Login

russian armor

ISU-152 needs some love.

3 Jul 2019, 04:54 AM
#21
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1


+1

Blasting infantry to an alternate dimension from almost ele range is definitely something I do not regret picking a commander for and paying lots of resources for. It's also the only allied tank that doesn't get practically hardcountered by ele or jagd so that's a bonus too, and the dshk makes gives it kinda decent AA (lol).

It's not really for AT anyway, that's essentially just a bonus and it shouldn't be anywhere near as good as ele or jagd at AT because it can actually kill inf well.

You don't need to counter an Elefant if it has no infantry to capture points anyway :megusta:
3 Jul 2019, 05:07 AM
#22
avatar of PanzerFutz

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2019, 21:14 PMVipper

Tank does not have to be penetrated to be destroyed.


True, the SU/ISU-152 frequently destroyed German tanks with high explosive rounds; even a near-miss could be fatal. The round was powerful enough to flip a tank over.

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2019, 21:14 PMVipper

The effectiveness of AT weapons has to do with energy. AP rounds use kinetic energy to destroy tank while HE explosives use chemical energy.


Also true but, the gun of the ISU-152 fired a high explosive artillery round, not a HEAT round. The damage was almost exclusively from the blast effect. The AT round wasn't used very often because, the low muzzle velocity of the gun meant it wasn't that effective. The HE round was a more reliable way to destroy a tank. The Soviet HEAT round wasn't developed until after the war.

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2019, 21:14 PMVipper

Real life fact have secondary role in the units performance, else the Brumbar should have a similar penetration and damage of ISU-152 since it was 15 cm Caliber gun.


It's true that real life facts have next to nothing to do with this game. However, the Brumbar had a way lower muzzle velocity (790 fps) than the ISU-152 so, even hitting a tank was difficult. It did have a HEAT round but, it would have to get very close to guarantee a direct hit. Like the ISU-152, using HE was more reliable because, even a near miss could be fatal.

My overall point is that it's a waste of time to bring "real-life" facts into discussions about the game because, the game is so far from real life that there's no value in comparing them. In real life, the ISU-152's AT performance was nothing like it is in the game; it did not fire a high-velocity AP round. However, it would be very difficult to model its true behavior in-game without causing balance issues so, we're stuck with what we've got.

3 Jul 2019, 05:16 AM
#23
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

ISU-152 is enough strong unit

do not destroy the balance
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

438 users are online: 438 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49891
Welcome our newest member, red79vip111
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM