SIZE MATTERS | Super ISU-152-2 vs TIGER II | 152mm BL-10 Armour Penetration Simulation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 янв 2025
- The ISU-152-2 was a prototype tank destroyer from WWII, armed with one of the most powerful tank cannons in history, the 152mm BL-10.
Compared to the standard ISU-152's gun/howitzer, which was already considered a "beast slayer", the BL-10 launched its AP projectiles with around DOUBLE the kinetic energy.
In the simulation, the Tiger II's UFP had been modelled as good quality 240BHN rolled homogenous armour (RHA). The BR-540B armour piercing high explosive ballistic cap (APHEBC) projectile has been modelled to follow the hardening profile of similar Soviet rounds of the era (250-300BHN lower body progressing up to ~450BHN at the nose).
It should be noted that various sources provide conflicting information on the muzzle velocity, with it being taken as 850m/s for the simulation. The range of 750m was derived from this muzzle velocity.
Also, while 150mm @50° 750m may seem more than the experimental ~200mm @0° 1000m, the penetration criteria is much different, with the experimental data requiring a significant amount of the projectile's mass to pass through the target. (which evidently would require a lot less than 150mm @50° to happen, as nearly none passes through in the simulation)
Amazing thumbnail artwork from: Studio 801 www.artstation...
Rest in pieces driver
@@kanalegrande831wdym?
Not just the driver but the machine gunner too and the feet of all the turret crew
And loader
@@kanalegrande831 Precisely. The Tiger-2 would have a rate of fire of at least 6 to 7.5 rounds per minute (10 seconds to 8 seconds between shots on average including time for re-aiming). The ISU-152 only 2 to 3.(30 seconds to 20 seconds rather optimistically they are two piece rounds). so the ISU-152 can fire at best one round every 20 seconds but more likely 30 seconds. The Tiger 2 can fire a second round after only 5.7 seconds for the first few easy to reach rounds so long as the loader drops the rounds on the floor rather than throwing them out the roof discharge hatch.
-The range finder of the day was and stedometric range finder but in reality is to observe the fall of shot and then adjust for the second shot which would be the one that stood a good chance of hitting. The Tiger 2 could get of 3 shots before the ISU-152 could get of its secondhand it would have 4 seconds to spare. Of course it could use the time to move under cover.. Ballistics is probably the same after 2000m. The Tiger 2 will win this duel on most occasions due to 'soft factors'. No Tiger 2 was ever penetrated from the front.
Rest in paste*
Just for reference, that gun is actually getting quite close to the kind of muzzle energies of actual light cruiser guns of the era. The shell's on the light end for the calibre, but still, it's no joke
At 48kg and 850 m/s it actually beats the American 6"/47 and almost beats the British 6"/50 (both were on the low end of muzzle energy but were great, combat-proven guns), although it falls short of the German 150 mm and the Japanese 155 mm guns.
Soviets really liked the idea of mounting Naval guns, they did it on the IS-7 too, 900m/s on a 130mm shell.
@@yoshineitor They mounted one 130mm on a prototype SPG called SU-100Y which was actually used in the Battle of Moscow
@@MrKenny175 The infamous boxtank and the infamous IS-7. I actually adore the simplicty behind the idea, instead of inventing a whole new gun just slap on what is already proven and works and where ammunition is not problem to come by.
@@yoshineitor Just to clarify, I'm not saying this 152mm gun is actually a naval gun btw - I assumed it had been built from scratch. Also, was the IS-7's gun actually a modified naval gun? I'm well aware 130mm was a common calibre for soviet destroyer main guns, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a naval gun of course. I think it's generally fair to say that most naval guns are built too heavy to really work well in armoured vehicles. Most tank guns are actually very light if you compare them to naval guns of the same overall qualities
I did the math, a round fired from this gun has approximately 55% more kinetic energy than one fired from the M103's, which had the most powerful tank cannon ever fielded.
Maybe if War Thunder finally introduced it, they'd feel compelled to implement post pen damage for partial penetrations
@@cunicularius2064finally, yellow indicators have a purpose
Nope was the 152 mm 2a82 of the obj195
@@ignacio3890 not fielded though
The word “fielded” is a key word in why the M103 is still the top dog in full bore AP rounds
Jesus, thats a real brutal force 💀
Watch the blaspheme lad
Now imagine an AP round with no filler going at the same velocity as this APHE. It would be completely devastating
Imagine if they somehow made an APDS shell for this gun (also the m103's)
@@k-osmonaut8807 Just a lighter AP round with better design, metallurgy, and no filler is enough. Imagine if they managed to make an AP projectile that just weight around 30 kg, this cannon can push it to reach the speed of some mid-war APCR projectile
@@k-osmonaut8807 this technically already exists(ed) as the obj120, which was one of the first tanks with apfsds at a caliber of 152mm and 9.45 meters long barrel, shot out a steel apfsds projectile at mach fuck, assuming i did the math correctly, the cannon on the m103 has 10.1 megajoules of energy, the su-152-2 has 17.34 megajoules, and the obj-120 taran has 18.49 megajoules, although i would assume the isu-152-2 would have a much more devastating effect on the armor overall due to its more massive shell weight
@@madmexican1761 upvoted for the use of the term "Mach Fuck" - you a fan of Brandon Herrara by any chance?
This is simulation remember, In real life it depends on accuracy which ISU-152 never had
it's impressive how sloped armor was a real game changer for the time. Imagine this gun's energy would be more than enough to go through 250mm if it was flat
What do you mean "for the time" ? Slopped armor has been around since before tanks even existed.
@@Niitroxyde Because slopped armor died as soon as HEAT weapons became effective.
And no, slopped armor became a real thing during Operation Barbarossa
@@thiagorodrigues5211 What are you talking about.
How could sloped armor disappear because of HEAT when slopped was just as good against HEAT since it increases the effective thickness of the plate and thus the amount of steel the jet has to go through. Only difference is that HEAT projectile can't really ricochet (unless the warhead doesn't properly go off).
Sloped armor was already used on most WW1 tanks you could think of, was used on Ironclad warships in the 19th century and was even used on that Da Vinci's tank design from the 15th century. I'm sure you could find even earlier examples if you dig deep enough.
@@Niitroxyde Because HEAT didn't just penetrate 100mm anymore. It penetrated 400mm which means it was impossible for any tank to carry as much armor as needed. So Tanks became light and fast after WWII until the development of Compositve armor against HEAT.
Then, back to kinetic weapons, now an upgraded version of the APDS which again made Tanks vulnerable.
Now tanks are useless
@@thiagorodrigues5211 And how is that related to sloped armor ? HEAT was defeating RH armor, sloped or not. But sloped armor was still the most effective way to deter HEAT (save for a few spaced armor ideas like the Schürzen) until the apparition of composite armor.
So again, how was HEAT the downfall of sloped armor in particular ?
And how are tanks "useless" ?
People have been calling tanks obsolete since the end of World War I, yet they're still here and further designs are being worked on in militaries around the world, so they're definitely here to stay for at least this century still.
Not to sound too pompous but you need to open a book or two on the matter, bud.
Love the content man keep it up!
Appreciate it!
It already got mentioned, but the fact that at this point, it's basically deflecting a light cruiser is pretty insane
That was not a deflection. That Tank Crew is gone for good
@@Sildrim234 imagine a similar test with the target being an M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing or even a Centurion... I imagine the results would be worse than this.
@@Rendell001 yeah they would've been very dead instead of just dead, makes a considerable difference
Disabled tank/ dead crew is not good, lol
Even if the round did not pen the crew would die at impact either way.
The issue seems to be shell design. That's why Soviet switched to a different design in their later APCBC rounds (BR-472, BR-367 etc) based on PzGr 39 design (or at least inspired by it)
imo, it was more about the metallurgy...which was also later inspired/based off german shells
Проблема не в оболочке , а в кривых руках создателя ролика . Фронтальные концентрические пояски снаряда , цепляясь за корпус , разворачивают сердечник под углом близком к прямому , в броню противника , и способствуют уменьшению возможности рикошета . Эти снаряды делали не идиоты и не одна сотня выстрелов понадобилась для принятия их на вооружение .
@@sergegrab3618 сказок насмотрелся?
@@sergegrab3618это очень точная симуляция. Такая конструкция снаряда действительно создана для работы по наклонной броне, но снаряд не разворачивается под углом близком к прямому, даже близко.
Thanks for all the computation time put into that and making videos of it and giving some explanation.
Thanks! I appreciate the appreciation :)
Never put your hand on a Tiger II's frontal armor, when an ISU-152-2 is about to fire at it.
Wise
Could you do a comparative piece on the American 76.2-MM M1A1, German KwK 40, and Soviet 85 ZiS S-53 against the same plate? To compare these otherwise very comparable guns.
85mm>76.2mm>75mm l48
@@mr.waffentrager4400 Soviet tests conducted against captured King Tigers concluded otherwise.
@@r.j.dunnill1465 what did it conclude
@@mr.waffentrager4400American 76mm was slightly better than Soviet 85 in terms of flat piercing. Same with 75mm m3 against Soviet F-34
@@raketny_hvost and in angled pen, the 85mm and zis 76mm was better because flat head
This Russian tank destroyer was nicknamed Zveroboy, which translates into 'Beastkiller'.
Exactly it was name of SU-152 after Kursk, mostly because it was main SPG which killed cats. But it's not too good honestly
@@raketny_hvost Didn't kill that many of them either. It was always my impression they named it like that because they felt most confident in its ability to destroy the Panthers and Tigers, but it didn't do that much better than anything else they fielded.
Fun fact. They used some of the stored ISU-152 made after the war in the liquidation of the Chernobyl zone. They drove them through buildings they needed to level.
@@TheIzroda Of course, bro, they give names and nicknames for nothing. Just for a second, look out of the eyes of your German great-grandfather sitting in a panther or tiger, along which a high-explosive 152mm flies
@@TheIzrodathey killed most heavy German tanks in ambushes and from the side
I can imagine many fittings inside any AFV struck by the BL-10 gun would be dislodged and the crew concussed causing the AFV to be a casualty.
The kinetic energy alone would probably be enough to kill the crew.
According to original shooting tables of the testing of the bl-10 gun, the muzzle velocity of the APHEBC was 900m/s, not 800m/s.
Range is part of the simulation. I would guess 800m/s at 750m distance could be correct.
Held up much better than I thought it would.
That's what she said.
Bro the driver just need a medkit and is full hp again
I think he need a necromancer tbh
Idiot. Driver would not survive a large chunk of Tiger 2 ufp even with medkit, if a medkit can save that driver, there would be no casualties in ww2.
nah he just need a plaster and hes good again
Holy shit that spalling l, I would like to see the rounds hit at real time
It problably would happen entirely within 1 or 2 frames of a 60 fps video (16 to 32ms), way too fast to visualize it.
It turned the armor into projectiles. It's as if the shell phased through the plate and split into 2 projectiles
I'm pretty sure that that thing is gonna destroy even a modern mbt,I think the energy release will be so immense that all sensitive components and the crew will be toast
Безусловно, что экипаж получит тяжёлую контузию и будет выведен из строя.
Composite arrays will neatly redirect the energy sideways - it might have about 3 times the power of a 120mm APFDS but it's also a really wide shell. Bare metal like hull sides though? Those are still susceptible even to 57mm.
That's the embodiment of everything will be works if you put more force to it.
Pretty sure it'd just straight up knock out the crew from the kinetic impact alone even without penning or the welds spitting
Shoot an enemy in WT with this shell: Penetrates, hits drivers head, driver turns yellow, shell disappears....
huh what? clearly youve never used this round
Never has the 152mm shell disappeared on me. Even a shot to enemy's engine would knock them out due to spalling and 1kg of tnt
jokes on on you in war thunder it even bounces at the panthers ufp 80% of the time
А где ВЗРЫВ этого 152 мм снаряда, ведь это бронебойный осколочный снаряд. Он не просто пробивает броню, но, ещё и силой взрыва своего ВВ заряда поражает броне защиту, дополнительно проламывая уже повреждённый участок брони.
взрыв показан
@@cryzieee где и когда. Взрыва это когда осколки разлетаются во всех направлениях, притом, бронебойно разрывной взрывается после пробития брони, для этого используется донный замедлитель, и если бы там был показан взрыв, это было бы совсем иное чем показано. Показано только раскалывание корпуса снаряда от удара об преграду, и не более.
@@ВикторНекрылов-ъ9н так снаряд не пробил а проломил броню. взрыв либо был но в заброневое пространство лишь осколки брони попали, либо снаряд вообще не взвелся из-за деформации.
@@cryzieee вы хоть видео просмотрите. Первое, бронебойный снаряд проламывая как раз и пробивает так броню. Второе, в видео не видно взрыва снаряда, а только его распад от удара об броню, и тут только показывают, как воздействуют снаряды на броню, без воздействия их ВВ зарядов. И у таких снарядов взрыватели были инерционального типа а не как у обычного ОФ, они не возводились при выстреле, они срабатывали при ударе об препятствие. В видео не показан взрыва каморы ВВ снаряда ни при ударе ни в процессе удара, показано только попадание снаряда и распад его тела на фрагменты. Если бы это было правильное показание воздействие такого типа снаряда, то при попадании снаряда, он должен был ещё и взорваться усиливая этим разрущающе воздействие. Тут это не показано НИ ГДЕ, заряд ВВ этого типа боеприпаса, тут просто не учтен ни каким образом. Тут показано, только как это если было бы не с каморным бронибойно разрывным, а как с просто бронибойно трассирующим, или как с бронибойно подкалиберный. Где нет таких зарядов ВВ в снарядах. Если просто не знаете, что это за типы снарядов и как они работают, то можете их путать и ошибаться, это понятно.
I like the faster playback towards the end.
Mich würde interessieren, mit welcher Stahl-Qualität hier modelliert wird. Die Frontplatte des Tiger II war gewalzt und gehärtet und hatte damit eine deutlich höhere Härte und Zähigkeit als spröder russischer Stahl. Selbst die Sherman waren den unsäglichen T34 weit voraus und besaßen damals bereits Inliner.
BTW guys, this is 750m... and also, the BR 540B round is in War Thunder, except its fired at a lower velocity, 4.7 ISU 152 600m/s and 6.7 OBJ 268 760m/s. ... everyone always tells me im just feeding onto gaijins russian bias, but even these lower velocity rounds are extremly powerful.
ISU 152 can pen Jumbo and Panther UFP up to around 3.3km + a slight angle of 20deg
OBJ 268 can about 50% of the time penetrate a TIGER 2 through the UFP at 10m at no angle, which is extremly unlikely scenario, but its possible, and if the ISU 152 2 were to be added, it would be like 7.0 or 7.3.
The OBJ 268 152mm APHEBC is amazing against Tiger II's and Jagdtigers.
Even at 1000 meters, you can easily one shot them if you manage to hit the LFP. If i'm not mistaken, the LFP is only 100mm thick, so your massive 152mm APHEBC shell has no issues overmatching that armor.
@@carlblack8574 so ISU 152 > T30 with 155mm, other sims suggest that T30 155mm will just bounce on Tiger II ufp.
They WILL add the BL-10. I Am surprised they didnt yet.
@@Einheit101 I hope they add the ISU-152-2.
It wouldn't be a META vehicle, but who cares! I want a 152mm APHEBC railgun of doom.
The ISU-152-2 should be 6.0-6.3, not 7.0 - 7.3.
On 6.3 there is already a Su-100P with a 100mm gun with a much faster reload and a turret. And the Su-100 on 6.0. On 6.7 there is a Su-122-54 with APDS and excellent armor.
This goes away as soon as you add that ballistic cap. It looses a bunch of its velocity with distance, it’s pretty weird how you’d pick and choose something that would never be used in such a way
Not only is that tiger 2 driver dead as shit, the sheer kinetic energy transferred to the hull from that shell would be enough to severely stun or knock out the crew… maybe even break bones
these are dead interesting little studies, greatly appreciated
I like it being narrated 👍
Actually the upper glacis of the Tiger II could be perfurated by the IS 2 122mm shot with its D25T gun at a range of 200 meters, a trial was conducted that showed this result, on the other hand the Kwk 43 canon, used on the Tiger II, could not perforate his own upper glacis from any distance at all. Check it out the trials results comparing these 2 guns on Peter Samsonov RUclips channel, Tank Archives.
The thing is, this is still good enough for the job. Even with the shell breaking here the driver is dead, the armor’s got a huge hole, and there’s spalling flying everywhere. Nobody is going to stay inside and wait for another hostile to come and pick them off at their leisure, even if they kill the ISU-152 quickly.
It’s a mission kill.
Great simulation thanks
**152.4mm BL-10**
**BR-540 APHE (48.78kg at 880m/s)**
Penetration:
300mm @ 0m at 0 ° - 880m/s
169mm @ 0m at 55 °
139mm @ 0m at 60 °
-
**BR-540B FN-APHEBC (48.96kg at 880m/s)**
Penetration:
254mm @ 0m at 0 ° - 880m/s
168mm @ 0m at 55 °
138mm @ 0m at 60 °
suggestion:
swedish 37mm APDS vs a T-34 front unagled at 400m
"If it had entered service it would have been the most powerful tank cannon ever fielded based on the kinetic energy of the projectile"
M103: "good thing it didn't enter service then"
Soviet 3BM25 APFSDS versus Chieftain tank's front turret cheek at 500 meters?
can we see this tested against the old abrams hull? I really want to see this like how you tested the 128mm from the jagdtiger on the abrams.
This gun was a pretty big overkill. I love it. I want this in War Thunder.
it is in war thunder, it's mounted on the object 268
@@rdraider11 It's not the same. The BL-10 gun is much stronger and longer. The in-game one is 152 mm M-64. There is a 100 mm difference in penetration. But that doesn't matter because, in reality, the sheer force could destroy any tank.
The thumbnail shows the ISU-152-1 BL-8 it’s just a longer version
This video is awsome can you do the king tigers hull vs the gun of the super Pershing?
Can you do 120mm T53 APBC shell vs tiger 2 armor ?
So there is still no explosion of the projectile itself after the hit.
Given the low quality metallury and rushed production of the Soviet Union, is it possible to assume that most ISU-152 projectiles were low quality and prone to falling apart?
What kind of projectile was modeled for the simulation?
Хватило бы просто фугасного снаряда калибра 152 мм в лоб башни, там верх корпуса 40 мм толщины - его банально вдавит внутрь взрывной волной.
Rushed production and poor quality was due to relocation of industry behind Ural mountains. By 1944 poor quality metallurgy was in Germany due to shortages of resources and energy, while in USSR metallurgy quality became superior.
you could counter that with poor quality german steel by the end of the war
The projectile followed the relatively soft hardening and brittleness of similar Soviet shells of the era, being ~250-300BHN at the base, going upto ~450BHN at the nose
that same low-quality metallurgy made the most durable tank armor, while the Americans mastered armored steel by the end of the war and made their hulls casted and overweighted
I remember the old days of WoT, really enjoyed this TD
On WoT the tiger would've taken a hefty 750~ damage 👌🏽
"even a non-penetrating hit would have a good chance of splitting the welds or disabling the tiger ii" dude, just IMAGINE that
Question: What metallurgy is well suited for armour piercing projectiles to prevent breakup?
Nobody makes them adiabatic shear bands as beautiful as you do.
I wonder if it'd kill a maus?
I also remember about the 122mm BL-9S is simulation possible for that ?
Gaijin when for the ISU-152-2
Put it around 6.0 BR
@@Skravichand give it thermals
fun fact there not a single Kingtiger frontal glacis plate penetration recorded during ww2
Question, if that projectile hit the turret, would it have a catastrophic failure like the Su152 and Isu152 are supposed to have on the Panzer4 and Tigers 1?
Not strictly tank, but after a little back and forth on FB, how about the 12lb gun of the Surprise Vs the 1inch 'special super strong steel' (as the commentator put it) hull of the Ford class carrier?
Soviets engineers :"our massive 152 isu is not working Igor"
"just make it bigger Alexander"
Oooh, can you test a direct hit perfectly frontal on the gun barrel to see if it mushrooms?
Didn't russian aphe have better angled performance than aphebc, I remeber hearing that somewhere but idk if its tru3
Вы показываете идеальные условия.В реале к 1944 г.нацистов отрезали от источников никеля,берилия и вольфрама,поэтому броня их танков лопалась ,как стекло....
*Black Gunner, Red Machine Gunner, Orange Gunner, Orange Gunner, Yellow Commander.*
Imagine getting hit by a 50 kg projectile travelling at mach jesus and you just see the ufp becoming your enemy instead of your protection
Could the best penetrating ww2 shot of the 100 mm d10t penetrate the glacis ?
Its strange yet amazing how in WWII crazy gun armament technologies were tested even to the prototype stage when surely by the standards then one must realize some designs were not even practical to be off the drawing board ....
can you make T30 155mm vs tiger II?
Thats why it is good to have spall armor inside the tanks
What simulation software do you use
Does a shell that size even need an explosive filler?
This could be countered by adding a thinner plate of armour with a slight space in between them to disperse just enough energy so when it reaches the main armour, it doesn't penetrate. (if the ISU-152 did become available in numbers to encounter Tiger 2's regularly). But by the time Tiger 2's were a problem, the war was already in a phase that Germans had to look up rather then in front when it comes to things that could destroy their heavy tanks (fighter-bombers).
And of course, with so little fuel around, Tiger 2's barely moved around to be a real problem to the allies. And if they did... Here comes a fighter-bomber and there goes another German tank blown to bits.
A declassified US Army Ordnance brochure stated that the 90mm M3 T30E16 round would defeat the Tiger II upper glacis out to 100 yards. Presumably they made that claim on the basis of firing tests.
It's a very tiny glacis, very hard to hit.
@@williamzk9083 The upper glacis is literally the entire front of the tank. If you can't hit that you couldn't hit anything.
@@elpollo2805 sorry I meant the mantlet on the Tiger II which is tiny.
I'm curious if it would be possible to show simulation at realistic speed for comparation?
It would be
@@SYsimulations but what if simplify simulation as much as possible and show it few times with different speed?
clear non pen for gaijin
I would like to see in simulation the whole welded plate
So would i, but don't think the pc would be happy about it
It doesn't penetrate but the spall can still inflict damage
The spalling alone would be horific for the crew inside...
What software is this?
Реальные обстрелы показали что пробивает на вылет.в этом разница с симуляцией
Самое весёлое - это найти в Интернете подробное бронирование корпуса Тигра 2 и посмотреть, сколько толщины там в верхней части брони корпуса. Потом, чисто поржать, находим количество взрывчатки в стандартном фугасном снаряде ИСУ-152 или КВ-2 (да даже ИС-2, фиг с ним). И представляем, что же случится внутри Тигра/Тигра 2/Пантеры, если любой из заявленных танков фугас просто в лоб башни им пришлёт. RIP водила и радист, в худшем случае - ещё и боекомплект в боковых нишах, смещение башни с направляющих с заклиниванием наглухо. И это в нагрузку к основному орудию, либо превращенному в дуршлаг, либо же согнутому буквой Z. И это ФУГАС. ББ снаряд ИС-2 в то время выносил заднюю бронеплиту Панцер 4 двигателем этого же Панцер 4, в котором застревал после пробития лба корпуса и прохождения всего боевого отделения, то есть *на излете* .
Impressive
Pressumably it's steel and not tungsten? Would be good to include this information by default. Still, great work! 👍
Yes, hardened steel, for future reference, I specifically mention when the projectile/core is made of anything but steel
How do you make these videos, with what program?
ansys :)
Can you do the tiger lls upper plate vs its own gun?
ISU 152 ❤
Germanys philosophy on tanks: Build it bigger
Russia's philosophy on tank guns: Build it bigger
Honestly, lets see this same test, but against the Maus...I wanna see what it'd do against even more dummy thicc armor. Then do it again against a modern tank.
I'd like to see the 120mm M358 against the Tiger II glacis.
The only problem I have with these is ussr had bad metallurgy. A lot of shells have been known to be of substandard quality. So if you take bad shells against good armor you would get different results
What about this round vs IS7?
Is the voice AI or is it like a real voice?
AI :)
Please make Simulation: 203mm vs tiger 2
Pls make video of Titan implosive above 4000m under water
cold you do a flatter target with the same gun?
Same vs Maus Armor Please
Would like to see this simulation against the Maus
Can you recreate the Panther shot to T-34-85 spare track in "T-34" movie
Isu152-2 vs Jagdtiger ?
its the same hull, would be the same result
It would be interesting to see what this shell would do at range. Alternatively; I just checked, and I don't think you've done a 'normal' 152mm against a Tiger II UFP...
I think there's an image of a normal 152 impact on a tiger II on tank archives. It just leaves a massive scoop shaped dent
Say your prayers for the driver.
17pdr firing APDS could penetrate the Tiger 2 glacis according to the Tank musuem but the fight never happened
Now do the same with the German equivalent, 10.5 cm KwK L68, 12.8 cm APHEDS/Bunker rounds or the 17 cm K72 AP shell against the IS-3 or IS-4.
'Please'.
There already is a simulation for the 128mm apds against IS-3 on RUclips which result in a predictable non pen / non deform for the IS-3 ( this tank can take hit form 105mm L7 apds without issue in the 6 day war so anything less than that is a automatic non pen )
@@WozWozEre My bad.
@@huyhoangtahuu9733 I see, so then it is up to the 17 cm to defeat the IS-3 I guess.
Here's hoping for Gaijin to implement something like this in their fucking game. I'm talking about the destruction of armour.
Is the voiceover an AI or actual speaker?
AI :)