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.

[Lieste]

There is nothing wrong with the 'punch' of the T72 gun.

The early ammunition was no better than NATO ammunition from the 105mm, and growth has been limited by Russian ability to build long monobloc rounds, and the limitation on projectile length enforced by the two part ammunition and the autoloader.

If it was loaded with single piece rounds with the projectile buried within the casing (as on the Rheinmetall gun) then it would probably outperform the L44 version with ease.

With the more recent Russian and other 'modern' rounds, and with the limitation on projectile length eased with the later autoloader on the most recent designs it is still highly competitive. You cannot compare the results of the old tube and early steel projectiles with how the modernised system would perform.
You now have improved suspension, stabilisation, a full ballistic computer, reduced dispersion and higher lethality and much higher penetration.

[Red Lord of Chaos]

The weapon is known to be inaccurate by modern standards and its combat history has shown it to be inferior in practice to the western tanks mentioned.
The tank in question seems to be on par with a T-90.

[FIREWALL]

How much extra for FM and DVD player ?

[Lieste]

The T72(export) from the 1970s is known to be wildy inaccurate by modern standards, has thin armour by modern standards, and has usually been supplied with inadequate, poor or downright shocking ammunition, and used by inadequately trained crews.

Not surprisingly, this isn't a recipe for success.

If you compare this to the current state of the art T64B, T90 and T80U/84 series tanks you would find that:

The quality of engineering is sometimes much higher, the new gun is less inaccurate than the original model, and has a better integration with the optics and FCS. Modern ammunition is no longer using full bore riding fins, but uses a 'western style' sabot.
The modern ammuntion is at least comparable with M829A1, and superior to DM33/M829 - as described previously the seperate loading and inability to bury the projectile in the case forces a limit to the penetration performance, but it is adequate for flanking fires at any usable range, and will penetrate the less well protected areas of the frontal protection of a Western tank at normal battle ranges.
The 125mm HEAT ammunition is equivalent to the best of the NATO rounds, and it also carries a useful Frag-HE round.
Any possible disadvantage at long range is more than compensated by the availability of a high supersonic gun-launched ATGM - this hits hard enough to kill anything except the possibly the front (protected portion) of a modern MBT, and flies at least twice as fast as western ATGM do, to 5km (TOW is 'only' 3.75km), and can be fired on the move if required.

Armour protection is comparable to the M1A1HA, although it obtains it using alternative arrangements. Not all of the frontal area is highly protected though - as is the case with the M1A1HA, which has an unreinforced glacis and turret roof.

Post penetration survivability is a known vulnerability, but is not as bad as the BDA photographs would appear to indicate*. The key problem is 6 rounds of APFSDS which are stowed in the fighting compartment. If these have been expended, or if they are not loaded in the first place (as in the later actions in Grozny) then the T64/T72/T80 series is not particularly dangerous to operate. While this reduces the supply of ammunition slightly (as no other round will fit in these 6 clips/racks), this is less critical than it might sound, as the T64/T72/T80 series has 28 rounds in the ready rack, compared to 11-15 for a western tank, and they are intended to operate en-mass.
* The relatively high proportion of wrecks which have been destroyed by catastrophic explosion only reflects the design of the carousel within the hull, which once a vehicle fire gets out of control is likely to destroy the vehicle. A similarly 'totally destroyed' tank such as the M1 we see from Iraq are less spectactularly destroyed, but are still obviously gutted by the fires that destroy them.

Highly impressive that a small country like Croatia comes out with an own tank design. It may be able to compete with modern tanks from Russia or the West, or it may not, but imho that is not the question at hand. It will certainly boost confidence and after such a long struggle on the balkans, this certainly is something positive.

Gratulation, guys, keep it up!

[yamato9]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Highly impressive that a small country like Croatia comes out with an own tank design. It may be able to compete with modern tanks from Russia or the West, or it may not, but imho that is not the question at hand. It will certainly boost confidence and after such a long struggle on the balkans, this certainly is something positive.

Gratulation, guys, keep it up!

Thanks Bewolf!

We are always capable of AFV (OK before war this was cooperation between most Yu republics)production but war, lack of money and general disorder after war messed up our production, but how it seems, things getting better.