In general, my mistake was that I made the answer to your original question to much complicated and I „bothered“ you with details (or better said explanations).
Yes, it made the answer unnecessarily clouded and at least seemingly off course.
weight: 48,5 t
speed: 70 km/h
range: 700 km
now, go and enjoy your game
Thanks, I`ve been doing that for quite some time!
Those are exactly those mentioned by wikipedia so I assume, after all, wikipedia was right all along. If we take its note on the reactive armour(as part of the weight of both tanks designs) into consideration than it also means that the Degman and the M-84D were indeed identical in all those 3 regards.
I'm glad you wrote the sources of your posts so I can recognize where the problem comes from.
Well, writing the source, providing proper quotation and generally mentioning a book is a first to the discussion and it deserves celebrating indeed.
That said, are there more recent books in english dealing with the M-84 and the Degman that you have read and could recommend? I have not found any so suggestions, I`d assume, would be welcomed by anyone that followed the conversation on the M-95 and M-84.
You are copying in 2012 what other people wrote in 2005.
Quoting, dear user, quoting. The quotes came with proper accreditation of their source. There`s a world of difference between just copying information without mentioning the source and the proper way to do it which is the path I`ve taken.
Both those books have been edited and republished. It`s not something uncommon for books and you should have taken into consideration that there are different editions for some book titles. Jane`s Recognition guide mentions 2006(maybe it suffered later edits, I don`t know) and George Forty`s encyclopedia mentions 2010 along the 2006 date.
Jane`s Tank Recognition Guide by Christopher F. Foss (Publication Date: April 4, 2006)
- the line you quoted or better said misquoted (intentionally or unintentionally) is the only reference to M-95 in the book
Well, your post would be ok overall, but for that blatant slander of having "misquoted" for which you can`t avoid saying a "mea culpa" as I`ll demonstrate bellow.
The latest edition of Jane`s tank recognition Guide has an entire article on Degman(it calls it Duro Dakovic Degman MBT, not the M-95) and another article on the M-84. The Degman is mentioned in this latest edition at pages 26-27 and the M-84 at pages 80-81. The quote mentioning the layout is on page 27 and the quote mentioning the similarity is on page 80. There are two
lines quoted by my above post and they are part of two
articles that are on different pages. Not one line as you`ve falsely claimed. If you`d actually had the book you`d know this. And the quotes are, of course, correct and proper. Next time you`re not sure on something ask before you throw an accusation. It`ll save you from an apology as is the case now.
EDIT: I`ve rechecked and the Jane`s Tank recognition guide that I`ve mentioned has this on its first pages: fourth edition HarperCollins Publishers 2006.
The World Encyclopedia of Tanks by George Forty (Publication Date: Mar 29, 2005)
I wasn`t mentioning this edition though. As I`ve said, it got republished. Together with an afv encyclopedia it formed: The World Encyclopedia of Tanks & Armoured Fighting Vehicles: An Illustrated History Of The World's Most Important Tanks And Afvs From The Beginning ... To The Present Day. Published by Lorenz Books/Anness Publishing. The date is 2010 I believe, but I don`t know how much of it got revised since the last publishing. The quotes that I`ve given are part of the article on Alan Degman Main Battle Tank found on page 163. As I`ve said above: anything unclear, ask and the explanation will be provided.
Both books(by Foss and Forty) btw, having been relatively recently republished are still in shops and you`ll have no problems finding them. I do recommend that you buy a copy of each.
Also, one should consider that at the time these publications were written (or even published), only one built M-95 prototype existed, so even considering the high credibility of Mr. Foss and Mr. Forty, there is no way they could have had all the facts right.
Well, that`s debatable of course. My point was that the line of thought seemingly dominating the english language writers on armour atm is the one that I`ve mentioned and until someone can provide different info to the general english public they`ll form the mainstream opinion and people who know differently(you in this case) should not wonder why such believes are spread among others.