Sirchby

Member
  • Content count

    1,886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
medal

Sirchby last won the day on January 29

Sirchby had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,434 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Sirchby

  • Rank
    Scrub
  • Birthday April 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Asia
  • Interests
    War Thunder SUPERTESTER REQUIRED ASAP

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    bayu_chriswoyo@yahoo.com

Recent Profile Visitors

2,213 profile views
  1. @JohnGR, How are your bug reports current status?
  2. I also find that issue to be very irritating. Yes, even the most experienced person about a certain vehicle can still be argued for whatever the reason is. Either Maus still uses V1 armor thickness for nonsense reason, British APDS nerf to prevent overkill, IS-2 1944 uses prototype cast frontal armor for broad heavy tank balance (120 mm vs 100 mm), Or even denial for correct T32 lower plate armor change because it would be "indestructible" with historical armor layout. You just have to expect the worst possible resistance to actually let them know you're the most experienced one about a certain thing without proclaiming yourself to be...
  3. Talking about a tank with insane frontal penetration & tank-turret traverse speed to be compared with a tank with awful frontal penetration & hull-down only armor. The Maus standard has gone too far. I'd rather have Lowe on 7.3 than Maus.
  4. I disapprove the Maus to 7.3 with fast turret traverse. A lot. Nothing would be able to flank it. Not even the Hellcat.
  5. At least it would help the German players a lot which keep complaining about their King Tiger turret getting frequently 1-shot by T29.
  6. Ironically it's the other way around. APHE will never overdamage once it explodes inside a tank now. Historically-speaking. Just read the report first instead of quickly concluding the result...
  7. Tanks/Vehicles

    Means somewhere around Pz IV BR range.
  8. All right. Seems fair & sound.
  9. I know. There are 2 points given from it.
  10. Realistic APHE explosion zone. Yes, it's even briefly documented for just a tank round effect by U.S. Military.
  11. Soon™ the APHE will perform completely like Solid AP, because screw spherical explosion ))) Possible for a fix in 1.67.
  12. Tanks/Vehicles

    The decision is final if it's written on the Devblog.
  13. Gaijin's decision is likely to be final & cannot be interrupted anymore..... Unless there'a ton of riots like someone did on Type 62 HEAT-FS. I still want the King Diesel to be premium tank, lol. Seriously, it's just stupid to ask so.
  14. Now I'm wondering about something. Why you're actively talking regularly with people on WT Devblog rather than in the forum, @Stona. I mean by casual talking & discussion. The last thing I see is more red text, which is around a minute ago. Yea, sure. I'll just edit it, but I want to hear your answer.
  15. With the first poll actually has a choice with reasonable cause, Yes, more in the near future I would vote yes. Because logically-speaking, this game wont sit forever after required WWII vehicles have been completed. There's always a room for improvement & additional feature in the future.
  16. Aaaand you have seen it. People you've seen earlier talking about "T14 is okay as premium" actually wont say the second time if they had a choice & opinion to be heard by the Devs.
  17. Because poll with the most filled votes is always, & will always be the people's best decision.
  18. But at least more players with vote for it compared to those who don't. Because the current development meta I said earlier. There is a poll with its function. Regular Ru 251 is the best choice out of all 3 choices for the game, for everyone, & for the continuation of German tech tree. I assure that. You can make a poll to prove it.
  19. Ru 251 as regular tank. For now, tank's appearance is primarily based from requirement, not status. The latter has been dropped years ago. So you get the point in which decision is better for everyone, both directly & indirectly. Of course, you can compare which decision will have bigger negative feedback & which decision will have a bigger positive feedback based from current development meta.
  20. They would have earned better if their players are also happy with their decision.
  21. More like Gaijin persuades their players to buy their tanks. As far as I can see it that way. Not forcing, just persuading with extreme level of annoyance.
  22. Every nations have a chance, still. It's back to the Dev's decision again, not the player. That's where things start to go wrong. Bovington? Has someone ever seen the report, or at least, have it? Wouldn't be fun if you have to suggest a round by taking a photograph with a camera phone on scene. "Currently". Meanwhile I refer to "future" planning, which might be more than 5, not counting the armored cars yet.
  23. There's a suggestion for independent German light tank tech tree... The Dev should have just waited until the tech tree is completed, by logic.
  24. Hahahah, the Object 906 just really gives something nasty.
  25. Well, T14 is not a problem whatsoever. But the Ru 251 is. The major cause of "Wallet Warrior" title drop. I bet you know why.
  26. Depends whether they are a priority or not. Especially considering the unhealthy welcome of the T29 arrival months ago. A lot of them (especially the Germans) got triggered just by looking at the tank itself. Would triple the trigger if there are three more T29 with even nastier guns. I assure it. Yes, definitely not a priority, as one of the player said above.
  27. I repeat: Who the hell is upset with the T14 being a premium tank? It's the Ru 251 that got everyone upset, not the T14. Get your mind right.
  28. Hey, hey, hey. Who the hell is upset with T14 being a premium? lmao.
  29. I think it's the time for Gaijin Entertainment to have Historical Expert Supertesters to prevent this humiliating mistake again... What is going to happen to Ru 251 & Type 87 is actually enough to set off many players, as evident. & that's why Supertester is the only way to solve this nonsense. I've heard enough of WTPC, & that's it. "Player Council". It's also running out of interest from the players, "player council", "players", "very few interest" ... the irony.
  30. Let's take 3 years to appreciate something that is left broken since the day one release due to lack of interest.
  31. That arouses me to think about WoT. Both T14 are coincidentally incidentally a premium tank.
  32. American tanks in general lack any interest. Even less than Japanese tanks, lmao. What do you mean by the right spot?
  33. You know, usually a discussion about Ru 251 & Guntank can take whole 8 to 10 pages to finish... I'm just suprised the recent devblog of the T14 ends so much earlier, doesn't even take more than 3 pages...
  34. M6A2E1 are highly unlikely to be either premium tank or regular tank. There are handful tanks such as T26E5 & T29E3 to sort it out. They'd be better as rare tanks.
  35. Tanks/Vehicles

    I take my word: It better be a premium after all.
  36. Speaking about the T14: I'd say around 3.7 - 4.0. That would reinforce the U.S. Army at Tier II really good. Just like people keep buying T29 until this day which they even believe it's the dreaded OP American heavy tank since WoT "American heavy tank starter pack". I prefer to call it that way. If you can't play the M4A3 Howitzer, just buy the T14 for small training tips for the next American heavy tank, which is the M6A1.
  37. First thing, you have to know its HESH specification before you can even introduce it first. Well, at least my T30 HESH already has one.
  38. Oh, no. I think it's better as premium. There's early M6 variants if you want one. Ask @Whelmy for he's the only person in the forum to know about the M6 heavy tank alone.
  39. Funny thing is, Compared to either Guntank or Ru 251, "rumor-roundup-ing" about tanks like Centurion I or even T14 get simmered down faster & end more peaceful than either of the two controversial discussion, even almost setting the whole forum on fire. The tank we don't need. But the tank we deserve
  40. Yeah, sure. I want my 155 mm HESH Launcher.
  41. << Fully-developed American Heavy Tank Tech Tree >>
  42. Aaaaand, "next Devblog will be Soviet" thing is not quite right after all.
  43. Yeah, sure. All American heavy tanks except Super Pershing & Sherman Jumbo didn't see combat either. Sure it is. Other than Type 87 & Centurion I, of course. I know. It's actually a good premium tank.
  44. Before I buy, may I ask why is it a premium? I thought there's already more armored Ram II in the Premium Tech Tree. You know, the "88 mm frontal armor" thing.
  45. Just get some GE in handy.
  46. DREAM COME TRUE LOLOLOLOLOLOL Gonna fill my GE ASAP.
  47. Although its weaponry is more or less equal... I mean equal to T49, a Bulldog 90 mm.
  48. Yes, I know. A lot of them have direct-firing equipment onboard the tank. But we're talking about a mobile fire support artillery. Its primary purpose. Trucks are a part of armored car. For me.
  49. Fair enough. What do you think about the ammo research arragement?
  50. Isn't its penetration supposed to be 215?
  51. Never mind. Already found the munitions. Would be a good Tier V light tank & NOT a premium tank.
  52. To be frank, this thread actually does not have any connection with T30 introduction to the game at all... I'm just pointing out what munitions are available & compatible for use by its 155 mm T7. Preparation before arrival. I don't want to command a T30 unprepared... & outgunned.
  53. It might wont arrive soon next month. The situation is just very unstable for American ground forces at this moment. Either in 1.69, 1.71, or very, very late patch.
  54. Anyway, what's the difference between T1E1 (90 mm) & M6E1 other than using T26 turret?
  55. This shell is more or less equal to PzGr. 39/43. Having T32 without this round will severely cripple it without major firepower increase over a heavy tank with lower BR than it. I'd say it's a required round.
  56. Good. It seems thicker than 25.4 mm. Maybe 50.8 mm as Chieftain said? Now compare it with the actual photograph from Hunnicutt Firepower.
  57. I thought it was comparable to King Tiger or T29 of sort. So what do you think about a Soviet heavy comparable to them that is not an IS-2? Uh, why remove the 1947? I think it's good enough. While I think the T-54 1949 should be replaced with T-54 1951, then T-55 comes in. T-54 1947 T-54 1951 T-55 T-62 Separating T-54 1949 & 1951 by HEAT-FS seems redundant for me.
  58. Oh, crap. I thought it's the mod. 1972 which received the first ERA. Speaking about the Soviet MBT & T-55: I have a feeling if one of the T-54 will be replaced by T-55, either 49 or 51.
  59. Then extend the variant of all current MBT. As far as I recall, some variants can mount one: M60A1 RISE T-62 mod. 1972 Chieftain ... w/ ROMOR ERA? Hey, @Choogleblitz. What do you think about Object 253?
  60. We have enough requirements for those matters. Fairly enough. One O-I, another prototype O-I, then another heavy-tank-which-I-don't-know-what-it-is. Let's just leave this matter to someone who knows about it... if the Devs didn't **** her off... seriously. ERA-type armor has been spotted since a major patch ago. I assure its arrival will have a reason to back up with the ATGM. Free ATGM without SL cost. IS-6 has been passed to development & it's just a matter of time until Devs want to do so. ESPECIALLY after all IS-based tanks have been downtiered at their own capacity. It's just pulling a bigger flare for IS-6 tank drop. As much as how OP it is, IS-7 is still easier to break its way into the game than T-64 because something like RHA will always be easier to destroy by conventional weaponry than composite armor. Also its gun doesn't fire anything other than APCBC-HE & HE. Artillery can come in if the Devs know how to solve that matter by their own. Or else, use Artillery Map HUD. Press 5. Rocket tanks & armored cars have always been a primary final development for WWII tech tree before escalating to modern warfare to complete the set. The only problem is that not every nations have numerous amount of rocket tanks. Well, at least the British have some. NO. It should be regular. The 253. There's 252 if you want the premium version, with better mobility I guess? Just like King Tiger & King Diesel (with better mobility)
  61. There's T29E3 already on development, which is supposedly at the same BR as the T29. The other 2 tanks are supposedly higher than both T29. The T30 & T34.
  62. That's a good provocation to increase the chance for T29 uptiering. Just saying.
  63. Tanks/Vehicles

    And it better be a regular tank because reasons.
  64. A Guntank arriving from nowhere starting a big standoff for composite armored warfare. Meanwhile: -The rocket tank tech tree (America has a lot of them on top of their vehicles... also their barrel), -Armored car tech tree (hello Boarhound & Puma) -Dedicated self-propelled artillery tech tree (Long Tom barrage, woohoo) -Explosive Reactive Armor for MBTs -The last but not least, the perfect heavy tank tech tree for all 5 nations, are not completed just yet. (counting, IS-6, IS-7, T14, M6E1, T29-based tanks, those VK heavy tanks thingy, more Churchills, & the O-I tanks, or what's left of them) I would rather skip this mundane composite armored warfare for at least a year or two in favor of back to WWII business for improvements, or early cold war stuffs. Or else, over & out.
  65. Varying from 3 hours earlier to 5 hours later from my current post. Right now is 21:15 in here. Evening, to be specific.
  66. That's just harsher in hindsight. Yeah, that is a trope.
  67. Funny word coming from a German who thinks that his King Tiger is inferior to American T29. Another one-sided opinion while neglecting the upper frontal armor superiority. Again. Another mere opinion again about "auto-bounce" the 2nd time neglecting the fact that the King Tiger can also bounce one with its tracks. Another opinion, yet again. 105 mm APCBC-HE fired at 899 m/s will never be superior than 88 mm APCBC-HE fired at 1000 m/s by penetration. Ignoring the rapid firing capability of a 88 mm KwK 43 is one minus point. High caliber overmatch advantage coming from an IS-2 which is actually at lower VR than either of the two. Since it was to be lighter than King Tiger, it's logical. Do you even know the difference between "Top Speed" & "Acceleration"? 42 km/h top speed vs 35 km/h top speed, of course the King Tiger has better. It's the acceleration that makes the T29 better. One positive point for a King Tiger as being a hard target to flank once it notices. You got a problem with T29 armor? Then what do you think about M26 Pershing facing King Tiger H without any APCR whatsoever? Or even worse, the T-44 with barely any good penetrating AP at all. Both tanks have justified armor superiority. Spaced modules are even more common in German tanks (especially Maus) than American tanks. Don't even try to ignore your own nation's tanks. One crew member is a part if historical feature & does not concern anything about a tank's BR by extreme factor over a single additional loader. Those are bugs. Stronger-than-average modules are suspected as a bug. Bugs are not a factor to justify a tank's BR. Anyway, say hello to AP blocker King Tiger front transmission which I think it's even worse than T29 which itself is actually a historical feature of a King Tiger. One more positive point of a King Tiger. Sturer Emil has better gun depression than T29, so should it be 7.0? No? -10 gun depression is a standard for American tanks. You cant accept it, then you are screwed by yourself. Poor choice to think. I'm actually surprised you pointed out that one without any number games at all. Say, 9 secs King Tiger Ace reload time compared to 12 secs T29 Ace reload time. A long-time dictating tiger self-proclaiming to be inferior in front of a newcomer shortbull with some well-prepared excuses without any logical explanation other than mere opinion. "Tracks bouncing shots", heh. That's the worst excuse I've ever seen since the Jackson BR bump. Well, in my opinion, the King Tiger H is much superior to T29 since it's widely available to every players without bribing their way to victory for $40 because its regular ally heavy is evidently weaker than both King Tiger & T29.
  68. This has been discussed way earlier.
  69. Someone better standby on the portal or news thread by now.
  70. Well, if you're seeing T29 exploding tanks with 180 gr Exp.D is already massive, wait until the early M82 is fixed with 20 gr more explosive inside.
  71. I want tanks. Lots of them.
  72. I mean its M82 APCBC-HE. It's supposed to be 200 gr Exp. D (early) instead of 140 gr Exp. D (late).
  73. Why would you want the Pershing to 5.7? 6.0 is reasonable enough for me. Considering how much its early M82 filler is... A 122 mm explosive inside a 90 mm gun
  74. It looks like @Smin1080p has passed the development for some Japanese ground vehicles hours ago as I said earlier. I know it, you know it, we know what will happen next.
  75. Well, I do think American heavy tanks need some major refinement from 3.7 to 7.3. Required. And there are plenty of them. Also some German low tier heavy tanks. And E-100 15 cm, if you don't mind. I'm interested with the E-100 design.
  76. Just wait until additional reinforcement comes. Which are T30 & T34.
  77. Are those required or additional? Because I think IS-6 is required to combat the King Tiger H. Right damn now (especially considering all IS-based tanks have been downtiered).
  78. As for the air force, I-250 might be a good starter release to trigger super props warfare (P-51H most likely, Ki-64?, Me 209?). Since the Soviet (along with German) are currently the most developed army, I think there is some few left for them to roll out to complete the perfect tech tree, which I think: T-34-85M (seems redundant) -IS-2M (seems redundant) -IS-6 (Object 253) (6.7 - 7.0?) -T-55 (±7.7) -let me check tanks which have been passed to..... oh NO. The recent Suggestion-Passing has been initiated 19 hours ago. DAMNIT. I'm not sure about IS-7. It might be a good tank. But I don't want to talk about it without setting this thread on fire.
  79. Here we go again
  80. Yes, the T-30 & T-34 (preferably the exterminator) are good for 8.0 after all. With the exception that I dont want these as American tank.
  81. There is a ton of them. Just a matter of when. Screw the players who want combat-only tanks. Not necessarily game-breaking bug, but historical, still. I think it's not necessarily a priority yet. Meanwhile, I'm still looking for Early M82 bug which is kind of important concerning all early 90 mm gun tanks (including the recently downtiered Jackson). Late M82 (170 mm PB) has 140 gr Exp.D. Early M82 (160 mm PB) has 200 gr Exp.D. Back to 1.67. Yeah, the Soviet tanks.
  82. Not a time for wishlish on Devblog marathon, but whatever. Gib YB-35.
  83. I dont think secondary MG has major effect for a tank's BR positioning... or does it.
  84. Yes, I guess both tanks have the same secondary weapon mechanics. Considering the Pz. 38t has its MG moving independently (free movement) which is separated from the main gun movement. So Centurion should do the same if its Polsten / BESA is also a flexible mount.
  85. Well, a flexible mount, then.
  86. Does it count as coaxial or flexible?
  87. Without the coax 20, though.
  88. And I thought they already know about this American medium tank in general. Siliceous-cored armor.
  89. The earliest composite armored tank is the T95. Might be an ideal tank to test how composite armor works against early MBTs without having to draw 125 mm smoothbore guns into a fight.
  90. Jagdtiger Army. Nuff said.
  91. Arm it with T50E1. Problem solved. Still on suggestion..
  92. About time.
  93. The tank itself has very rare information even though the tank itself is still exist... The ammunition, even double the rarity. Have to wait for John with his document ready to find out the ammunition. Whether the T14 is a scaled up T32 APCBC... or scaled up T50 APCBC-HE. I bet it's the latter.
  94. There is a rumor whether the 120 mm T14 fired from T53 would be a high velocity APCBC-HE or just APCBC.
  95. Talking about penetration, we can have T34. 120 mm big barreled gun will leave a big mark.
  96. Well, you can conclude.
  97. Would someone please respond to my answers so I dont look like I'm talking to nothing?
  98. Yeah, I figured someone would say this. Jagdtiger is slower, has a sniper artillery.
  99. The turret armor is a unique feature of the american heavy tanks developed during WWII. So I wont take the whole mantlet thing too far as it was unique on its own. One thing to consider that it can be penetrated by true PzGr. 43. Well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  100. Historically-speaking, The Jagdtiger, PzGr. 43 penetrates 306 mm armor PB. The T32, M82 penetrates 216 mm armor PB. T50E1 penetrates 235 mm armor PB. Sum it up, then: 90 mm difference against M82 71 mm difference against T50E1 Even higher the difference with correct ballistic performance. Even the T50E1 isn't available yet for the T32 as for now. So much for "shell performance is equal".
  101. Not sure why you didn't edit it while it still can. Might be good for 7.0 - 7.7 from my conclusion after looking at some few specifications of it. But it's all relative when it comes to new vehicle & redundancy.
  102. A miserable fanboi.
  103. There's a hole between 4.7 and wherever
  104. Might be a misidentification.
  105. They were talking something about ZSU-37-2, but I'm not sure yet.
  106. As far as I recall from recent Q&A (not from RR): Type 91 / Type 95 O-I Type 60 APC ATGM Deutschland Patton II Hetzer Howitzer T30 Heavy T34 Heavy T32E1 Heavy M103A2 Heavy Take a grain of salt.
  107. Unless someone specifically asked for it in Dev Q&A, or CM is directly informed by Dev about it, there is no solid cutoff year.
  108. From the very beginning of MBT arrival in WT, there is no "cutoff year".
  109. The first new vehicle devblog is on the run. What's next, Russian T-55? German Patton II? British Chieftain V/IV? Or even American T34?
  110. As far as I want to see it ASAP in 1.67 over anything else, I think we have to wait for the next devblog turn. I'm just watching the heating up rumor roundup from afar. Not interested with the composite armor vs rolled armor SPAA in the first place anyway.
  111. And it's logical enough: All T29-based development was effectively terminated as its successor the M103, was approved for production. By the time the T99 was there, the M103 was already in service. First Chieftain prototypes, the original wielder of 120 mm L11A5, were only delivered in 1959, far beyond the T99 which was said to have the gun in 1957, where L11A5 was still in development. U.S. Ordnance didn't adopt 120 mm L11A5. Instead, they already had 120 mm M58 for their heavy tank. Would be very odd if the T99 was armed with British gun instead of their own. Specification of the T99 is not even described in Firepower book.
  112. There is no T99 heavy tank, as I recall from said book.
  113. The T30 itself has been mentioned in recent Q&A, though. It's been planned as regular... So I doubt its arrival will be classified as premium tank by any factors. We already have too many premium tanks. I'm just suggesting proper ammunition for the T30.
  114. Depends on how you look at it. I'm okay with it. Everything from production to paper with projected specifications, but not tanks like WT Auf. E-100.
  115. That is T26E1-1... Lowering the front on purpose sounds ridiculous for a tank engineer. The only logical reason behind it is its front-heavy boiler plates damped the front section of the tank.
  116. Not really. You can find the T26E1-1 in American soil with 90 mm T15 onboard in Aberdeen Proving Ground with proportional hull inclination, before strapped with auxiliary armor.
  117. You know, I cant stand the mass panic from Kong Tigers complaining about the T29 in 6.7.
  118. Wouldn't it be physically effective? I mean, It's 38 mm thick steel with relatively wide gap on its front hull.
  119. Didn't Super Pershing auxiliary armor work like schurzen? Just a bit thicker... & immensely heavier.
  120. Yeah. I saw that coming. I think you still need to correct the title. Aside the designation correction, Good luck with the new BR. Underdog as Easy 8 would be very pleased with the uptier. Was hoping for M4A3E8 downtier, though, but this is better than I expected. 85 has immense explosive firepower out of all medium tanks in Tier III (165 gr)... About comparable to Tiger with anti-concrete AP (160 gr)
  121. Might not be a good idea if it's a premium.
  122. I tell you, man. You will use a lot of M82 than M341 in the Scorpion. The urge to one-shot a Tiger from flank. It's just real.
  123. You can see the designation on its fender. Yeah, you're picking the wrong T29. There are hundreds of them built during their development, not just one.
  124. If you really want some 1-shot firepower, just use the Scorpion instead.
  125. I dont remember the exact turret traverse speed number on the T30, but it should be the same as the T29. The gun depression is U.S.-standards: -10.
  126. That was quick.
  127. This reminds you to WoT? No problem. I'm just comparing them whatsover. ISU-152 modified to use long-barreled, high velocity 152 mm BL-10 L/48, & was a further upgrade from ISU-152-1 / ISU-152BM. Development started from 1944 to 1945 & continued for a short time after WWII was over. ISU-152-2 has RoF at 3 RPM. Quite fast for a long-barreled 152 mm gun. Some useful information about the ISU-152BM: High penetrating APHE round with both kinetic & explosive forces advantage at the same time. Tank armor overmatch should be the easiest compared to other APHE rounds, while being destructive. 2 of the production T29 were modified to use modified 155 mm M1 L/45 Long Tom, known as 155 mm T7 L/40. Development started from late 1944 to approximately late 1952. Its actual RoF is 3 RPM, not 2 RPM (as shown in Hunnicutt). Yes, it's the reported rate of fire from the T30. Exactly comparable as the ISU-152-2. Some known ammunition fired by the T30: + a special round developed from the T152 HEP based from its initial establishment in 1952. Round tested in 1958 by 155 mm M1. All ammunition of M1 & T7 are interchangeable: This round is able to be fired from T30's T7. It's the shortest gun out of all high capacity guns fielded by the other tanks. So it won't use kinetic force as its primary advantage (155 mm HVAP is a subcaliber, after all). But rather, All-around squash head 155 mm round capable of perforating frontal armor of any tanks exist in the game with 17 kg of pure explosive action... at lower velocity, of course. A common sight in German ground forces. Basically a King Tiger + 250 mm superstructure with 128 mm PaK 44 L/55 onboard. Development started in 1942 & in service from 1944 to 1945. It has RoF somewhere at 3.3 from the game, slightly faster than 2 of the big guns. Known actual penetration of its main shell, PzGr 43: 100 yds: 306 mm 250 yds: 300 mm 500 yds: 290 mm 750 yds: 280 mm 1000 yds: 271 mm It's superior than ISU-152-2 by penetration, but might be inferior by explosive. Still, if kinetic force is added to the factor, energy delivery would be so much reliable, & can leave a big mark on tank armor. What do you think? BR is not a matter, just conventional tank engagement if they ever face each other in a standoff.
  128. This reminds you to WoT? No problem. I'm just comparing them whatsover. ISU-152 modified to use long-barreled, high velocity 152 mm BL-10 L/48, & was a further upgrade from ISU-152-1 / ISU-152BM. Development started from 1944 to 1945 & continued for a short time after WWII was over. ISU-152-2 has RoF at 3 RPM. Quite fast for a long-barreled 152 mm gun. Some useful information about the ISU-152BM: High penetrating APHE round with both kinetic & explosive forces advantage at the same time. Tank armor overmatch should be the easiest compared to other APHE rounds, while being destructive. 2 of the production T29 were modified to use modified 155 mm M1 L/45 Long Tom, known as 155 mm T7 L/40. Development started from late 1944 to approximately late 1952. Its actual RoF is 3 RPM, not 2 RPM (as shown in Hunnicutt). Yes, it's the reported rate of fire from the T30. Exactly comparable as the ISU-152-2. Some known ammunition fired by the T30: + a special round developed from the T152 HEP based from its initial establishment in 1952. Round tested in 1958 by 155 mm M1. All ammunition of M1 & T7 are interchangeable: This round is able to be fired from T30's T7. It's the shortest gun out of all high capacity guns fielded by the other tanks. So it won't use kinetic force as its primary advantage (155 mm HVAP is a subcaliber, after all). But rather, All-around squash head 155 mm round capable of perforating frontal armor of any tanks exist in the game with 17 kg of pure explosive action... at lower velocity, of course. A common sight in German ground forces. Basically a King Tiger + 250 mm superstructure with 128 mm PaK 44 L/55 onboard. Development started in 1942 & in service from 1944 to 1945. It has RoF somewhere at 3.3 from the game, slightly faster than 2 of the big guns. Known actual penetration of its main shell, PzGr 43: 100 yds: 306 mm 250 yds: 300 mm 500 yds: 290 mm 750 yds: 280 mm 1000 yds: 271 mm It's superior than ISU-152-2 by penetration, but might be inferior by explosive. Still, if kinetic force is added to the factor, energy delivery would be so much reliable, & can leave a big mark on tank armor. What do you think? BR is not a matter, just conventional tank engagement if they ever face each other in a standoff.
  129. Wait, the ISU-152 is going down to 5.3. It was supposed to be ISU-152 to ISU-152-2. But I guess it's trivial.
  130. You take the wrong tank.
  131. We're talking about the turret, not the mantlet. Armor thickness from front to side is 158 mm as projected from the armor layout instead of 178 mm - 127 mm from Hunnicutt.
  132. I think the current BR is right as it is. The 5.7 heavy tank will still have a chance to engage 6.7 heavy tank.