In general, the majority of Chinese players agreed to add new shells. We’d love to see the car have a suitable team.
1 Like
How could be better than 3BM60? it just about 550mm pen, which was used for Chinese toptier tanks before, this should be close to 3bm46.
Just a correction here. Naiza is almost certainly worse than both DTC10-125 and 3BM60, both 3BM60 and DTC10-125 are approaching the maximum length available for an APFSDS round used in current generation carousel-style autoloader. There is nothing to suggest that the penetrator length of Naiza reaches this level. The Naiza might be DU, but self-sharpening can only account for so much penetration gains compared to tungsten rod.
I’ve seen multiple examples that state 550mm of penetration versus RHA for Naiza, which I assume is 2km range (the standard). In comparison, DTW-125, or second-generation Chinese sabot also exported to Pakistan, 125-II, is rated for 600mm of penetration versus RHA at 2km distance.
Pakistan is now locally-producing VT-4 and I do not believe that Naiza will be utilized it, but instead DTC10-125E.
I would think that Naiza would have similar penetration to TAPNA used by T-72M2 Moderna ingame, which is 509mm of penetration at 10 meters.
3 Likes
Reverse is made by new gearbox, not engine
By comparing the pictures of the rear of the tank, this kind of replacement of the gearbox also exists. You can see this in a separate post about the T-80UD. Also, I think the Pakistanis would change the entire power pack instead of simply changing the engine.
Just a correction here. Naiza is almost certainly worse than both DTC10-125 and 3BM60
I was referring to the real life figures, I also did mention it likely performing worse when actually put into whatever penetration calculator Gaijin uses, penetration and armour in-game honestly just needs a overhaul (that’s why I said if implemented correctly).
I’ve seen multiple examples that state 550mm of penetration versus RHA for Naiza, which I assume is 2km range
From a primary source, and specifically from the actual Heavy Industries Taxila website, yes. The penetration value is supposedly at 0* with the factual distance being 2000 meters with a penetration of 550mm, how this would translate into the game is the question.
Pakistan is now locally-producing VT-4 and I do not believe that Naiza will be utilized it, but instead DTC10-125E
The Naiza has been discontinued for a bit now, not because of the penetration value but do to cost if I recall, Pakistan is using a domestically produced 3BM42 equivalent as their main dart if I recall.
1 Like
The new transmission is readily available in Pakistani stocks, the 6DT-II engine would never be used without a new transmission in Pakistani service, hence why I mention them in a bundle.
Naiza pens 550mm at 0° I think. That should be good enough for 10.7/11.0
By your own words, it would be a lot better than the Al-Khalid. Shell, reload, overall armor profile
I’ve never compared the protection value of the Al-Khalid-I to the T-80UD/BE, I’ve only used it as a comparison. Both vehicles would perform very similarly with pros and cons. Both would have similar penetration, Naiza possibly penetrating more or less, better reload for the T-80UD/BE but worse turret traverse and gun elevation and worse overall mobility for the T-80UD/BE.
Naiza apparently has same length as other APFSDS rounds used by Pakistan. We can use values from those rounds.
The values of the Naiza APFSDS is available publicly here, have a look and tell me what you think then.
I dont think this is Naiza. It says tungsten core penetrator, Naiza has DU
In order to create a lineup at a certain BR, you actually need to start adding vehicles there
Russia doesn’t have a single 10.7 vehicle other than the T-80B and Tunguska, America doesn’t have a single 11.0 vehicle and nor does Italy excluding the KF41, why must we force vehicles in BRs in which they don’t naturally fit in to make artificial lineups?
It would be best to introduce changes to make the T-80UD/BE unique whether that’s just one of all of these suggestions and ideas, sub tech trees can be used to fill in gaps like how they’ve always been used for, we don’t need a one of event vehicle as a filler.
The T-80UD/BE is quite literally the only 10.7 vehicle for China ground as well
1 Like
That’s weird, that was the website linked to the bug report for the Naiza, I’ll look into it for you give me a minute.
In order to create new lineups ?
So what ?
One vehicle must always be the first one.
But I guess you’re allergic to Gaijin trying to make new lineups.
1 Like
You’re right, I couldn’t actually find much information on it besides every source stating it has a penetration of 550mm at 2000 meters, it was also made compatible specifically with the T-80UD in mind and obviously was never mass produced.
I sent the link connected to the Naiza bug report with the assumption it would be there but I was wrong, my apology.
Here is a image of the alleged Naiza APFSDS at the very least, take what you want.
1 Like
But I guess you’re allergic to Gaijin trying to make new lineups
You do realise that 3BM42 wouldn’t be used by Pakistani T-80UD/BEs in service as it wouldn’t meet the criteria for Pakistani service? The T-80UD/BE we’ve got in-game is almost entirely ahistorical, you’d prefer to make a vehicle ahistorical to force it into a BR bracket which it realistically shouldn’t be sitting at.
It’s like stripping the T-90M of its 3BM60 and moving it down to 11.3 with HEATFS only and using the excuse “oh but it needs to fill in lineups”. You’re just being entirely irrational, changes to correct the error in-game will cause inflation of BR anyways.
In order to create new lineups
Ah yes, the singular vehicle lineup which China should be the only nation to suffer of this.
2 Likes
The key difference here is that China already has 3 (or 4 if you count the premium) 11.0 MBTs. It doesn’t need any more.
You’re somehow incapable of realizing China could get more 10.7 vehicles in the future.
Just how France got 10.7 Leopard and is bound to get more vehicles at that BR.
1 Like
You’re somehow incapable of realizing China could get more 10.7 vehicles in the future
Let me repeat myself again, the T-80UD/BE is almost entirely ahistorical and adjustment of this would inevitable mean a increase of BR, even if you want it to be 10.7 it still realistically can’t if corrected in-game. Coping through and through won’t change the fact that the T-80UD/BE is as historical as the F-16AJ in-game minus the actual raw model of the vehicle.
3BM42 never was really used on T-80UD/BEs, it should have a domestic tank gun, it should possibly have a improved engine/transmission and should have a welded turret, all of this isn’t 10.7 material or do you have anything to say otherwise?
1 Like
1 Like