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?
Nah ISU is basically inmortal to BR2 tanks except the german TDs but Japan basically can’t do nothing to It
Is way much more powerfull than the KV-2 more HE filler more Pen better reload also sturmpanzer 2 is already BR3 with the same canon soo this can’t be BR3
Only the Brumbar is better than the Kv-2 in terms of guns, shells and armor.
4 br
1 Like
Is not a good idea make the ISU BR3
Wen It Pens It only damage the crew without killing or only kills the driver
The Brummbar will not be impenetrable in BR III when it has a weak point that low-level tanks can destroy in the front.
is this weakpoint large enough to be seen without a telescope. like something bigger then barley bigger than the shell hitting it. so if it was a traget would it be the size of a door or a toilet seat.
They won’t be able to, I don’t believe in the average player, they’re bad players, and given the cards, this vulnerability will often be hidden.
why do you want to remove the kv -2 and m105 by 4, but don’t even want the theoretical brumbar by 4?)
I know you have your own factional interest)
1 Like
Does the KV2 even have HEAT shells like the 105mm Sherman?
Not HEAT exactly, but it has SAPBC shells which I think act like somewhat HEAT since it still carries a ton of explosive filler.
This was already discussed in my Brummbar post, where the target is large enough to destroy. If the Allied and Soviet players are idiots at aiming, then it’s not the Brummbar’s problem. That which cannot be destroyed
The stupidity and complete inability of the players to aim and find the Brummbar’s weak point is not the German Tank’s problem.If not from the player base they have in their factions
Their tanks are BR III, so don’t come at me with bias, especially since your faction has a lot going for it in the game. The 105mm Sherman was overpowered against BR I-II tanks.
Brummbar is a funny vehicle because it has lots of armour on the upper part of its hull, but very little armour on the lower part, especially the upper plate of the transmission area that only has 20mm of armour with a slope that adds up to ~45-50mm of effective armour protection at an angle of 66°.
Soviet 45mm guns have no issue, but even a cute little Stuart can penetrate that spot.
Any Soviet tank with the exception of the T-60 and all BR2 Allied tanks can penetrate this area.
However, British tanks might struggle to kill all of the crew due to the solid shots…
Theoretically, it is possible to position the vehicle in a way that the spot is not visible, but thats usually impossible on Enlisted maps, even more so with a casemate vehicle.
My verdict is that this tank is still more balanced than the KV-2 and the enemy has a more fair counter play, so unless KV-2 is moved to BR4, than it would difficult to justify a BR difference between it and the Brummbär, unless the latter proves to be unfairly more lethal against infantry somehow.
5 Likes
All that remains is for the Allied/Soviet player base to find the weak point, aim, and fire to deal with the problem.
Then why is everyone complaining about the KV-1 armor?
It’s the players’ problem that they can’t hit the tank in its weak spots)
The M105 has already gone to 4, and most likely the kv-2 will soon go to 4 br.
However, I always say that the problem is with the players, but it’s not worth it. Forget that the technology itself consists of a set of modules and not just one thing.
It is very unlikely that KV-2 would move up to BR 4. KV-2 is actually much much easier to destory than KV-1 or Sherman 105mm because that giant flat 75mm turret basically offers no protection whatsoever against BR 3 tanks and it is risky even to take shots from BR 2 tanks or BR 2 AT launchers because unlike KV-1 it does not have an overlapped parts on the turret. The enormous propellant charges stored in the turret also doesn’t help at all too.
Likely, and I probably for the best too. (would also automatically make Brummbar go to BR IV)
KV-2 is just too good if you consider what vehicles are and should be available at BR in the same role.
Sturmpanzer II, SU-122, Chi-Ha naval are all worse enough than KV-2 to justify a BR difference.
to be fair, if a tank thats main purpose is to sling HE is placed at a BR where it can shrug off hits from enemy tanks, than its placed at a BR too low. You dont need good armour if you can one hit knock out any tank and you dont need good armour to bully infantry either.