YESSS!!!! Our MBT is entering mass production

[Amon88]

Here is the link to the topic...

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=36144

I personaly think that it can compete with A1M2 Abrams, Leopard, and T-90

[Onkel Neal]

Croatian tank M-95 Degman



$25.5 million per tank isn't bad.

[Skybird]

Usually classified as a "medium-heavy tank", even with full additional armour it weighs 15+ tons less than latest versions of the Abrams and Leopard-2, that exceed 63 tons in ordinary combat configuration, and can be even heavier (up to 68 tons I once read, but I am not sure if that value can be trusted). Unfortunately, little is known about thickness of armour, and me personally never heared about the type of ammo it uses, and it's effectiveness. With Israeli participation one should expect it to be roughly on the same level like Western tanks regarding electronics and board systems . If it uses Russian type ammo or clones of that, western tanks would have the edge over it in firepower in much the same way like the comparision ends with Russian tanks. tactic-wise, it then probably fights best over the long range and at closwe range, with wetsern tanks eventually being better at the most used medium ranges. If it uses non-ruzssian but new amunition for it's 125mm, then that speculation is invalid, of course. On it's survivability I cannot speculate without knowing more about the armour thickness, but the lighter weight speaks against as massive armour than the latests versions of Abrams and Leopards. Speed in reverse is very probabaly better than the original T-72, but if it is as good as Abrams and Leopard-2, remains to be seen: being smaller in hull size and available room, there also is less space for sophisticated transmissions, I would assume. I personally do not like auto-loaders, when they screw up, you're screwed, too. Like all T-72s, it is roughly one sixth shorter in height than Abrams or Leopard-2, which is good, of course. Ergonomy and handling we need a simulation for in order to judge it!

My amateurish estimation would be that in an overall evaluation of armour, mobility, firepower and sensors, it is clearly ahead of the T-72, and slihgty behind the Leopard2A6, Abrams, Merkava-IV and Challenger-II. Maybe en par with the French Leclerc (55 tons, 1500 HP - 27 HP/t, 120 mm gun, crew of 3, height 2.5 m).

One of the very undisputed advantages the Leopard-2 has over all these tanks mentioned is that it consumes considerably less Diesel fuel than any of the others. The Leclerc for example consumes almost twice as much. The jet engine of the Abrams of course even more. Especially for a small army of a country with limited industrial capacity and logistics capabilities, fuel management of forces wins even more in importance.

[yamato9]

Finally! Go Degman go!

[Red Lord of Chaos]

It's exactly the same gun (2A46M) as a T-72 so it lacks the punch of the L30A1. It has essentially conventional armour thus lacking the protection of Chobham/Dorchester armour, with some reactionary armour on top.
It may have some upgraded electronics, but it isn't looking good in direct comparison to the Abrahams/Challenger/Leopard.

[Skybird]

That 125mm gun can fire ATGMs like Svir (range up to 4000m) and Refleks (range up to 6000m). Penetration is around 900-1000 RHA. Although the missiles fly 12-17 seconds over the maximum distance, they can be a pain in the lower bottom, especially against not manouvering, unsuspecting targets. Such a tank can take first shots against an Abrams or Leopard before that Western model even is in firing range for it's own gun.

Know your enemy - pick your battleground carefully.