then why the hell is the sherman 105 br4 a sherman 105 is not better than a kv2
Why is the kv2 at br3
It has a gun armor and a closed turret, it’s broken
It really is though. The HE shells can overpressure the majority of opponents if you know where to aim, it’s got a very fast reload, turreted, 2 LMGs and an HMG. Only thing it does worse is having a bit less armor and explosive power in each shell.
1 Like
That makes them the same br with tradeoff not the 105 a br higher
How can a 105mm overpressure better than a 150mm when the only factor is explosive fill not velocity
what does a hmg do that no other hmg can do, can it kill any tank it will meet, no can it shoot down planes, no
can you shoot more than one mg at a time no,
Many American tanks have an HMG, but it doesn’t affect their BR, so why should the Soviet one? Besides, the Brummbär has something even better—a standard hull-mounted MG—so you can fend off infantry without exposing yourself, unlike in the ISU-152.
The Sherman 105 has a faster rate of fire and a proper machine gun that can be fired without exposing the crew; its armor isn’t much worse than the KV-2’s—a vehicle that could arguably be moved to BR IV (ignoring the long reload and the lack of a turret machine gun on the tech-tree version). As a HE-slinging tank, the Sherman 105 is far more effective than the ISU-152 and KV-2 combined; the fact that it can’t one-shot a King Tiger (H) isn’t a dealbreaker.
2 Likes
The kv2 has a longer reload because is has a 6 inch vs 4 inch shell. It’s the same brcas sherman 105 or should be.
What matters more is how often the tank can fire at infantry—who can easily destroy it with a single Panzerfaust shot. Even a successful shot from the KV-2 won’t wipe out the entire enemy team at once, leaving you completely defenseless between shots; the Sherman 105, however, is different: it has a faster rate of fire, and its machine guns provide protection in every direction, not just where the hull is facing.
It’s BR 4 vehicle. People that are asking BR 3 for this vehicle, i think they are just rage baiting at this point. ISU-152 is on BR 4. Sherman 105mm is also on BR 4. Sturmpanzer 2 is on BR 3. BR 3 for this vehicle whether it has MG or not doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
2 Likes
Yes but it will kill more soldier if a 4 inch shell kills 4’men the 150 would kill 6 to 7 leaving the mg to kill 3 men which increases the likelihood that a survivor has a panzerfaust. Again that’s an argument for them to be the same brvnot the sherman to be a higher br.
1 Like
I recently tried playing the ISU-152, and it was simply terrible: no damage, no armor, no mobility, no rate of fire, no speed, practically no gun traverse, and virtually zero ability to defend against infantry (every time I manned the HMG, the commander would get shot within a couple of seconds). The tank has literally no redeeming qualities; it can’t win a duel even against tanks with a lower BR if we spot each other at the same time. Even if the enemy doesn’t spot me immediately, I might still fail to destroy them with the first shot, giving them a full 20 seconds to take me out with a single hit to any part of the tank.
Survivability and armour
Armourfront / side / back
Hull90 / 90 / 60 mm
Turret90 / 75 / 60 mm
time. Even if the enemy doesn’t spot me immediately, I might still fail to destroy them with the first shot,
that sounds like a skill issue
I know it sounds strange, but the ISU-152’s HE shells perform worse than the KV-2’s; they can detonate without dealing any damage at all.
Plus, 90mm of armor is a joke; the Pz.III J1 (BR 2) has 106mm of penetration, so it should easily punch through the ISU-152’s armor, even considering the slope.
with some form of he otherwise it kills like 1 crew member at a time
If the game were running right now, I’d show you exactly where to shoot to blow up the ammo rack in a single shot—or I’d confirm that you were right and that it wasn’t a fair comparison. As it stands, however, I can only state that anything capable of penetrating the KV-1 and KV-2 will just as easily penetrate the ISU-152, leaving it with absolutely no chance of survival.
And everything can kill the crew of the m10 m18 m36 that does not stop them from being in too high of a br, speed and maneuverability mean nothing in enlisted
By everything I mean, artillery, rifles, shotguns, pistols. Knives ect
People only say that about tanks where these characteristics aren’t an issue—but for the ISU-152, they are a problem, making it a real challenge to capitalize on its one true advantage. Honestly, I suggest just playing it yourself for at least five battles; you’ll understand everything then—provided, of course, you aren’t fighting against AI opponents (and even then, that’s only because they shoot at commanders and use anti-tank weapons less frequently, not because they’re weaker than the average player).
Did you get downtiered or are we judging it in a BR5 environment? Because that makes quite a large difference.
To be fair, I played my last couple of matches with it at BR 5—since hardly anyone plays at BR 4—hoping to use the ISU-152 like a KV-2 but with better armor and a slightly faster reload; however, I didn’t like it. I couldn’t even damage a Japanese Heavy Tank No. 6 with two shots, whereas it killed everyone in my tank with a single shot, leaving only the driver alive. That said, I think the 75mm KwK 42 guns would be just as effective, if not more so, thanks to their slightly faster reload.
Regardless of whether it has an MG or not, the BR of the Brummbar is only the III and is the only equivalent in firepower to the KV-2
then you agree that isu 152 should also be BR3?