CaptainDyllanRex

ISU-152 - Questions, Information, Gameplay

WittmannTigerWreck.jpg

 

000447-142-turret-hit-wreck-Beja.jpeg000483-823-833-wreck-Beja.jpeg

 

Base of the turret is still connected to the hull. Notice how they don't have a base? Yeah... Sorry. My point still stands.

 

Tiger's turret wasn't gravity mounted, so the entire thing doesn't just go "pop" and fly off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To use of blackpowder: "and have a propellant charge of 35-38g of improoved 4/7 Tsgr smokeless powder. "

 

Hmmm, must have been a propellant upgrade in their later howitzers.

 

I know for a fact they did use proper black powder in lieu of double based Cordite and the like for their early artillery pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The base might still be on...the rest of the turret isnt therefore its blown off.

 

Oh Sakuzhi. Maybe if you payed some attention, you would know my point still remains valid.

 

The turret base wasn't torn off, therefore the turret wasn't properly destroyed in the sense that it was "blown off". All you did was tear the top of the turret off, I.E. - you just gutted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Sakuzhi. Maybe if you payed some attention, you would know my point still remains valid.

 

The turret base wasn't torn off, therefore the turret wasn't properly destroyed in the sense that it was "blown off". All you did was tear the top of the turret off, I.E. - you just gutted it.

what difference does it make for the ppl inside it?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what difference does it make for the ppl inside it?

 

It doesn't. They're still a fine red mist and/or smaller chunks of vaguely recognizable meat. Dead as door nails.

 

It's just a technicality that the turret really wasn't blown off, but rather gutted since the entire structure of the turret didn't go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that's what happens when you store the ammunition around the base of the turret?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that's what happens when you store the ammunition around the base of the turret?

Pretty much, people above wanna say it was all the 152's work but the 152 merely touched off the ammo.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In WoT the ISU-152 is a mega derp with the BL10... I think it will be the same for WT

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if this game factors in Spalling then the ISU-152 will be a terribly effective weapon. I've seen one as a monument, they're quite impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if this game factors in Spalling then the ISU-152 will be a terribly effective weapon. I've seen one as a monument, they're quite impressive.

 

With HE you wouldn't even have to worry.

 

Just hit somewhere on the tank and the damn thing becomes a massive frag grenade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In WoT the ISU-152 is a mega derp with the BL10... I think it will be the same for WT


Your forgot that irl the bl10 didn't work. The tank flipped over a lot because the bl10 was to heavy for the isu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh no Screw american tanks im full Russian on this one 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your forgot that irl the bl10 didn't work. The tank flipped over a lot because the bl10 was to heavy for the isu.

 

It didn't flip it over the ISU-152 was heavy enough to use it the gun had other problems however.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good luck with firing the howitzer 152mm from 2km distance. You will miss all your shots because it's a close range barrel, terrible accuracy

 

enlighten yourself, please. its a tank gun for xxxx sake, not a shotgun.

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/02/accuracy.html

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/07/ballistic-tables-of-88-cm-l71-kwk-43.html

 

 

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research what gun they used for fuck sake, it's a war economy not ideal circumstances (if the L71 was a late one expect the barrel to be sub par even compared to russian guns).

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Research what gun they used for xxxx sake, it's a war economy not ideal circumstances (if the L71 was a late one expect the barrel to be sub par even compared to russian guns).

 

I guess the F-34, M2 and the sFH18 105 in the other link all have sub par worn out barrels because the ML-20S has similar accuracy :(

 

The gun used in the L/71 chart is of the highest possible quality available firing the highest possible quality ammo available seeing as how its a controlled test obviously looking to achieve the best possible results. so ya.

 

more excuses pls

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the F-34, M2 and the sFH18 105 in the other link all have sub par worn out barrels because the ML-20S has similar accuracy :(

 

more excuses pls

 

It doesn't have the accuracy of say, a long barrel, but I'd say it's still reasonably accurate itself. Aiming the thing is an entirely different question, since it's quite a big gun meant to load heavy 152mm shells. And in such a small chassis too.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the F-34, M2 and the sFH18 105 in the other link all have sub par worn out barrels because the ML-20S has similar accuracy :(

 

more excuses pls

More idiocy please, check the barrels, check the conditions, check the facts, until such a point experimental data in absence of known parameters is good to be printed and used as toilet paper (example of parameters: gunners and experience with any of the guns, if so which and how well acquainted were they with them, weather conditions, state of the guns, origin of the guns, metallurgical quality of the guns, optics used in gunnery,  pressure for results, which could skew results for or against said gun, etc).

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More idiocy please, check the barrels, check the conditions, check the facts, until such a point experimental data in absence of known parameters is good to be printed and used as toilet paper (example of parameters: gunners and experience with any of the guns, if so which and how well acquainted were they with them, weather conditions, state of the guns, origin of the guns, metallurgical quality of the guns, optics used in gunnery,  pressure for results, which could skew results for or against said gun, etc).

 

I agree with you if you are saying this about the first link, but it doesn't apply to the second one. The L/71 was tested by Germans in Germany in proper conditions with the highest quality gun and ammo that they could find. The experience of gunners and the optics have nothing to do with the accuracy of the testing, they simply zero the gun to the distance of the target, aim in the middle and fire. These tests are conducted to get the best results possible, the Russians and Germans are not going to be using worn out battle scarred guns and faulty ammo for performance testing. The exception is when captured guns are used. And nobody is going to skew a document intended for the defense of their nation in order to please their superiors... Thats a load of xxxx.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.