Profile of Burts

APM is not a big factor in coh 2, as are alot of other things, leading to the very low skill cap of coh 2.

You can do fine and be a top player with low APM.

That said, APM does not equal skill.


Even in SC 2, 70 APM is usually enough to do anything ever.

Kharkov bad for ostheer? Lol wut.

I do agree that this match up depends mostly on the map more than anything else.

I used to have a problem, but then i learned that all factions have usually easy ways to destroy this.

If your soviets, use gaurds PTRS or zis gun attack ground.

If your USF, use captain bazookas, USF m20 bazookas, M15 halftrack to destroy them.


But i do agree that it's a little bit bullshit.


Soviets have a harder time dealing with them, due to their builds being slightly more diverse.

Nobody ever doesn't go m20 as USF , so they have an easy way.

I´ll just ignore all the other bullshit and just focus on this one:

What does the 70 year difference have to do with all of this? Even 70 years ago Panthers etc. could fire 6 rounds a minute. That makes the IS-2 rate of fire shit.

And in WW2 on range a lot of shots missed. You would overshoot the target or hit the ground in front of it, adjust and fire again. The second/third shot would hit. A Panther etc. can do this way faster than an IS-2. And this is a huge advantage if every shot can make the difference between life and death.

Here you can see the Tiger-Fibel tutorial on how to hit on range ... first shot, second shot. Third one will hit. It´s obvious that a faster rate of fire is one of the most significant advantages in this.

Oh and that IS-2 has to level the gun back to normal and then aim again... good luck trying to hit shit with that.

And in order to hit the target you need to aim, not just reload. Aiming takes time , which is why there is a difference in theoretical rate of fire and actual rate of fire.

Funny how the Russian guy wants realism...

So... ISU-152, IS-2 etc. had HORRIBLE reload times. Their optics weren´t on par with German optics. Their ergonomics were poor. The rounds carried were half as much as those of regular tanks. IS-2 had to set the gun to standard position after every shot in order to reload, having to readjust on target after every shot, leading to poor target tracking.

Panthers and Tigers were much better than the IS-1 and KV-85. The IS-1 flopped and barely saw any action. Hell, the KV-85 has the 85mm of the T-34/85 which was insufficient to penetrate the Panther frontally.

The IS-2 is hardly comparable to the KT as you claim. KT is a different league, in the same weight category the Panther is more comparable. And the Panther was the better performing machine, having the flatter trajectory, reload time (3x as fast), optics, crew comfort etc.

In general Soviet tanks were CLUMSY machines. Looking good on paper because of a big gun but lacking in everything else.

If you wanted realism, your Soviet tanks would be pretty much weaker than now. There would be more, but complaining that they are too weak on a 1v1 basis is wrong.

On topic: That being said, the ISU-152 and JT should rather get a reload time increase and a minimum range of 10m. I think that will be sufficient.

Hmm, horrible reload times, IS-2 rate of fire is 2-3 rounds per minute.You are severely overstating the effect of slow reload times. Yes a panther or a king tiger could theoretically shoot alot faster, but in a battlefield, nobody is going to be shooting like that since it is just wasting ammo.

Even modern tanks only have a fire rate of on average 6 rounds. For example the Abrams has a firerate of 6 rounds per minute, not to bad for the a tank that is 70 years old to only fire twice as slow as a modern tank, eh?

Ergonomics were poor... Just pure nonsense, the IS-2 and later t-34 models had no issues with ergonomics and their crew compartment spaces were generally no less than other tanks.

Accuracy is also a myth, the IS-2s gun was just as accurate , if not slightly more accurate than the tigers gun.

And soviet tanks didin't perform poorly, they performed a very well in their defined roles. (Hint, t-34/85s or IS-2s were not meant to fight tanks, even tho they could do that fairly well)

Tank losses hardly matter because unlike manpower, steel is pretty much an inexhaustable resource for a nation as big as the soviet union, and if you lose a few tanks while decimating the entire german front that's very worth it.

Even tho the german soviet loss ratio is highly inflated due to the way soviets and germans accounted for their losses.

1 t-34 can be lost multiple times and also it can be built multiple times. A tank stuck in the mud even for a short period of time was already considered a loss for the soviets.

Meanwhile the germans only accounted a loss only and only if the tank was completely beyond repair and is lost hopelessly.

A tiger could be heavily damaged 5 times and still be repaired and the germans would account for 0 losses.



Less than 20000 85mm guns were built in the entire war. Yet somehow the soviets made 22000 t-34/85s not to mention su-85s, kv-85s and what not.

Question how is it that they did this? Black magic?