Gunnar88 0 Posted January 25, 2009 Finally... our MBT(main battle tank) is going in serial production... Its name is M-95 Degman... and i think it is VERY good and can compete with Abrams, T-90 and Leopard... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PMxSayySck...feature=related - compare of M- 95 Degman with Abrams, T-90 and Leopard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mH1F3J9G1U...feature=related - some cool pics and videos plus data about tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-95_Degman <- Wikipedia link Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lt. James Cater 62 Posted January 26, 2009 Looks good. Judging from what i read about it, it looks like they solved what was the worst thing about the T-72 and it's derivatives. It's vunerable ammo racks. Lots of knocked out T-72s could usually be found with their turrets blown clean off. Hope you guys have good sales with this tank! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viper6 3 Posted January 26, 2009 Hope it does not find its way into the 'wrong' hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnar88 0 Posted January 26, 2009 Tell me about it... seen many in battle of Vukovar... speaking of blown out turrets: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnar88 0 Posted January 26, 2009 I found some good pictures of the M-95 "Degman" and M-84D The difference is that M-95 was build from "scrap", so the M-95 is a new tank, while the M-84D is an improvement of the also domestically build M-84A4 "Sniper" to the "Degman" standard Here are the pics of M-95 "Degman": And the modernized version of M-84A4 "sniper" This is the sniper in its original form: And this is the upgraded version to the M-84D "Degman" standard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted January 26, 2009 Can you point me to where is this announced? I can't find anything about it on our sites. Last I've heard is that as it is, this baby is not planned for production at all(which is a shame as it could enhance both our military and industry). As for the "wrong hands" we are like 5mins away from full NATO membership(some formalities left I think, negotiations for acceptance already finished in our favour), now I know some would say that IS "wrong hands" but I disagree lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salamander67 0 Posted January 26, 2009 I found some good pictures of the M-95 "Degman" and M-84D The difference is that M-95 was build from "scrap", so the M-95 is a new tank, while the M-84D is an improvement of the also domestically build M-84A4 "Sniper" to the "Degman" standard Looks nice, congrats! (however, before someone else starts making fun of it, I think the word you are looking for is "scratch", when something is scratch-built it is completly new. When something is built from scrap, then it's a built from junk) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnar88 0 Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Yes... it looks like we are only going to upgrade M-84 to M-84D standard , and i was already hoping... but there is a chance that libya buys some M-95, and then well sure make some for us "Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi has expressed interest in the Croatian M-95 Degman MBT and therefore the Libyan Army might be a potential client." Edited January 26, 2009 by Gunnar88 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremiah Weed 0 Posted January 26, 2009 Its name is M-95 Degman... and i think it is VERY good and can compete with Abrams and Leopard... Yeah, good luck with that. (notice I edited out T-90) Luckily you won't have to though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted January 26, 2009 "Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi has expressed interest in the Croatian M-95 Degman MBT and therefore the Libyan Army might be a potential client." ROFL I don't know why they even asked that clown to visit our country, when we searched for gas alternative during the past weeks Russo-Ukranian Gas crisis from Lybians they told us to f*ck off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 26, 2009 How well does it do against an A-10 carrying AGM-65D's? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted January 26, 2009 Riding the turret in the cupola when it comes off like that can't be a fun ride. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted January 26, 2009 How well does it do against an A-10 carrying AGM-65D's? it will have to deal with Iglas first Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremiah Weed 0 Posted January 26, 2009 How well does it do against an A-10 carrying AGM-65D's? About as well as it would against a company of M1A2 SEP, M1A1D/SA, or Leo2A5/A6. It seems to be a good tank for Croatia's needs, and I am not slagging on it, but to say it would "hold its own" against those tanks is a bit of a stretch. But, it doesen't need to fight the top of the line tanks of the world so the point is mute. The comparisons made in those youtube videos don't even say anything. I'm glad it has the whatever the Croatian version of FBCB2, whatever they call their BLUEFOR tracker. I don't like the fact that the Commander's Independent Viewer seemed to be an afterthought, and it was added as part of the Israeli designed CWS (Commander's Weapon Station) Sure the TC has an independent optic to search for targets, but it is not the same optics as the gunner, and he has no way to designate targets and transfer them over to the gunner. In the modern tank fight (especially in the defense) this puts crewmen of this tank at the disadvantage when fighting modern Westarn tanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted January 26, 2009 Can you point me to where is this announced? I can't find anything about it on our sites.Last I've heard is that as it is, this baby is not planned for production at all(which is a shame as it could enhance both our military and industry). As for the "wrong hands" we are like 5mins away from full NATO membership(some formalities left I think, negotiations for acceptance already finished in our favour), now I know some would say that IS "wrong hands" but I disagree lol yeah, i feel your pain...here in mid 80's we devloped a MBT wiches face off with Abraams in saudi Army AMX-30 replacement program....too bad US lobbyED the Saudis and the Osorio fall in the abyss...Brazil Army Shamed didn't brought this machines :( and now the Army uses Old crapped Leopard 1 and 2(early versions both)and some old US junk(M60) that was supposed to be artificial Barrier reef somewhere in mexico gulf. we had here a lot of good projects that the governement never feel intrested... including a tank hunder (wich is older than Centauro or Stryker) and low profile APC and now the newest version of ASTROS System capble to fire Cruise missiles.... they shame me each day...too bad we live for exports and basically nothing of our inventary is national build..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted January 26, 2009 Guys the M-95 Degman is 1995 design and what you see in the clips and articles about it is exactly that a 1995 tank design. Just to remind everybody that we were under weapons embargo in those years so with that in mind this tank is a bloddy miracle and I'm not being patriotic here. Ofcourse as such it's not in line with latest of the worlds tanks(wouldn't that be really sad for them? lol), but with the 1995 lineup that statement would not be such a stretch... Anyway I doubt M-95 project will see the light of day anytime soon, even if it does it will first have to pass modernization and satisfy NATO standards, this would require bigger intrests of HV(Croatian Army) and thus a lot of good will(read cash) from the goverment, currently IMO Air Force upgrades should have priority, MiG-21bis is for museums not for active service. As for A-10+AGM65D, that's funny because there's like 1000 way to destroy ANY modern tank on the modern battlefield, the A-10+AGM65D is probably the most expensive one lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 26, 2009 Nice looking tank. The reactive armor is a smart idea, but not sure about the flat angle on the turret. I'm not engineer or tanker, so it's just my thought. The earlier M-84 looks just like a T-72. Licensed built copy? Congrats! -S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 26, 2009 As for A-10+AGM65D, that's funny because there's like 1000 way to destroy ANY modern tank on the modern battlefield, the A-10+AGM65D is probably the most expensive one lol But the most fun.....(simming wise) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted January 26, 2009 Definitely, I do it on daily basis, 6 Mavs right in the face, few Rockeyes for tighter groups and then: Avenger Time!!! :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremiah Weed 0 Posted January 26, 2009 Nice looking tank. The reactive armor is a smart idea, but not sure about the flat angle on the turret. I'm not engineer or tanker, so it's just my thought. The earlier M-84 looks just like a T-72. Licensed built copy? Congrats! -S Yes, the M-84 is a Yugoslavian made T-72 copy. I did an exchange with a Kuwaiti National Guard unit in 1998 and operated one, it was awful. Granted this was one of the earliest versions of the tank, an the Kuwaiti Military isn't known for its high maintenance standards, let alone their National Guard, optics were horrible, turret was cramped, auto loader (a bad idea for many reasons anyways) was crap, and it had the same flaw as the T-72 it's wonderful ammo stowage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scouserlad13 0 Posted January 26, 2009 Thats a nice tank, but i would like to see it take on a Challenger 2, personally i think the challenger would win, but eh who knows :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 27, 2009 Thats a nice tank, but i would like to see it take on a Challenger 2, personally i think the challenger would win, but eh who knows :P Just curious, but what is your opinion based on? Looks, or have you crewed a Challenger? Battles arent won by equipment that looks cool or even by the fact that one may be superior to another. So often, the level of an individual crews compatency is left out of someone's figuring. Just saying... -S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lt. James Cater 62 Posted January 27, 2009 Just curious, but what is your opinion based on? Looks, or have you crewed a Challenger? Battles arent won by equipment that looks cool or even by the fact that one may be superior to another. So often, the level of an individual crews compatency is left out of someone's figuring. Just saying... -S As everyone should know... Having superior gear is nice, but no guarantee of success. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Well he is 16 so his comments are quite normal :) As for the Challanger2, it's a really nice tank, I just couldn't believe how could they be so sloppy or stubborn not to put a smoothbore cannon on it. Did they think all other designers are stupid? lol Anyway with Lethality Improvement Program they are undergoing with Ch2 now it should be a more rounded up product as they will put Rheinmetal's smoothbore cannon and use excellent German Tungsten rounds...atleast they said so lol Edited January 27, 2009 by Brain32 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnar88 0 Posted February 18, 2009 found this...can anyone who is a tank enthusiast tell me what he thinks about this: http://www.ddsv.hr/download/tenk_degman_engleski.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
