That is still micro-management and it doesn’t show you at what range your other gun is set. So you’ve set your main gun sights that you’re looking through at 600m and your secondary gun is actually set to something like 1050m because of that. I do have bindings for switching between guns, but still it’s stupid and unrealistic, but so far I couldn’t submit this as a bug because there’s no paperwork stating the obvious that the guns are not synced by angle.
1 Like
Just rangefind.
1 Like
So did it actually exist in some way?
Also, is this picture real, or some fake?
1 Like
Looks photoshoped.
Beside is not that the Type 5 heavy from WoT ?
Spoiler
No one knows if the picture is real or not. Which is a massive problem. Due to the angle, it could be an optical illusion which is why it looks so big due to the angle the person is at when it was taken on the other hand it might be a fabricated image. I don’t necessarily believe it’s a fake picture since it’s been scattered since before I joined WT. So I believe it is a real picture. However, it was just taken at an angle.
However, it more or less might be the only picture of the real thing since some did state there was a prototype that did not have a turret and only a machine gun. But idk.
5 Likes
Wasn’t this a bunker in Manchuria?
2 Likes
The photo is real, it’s been around on the internet well before WoT and their Japanese heavies. It’s definitely not the O-I though.
The issue is, we don’t know whether it’s a bunker or an actual tank (unlikely). A) it’s unlikely Japan still wanted a super-heavy tank after the O-I failed and B) we don’t actually know if the Type 4/5 heavy were real.
The only evidence for them existing is Soviet documents made public by Wargaming, which itself is a red flag. Supposedly, this was the design for the Type 2604 (Type 4):
You can see the turret shape resemblance. But, these are the Soviet documents and could have been forged.
5 Likes
Yeah, i think the situation is similar to the KV-220, which had it’s turret made into a bunker.
Or even this, supposed be the T-100Z turret (i dnot know if it is real or not)
IIRC
Yeah i don’t think it is the actual tank, most likely just a static turret. And there have been a lot of examples of this. (tho in that picture’s case, we don’t know if it was intended as a superheavy tank turret, or just a bunker)
Yeah sadly.
4 Likes
That picture looks very fake
1 Like
However, i would really like to see this in the game.
Not because it would be effective. They would likely put it somewhere 6.x-7.x, where the armor would be useless against anything really, but it would have a huge crew, and a good gun (wether the 150 or the 105mm one, they are booth good).
2 Likes
Which picture?
Bunker one, Looks very photoshoped
1 Like
I provided 3 bunker pics. Which one?
1 Like
This one
1 Like
Quality of the turret compared to the fore ground looks inconsistent…
2 Likes
That could be due to a few things, like focus. But i am also a bit sceptical in terms of that pic.
1 Like
You did not get the problem here - I’m not talking about figuring out the range you’re shooting at. When you have your view set to the sights of gun #1 and the gun #2 is following it, by the same angles/direction, but those guns have different calibres, even if you set different buttons to shot gun #1 and gun #2 separately, the gun #2 being different caliber will shoot at different point at the set distance that you’re aiming with aperture of gun #1.
You can jump between the views of those two guns, but on top of it being annoying micromanagement, if you’re shot and you lose the crew of the gun #2 while you’re sitting in it, the crew from gun #1 will go into this one because you’re sitting in this gun #2 gun sight.
Go into M3 Lee/SMG/T-35 and check what will happen with the smaller round when you aim with the main sights at something like 600 meters range. And also check what happens if you set sight distance control and swap between the guns/sights - you will see those two guns sighs being set to different sight distance control offset.
1 Like
This seems to be fake URL (Japanese)
https://twitter.com/orz47329448/status/1389786433762725890?t=a6CKgRqhUzsqKbrlAew5zw&s=19
1 Like
The dude post 3. Also do understand that photography can make something look very fake. Especially at angles.
1 Like
The M3 Lee is honestly a good example for a problem that quite a view multigunned tanks have but the O-I doesn’t, having the low velocity gun in the hull and the high velocity gun on top, meaning the paths of the shells are already off from the beginning and the different velocitys only make it worse. Having the somewhat low velocity gun (540m/s isn’t THAT bad) on top means the path of the shells would intersect at probably something like 200-400 meters, making it way more usefull, even when they won’t work well together at longer ranges (the 47mm wouldn`t be very effective at such BR at long range regardless). Other multigunned tanks that have the low velocity gun on top mostly have absolutely atrocious velocity making them only usefull point blank. Having two fast fireing backup guns would also help protecting you in close quarters while waiting for the long reload.
4 Likes