That looks fabulous, I saw that image whilst searching about the Naiza APFSDS but it was too low quality for me to decipher it - the gold like material make it look sick.
Definitely a short rod however or from the looks of it at the very least
So you want yet another 12.0 Chinese MBT ?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1597960075792240640
There’s also the sejjel tungsten apfsds. It pens 620mm armor at 0°.
1 Like
Yeah I’ve heard of it before, it was the APFSDS which was chosen for mass production over the Naiza APFSDS, the performance translation in-game for both munition if anyone’s guess however.
The video also seems to be made by Pakistan Ordinance Factories, the department which is responsible for munition development and production. Maybe we could bug report this and get it in-game for the Al-Khalid-I or the T-80UD/BE (that’s if the Naiza doesn’t get added for the 80UD of course).
Nice find
1 Like
Even if modified with all the recommendations here, this car will not be upgraded to 12.0. Because these changes have at best turned the car into a better-protected, but more sluggish AI-Khalid. That is, up to 11.0. Because the protection of the T-80UD is only 500-550KE, which is too weak.
1 Like
I’ll repeat myself, you should start by separating which modifications would affect the BE and which ones would affect the DU-1.
Especially since I heavily doubt Gaijin is going to model the new turret, and they’ll probably just rename it to the DU-1.
Once again I suggest to make a report about the engine and the transmission, would also be very interesting to know if the engine and gearbox were also swapped on the DU-1.
I also want to underline how the ammunition nowadays is used as a balancing tool(I don’t agree with it but here we are), therefore they don’t really care if it was used inservice, they just ask themselves if the vehicle can shoot it.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing a DU-1 with Naiza at 10.7 or with Naiza, modified engine and gearbox at 11.0
1 Like
Especially since I heavily doubt Gaijin is going to model the new turret, and they’ll probably just rename it to the DU-1
Yeah, a report to redesignate the T-80UD/BE to the T-80UD/DU-1 was accepted, I only mentioned the welded turret to point out the inaccuracies of the T-80UD/BE model in-game, it would be best to keep it as the T-80UD/DU-1.
What’s wrong however is the selection of munition, Pakistan likes to produce their own type of munition to promote self resilience and to avoid dependency on other nations militarily, Pakistani T-80UDs would almost never use 3BM42 but the Sejjeel or other domestically produced Chinese munition.
therefore they don’t really care if it was used inservice, they just ask themselves if the vehicle can shoot it
True and there is nothing stopping them from keeping 3BM42 on the vehicle but a domestic kinetic penetrator like Naiza or Sejjeel would make the T-80UD/BE (now the T-80UD/DU-1) more unique.
I personally wouldn’t mind seeing a DU-1 with Naiza at 10.7 or with Naiza, modified engine and gearbox at 11.0
I honestly believe giving the T-80UD/DU-1 the Naiza with engine/transmission modification would be the best possible thing, the vehicle would become more distinct from the base T-80UD and would fit nicely in 11.0 alongside other vehicles.
The current performance of the vehicle is heavily hindered by the fact that there are no other 10.7 ground vehicle it could lineup with
nam u want better round and better engine wiht better reverse speed? not problem put in 11.7 br u understand leopard 2 have 400mm pen and u want 3bm60 in 10.7 br form a t80 u this have fk good armor in this br… wach the leopard front everyvere penetrate 300mm protection and u want 580 pen…+ why no ad for leopad2 A4 the dm 33 because used it… same for 2PL dm 53 .
You do realise that the T-80UD/BE has only 510mm of UFP protection? Nearly every vehicle at around 11.0 would be able to penetrate the vehicle. Naiza would also have 20mm of more penetration than 3BM60, it’s no wonder weapon.
The T-80UD/BE also has the same old turret traverse and gun elevation speed of the base T-80UD, that being beyond garbage for BR. The biggest improvement would be the new engine and transmission which can be found on the Al-Khalid-I which also sits at 11.0.
With the improvements it would be 11.0 but should move up without a doubt whenever decompression hits, unlike the Leopards the T-80UD/BE blows up the minute you penetrate it.
You could argue for it to be 11.3 but absolutely not 11.7
only 510mm protection most tanks in this br have 400-450 mm pen its really unbalanced …man i have ztz,t80 u and have good armor oforcs in lower plate easy kill but wich tank is not…+ with this round u penetrate abrams,leos, others in turret u poinion this sems be balanced?
I’m prone to agree that the Naiza would have around the same pen of the TAPNA, therefore it should be alright at such BRs.
1 Like
I think there is a bit of confusion, I’m asking for the improvements but with a BR increase of 11.0, the vehicle has no place at 10.7 with said improvements.
1 Like
more than likey we will be using the new Sejjel APFSDS which is better than Naiza while being tungsten core
1 Like
11.0 is 10.7 because much nations no have this br soo sems fair u penetrate tanks everyvere and i need to shot u in weakspots…
i dont understand china geet a good event vehicle good thermal,good armor,good pen all this in 10.7 only the mobility problem and this not enought is ap have this event wehicle but really need buff…
Well blame compression, you can’t move it too high up since it only has the base T-80UD armour and it obviously can’t be any lower than 11.0. That’s why I also had the idea of the vehicle moving up a bit whenever decompression does hit since it would be on the higher end of 11.0.
The performance disparity between vehicles at BR 10.7 and 11.7 is massive, urgent change is honestly needed to rebalance this area of War Thunder.
i dont understand china geet a good event vehicle good thermal,good armor,good pen all this in 10.7
And Chinas top tier MBTs are also lacklustre compared to other vehicles like the German 2A7V or Russian BVM, we can’t have a perfect world. China 11.0 is very strong, yes but that’s all we have as a TT.
You’re just cherry picking places in which the armour of the T-80UD/BE overlaps to prove a false narrative, I’ve already tested the protection of the UFP of the T-80UD/BE and it’s nothing close to what you present.
The T-80UD/DU-1 would also sit at the BR of 11.0 if the improvements were introduced, don’t compare it to other 10.7 vehicles as it SHOULD be superior if that was the case.
with what ammo? dm 23? clearly no:D dm 53? vs top br ammo…
So you want buffs enough that it would be better than a proper 11.7 T80U: way better reverse, better ammo (“just” +60-80mm over 3BM60, according to you) making it stronger than even DM53, then maybe even better armor with the welded turret, better this and better that, all for a 0.3 BR increase and -50 hp engine and a very minor difference in the UFP composition? Seriously? A stronger round than DM53 and correcting one of the biggest flaws in the T80 line, that’s straight to 12.0.