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

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
81

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)

The 60mm to 80mm was a clear estimate, the figure would be closer to 20mm better than 3BM60 and this is comparing the in-game performance of 3BM60 to the real life performance of the Naiza. How this would translate into the game is anyone’s guess and it would probably perform worse and possibly slightly better.

The improved reverse speed would put it on par with it’s peers mobility wise, it’s nothing astonishing but is a notable upgrade when compared to other T-series vehicles. The UFP composition is also vastly different, it may only function slightly weaker than the T-80Us UFP but this will appear entirely differently in matches, munition like 3BM60 or DTC10-125 will struggle and just about manage to penetrate the T-80U UFP whilst the same can’t be said the T-80UD/BE (vehicles will be able to lol pen it).

A stronger round than DM53 and correcting one of the biggest flaws in the T80 line, that’s straight to 12.0

What type of flavour are you smoking, if you honestly believe a T-80UD/BE with improved reverse speed and a similar shell to 3BM60 is 12.0 material then you honestly need some reflection.

1 Like
82

Hopefully all of these changes is added since event vehicles should be unique instead of reskin of others already in-game, and with that, reasonable the BR difference of 0.4.

2 Likes
83

A better shell than 3BM60, reminds us which T-series have 3BM60 and are below 12.0? The T72B3, only, and that does not sport a 1200hp engine coupled with a 30+ reverse, it gets an even worse reverse than the T80 line, worse reload, worse gun depression (we know the stat card on the T80 is wrong, it has been tested and has better depression, iirc -7 or -8). Which ones are the other 3BM60 enjoyers? 12.0 T90M & T80BVM. Even if I granted 11.7 for your buffed T80UD, that’s still way more realistic of a BR than your 0.3 increase.

1 Like
84

I don’t see why you keep bringing up the 3BM60 ingame value against the Naiza irl value, all the shells on paper seems way better but once calculated the penetration decreases dramatically.
As another said, the 3BM60 it’s basically the max lenght a 125mm APFSDS inside a T-80 can be, the Naiza, although DU, isn’t.
OP should also stop bringing up the paper value of the Naiza and comparing it with the 3BM60.
The Naiza should be compared to the other rounds only once it has been simulated.

4 Likes
85

A better shell than 3BM60, reminds us which T-series have 3BM60 and are below 12.0? The T72B3, only, and that does not sport a 1200hp engine coupled with a 30+ reverse

The biggest improvement like I’ve said countless of times is the new engine and transmission, Naiza has better performance but only when compared to the 3BM60 and DTC10-125 in-game to the real life penetration performance of Naiza - this would be translated differently in-game, possibly worse and most likely.

The Naiza is a short rod depleted uranium kinetic penetrator whilst 3BM60 is the longest form of kinetic penetrator which can be fitted in the AZ type of autoloader - it would probably be similar to something like TAPNA, which can already be found at 10.7.

The engine/transmission upgrade should warrant a increase of BR however, that being a 0.3 step up (11.0) and anything higher is unreasonable or until decompression hits at the very least.

86

11.0 for a better vehicle than the 11.7 T80U, sure, man, whatever floats your boat.

87

Let’s move the Al-Khalid-I and MBT2000 up to 12.0 whilst we’re at it, improved reverse speed is such a huge jump that these vehicles need to move up to accommodate for it! And what about the ZTZ99A? Let’s also move it up to 15.7 since it has more reverse gears than the T-80BVM!!!

2 Likes
88

Imagine treating reverse speed as if it were some meaningless stat when mobility is such an important part of high tier gameplay.
And the Al-Khalid & MBT2000 are not direct clones of the T80U like the T80UD is, their armor profile is different enough that they have a bigger LFP and holes in their armor and ERA placement, but, yeah, who knows, maybe those superior thermals gunner/commander, shell and reverse do have some explaining to do at 11.0 while stuff such as the T 80 U sits at 11.3 with 3BM42 and gen 1 thermals only for the gunner, or maybe the armor difference is enough to warrant 11.0, but what I’m yet to see in this thread is good justifications on how a T80UD that is better at basically everything than the T80U/T 80 U/T80UK/T80UM2 would sit at an even lower BR.

89

man look on al khalid frontal armor have biger weakspots and weaker frontal armor… u understand t80u with same armor and 1 gen thermal with 3bm46 is 11.7 russia have same premium what u get now in event i dont understan u problem…

1 Like
90

And the Al-Khalid & MBT2000 are not direct clones of the T80U like the T80UD is, their armor profile is different enough that they have a bigger LFP

The T-80UD and T-80U have different armour arrays and this is apparent in-game, the UFP protection difference between both vehicles is around 70mm to 80mm in most areas, this is a more than a noticeable thing.

The T-80 also uses the MZ type of autoloader which is usually more prone to catastrophic detonation, better armour coverage on the T-80UD/BE is more of a supplement when compared to the Al-Khalid-Is armour layout.

the T 80 U sits at 11.3 with 3BM42 and gen 1 thermals only for the gunner

The T-80U in the Swedish tech tree has the turbine engine which generates significantly more RPM than the 6DT-II engine being discussed here, this means more acceleration and a notable difference. Even if we were to equip the T-80UD/BE with the 6DT-II engine the T-80U would still out accelerate it generally speaking.

The T-80U also has 11km/h of reverse speed, not the greatest but manageable whilst the T-80UD has around 4km/h of reverse speed. The improved engine would put it on par with NATO vehicles but the overall mobility wouldn’t be drastically different when compared to the T-80U.

T80UD that is better at basically everything than the T80U/T 80 U/T80UK/T80UM2 would sit at an even lower BR

Worse armour and turret traverse and elevation than some of the other T-80s, worse protection and worse munition is more than enough of a justifiable reason to place it at 11.0, you realise that the T-72M2 sits at 10.7?

2 Likes
91

That’s a way smaller difference in armor than trying to compare the T80 to the Al-Khalid or MBT2K which are completely different designs. Besides, the composition being 35mm steel / 15mm air instead of 50mm steel on the middle plate can also be arguably offset by the fact that the Chinese T80UD has the best ERA coverage out of all T80Us, it does not sport the IR spot light there and instead has the densest packed K5 on its frontal arc. The blocks are almost glued to the cannon, whereas all other T80Us have wider gaps on the blocks, or outright don’t have K5 blocks near the MG port at all.

As for more acceleration. No. Torque, torque curves, torque converters aren’t modelled in the game, we even have a thread for that. All we have is HP/ton and gear ratios. Gas turbines vs Diesel thus is a moot point.
Al-Khalid (25hp/ton) 0-70km/h in the test drive road: 20~21 secs
T80B without filters (24.88hp/ton) 0-70 km/h in the test drive road: 20~21 secs
With filters (25.4hp/ton): 20~ secs

Worse armor/protection? Nah, we’ve are past that, 50/30/50/30/50 vs 50/30/35/15/30/50 but better, tighter packed K5 placement. Worse turret traverse? It has the same 24 deg/sec horizontal and 4.4 deg/sec vertical traverse as all other T80Us except the newly added UE1, which has 40 deg/sec horizontal, but still retains 4.4 deg/sec vertical. Worse munition? Those other T80Us are either using 3BM42 or 3BM46, which are worse than 3BM60, which (according to you) is worse than this Naiza that you suggested.

As for your last point, you don’t fix undertiered vehicles by adding more undertiered vehicles and making a BR hellhole for everything that faces those vehicles. Before you mention it, yeah, imo the original T80UD is also undertiered.

92

Besides, the composition being 35mm steel / 15mm air instead of 50mm steel on the middle plate can also be arguably be offset by the fact that the Chinese T80UD has the best ERA coverage out of all T80Us

You’re being very vague, the ERA placement between all the T-80U series of vehicle in-game are identical besides the turret, whilst the T-80UD/BE does technically have the best ERA placement out of all T-80Us, this is very misleading.

The difference between thermal equipped T-80Us ERA coverage on the turret is barely noticeable and wouldn’t necessarily impact gameplay besides people laying very unlucky or rushed shots, this is overshadowed however by the poor UFP protection of the T-80UD/BE in-game, this is a significantly larger outlier you choose to overlook.

T-80UD/BE UFP Protection

image
image1074×715 98.3 KB

T-80UE-1 UFP Protection

image
image1091×747 100 KB

The UFP protection between the T-80UD and T-80U is very vast, that being almost 90mm of kinetic protection difference or do you honestly believe this is insignificant and not a large enough factor to dictate BR placement of vehicles.

it does not sport the IR spot light there and instead has the densest packed K5 on its frontal arc

You do realise when the T-80U thermal modification is unlocked that the spot light gets replaced with more Kontakt-5? You’re deadass comparing the ERA coverage of a unmodified T-80U against the T-80UD/BE…

Al-Khalid (25hp/ton) 0-70km/h in the test drive road: 20~21 secs
T80B without filters (24.88hp/ton) 0-70 km/h in the test drive road: 20~21 secs

Nice try but we’re comparing the difference in mobility between the T-80U and Al-Khalid-I (since the T-80UD/BE is yet to receive the 6DT-II engine), you’re quite literally comparing a 10.7 vehicle to a 11.0 one and one with significantly less horse power.

  • T-80U time to 60km/h: 15:38
  • Al-Khalid-I time to 60km/h: 16:48

Both are on paved road and optimal condition

Worse armor/protection? Nah, we’ve are past that, 50/30/50 /30/50 vs 50/30/35/15 /30/50 but better, tighter packed K5 placement. Worse turret traverse? It has the same 24 deg/sec horizontal and 4.4 deg/sec vertical traverse as all other T80Us except the newly added UE1, which has 40 deg/sec horizontal, but still retains

The Kontakt-5 placement other than the turret are identical on all T-80U series of vehicles, stop lying. And I do recommend you to start reading messages thoroughly as I clearly stated “than some other T-80s” which would include the T-80UE-1 and T-80BVM, both vehicles you deem on par or inferior to the T-80UD/BE with the improved munition and engine/transmission.

Worse munition? Those other T80Us are either using 3BM42 or 3BM46, which are worse than 3BM60, which (according to you) is worse than this Naiza that you suggested

You’re just being ignorant, I clearly stated that I was using the real life performance of the Naiza compared to the in-game performance of the 3BM60 and DTC10-125, I clearly stated the penetration of Naiza would be drastically different when put into Gaijins calculator and therefor would most likely perform most similarly to TAPNA, which by all means performs WORSE than 3BM46 (which all T-80Us for the most part carry).

1 Like
93

Additional thing

No. Torque, torque curves, torque converters aren’t modelled in the game, we even have a thread for that. All we have is HP/ton and gear ratios. Gas turbines vs Diesel thus is a moot point

The T-80U engine and other gas turbines allow for faster gear efficiency and especially when compared to diesel engine, turbine engines almost always have double to gears so the difference in-game is present but just not entirely modelled.

You use very misleading wordings lmao

Gear ratios and other things are used as a substitute due to the lack of actual torque in-game or the accurate implementation at the very least, turbines nonetheless will almost always out perform diesel engines in-game.

2 Likes
94

lol. I can twist your argument just like what you did there.

"You’re being very vague, the Composition between all the T-80U series of vehicle in-game are identical besides the air gap, whilst the T-80U does technically have the best composition placement out of all T-80Us, this is very misleading.

The difference between thermal equipped T-80Us composition coverage on the hull is barely noticeable and wouldn’t necessarily impact gameplay besides people laying very unlucky or rushed shots, this is overshadowed however by the poor K5 protection of the T-80U/UK/UM2/80 U/Russian T80UD in-game, this is a significantly larger outlier you choose to overlook."

EzPz, let’s have another round:

" The K5 protection between the T-80UD and T-80U is very vast, that being almost a whole ERA block near the trunnion/breech of kinetic protection difference or do you honestly believe this is insignificant and not a large enough factor to dictate BR placement of vehicles."

EzPz again, let’s dismiss a tighter package that can save you from being breeched as if it were irrelevant.

" You do realise when the T-80U thermal modification is unlocked that the spot light gets replaced with more Kontakt-5 ? You’re deadass comparing the ERA coverage of a unmodified T-80U against the T-80UD/BE …"
The gap on the on the Chinese T80UD goes to the very side of the MG port, this is not the case for ANY other T80U. It has by far the tighest package. No other T80U has such a tightly packed K5 array.

" Nice try but we’re comparing the difference in mobility between the T-80U and Al-Khalid-I (since the T-80UD/BE is yet to receive the 6DT-II engine), you’re quite literally comparing a 10.7 vehicle to a 11.0 one and one with significantly less horse power.

  • T-80U time to 60km/h: 15:38
  • Al-Khalid-I time to 60km/h: 16:48

Both are on paved road and optimal condition"

Thanks for showing us you don’t know how to compare mobility.
T80U = 27.174 hp/ton
Al-Khalid = 25 hp/ton
T80B without filters = 24.88 hp/ton
T80B with filters = 25.4 hp/ton

" The Kontakt-5 placement other than the turret are identical on all T-80U series of vehicles, stop lying. And I do recommend you to start reading messages thoroughly as I clearly stated “than some other T-80 s” which would include the T-80UE-1 and T-80BVM , both vehicles you deem on par or inferior to the T-80UD/BE with the improved munition and engine/transmission."

No it’s not, K5 placement is different on the turret on basically all T80Us. Some have wider gaps, some don’t have a block here or there. All of them, except the Chinese 80UD, don’t have a K5 block glued 2mm to the side of the MG port, not a single one.
T80BVM is not a T80U. It’s a B turret on top of a U hull.

" You’re just being ignorant, I clearly stated that I was using the real life performance of the Naiza compared to the in-game performance of the 3BM60 and DTC10-125 , I clearly stated the penetration of Naiza would be drastically different when put into Gaijin s calculator and therefor would most likely perform most similarly to TAPNA , which by all means performs WORSE than 3BM46 (which all T-80U s for the most part carry)."

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, 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”. With 80 pen on top of 3BM60 you have round stronger than even DM53. Even if we concede your 20mm extra pen on 3BM60, it’s still better than what Russia either gets on the 12.0 T80BVM, or on the lulz 11.0 T90A (which is worse than your proposed buff for the UD in… well, everything? ), 11.7 72B3 and 12.0 T90M line.

95

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

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

96

Considering that the new domestic Sejjeel APFSDS is based on BTA-4 but slightly improved domestically, which is Chinese export APFSDS, I don’t think that Naiza’s performance will exceed 3BM60 or DTC10-125.

The official quote, as I’ve said, places Naiza as being slightly worse than DTW-125, or 125-II.

97

And even then, what pen exactly is being proposed here? Because the T 80 U sits at 11.3 with 3BM42 (457 pen)

98

It’s probably similar to TAPNA.
509mm at 10 meters ingame.

99

Well, that’s a much fairer round at those tiers.

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.

2 Likes