Isu-152 → br 4

[SilentStorm461]

The ISU-152 is one of the last few casemate TDs still at BR 5. Overall, it performs worse than the Axis TDs at the same BR. But before I get into that, let me first go over what it actually does well.

---

Its ammo loadout is as follows:

At BR 5, the Soviets run into Tiger II H and Ho Ri all the time. So let’s see how the ISU 152 does against them

Since their armor generally exceeds the ISU’s APHE maximum pen of 170mm, using HE is the best solution against them.

Aiming at the connection between the turret and the hull can reliably trigger overpressure.

Aiming at the ground under its hull can reliably trigger overpressure.

---

Seems like this is one of the few Soviet vehicles that can actually deal with heavily armored tanks. However, achieving all of this comes at a cost. Its power-to-weight ratio of only 11.3 makes it extremely sluggish. Its horizontal guidance of -3°/7° makes it difficult to find a proper firing angle. And with only -3°/20° of depression and elevation, its combat effectiveness in rough terrain is very poor.

Its reload speed is 21s. With crew skills, 21 × (1 − 0.2) = 16.8s. In a recent update, the KV‑2’s reload time was reduced to 19 seconds, and this change is already live in Enlisted.

The KV‑2 has slightly less HE filler than the ISU, but since obstacles can sometimes absorb HE fragments, their HE effectiveness ends up being fairly similar in practice. Their reload times are close, their HE performance is comparable, and the KV‑2 even has a turret. Yet one sits at BR 3, while the other is stuck at BR 5.

If ‘can one‑shot anything it faces’ is what justifies BR 5, then the Sturmpanzer II should be there too. To counter heavy tanks with it, you need to take a shot, then sit through a 10+ second reload just to swap to HE. This makes it a real pain to use.

---

armor

Position	Front	Side	Rear
Hull	90 mm	90 mm	60 mm
Superstructure (Casemate)	90 mm	75 mm	60 mm

The ISU-152’s front hull is 90mm thick at 31°, which gives it around 105–120mm of effective armor. So even a PZ IV can pen it frontally. Hell, a short 75mm gun could even pull it off sometimes. Unlike other BR 5 tank destroyers, it has no real survivability, which makes sense, since it was never designed to fight other tanks to begin with.

---

Some might say this thing belongs at BR 3, but it uses an IS chassis, so it can reverse at 14 km/h, which other TDs can’t do. Plus, it gets a DShK heavy machine gun. That’s why I think BR 4 is more appropriate.

Should the ISU-152 be moved to BR 4?

• Yes
• No

If you don’t want it at BR 4, should it be carry HE only?

• Yes
• No

[GeneralBrus]

Also its an event vehicle, those are supposed to be special, not worse to TT vehicles.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

I always feel Soviet vehicles are always slightly underwhelming. Considering the upcoming 44-100, the T-34-100 ought to be downgraded from BR 5 to BR 4.

The XA-38 carries six 250-pound bombs. By comparison, the Il-8 with twin 500-pound bombs and mediocre firepower should drop to BR 3. The SU-152 has a clear fixed combat role in War Thunder. Setting anti-infantry combat aside, its core positioning has stayed unchanged across numerous game updates. This means the vehicle is either neglected, or vastly outperformed by the ISU-122 in its core role. That’s why I propose moving it to BR 3.

Once the ISU-122 and ISU-122S2 are added to the game, they will definitely be placed at BR 4, leaving the SU-152 completely obsolete.

For reference, if Germany’s Sturmtiger is released at BR 3 in the future, the StuG II will also become outdated if it does not get moved down to BR 2.

Looking at its protection performance, the Puma can penetrate its 90mm vertical frontal armor at 200 to 300 meters, taking out the gunner and driver in one shot. A second shot can eliminate the loader. With its fast reload rate, the Puma can easily destroy this tank. Once the Puma closes in, the SU-152 gets eliminated far faster than the T-34-85.

From the perspective of survivability, assigning it to BR 3 is reasonable. Turretless tank destroyers and turreted medium tanks at BR 2 share little practical difference in combat viability.

The anti-aircraft machine gun is merely an extra accessory and should not be factored into battle rating balancing. If this armament was counted, nearly all American tanks would need a battle rating increase.

A lengthy discussion on tank balance suggestions covering Germany, Japan and the Allied forces, starting from the ISU series. Thanks

Here’s the joke: Actually, the -1 is far tougher than the tiger. But its poor shape leaves vulnerable spots no matter how you position it. It’s really frustrating.

I think the staff may have overlooked my post. Usually when there are duplicate suggestion posts, they will delete the second and third ones. Yet clearly they have no intention of removing yours, which means my post has faded out of attention.

Still, my post has already gathered quite a few votes. I don’t want to abandon the post I spent six whole hours editing. If you have time, please check it out, cast a vote or give it a like to boost its popularity.

When the staff make such remarks, their words should at least carry a certain sense of commitment.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

By the way, the DShK heavy machine gun only has a total ammunition reserve of 250 rounds. That’s merely a fraction of the 2000 rounds for the roof-mounted machine gun on the Sherman, so the supply is extremely limited.

Speaking of damage output, wouldn’t Germany’s MG42 be far more effective? American machine guns have been nerfed, requiring three shots to take out a target. In addition to anti-air capability, German machine guns boast superior ammo capacity and damage compared to the DShK, dealing more overall damage. Yet hardly anyone argues that the Panzer III N and Panzer IV H should be moved to BR 4 to offset their anti-air machine guns.

That’s why I believe the DShK fitted on the KV-2 is nothing more than a trivial bonus, purely optional equipment that is nice to have yet far from impactful.

We can take the modified Panzer tank destroyer as a reference. The original Panzer IV featured 80mm vertical armor, while its tank destroyer variant has 60mm sloped armor paired with a short-barreled 75mm cannon. Even with these downgrades, players still firmly believe this Panzer IV tank destroyer belongs at BR 3, as BR 4 would leave it severely outmatched.

By comparison, the KV-152 variant upgrades its original 75mm vertical armor to 90mm vertical armor. This defense level is completely manageable for the penetration power of German and Japanese tanks. I’ve verified this in tests for my post—vehicles at BR 2 and BR 3 can easily defeat it, so its overall threat level is quite low.

What’s more, its conversion into a tank destroyer lowers its hull height, bringing new drawbacks. It cannot traverse obstacles like tank wrecks and low stone walls the way the turreted KV-2 can. Every upgrade comes with corresponding trade-offs, which makes BR 3 its most appropriate battle rating.

One final point: this vehicle is a Victory Day exclusive unit. I hate to see this special Soviet tank suffer an unfair battle rating adjustment. The XA-38 can still be encountered at BR 2.3 to this day, yet pushing this vehicle to BR 4 will inevitably lead to it being moved all the way to BR 5 eventually.

I know even if my post gathers a hundred votes, few people may pay attention to this suggestion. Still, I want to keep fighting for this unique Victory Day exclusive Soviet vehicle—the KV-2 TD.

[Deus_Vult88]

This is all great, but how are Japanese 3 BR vehicles supposed to destroy an ISU-152? With faith in the Emperor?
No bazookas, no Panzerfausts — why stop there, maybe just drop it to BR 3 already xD

[传说巨神伊迪安]

We should really bring this up to the developers. There was actually a balancing plan long ago, which I came across on the Russian forum. The staff there promised to give Japanese forces a rocket launcher based on the BR 2 40mm launcher, with its HEAT penetration boosted to 100–120mm.

Yet the weapon was never released, and that falls on the devs themselves. We shouldn’t punish other vehicles just because their update fell behind. Otherwise, even Sherman tanks would have to be moved to BR 4, as Japanese rocket launchers cannot penetrate them frontally.

We should also urge DF to release a BR 3 rocket launcher comparable to the Bazooka 9 as soon as possible. You can refer to the shell penetration comparisons in my post—I’ve even analyzed the Puma’s 50mm cannon. It achieves highly consistent penetration results.

Keep in mind the Japanese Type 3 Chi-Nu Kai, standard Type 3 Chi-Nu and Type 2 Ho-I that have been downrated to BR 3. Their shells can reliably pierce 90mm vertical armor at 200 to 300 meters.

At worst, simply remove the SU-152’s armor-piercing rounds and leave it with only HE shells. After all, firing high-explosive shells was its original historical role. The downside is it would have to advance dangerously close to the frontline in combat.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

Oh wait, I almost forgot another vehicle—the 12cm self-propelled gun carrier. It can basically penetrate the frontal armor of the IS-1 with ease, so taking on the SU-152 is more than manageable.

These vehicles are pretty much standard equipment for Japanese forces now. When it comes to infantry anti-tank weapons, the way you target the Sherman’s side armor works just as well against the SU-152’s flanks.

I’ve rarely seen players complain that Japan’s BR 2 rocket launchers cannot punch through the Sherman’s frontal armor, as if the Japanese lineup would be completely unplayable because of that.

[Deus_Vult88]

@传说巨神伊迪安

These vehicles are pretty much standard equipment for Japanese forces now. When it comes to infantry anti-tank weapons, the way you target the Sherman’s side armor works just as well against the SU-152’s flanks.

I’ve rarely seen players complain that Japan’s BR 2 rocket launchers cannot punch through the Sherman’s frontal armor, as if the Japanese lineup would be completely unplayable because of that.

With arguments like these, it might as well stay at BR 5. They moved the Ferdinand to 5, so the ISU-152 can stay at BR 5 too.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

Let me add one more point. Don’t think 90mm vertical armor is overpowered at BR 3. Let’s take a look at tanks with even stronger 100mm vertical armor and see what battle rating they belong to.

Take Germany’s vehicles for example. The StuG III G was nearly moved to BR 2, and the update notes previously confirmed this adjustment. That would have forced BR 2 vehicles to face a tank with 100mm frontal armor. Unfortunately, DF went back on the plan in the end. Only the StuG III F was moved to BR 2, armed with the 145mm penetration cannon from the Panzer IV F2.

Let’s break down its protection: its base hull armor is 50mm, the standard armor for Panzer III chassis. It is fitted with an additional 30mm armor plate, plus two 20mm track guards for extra defense. All in all, the StuG III G boasts a frontal protection rating well over 100mm in effective thickness. What’s more, it has a far smaller silhouette than the ISU-152.

As this event draws to an end, the number of ISU-152s in matches will keep declining. Meanwhile, the player base keeps growing. It is just like adding constant water to sugar water—the sugar will keep diluting over time, making the vehicle increasingly uncommon. Eventually, you will encounter the ISU-152 no more frequently than the T-34-100.

So there is no need to worry that German and Japanese vehicles cannot penetrate Soviet tanks, nor is there any reason to call 90mm armor overpowered. No one ever complains about the frontal effective armor of the Sherman or the StuG III G. Besides, the ISU-152 has a comparable silhouette to the Sherman.

One last thing to emphasize: this is a Victory Day event vehicle, an exclusive limited unit with extreme rarity. In the future, players will no longer be able to obtain it easily. It will only be available via loot boxes with a mere 0.12% drop chance. It will become as rare as the E 100 and Object 279.

As a limited event vehicle, it deserves our utmost leniency. A single drop of ink can never stain the whole bottle of water.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

You’re wrong. The Ferdinand is placed at BR 5 not only for its firepower, but also for its formidable armor protection. Its armor is extremely tough. I’d say hardly any gun aside from the 100mm cannon can penetrate it frontally, that’s why players push back against its balancing.

If vehicles at BR3 and BR4 could penetrate its weak points and take it down easily, there wouldn’t be such fierce opposition towards it.

At the end of the day, the Ferdinand sits at BR5 purely because of its outstanding armor defense. Now take the ISU-152 for comparison. The StuG III G with 100mm frontal armor isn’t even assigned to BR4, so why should the ISU-152 be moved there?

[Белобандит]

@传说巨神伊迪安

I’ve rarely seen players complain that Japan’s BR 2 rocket launchers cannot punch through the Sherman’s frontal armor, as if the Japanese lineup would be completely unplayable because of that.

Then I recommend that you clean your ears. The lack of a necessary grenade launcher on 3 BR is something we often write about when it comes to Japan.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

Wait a second, hold on a moment, can you elaborate on this? In fact, this gun only has around 170 millimeters of penetration at most. It cannot even reach the 200 millimeters of penetration needed to punch through the Tiger II’s frontal armor.

Good grief. If that’s the case, the T-34-57 can penetrate the front plating of Tigers and Panthers, so would that mean it also has to be moved to BR4? That would be such a pity.

In the end, it still mainly relies on HE shells just like the KV-2. Since the KV-2 comes with a turret, why would anyone pick the ISU-152 instead?

It’s really quite pitiful.

[传说巨神伊迪安]

Oh, I see… It seems I don’t browse the forums enough and missed this point. Being unable to penetrate the Sherman’s frontal armor is indeed a big flaw.

We’d better reach out to the DF staff about this. Still, I don’t think a single anti-tank gun should decide a tank’s entire battle rating placement.

There aren’t many complaints from Soviet players facing the 100mm-armored StuG III G. On the contrary, most players hope it gets moved down to BR2.

[Белобандит]

@传说巨神伊迪安

Still, I don’t think a single anti-tank gun should decide a tank’s entire battle rating placement.

We’ll return to this discussion once Japan receives the 3 BR grenade launcher.

@传说巨神伊迪安

There aren’t many complaints from Soviet players facing the 100mm-armored StuG III G.

Haha, it was the Soviets who cried so much on the Ru-forum about its planned transfer to the 2 BR that it was eventually cancelled.

[Euthymia07-live]

Duplicate: Move ISU 152 to BR4