Login

russian armor

Why is there no IS2 buff being discussed?

13 Nov 2017, 14:45 PM
#41
avatar of Bizrock

Posts: 206

Ita okay to a 75mm gun have more penetration, but more damage?
I doubt.
The "damage" comes after penetration and I guarantee that If a 122mm Shell penetrate a tank would do way more damage to the tank than a 75mm
155mm Shells of SU155 could explode Tigers with "zero" penetration btw (Just a fun fact)
13 Nov 2017, 16:44 PM
#42
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



What if I actually told you that both 88mm and 75mm had higher velocity and joule rating than is2 main gun, thus they were historically better ?
And if out of all three guns 75mm was better than both ?

The idea that 122mm is better than 75mm because more is totally wrong, caliber is not the only important feature...


Yeah, shit metal is also important, from which the German tanks were made in the late stages. One 122/152 mm a high-explosive / armor-piercing projectile was enough for the King's Tiger to fall apart at the seams.
13 Nov 2017, 16:53 PM
#43
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Getting to the front itself was enough for most heavy tanks to fall apart at the seams.
13 Nov 2017, 17:10 PM
#44
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Getting to the front itself was enough for most heavy tanks to fall apart at the seams.


Because of the shit metal, the King Tiger was more afraid of the "slow" 122/152 mm shells than the armor piercing "fast" 85-90-100 mm shells

13 Nov 2017, 17:34 PM
#45
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

The IS-2 is pretty good, it's just in weak doctrines.

It needs an actually useful vet 1 ability and a commander rework, that's it.
13 Nov 2017, 17:58 PM
#46
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 17:34 PMTobis
The IS-2 is pretty good, it's just in weak doctrines.

It needs an actually useful vet 1 ability and a commander rework, that's it.


Hmm, let's see: yes it is fine at the 2-3 level of the veteranship but you will rather lose IS-2 earlier than they will get this veteran because:
start IS-2 terrifying
- Low rate of fire
- Slow rotation speed of the turret
- Low turn
- Low accuracy against infantry (blobs) / tanks
- Posterous non-penetrations
- Low damage
- useless first level of the veterans, useless ability, no increase in the characteristics of the tank

This tank is absolutely awful getting vet, this tank no sense more profitable to buy SU-85 + Katyusha combination
13 Nov 2017, 18:24 PM
#47
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660



Yeah, shit metal is also important, from which the German tanks were made in the late stages. One 122/152 mm a high-explosive / armor-piercing projectile was enough for the King's Tiger to fall apart at the seams.


There is not shit metal, an he shell like 122mm melt everything.
Problem is, with that low velocity, king tiger has all day to use is2 as targets while it comes at a realistic range to use he shell with low velocity.

We get a situation at which is2 can't hope to come close to hit enemy tanks without being exposed to enemy AP (that have high velocity), unless we are taking in specific situations like viller-boccage or urban combat.

And you are firing inaccurate 806m/s shells at a ranged combat in which the enemy uses 1200+ m/s lighter shell much more accurate, while you still need a direct hit in order to destroy it while it takes 20 seconds to load a second shell (as opposed to 9 seconds).

In your pictures the first tank has a broken track, but doesn't show anything but minor damage except stabilizer and turret hydraulic system, probably the crew is still alive.
The reactive armor did its job, notice how an he shell reliant on spalling lose 90% of effectiveness whenever it encounters reactive armor that detonate it before impact, even more than ap shells.
The second pucture tank is probably repairable.

And from an economical (war economy) point of view using he of that caliber against all targets is like using cash to lit a fire.
13 Nov 2017, 18:35 PM
#48
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



There is not shit metal, an he shell like 122mm melt everything.
Problem is, with that low velocity, king tiger has all day to use is2 as targets while it comes at a realistic range to use he shell with low velocity.

We get a situation at which is2 can't hope to come close to hit enemy tanks without being exposed to enemy AP (that have high velocity), unless we are taking in specific situations like viller-boccage or urban combat.

In your pictures the first tank has a broken track, but doesn't show anything but minor damage, probably the crew is still alive.
The second pucture tank is probably repairable.


The IS-2 gun was very accurate at the level of the King Tiger's gun, the IS-2 had good optics and its only problem is a long reload. One shot to the front was enough to scatter the Tiger. The pictures show who the tanks were at the seams, and this was common for the King Tiger.
13 Nov 2017, 18:42 PM
#49
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

I had a thought about the is2s vet 1 ability...

What if it was replaced with a sort of Hulldown ability that locked down the sector it hulls down in?

It'd fit the kind of theme of its existing ability, but allow for the soviets to use the is2 to really hold a point, similar to how KTS are best over watching a critical VP.

Just an idea I had.
13 Nov 2017, 18:52 PM
#50
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660



The IS-2 gun was very accurate at the level of the King Tiger's gun, the IS-2 had good optics and its only problem is a long reload. One shot to the front was enough to scatter the Tiger. The pictures show who the tanks were at the seams, and this was common for the King Tiger.


It will never be as accurate as an higher velocity shell, which happens to be lighter.
And regarding optics king tiger had a x5 magnification (zeiss optics), one of the few tanks to offer it as opposed to x2/3 magnification.
And even if both misses the first shot, king tiger can fire 4 shells before is2 has finished reloading.

King tiger could penetrate is2 at 3000 ms with 40/43, 2500ms at 39/43, FAR MORE than the range at which an is2 could accurately hit with a low velocity gun.

But hey, there's a reason if only high velocity guns are used post ww2.

13 Nov 2017, 19:00 PM
#51
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1



The IS-2 gun was very accurate at the level of the King Tiger's gun, the IS-2 had good optics and its only problem is a long reload. One shot to the front was enough to scatter the Tiger. The pictures show who the tanks were at the seams, and this was common for the King Tiger.


It´s no point to argue with him. In his mind IS2 was crap and had a "low velocity gun" and that´s it... He wont change his opinion no matter what. The fact that the 122mm DT25 was so bad is probably the reason why even cold war era tanks used it right?

The 1960 build IS-3M had the same gun...Yet the 122m DT25 was obviously crap according to him in the years 1944-45. Same with IS4.

One giant facepalm.
13 Nov 2017, 19:04 PM
#52
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



It´s no point to argue with him. In his mind IS2 was crap and had a "low velocity gun" and that´s it... He wont change his opinion no matter what. The fact that the 122mm DT25 was so bad is probably that even cold war era tanks used it right?

The 1960 build IS-3M had the same gun...Yet the 122m DT25 was obviously crap according to him in the years 1944-45. Same with IS4.

One giant facepalm.


indeed, the new shells, the new projectile dispatcher, this gun was good and in the 60's
13 Nov 2017, 21:34 PM
#53
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

Can you retards please stop pretending you have any idea what you are talking about for a second and consider the balance implications please?


(I also like how you just completely ignored this)



jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 13:06 PMDomine
How about this: The IS 2 in real life was prone to randomly exploding when it fired it's main gun, and it was also penetrated by a 20 mm shell through it's front glacis plate due to bad armour quality.

(Source and Source )



Would you also consider implementing these in the game?
13 Nov 2017, 22:50 PM
#54
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818



Incorrect it got a penetration buff mid-long range and a reduction in scatter

Scatter offset adjusted to match other vehicles.
Penetration increased from 250/220/190 to 250/230/210


o_O I went through the patch notes to check so ig i missed that one

What is the scatter offset though? How does that compare to the scatter angle? It has a high distance scatter max right now(5.7) vs the tiger which has ~4.3 and the pershing which also has ~4.3 Pershing has scatter angle of 6 an tiger if 7.5 like the IS2's 7.5. Kt has scatter angle of 4 and max distance of 4 and that thing is like a lazerguided targeting (also with a much bigger aoe helping it out).

Visually though I rarely see the thing hit infantry even with its big aoe. Not that i get one out all that often since I don't trust it, even with keeping armored assault in my comm roster, mostly for the sturmovich strafe, vehicle repair and 85s.

13 Nov 2017, 22:58 PM
#55
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4



- Low rate of fire
- Slow rotation speed of the turret
- Low turn
- Low accuracy against infantry (blobs) / tanks
- Posterous non-penetrations
- Low damage

You realize it's at the tiger level, not the king tiger level, right?

It has a bigger aoe than the tiger while having the same point damage, it is not low damage. It even has more penetration than the tiger, and much faster turn. Half your points are completely wrong.

The gun trades worse range, scatter, and reload speed for being faster, better armor, better aoe, and better mgs. It is not a bad tank. It is not a king tiger either.

13 Nov 2017, 23:50 PM
#56
avatar of Beinhard

Posts: 161

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 13:06 PMDomine
How about this: The IS 2 in real life was prone to randomly exploding when it fired it's main gun, and it was also penetrated by a 20 mm shell through it's front glacis plate due to bad armour quality.

(Source and Source )



Would you also consider implementing these in the game?


Eye but then make all Panthers break randomly down from engine problems, and make them need transmission repairs when they hit the field kappa.

Would make a real fun game :snfAmi:
14 Nov 2017, 00:20 AM
#57
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500



Eye but then make all Panthers break randomly down from engine problems, and make them need transmission repairs when they hit the field kappa.

Would make a real fun game :snfAmi:



And what people that have no idea of warfare or military history should know is that military equipment breaks down all the time, and the Panther, which had a reliability rate of 70% after 1944 was way above average when it came to reliability.


It doesn't matter anyway, since even lelic knows that realism is not fun and my post was just aimed at showing how retarded wanting a vidya gaem changed cause of realism
14 Nov 2017, 01:07 AM
#58
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2017, 13:06 PMDomine
How about this: The IS 2 in real life was prone to randomly exploding when it fired it's main gun, and it was also penetrated by a 20 mm shell through it's front glacis plate due to bad armour quality.

(Source and Source )



Would you also consider implementing these in the game?


You mean the same story as Tiger was knocked down by single shot from Bazooka in Africa or Panzer got engine breakdown everytime?

Spare this game from those rare occurrences, please.

If IS2 did not work, it would never reach the battlefield, let alone it's one of Soviet major heavy tank in WW2.
14 Nov 2017, 01:30 AM
#59
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500



You mean the same story as Tiger was knocked down by single shot from Bazooka in Africa or Panzer got engine breakdown everytime?

Spare this game from those rare occurrences, please.



Do you speak english, dude? You say Panzer got engine break down 'every time' and then call it a rare occurance? If it broke down 'every time' how was it a rare occurance?


If IS2 did not work, it would never reach the battlefield, let alone it's one of Soviet major heavy tank in WW2.


Aha, so if the Maus would have made it onto a battlefield it would have been a good idea to design and develop it?


Maybe we should spare the game from retarded reality drivel and retards that spout it like you and balance it like we are, thanks to the great work of people like Mr.Smith, right now?


Now, you need not agree. I can promise you that this game will never be balanced by reality. Ever.
14 Nov 2017, 05:06 AM
#60
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2017, 01:30 AMDomine



Do you speak english, dude? You say Panzer got engine break down 'every time' and then call it a rare occurance? If it broke down 'every time' how was it a rare occurance?


I'm not native and I don't have much time to proof reading, so my apologize for bad word using.

The word should be 'from time to time', and it applies in summary. The number of Panzer was thousands, so they were still rare occurrences.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

498 users are online: 498 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49884
Welcome our newest member, Buchl759
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM