If they fixed it, and gave it the Naiza DU round, this vehicle would have been actually worth grinding. I really hope they reexamine it, and put it at 11.0 so you can use it with the MBT-2000 and the early ZTZ99s.
5 Likes
People should stop using this logic to try and move things around.
In order to create a lineup at a certain BR, you actually need to start adding vehicles there.
2 Likes
Late response but oh well
This vehicle wouldn’t be anywhere near 11.7, don’t be ridiculous. The main difference would be the improved engine/transmission and the new Naiza APFSDS which would penetrate around 20mm more than 3BM60.
What vehicle also has similar attributes? The Al-Khalid-I and remind me what BR that sits at (11.0 lmao).
This vehicle would sit at 11.0 comfortably and can maybe move up alongside other Chinese 11.0 vehicles when decompression hits (and this is only if the improvements were added).
1 Like
It’s better than almost all other T-80 variants, either 11.7-12.0, former more likely (imo)
1 Like
By your own words, it would be a lot better than the Al-Khalid. Shell, reload, overall armor profile.
And definitely better than the 11.0 ztz99’s.
Few things:
- First of all I suggest to differentiate which reports would apply to the DU-1 and which would apply to the BE.
- Second, they acknowledged the fact that the designation could be wronged, doesn’t mean they have accepted to change it.
- Third, I haven’t see any bug report about the different engine and transmission.
A variant with a modified engine and gearbox does exist, but it’s clearly not the one in the game.
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.
4 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