Degman looks like an upgraded M-84 so its more like a 2nd gen tank (just like pingpong).
One immidiate problem with Degman is that its underarmored (i'd have to look into specifics to know anything more about it) but at 44 tonnes it just wont have enough armor to compete with modern Western MBTs, for example both Ariete and Leclerc are a full 10 tonnes heavier.It is, Croatia just modernised it so it can compete with other tanks. The Serbian M-84AS is a extremely upgraded version of the Yugoslav M-84. Its more related to a T-90 than it is to a T-72 [It has the Shtora-1 defense suite = win]
EDIT - The Degman is still pretty good. Kuwait is planning to buy about 50-60 of them I think.
No actually Leopard is 120 tons and Abrams is 210 tons, M1A2 is 600 tons, has 20 turrets and shoots lasers.the big 4 are about 70-80 tons right?
seems like the others would need much more work to compete against those
The heaviest tank out there is the M1A2, its combat load is 69 tonnes, ammo and everything and thats already too much.hello mister Sarcazm
The heaviest tank out there is the M1A2, its combat load is 69 tonnes, ammo and everything and thats already too much.
Knowing what I do about Chinese manufacturing QC I will reserve judgment on their newest shiny penny till a few of them do a turn in head to head combat in harsh conditions... if the electronics and mechanical pieces can withstand more than 30 days duty I'd be shocked.
At 75-80 you'd be busting down most bridges in Israel, fully loaded it might gain a ton or three but not 15.I think that a simple look at the fac that the IDF dpecifies the same weight for the Merkava Mk 2, 3 and 4 is fisshy. I never put an MK 4 on scales but I doubt it is "only" 65 tons. My guess would be 75-80.
Most of Israeli tank science comes from US, either handed over or spied out and most American knowledge comes from a joint German-American programme (that failed) i dont remember the name of the prototype, but the result is all of these (Merkava, Leopard and Abrams) roll along the same general outlines, dimentions included.A ton? Have you seen them standing next to each other? just the diffrence in gun, engine and size is worth more than a ton....Thats assuming the armopr was kept the same, which it was not.
i think that a shell loading is a Human Job! because i would trust a loader in my Tank more than i would trust an ignorant machine,that,as SHERMAN,said can brake down,there is not replamnet for a Human capability.
also the loader takes part on the Machine gun firing on the top of the turet isent he? so it is an added fire power against Infantry
It is, Croatia just modernised it so it can compete with other tanks. The Serbian M-84AS is a extremely upgraded version of the Yugoslav M-84. Its more related to a T-90 than it is to a T-72 [It has the Shtora-1 defense suite = win]
EDIT - The Degman is still pretty good. Kuwait is planning to buy about 50-60 of them I think.
From those, for what I know only can say about the Leclerc and Japan's Type 90 could be with the "Big 4", french one is a very fast tank, and what to say about japanese tech...
Don't know very much about the other, but K2 turret armor don't looks enough inclinate to withstand impacts...
Eventually I would think so, but as it remains now their are reasons to keep the loader. Relablity for one. We had a member here named Cadet Seamen, he was a US tanker and though he was very knowledgeable he was steadfast against autoloading tanks, due to the early Russian (T-80)autoloaders attempt to load the gunner into the gun.
However there have been massive improvements in this area from the early generations. The Leclerc for example has a working and reliable auoloader.
I think that a simple look at the fac that the IDF dpecifies the same weight for the Merkava Mk 2, 3 and 4 is fisshy. I never put an MK 4 on scales but I doubt it is "only" 65 tons. My guess would be 75-80.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.