T-80UD/BE (T-80UD 478DU-1) Performance & Inaccuracies

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
100

No, your first post you brought that 60-80mm extra pen as if it wouldn’t be a huge deal and didn’t even care

It was a clear estimation and I said “around”, the actual penetration difference would vary in-game and I was going based off readily available information.

only after a lot of people called you on that you back off to “n-n-n-no that’s not what I mean, maybe it would just 20mm better than 3BM60 in-game”

Oh God, if only you read the opening message in this topic then you’d probably understand. I said things like “if implemented correctly” and “real life value” as I’m not actually sure how it would translate into War Thunder, I have on numerous occasions mentioned that these figures are public information and the difference between the 3BM60 and Naiza being a in-game and real life comparison.

Message In Question

image

You can’t really backtrack words when they’re the first to be sent in the topic lmao

T80BVM is not a T80U. It’s a B turret on top of a U hull

I said T-80, I never said T-80U in that statement and this is another example of you failing to take in information thoroughly, you’re just arguing for the sake to argue at this point.

So much for same K5 placement as well, your own prints as well

“The Kontakt-5 placement other than the turret are identical on all T-80U series of vehicles”

Just take time to read things, it would go a long way when having debates with people as this could derail topics and cause irrational arguments, I clearly stated “excluding the turret” yet you decide to overlook this yet again.

it’s still better than what Russia either gets on the 12.0 T80BVM

You’re so ignorant this is actually ineffable, I’ve said this countless of times, when translated into War Thunders calculator it would likely have similar performance to TAPNA which can already be found at 10.7, I was using the real world performance of the Naiza compared to the in-game performance of 3BM60 and DTC10-125.

3 Likes
101

LMAO faster gear efficiency , stop making things up. Oh, and:
Khalid = 7 gears
T80U & B = 9 gears

Gears on gas turbine vehicles are multiplied in-game, the actual gears of a T-80U in real life for example would be 5 forward and 1 reverse but in-game this is multiplied.

image

2 Likes
102

And how would Naiza perform better than both irl?
Don’t want to argue it, but that’s not very possible.

1 Like
103

My wording may be a bit confusing and the root for the “argument” but basically I’m comparing the in-game performance of the 3BM60 to the real life performance of the Naiza.

I probably shouldn’t have since people are getting this entirely mixed up, I have mentioned countless of time though that the performance of the Naiza in-game would be more similar to TAPNA.

image

This image clearly shows the length of the Naiza, it’s not the longest out there and it’s without a doubt shorter than the length of the DTC10-125 fired from most Chinese MBTs.

3 Likes
104

Okay, then maybe you could have worded it slightly better, since many of us were confused at the start as evidenced above.

2 Likes
106

Man, this will be my last post here, I don’t intend to turn this into a flame war nor derail your corrections, which I support. I was not the only one to call out that a round stronger than 3BM60 seems overkill for 11.0. Even after you stated that it would be similar to TAPNA, we can point worser rounds at higher BRs for the T 80 U. I also brought the K5 overall placement as being best on the Chinese T80UD, which it is, since it has ERA blocks almost glued to the cannon trunnion, while other, higher-tiered T80Us do not, and that could be seen as a armor balance offset to the 15mm air gap in the T80UD hull composition. Also, I brought other T80Us as those are the closest cousins you have to the T80UD, with 99% similar armor profiles, and many sport higher BRs than what you are proposing, while not carrying the advatanges you were proposing. I also brought the T80B/BVM and some of the T72 to point mobility and firepower comparisons, but those were side comparisons. My main point was that 11.0 for all those changes is imo too little of a change. That’s all.

As for the gear remarks from the devs. Yeah, like I said, torque, torque curves and torque converters are not modelled in the game. HP is a function of torque and RPM in real life, one of which Warthunder does not model at all (dev confirmed).
Turbine vs Diesel torque curves do not exist in Warthunder, so turbines having an overall better torque curve compared to Diesels also do not exist in WT, neither do other stuff such as CVTs.
Hence the devs use gear number and gear ratios to try patching up the acceleration curves. This is not exclusive to Turbine and CVT equipped vehicles, IIRC the Arietes also have a common Diesel engine, but received 4 → 8 gears to fix their acceleration as well. Patch notes from 2022:
" * Ariete, Ariete PSO, Ariete (P) — the number of forward and reverse gears have been increased, the gear ratios have been adjusted."
There’s a pertinent thread for that discussion: Modelling Torque Discussion
My point was that the turbine vs diesel acceleration difference, as far as we can tell, is either minor or even non-existant, as turbines seems to be just the same as all other engines, just showing different RPM numbers and sound. We don’t know the exact code for that, we just know torque isn’t a thing in WT. Throwing similar HP/ton vehicles will net you similar acceleration times (given gear ratios are not too weird such as it seemed being the case for the Arietes).

Well, good luck on your reports. I’m out.

1 Like
107

Best to agree to disagree since we clearly don’t see eye to eye, I wouldn’t necessarily say the conversation derailed in the slightest to be fair, the performance of Naiza and the overall performance of the T-80UD/BE is bang on topic.

2 Likes
108

I wonder if it is possible to change its track performance to improve its flexibility. Whether the T-80UD or the 478BE, the track experience is very poor, which greatly affects their steering flexibility. Although their paper maneuverability should be the same as or even higher than the T-90A, the track obviously limits this, making their operating feel closer to the T-64B with a 16.6 thrust to weight ratio rather than the T-90A with a 21 thrust to weight ratio.

109

I do believe there is a way to improve traction in-game for tracked vehicles, whether Gaijin is willing to do this is the real question. The T-80UD and 478DU-1/BE does feel sluggish at lower speeds, this may be due to the diesel engine rather than the turbine one mounted on the T-80U but traction may be the culprit, I have no idea frankly.

110

I think it should be a problem with track grip rather than the engine. In my experience, the low-speed steering performance of the T-80UD is not even as good as the T-72B with a much lower thrust to weight ratio.

111

Might be an interesting vehicle to purchase if they’re willing to change it. Best of luck yall. As of now I have no interest in this vehicle in its current state anyway.

1 Like
112

This Chinese T-80UD (whether called DU-1 or BE) should correct these mistakes, a complete copy is too perfunctory.y.

113

The most important things: the engine and the speed of reversing, as well as the new shells.

114

As I already have the premium UD I would like to see these changes so that my 11.0 lineup in ching chang is fully 11.0

115

I don’t care about it’s BR in the end. 11.7 or 11.0 or whatever. I only want the vehicles as correct as we know and as possible. Don’t want that copy and paste stuff we are getting.

2 Likes
116

Heres to hoping for a better T-80 from all the hard work you have put in.

3 Likes
117

Um, why do you always call 6TD “6DT”?

118

Please just use your brain, if the order of something is slightly wrong then it’s most likely a error, a comment for such a small thing wasn’t necessary whatsoever lmao.

119

I hope smething will happen

1 Like
120

Made a new bug report for the T-80UD/DU-1 (BE) since the old one for the tank gun was wrongfully assigned “not a bug”, more information has been provided and hopefully they don’t make the same blatant mistake.

3 Likes