ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

kverdon
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by kverdon » Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:59 pm

Sounds like a good supporting cast.:-)

prestidigitation
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by prestidigitation » Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:07 pm

bebro wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:50 pm
I'm rather unimpressed by a comparison that has the IS-2 two times with different stats, and completely ignores the weakflanks trait of fixed/turretless vehicles like the SU/ISU line.
My initial complaint about the ISU-152/122 was that it had that very trait and your point was that it was still a good and useful unit. After I tried it I agreed with you. Actually, it's too good. 6CP for a unit that costs what a T-34 does with better stats AND the ability to indirect fire? Either it is too strong or medium tanks are way too weak.

The thing about weak flanks is any scenario where you're getting weak flanks penalty is also a scenario where you probably have 3 attackers hitting your ISU, likely with artillery support. And in that case the IS-2 takes a beating too as I've experienced. A JP4 + 2x infantry and a rocket arty put 7 points of damage on my IS-2. I'm not convinced the ISU would take meaningfully different damage in that scenario. What would be different, though, is that the ISU 1/3rd less to reinforce. And in that same scenario the T-34 (the unit we should _actually_ be comparing the ISU to) would do way worse than the ISU because it has _way_ worse stats despite the same cost and CP!

Then there's utility. Against things other than high end tanks the IS-2 is only able to perform well if they are in open terrain. If they are in rough terrain, forest, cities (especially if entrenched) it is simply not going to do so great. Meanwhile the ISU can support against all of these targets without issue, often doing 2-3 dmg per turn. Against high end tanks the ISU is more useful because it can provide efficiency attacks through indirect fire. Once you've knocked efficiency down to 3 or lower it really doesn't matter what you attack a KT with, it is going to take a lot of damage and return pretty much none. As you saw in my Seelow AAR I cleared out the entire heavy armored force in the middle of the map with nothing more than 2x guards, 1x engineer, 1x morskaya pekhota backed by a ZiS-3 and a B4 and an ISU firing indirect. In theory all those heavy tanks should have won. In practice positioning and artillery allowed me to tear them apart on the second from the hardest difficulty without even using air support as that was all dedicated to the southern offensive.

I do like my T-34s for their mobility and for their good enough performance in much of the campaign so they'll be in my roster in my diff 5 full campaign. But I can't see me bothering with the IS-2 again. You're right that the stats are good, but they aren't enough good to matter and the cost is too high to be worth reinforcing. Whatever the stats say -- and I agree here, I put little stock in stats personally as positioning and efficiency attacks always allow you to shift the stats in your favor -- in actual combat performance the IS-2 didn't justify itself.

By contrast my experience with the ISU and IS-2 has totally changed how I feel about the BT-7A, KV-1 and KV-2. I went from thinking BT-7A and KV-2 were useless to thinking about how I'll be incorporating them into my rifle corps in my top difficulty run. Meanwhile the KV-1 is probably not going to be part of my core this go round. I'll also be bringing 3x standard rifle infantry in my rifle corps rather than the 2x previously, but bringing two fewer medium tanks. I definitely can't justify a second mech corps after this experience!
Last edited by prestidigitation on Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

prestidigitation
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by prestidigitation » Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:09 pm

Just for thoroughness, let's talk about one scenario I didn't consider: hasty attacks from the march without artillery prep on infantry targets/bunkers/light tanks etc in the open. I'm not convinced the IS-2 does better in this scenario than the ISU. Both seem to do about the same amount of damage with none in return.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by kondi754 » Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:37 pm

ISU-122 for sure IMHO

That's why in my VERY historical walkthrough I promised myself that I would only buy 1 such unit :!: :!: :!: :wink:

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by terminator » Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:45 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:37 pm
ISU-122 for sure IMHO

That's why in my VERY historical walkthrough I promised myself that I would only buy 1 such unit :!: :!: :!: :wink:
In your VERY historical walkthrough, will your respect with your Soviet core the historical order of battle for each scenario ?

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by kondi754 » Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:56 pm

terminator wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:45 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:37 pm
ISU-122 for sure IMHO

That's why in my VERY historical walkthrough I promised myself that I would only buy 1 such unit :!: :!: :!: :wink:
In your VERY historical walkthrough, will your respect with your Soviet core the historical order of battle for each scenario ?
If I have time to change the names of units before each battle :lol: , perhaps I will choose several units that fought in more scenarios, e.g. the 8th Guards Army which fought at Stalingrad, the Dnieper, Poland and Germany, or the 1st Tank Army - it was at Kursk, op. Rumyantzev, Dnieper, Poland, Germany
I have not yet decided what operational level to choose: army, corps or division
EDIT. Division probably not, so either the army or the corps

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4247
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by terminator » Mon Oct 05, 2020 1:13 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:56 pm
terminator wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:45 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 9:37 pm
ISU-122 for sure IMHO

That's why in my VERY historical walkthrough I promised myself that I would only buy 1 such unit :!: :!: :!: :wink:
In your VERY historical walkthrough, will your respect with your Soviet core the historical order of battle for each scenario ?
If I have time to change the names of units before each battle :lol: , perhaps I will choose several units that fought in more scenarios, e.g. the 8th Guards Army which fought at Stalingrad, the Dnieper, Poland and Germany, or the 1st Tank Army - it was at Kursk, op. Rumyantzev, Dnieper, Poland, Germany
I have not yet decided what operational level to choose: army, corps or division
EDIT. Division probably not, so either the army or the corps
Will you publish the AAR of your VERY historical walkthrough ?

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: ISU-122 Not firing in AT Support

Post by kondi754 » Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:57 pm

If I'll be satisfied with the level of historicity, why not :)

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”