Talk:ISU-152

message: I see the article mentions the ability to use the ISU-122/152 in the indirect fire role. I wasn't sure this was possible with these vehicles? Can someone confirm whether they were equipped with artillery-type sights? DMorpheus 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ISU-122/152 had two sights: telescopic for direct fire and panoramic (so called Hertz's panorama, I don't know the right English term) for indirect fire. The left forward hatch was made specially for panoramic sight visor, not for crew members. Some photos in Russian history military magazines show ISU-152 firing with closed position, with stocks of projectiles and charges nearby the vehicle. The vehicle itself has small hatch on the left side for loading ammunition from the ground. LostArtilleryman 15:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect fire capability? 

message: #  —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:48 Z
# Oberiko 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # LostArtilleryman 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: It's got loads of armour, an obscenely large gun, and range/speed/engine specs reminiscent of a tank. It looks like a tank, it works like a tank... what gives? Aadieu (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this considered a tank? 

message: Here is a video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e2_1365795228
B4Ctom1 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISU-152 found in Ukrainian village is started after 65 years and hauled away 

message: Experimental apparently. I don't recognize the gun. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-velocity variant  

message: I know it's in vogue these days but is it necessary to refer to say, the Polish Army as the "Polish military" or the Red Army as the "Soviet military"? It's very clumsy. Yes, I know it is possible that some weapons were used by more than one service but this was far less likely in the period this piece was used. Flanker235 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military" 

message: The article uses the term "lockman" several times without explanation. Any chance someone can add such, or a link to a page that explains?
Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it means a second loader who presumably operates the screw breach. Another loader would actually handle the ammunition. Honestly the entire article reads like a bad translation and I have never heard the term 'lockman' used in english for any artillery staff position. Rather than link to this nonexistent term the whole article should be copyedited. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockman? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ISU-152. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531064930/http://www.aviarmor.net/TWW2/tanks/ussr/isu-152.htm to http://www.aviarmor.net/TWW2/tanks/ussr/isu-152.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.aviarmor.net/TWW2/tanks/ussr/Object_704.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does the description make it sound like the lack of a turret was some severe handicap which prevented it from engaging in anti-tank warfare or direct combat, when it is well-known that the Germans and others made extensive use of similarly-designed vehicles as tank destroyers, assault guns, etc. A person reading this comes off feeling like this is some especial drawback and that this was the only reason it was mostly used as SP artillery. This is obviously not the case. If this is true...and I have my doubts...it was a matter of Soviet policy. They needed SP artillery/assault guns more than they needed tank-destroyers. Although I was under the impression that the ISU 152 was used quite extensively to hunt tanks. I know the SU 152 was, another thing that gives the lie to the statement that the layout "prevented" it from serving in combat roles.
64.222.158.24 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lack of turret" 

message: This article is bad :
A) There is not even mention of the weight of the tank, and overall technical issues. 
B) Do you really think that 1-3 shells per minute is an extremely low firing rate ??? Yes that is written in this article. It is just impossible : 1-3 shells per minute is an extremely HIGH firing rate, and absolutely impossible to achieve with this huge gun. 
C) there is no information about real combat locations.2A02:A03F:6599:5B00:3115:A4F3:F209:D5B4 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is mediocre