@Diver the "fact" part signifies a joke. sorry if it caused confusion. I am aware of the purposes the vehicles served (or at least were meant to serve). have a nice day.

@X4JB Ok thank you!

@Diver neutral steering as far as I know means that when rotating on the spot one track will rotate forward and the other backward. most tanks of the time had (except like British and stuff) just rotated a single track forward or backward, while keeping the other one stationary.
bedsprings are the grids/nets that you had on your earlier tank.
greebles is a general term for all kinds of small details that decorate the build.

@X4JB Regarding FT, I'm not very gud at it so I'm not really sure how to add those features : ( And err... can u also clarify neutral steering? I know some bit about tank stearing, but i don't get u in this case

@X4JB Thanks for the increase. Can u clarify what are bedsprings and greebles?

@Diver A few things that you can add to performance using FT.
-when not pressing W it should slow down a lot quicker. you can do this by using FT for the braking
-the tank slips out at high speeds in sharp angles
-the tank has neutral steering, which is very unlikely for a Polish 1947 tank

Note: my scale ranges from 0 to 10. Everything from a 5-10 is positive. Everything from a 0-5 is negative. This means that this build gives me positive feelings. It is a good score.

Shape: 9.5/10

I genuinely love the shape on this one. The KV style lower glacis, IS upper glacis and KV (but way bigger) turret. I also really love the way that the hull becomes slimmer towards the rear. Very interesting.

Running gear: 3/10

Tracks_2 without dummy suspension is still not impressive. I hope you would have improved this.

Greebles: 6/10

You removed the bed springs from your last tank, which is a very good thing. However a side effect of this is that the rest of the tank looks underdetailed. You can't just remove the bedsprings and not any more greebles under it and expect it to look better. Use the parts you shaved off by removing the bedsprings to create more details.

Decals and paint scheme: 8.5/10

The colour is still quite saturated. The decals are nearing perfection (aside of part efficiency). The paint scheme contains a bit too much grey and red.

Performance: 7/10

You didn't noticeably improve on the performance. Custom code for the tracks would be appreciated. Roof MG doesn't work and actually just damages your own tank at some angles.

Conclusion: 6.8/10

Though an objective improvement over your last tank, it isn't as much of an improvement as I had hoped. A lot of things that I pointed out in the initial review you never used. You did improve on the shape and decals.

@X4JB Could you tell me what the performance means more specifically?

@X4JB Oh, i'd have added it if i saw it.... I guess I gotta go check it again.

@Diver my criticism about vision was about the lack of gun sight. KV and basically all tanks have this

@X4JB Ok... yes most of your points are valid. The periscopes were a mistake that I noticed : ( bad mistake. Tank chains were my imitation of steel wire, Russian style tanks have bad vision on the turret, and yeah the cupola has internal hinge.

But now I know what to fix next time ig.

Things that I do like:
decals give the tank a lot of character and look quite good
I love the idea of a gun that big, and it's executed well
I like the idea of a stolen MG (even tho you probably just did it cuz you didn't wanna make one from scratch)
I love the shape and design of the tank
I like the spaced addon armour (though unnecessary on rear of turret)
these addon plates are also a smart way to fit flat decals to a round turret, very creative
the performance in game is generally very good (though on the boring side)

Things that I don't like: (don't read if you don't like nit picking)
there is z-fighting on the upper glacis, which is unacceptable
the MGs are not custom. with just a 4 parts you can make them look a lot better than just the stock winggun.
the front fenders are very badly supported and would easily bend irl
why does the assistent driver have more periscopes than the actual driver??
since when do tanks have chains?
chains are horribly part inefficient compared to cables
there is an excessive amount of red paint on this tank
why does the rear turret have added spaced armour? waste of weight and steel
there is no gunner sight, just a periscope
there is an excessive amount of grey paint on this tank (some parts that are grey would irl be painted green)
you didnt improve on the running gear
the tank slips out of control when doing sharp high speed turns
the glass of the periscopes is too small to actually fit in the frame
the commanders hatch doesn't have any hinges (internal hinge??)
squary decal is offensively part inefficient (so easy to fix)
drivers view port looks out of place and underdetailed
the tracer colours are unrealistic and stock

@X4JB Thank you. Your reviews are the most comprehensive I'll be getting from anyone, and I feel like I've managed to improve from them.

First let me quickly go over the parts that you didn't make yourself. I still think that you as the poster are responsible for any lacks in quality, since you were the one to put them on your tank.

Bear Claw Decal
The looks on this decal are quite good. I like it a lot actually. Sadly, like all of Strucker's decals (that I'm aware of), it's horribly part inefficient.

Looks: 8/10

Part efficiency: 3/10

Conclusion: 5.5/10

MG 42
It looks pretty good, as expected from RussianAce. However the way you implemented it is pretty bad. The laying of the MG is not even functional, but the wingGun itself is. You should've either made it entirely functional, or removed the wing gun.
Part efficiency is good on this MG, and replica accuracy is alright.

Looks: 7/10

Functionality: 0/10

Part efficiency: 8/10

Conclusion: 5/10

Screenshots:
The framing on the screenshots is alright. I really don't like the thumbnail, it doesn't show the build well at all. Only like 30% of the frame is the tank. Try to get that up to around 75%.
Lighting is generally pretty good.
The map does fit the tank pretty well, and it's a well made map.
There is no reshade used, which is just not of this time anymore. Reshade is a necessity, especially if you're letting someone else take your screenshots.
The thumbnail is bad, because it doesn't frame the tank well enough and the tank doesn't have enough contrast with the background (blending in). Also the text is very simplistic. I preferred the thumbnails of your previous tank.

Framing: 6/10

Lighting: 9/10

Map: 7/10

Reshade: 0/10

Conclusion: 5.5/10

I will do a review of this build comparing it to your Progetto P. 75 Mod. 51 Serpente. I will be referring to my review of said tank as well.

@HeavyC22 no problem :)

THANK YOU SOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@RussianAce Thanks!

@Graingy lol, thr Heshbarn was bigger turret han the KV-2 and was designed to kill tanks using a gun much bigger than that of the KV-2, while the KV-2 was designed to bust bunkers not tanks.

@Diver “Fact”: the FV4005 was a Somewhat successful attempt to replicate the KV-2. While it matched the firepower of the KV-2, it failed to match the armour, thus never made it into production.

Thanks! @iniMiiW

Thanks for the spot! @scratch

@Graingy That's a little of a far stretch tbh. The turret isn't tall enough. I may be making a sort of hesh barn soon maybe.... A Russian hesh barn that is.

kinda reminds me of HESH barn