Mk. 9s lookup The Unnoficial Philippine Defence Page. If you want lookup this website  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read it and there is NOTHING about the Philippine Army using it. It says the Philippine Navy, Philippine Marine Corps and the AFP's Anti-Crime Task Force uses it, nowhere is it stated that it is in wide-spread use in the Philippine Army. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry. (I didnt know that the Philippine navy uses them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.166.250 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the Philippine Army use Russian tanks?
Question to anybody who knows: My daughter (Yulia) asked me that if the Philippine army uses Russian tanks. Im not sure either so she got me wondering as well. Anyway does the Philippine Army use Russian tanks (incase ur wondering my daughter and wife are Russians and yes Yulia is intrested about military forces)? PS: Im Filipino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.58 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Philippine Army does not use Russian tanks. The closest thing the Philippine Army has to tanks these days are the British Scorpion light tanks. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Philippine Army does not use any Russian-made equipment at all. The closest thing the Philippine Army got to Russian-made equipment were the captured AK-47s and RPG from the NPA or MNLF/MILF groups. PS: you're lucky, i always wanted to have a Russian girlfriend. hehehe--phichanad (talk) 1315H 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the Philippine Army uses Russian tanks. They use the T-72s so tell ur daughter yes the Philippine Army do use Russian tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.109.90 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof? Or are we to believe that you adding it to the T-72 article, five minutes before responding here should be proof enough? ;) --Edward Sandstig (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just place the "Yeah the Philippine Army uses Russian tanks" part as a joke to my friend who posted this question in the first place. He found out dont worry. PS: He just found his Russian wife working as a nurse in Makati Med. hehehe. hehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.160.13 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As for AK-47s used by any Philippine military or police, I refer you to the SWAT team of Santiago City, province of Isabela. Based on newspaper articles about 2 years ago (Philippine Daily Inquirer if i ma not mistaken) the city government official purchased such. Can't remember if these were directly from Russia, China or any former East-bloc country. I am not sure if they are still currently in use. - Bong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.137.206 (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your right. Heres the reference to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.64 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the Philippines use the Pinzgauer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle
Does the Philippines use the Pinzgauer High Mobility All-Terrain Vehicle because in Makati I thought I saw something which looks like it. So I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.57 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If we base the Pinzgauer article in Wikipedia, the Philippines is not one of the users. However, there is a white "Pinzgauer-like" vehicle that i see in the province of Laguna often. (Laguna is home to the HQ of the Special Action Force of the Philippine National Police [PNP] in Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna. The HQ of the PNP Region-IV is in Camp Vicente Lim in Canlubang, Laguna). But then again even if it were a Pinzgauer, it is with the PNP not the Philippine Army. - Bong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.137.206 (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

LVT-5 removed because the vehicle is operated by the Marines, not the Army
I have once again removed the LVT-5 from the list of vehicles operated by the Philippine Army because they do not operate the vehicle. The vehicle is operated by the Philippine Marine Corps, as stated in the sources that were cited. Please, if you're going to add something to this page, read and understand the sources you're using. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the LVT-5s are already long gone, although the Marines activated a number of LVTH-6s (which are actually a version of LVT-5 with a 105mm gun) and are currently assigned with the CSSB. Waiting for confirmation if they will revive more units from the hulk lot at Fort Bonifacio. --phichanad (talk) 1318H 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Phillipine Army use of the Desert Eagle?
I haven't seen any evidence of teh Phillipine Army (or any other military force) using the Desert Eagle. Anyone have a link to establish otherwise? 198.185.182.253 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)R. Randall

Third lieutenant
Is there anyone out there who has a photo of the insignia of a 3rd lieutenant of the colonial army (Philippine Army)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.66.172 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a web site that has illustrations of former Philippine Army insignia, but unfortunately it doesn't include one of a 3LT. It also lacks ROTC and PMA insignias, as those of the PNP, PNPA, fire service, coast guard, the defunct constabulary and INP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.96.251 (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Confused
Are the soldiers in this (website) picture Philippine Army or Philippine Police ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.83 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The guys wearing black are Philippine National Police as noted by the subdued PNP insignia on their right arms. The soldier you claim to be holding an FN FAL is a policeman carrying a PSG-1. Here's a close up of a PSG-1 and here's one of the FN FAL. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.160.13 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to concur on that. It appears to be an MSG-90 since the bipod and pistol grip are different. Ominae (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandal
Hi, Please note that a very persistent IP vandal has been adding hoax material to articles on the Philippines' military, military history and ethnic groups, including this article. The IP addresses they've been using include: As such, anything added by IP addresses starting with 118.93., 118.92 or 202.37 should be considered highly dubious and I strongly recommend undoing such edits on sight. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (30 September)
 * (19 September)
 * (17 September)
 * (13 September)
 * (12 September)
 * (29 August)
 * (22 August)
 * (2 August)
 * (12 July)
 * (11 July)
 * (7 July)
 * (2 July - admitted posting incorrect info at: )
 * (30 June, used this IP again for vandalism in early July, blocked 6 July - posted abuse on talk page and block extended for another month, responded by stating that they will continuine vandalism once the block expires )
 * (29 June)
 * (26 June
 * (25 June)
 * (25 June)
 * (20-21 June)
 * (17 May and 19 July, probable)
 * (5-7 May)
 * (28-30 April)

Explanation
Its me (the Russian) Tatiana (IP user 202.37.68.58) and the wife of (Pinouy) Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13). I to am a constant editor at Wikipedia. PS: I convinced Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13) to stop making edits without refrences. PS again: Before I came to the Phuilippines I was with the Soviet Air Force Command in Moskva (Moscow). Thats why I like military stuf. Martin (IP user 118.92.160.13) uses my computer often just incase ur wandering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.58 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.33 (talk)

Aguinaldo's insurgent forces role in development of the Philippine Army
One paragraph of this article reads "On February 4, 1899, the Philippine-American War erupted due to Filipino political struggle against U.S. annexation of the Islands. The Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for independence. The Philippine Constabulary was established on August 8, 1901, by authority of Act. No. 175 of the Philippine Commission, to assist the United States military in combating the remaining Filipino revolutionaries. Between that time until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with U.S. troops."

In reading this, I get the impression from this that the Philippine Army somehow grew out of the insurgent revolutionary forces and that the Philippine constabulary is being spoken of in some other unstated sense. I also get the impression that (since the force opposing the constabulary is referred to as "the Filipinos") perhaps the constabulary forces were not Filipinos. However, in the Philippine Constabulary article, I see that the constabulary was the first component of what has become the country's armed forces and was a service command alongside the Army, Navy, and Air Force until it was integrated into and replaced by the current Philippine National Police in 1991. I suggest that this paragraph be rewritten. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Material moved here from the History section
In the History section, article says, "The official birth of the Philippine Army is the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 1, Executive Order No. 11 on January 11, 1936 effecting the organization of Head Quarters, Philippine Army." The material after the tag jumps backwards to 1898, 38 years prior to the official birth of the Philippine Army, and engages in a lot of unsupported assertion regarding Philippine sovereignty during the first few of those 38 years.

Almost a year after the outbreak of hostilities between the Katipuneros and the Spanish Army, the Philippine Revolutionary Government and its Army were born on March 22, 1897 at Tejeros, San Francisco de Malabon in Cavite. General Artemio Ricarte was named Captain General of the Ejercito en la Republica de las Islas Filipinas or the revolutionary Philippine Army. This date marks the founding day of the modern day Philippine Army.

Even before the United States arrived in the Philippines, the Katipunan gained many victories against Spanish forces, which were also composed of native Filipinos hired by the Spanish government. With the advent of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and following on the battle of Manila Bay, Commodore George Dewey transported Emilio Aguinaldo &mdash; at the time exiled to Hong Kong following the Pact of Biak na Bato&mdash; back to the Philippines. Spanish troops were weakened within a month and, on June 12, 1898, Philippine Independence was declared. The Philippine Declaration of Independence was signed by ninety-eight individuals, including an American military officer who witnessed the event. This event established Katipunan organization as an insurgent dictatorial government. On June 23, 1898, it was reorganized into an insurgent revolutionary government. With the proclamation of the Malolos Constitution on January 21, 1899 this was transformed into a republic. The Philippine government and its education departments officially regard this republic as the First Philippine Republic, (even though the USA might not). The Malolos Congress declared war on the United States on June 2, 1899 in response to the US invasion and occupation. This First Philippine Republic became the third sovereign republic in Asia, the two previous republics being the Lanfang Republic in 1777, and the Republic of Formosa in 1895. The first republic was succeeded by the American government of occupation, then the US sponsored Commonwealth in 1935, then the Second Philippine Republic - a puppet government of the Empire of Japan in 1943, during World War II, then the Third Philippine Republic when the Philippines became independent from the United States on July 4, 1946, then the Fourth Philippine Republic in 1981 following the ousting of Marcos, then the Fifth Philippine Republic in 1986, which is still current.

On February 4, 1899, the Philippine-American War erupted due to Filipino political struggle against U.S. annexation of the Islands. The Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for independence. The Philippine Constabulary was established on August 8, 1901, by authority of Act. No. 175 of the Philippine Commission, to assist the United States military in combating the remaining Filipino revolutionaries. Between that time until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with U.S. troops.

With the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth on 1935-11-15, President Manuel L. Quezon sought the services of General Douglas MacArthur to evolve a national defense plan.

I assert that this material (besides being original research) is misplaced in this Philippine Army article. The material argues a Philippine nationalistic view of sovereignty over the country in the period around 1898-1902, without citing supporting sources. I think that a discussion of that would be out of place on this talk page, but I will mention that Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the Philippine Treaty Limits by Lowell B. Bautista might be useful; also
 * has some applicable information, also
 * has an interesting sidelight.

About PA armored vehicles
It seems the heaviest armored vehicle that was used the PA was the American M4 Sherman medium tank, and the fastest was the Portuguese Chaimite APC. The only SP artillery that was used by the PA was the American M7 Priest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.227.200 (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wendell Fertig as an example
I've reverted part of these edits, removing the sentence, "A good example is the force commanded by Colonel Wendell Fertig, who organized Filipino and American resistance on Mindanao." Fertig was Fertig a reserve officer who had been called back into the military before the war in the Pacific began, and it might be technically so that, as such, he had been appointed, designated or recognized by a general officer of the United States Army. However, Fertig was a civil engineer called back into the service as a Lieutenant Colonel who, on his own initiative, disobeyed orders to surrender and (foisting himself off as a Brigadier General to give himself credibility) organized a guerrilla force and conducted operations against the Japanese invaders. He was not given a mission to do this by his superiors. AFAICS, Fertig is a bad choice as an example to illustrate the meaning of "a commander who has been appointed, designated or recognized by a general officer of the United States Army." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Artemio Ricarte
I'm wondering about this recent unsupported addition, possibly related to this earlier unsupported change to the Artemio Ricarte article.

As I understand it, the Philippine Army grew out of forces which fought in opposition to and which defeated forces generaled by Ricarte and others. As this article says, the Philippine Army was initially organized from among those formerly holding Reserve Commissions in the United States Army, from among former officers of the Philippine Scouts and Constabulary, and others -- forces involved in the defeat of the revolutionary forces in which Ricarte served.

I'll just mention here a couple of items from : page 276 mentions that Ricarte was the only revolutionary general who refused to take the oath of allegiance to the U.S. and that he lived in exile in Hong Kong and later in Japan; page 346 names Ricarte as one of the leaders of an organization termed "MAKAPILIS", called Makabayan: Katipunan ng mga Pilipino (Patriotic Society of Filipinos), and characterized as having been a "fanatical pro-Japanese organization" during the WW-II Japanese occupation. Zaide calls MAKAPILIS "the worst collaborators".

I've looked online for support for the assertion that Ricarte is considered to be the "Father of the Philippine Army" without finding any. It is possible, though, I guess, given nationalistic attitudes. I'm traveling to Manila next month, and I'll try to find time to dig up some relevant references. Meantime, I'll ask here for comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Acquisition (81mm Mortar)
Only one proponent has submitted a bid to PA's contract involving the purchase of mortar and ammunition worth P190.32 million. A joint venture by Joavi Philippines Corp. an Talon Security Consulting and Trade Ltd. offered to undertake the project lower than the approved budget above. They aimed to deliver the mortar and ammunition at the second quarter of 2011. <:ref>http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=25515.0 <:ref>http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=640708&publicationSubCategoryId=63

Request: Can a section about this be put on article?

Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Artemio Ricarte (take two)
This article currently says "Captain General Artemio Ricarte is considered the father of the Philippine Army, being its commander during the first First Philippine Republic under President Emilio Aguinaldo."

My understanding is that Ricarte was a commander in the force which was in opposition to and which was defeated by the force which grew into the current Philippine army. I don't dispute that, despite this, he may currently (even officially) be considered to be the father of the Philippine Army, but the assertion that this is the case ought to be supported by cited sources.

Also please see the section above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Military Decision Making Process
As student of the AFP Sergeants Major Course Cl 5-2011 we are subjected to make a reaction paper regarding the deletion of the subject Military Decision Making Process in the course, my reason is that the subject is for conventional warfare, in fact, in our country we are fighting for unconventional warfare(Guerilla type). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.110.232.39 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Artemio Ricarte as the father of the Philippine Army
The initial sentence of the History section begins, "Captain General Artemio Ricarte is considered the father of the Philippine Army,". That has been tagged citation needed since January 2011.

The remainder of the initial paragraph of the article summarizes Ricarte's history of generalship in an opposition force during the formative period of the Philippine Army, citing supporting sources for that information.

The History section lists Military History of the Philippines as a main article on its topic. That article does not mention Ricarte.

This assertion that Captain General Artemio Ricarte is considered the father of the Philippine Army should either be supported or removed. If the assertion is supported, considering Ricarte's history re generalship of an opposing force, supported clarification regarding how that came to be the case should be provided. If the assertion is removed, the remainder of the initial paragraph of the History section should probably be removed with it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
I see that in this article there is the term "Philippine Commonwealth Army" used during the Philippine Commonwealth period. However, in my research of the era, I did not see the use of the term. Rather the term used was "Philippine Army". Can someone support the usage of this term via reliable sources? Additionally, if the contemporary term was Philippine Army, and the term used today is Philippine Commonwealth Army, which should be used?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some quick googling turned up, among other items. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked because books regarding the history of the organization during World War II referred to the organization as the Philippine Army, such as here (originally published in 1953), the United States National Archive, and in other sources such as these books. Therefore it appears, from what you have researched and from what I have researched that the Commonwealth Army phrase maybe something that occurred after the World War II was completed. Let me explain. Tt appears that in that during World War II it was referred simply as the Philippine Army in Life in 1944, Life in 1942, Life in 1941, and even in Life 1937; this compares to the oldest document that uses the phrase Philippine Commonwealth Army in 1968 (with preview) and 1948 (without).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I haven't done a lot of digging, but I do see that Commonwealth act No. 1, which created the Army on December 21, 1935, doesn't use either of the terms Commonwealth Army or Philippine Commonwealth Army. It uses the terms Philippine Army and Army of the Philippines. I don't know when, where, or in what circumstances the term Philippine Commonwealth Army came into use. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
 * added: I only got a snippet view at, but 6 Fed. Reg. 3825 appears not to have used the term Commonwealth Army. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)