No, the Panzer IV is fine where it is, sounds like a skill issue to me.
Almost nothing you said makes sense.
The Pz IVs sole outstanding feature is the guns penetration.
It loses in every category to the 75mm Shermans except penetration, except maybe mobility which is similar
- Worse traverse speed
- Lower RoF
- No stabilizer
- Worse armor on 90% of the tank
It only beats the T-34 in gun depression angle and the penetration.
While the T-34 is:
- Substantially more mobile
- Has faster turret traverse
- Much better armor
- Deals a lot more damage with the APHE rounds
The main advantage of the Pz IV hardly plays a role because the enemy tanks are either better armored and the penetration is necessary, or they don’t require that kind of penetration and beat the Pz IV in almost every category.
A freaking M24 will win a fight against a Pz IV 80% of the time because it’s faster, has better traverse and even a stabilizer. It just comes down to who can shoot first and the M24 will shoot first most of the time, just like every other medium tank of other nations, with the exception of the Italian P40 and Japanese Chi-Nu.
This doesn’t make the Pz IV bad, it just means that it’s not that effective as people make it out to be.
A good player can achive the same results per match as a Pz IV in every other 3.3-3.7 vehicle.
1 Like
I think you’re massively underselling the value of good penetration here. That “much better armor” that the M4s and T-34s enjoy is rendered almost entirely meaningless to the Panzer IVs. As long as you take even halfway decent shots, you’ll punch through both those targets strongest armor at any reasonable range and angle.
KV-1s are much less of an issue, Churchills outside the VII can be engaged from generous range and angle, there’s pretty much nothing outside of said Churchill VII and perfectly played KV-1Es that can consistently foil that gun.
Add that together with the better velocity, as well as the armor’s effectiveness against the 75/76mm at longer ranges, and the Panzer IV’s strength in at mid/long range is self evident. I’ll grant that sniping is increasingly less effective in War Thunder these days, but that’s a fault with the current trend of map design, not the tanks.
1 Like
And you are overselling the usefullnes of one variable that is required to take out a vehicle.
Before you can penetrate the target you need to hit it which means being in a position that allows you to do so.
A KV-1 is just as mobile as a Pz IV, while having massily better armor. They can both take each other out but neither has an advantage. The same is true for the T-34, which is much more mobile or the Sherman which has a stabilizer.
Of course the Sherman or T-34 can be in a situation where it’s near impossible to take out the KV-1, but the Pz IV will be situations where it won’t even be able to get kills because of the mobility.
In most the situations a stabilized 75mm with better RoF or simply much better mobility will result in getting more kills while at the same time compensating for the lack of penetration.
And that makes vehicles that are good for specific scenarios less effective, unless it suits the meta.
When it comes to range the Pz IV has some advantage but it’s hardly a factor.
On most maps Pz IVs is simply at a disadvantage.
1 Like
A KV-1S, which gives up a reasonable amount of it’s armor, is in the same ballpark, but the other two tech tree ones are substantially slower, especially reactively. Not to mention massively worse gun handling etc. But that’s not really relevant.
You’re acting like the mobility of the Panzer IVs is in some way terrible. It’s completely average for the tier. Outside the Cromwell and T-34, no other medium tank at the tier is much faster. It can position itself just fine.
A higher rate of fire isn’t going to get a round through an angled KV-1. Nor a Churchill at range.
Consider also what other tanks at the BR give up to have guns comparable to what the Panzer IVs get. Tanks like the M10 (Turret drive, roof armor), or the Na-To (Entire turret, any semblence of armor, profile, etc). Hell, even the Yag-10, a truck that has it’s gun as it’s only consistent advantage, has to deal with a substantially less punchy gun at the same BR as the F2 and G. These are tanks that are substantially less flexible, all in service of equivalent or even lesser firepower.
2 Likes
Everything that I said is sensible, but someone with a different view of vehicle merits and operating style might see things in another light.
The late model Panzer IVs’ armament is indeed their main boasting point…but given that their other qualities are largely ‘similar’ to peers (M4s, T-34s, etc.) at their BR, this gives them a leg up.
Beyond that, armament and its qualities (mostly the dynamics of penetration and reload rate) control the deadliness and practicality of vehicles as well as their practical longevity (especially when used in uptiers outside their natural MM range).
The gun is arguably the most important aspect of the tank, as it controls what you can kill and how quickly.
Naturally there are certain limits to prioritization of firepower, such as practicality (adequate firepower with good reload rate is usually better than overkill firepower with a poor reload rate) but, in general, this principle holds throughout WT.
It is certainly a legitimate stance to argue, if not hold.
For the rest of this, I’m going to use spoilers for simplicity’s sake here:
Spoiler
While all of these points are technically true (though they vary with upgade status), the differences involved in traverse/rate of fire/armor values are generally so close as to be effectively negligible.
While the stabilizer is included in several US (and foreign operated US vehicles), effectively firing on the move is relatively uncommon in the 3.X-4.X range and with the M61/M72 shells, precise aiming is generally needed for these shells to succeed against a Panzer IV unless it is a sideshot. As much (in my experience, most) firing with these vehicles is done at rest, the stabilizer’s merit is effectively negated and doesn’t come into play.
The 75mm Shermans’ shells let the vehicles down and ultimately make their fire mediocre at best in higher BRs (a la 4.7 and up).
The ‘advantage’ of the stabilizer (and the intermittent 12.7mm MG) is arguable…those merits were mentioned in my post above and are part of the reasons I regard the M4s as the Panzer IVs’ closest peers overall.
Your results might differ due to playstyle or luck, but that’s my take…
In general, I cannot say I’ve seen this really pan out despite years of gameplay experience. While the T-34’s armor is better for dealing with lower calibre fire (especially in the 20-37mm range), the difference it has with shells typical of peers (50-76mm) is not very much.
While the stat cards do confirm the traverse speed difference (T-34s at ~17 deg./sec vs. Panzer IVs’ ~15 deg./sec), that difference isn’t all that much. On mobility/post-pen APHE effects, I cannot say I’ve really noticed big differences from the Panzer IVs either.
As with the M4s’ shells, the 76mm T-34s lose relevance quickly because the penetration they offer–while decent at 3.X-4.X–doesn’t allow them to penetrate most higher tier vehicles easily. (The 57mm T-34 is vastly superior in this regard.)
Your results might differ due to playstyle or luck, but that’s my take…
When I played the Panzer IVs regularly (the G was my main–aced its crew free), they were Tier IIIs and it was part of a GER 4.0 lineup which is a main lineup for BP/event tasks.
I play the Panzer IVs (especially the J) as flankers and shoot into the maps from the side generally (though obviously not always). This probably explains our divergent opinions.
From recollection, I doubt the 80% M24 estimate for instance…because the presumption there seems to be both people getting into a quickdraw scenario and reaching for a shot…more often (in my experience anyway), one guy or both might be camped or very slowly moving up.
In that scenario, the stabilizers become irrelevant and the main control on success then is penetrating and getting a hard blow in despite modules.
You are correct that players’ setup entering into a shootout controls a lot about how the results pan out…but that in itself lends certain vehicles to certain playstyles as well as opportunities and tenures.
In my estimation, the Panzer IVs’ guns just give it more versatility to deal with enemies than others:
I can get the gun steady by shooting at rest, but I cannot get my M61 shell anymore pen no matter what stabilization I have…so which merit has worse perishability?
Ultimately, trying to rank certain tanks that are very similar (a la the Panzer IVs, T-34s and M4s) is very painful and prone to argumentation because there are a lot of stances that can be taken due to conditions and style.
1 Like
The gun =/= it’s penetration.
The vehicles mobility, traverse speed, stability, RoF, damage are all factors and the Pz IV lacks several of them to make it outstanding.
1 Like
I’ve been playing the Churchill NA75 in recent weeks and have amassed 25 battles with it. While I have never been particularly fond of the Churchills, the NA75 is particularly abysmal…everything seems to get through its armor.
The availability of M61 is a nice touch for it…but the whole vehicle is something I’d say is worthy of 3.7, not 4.3.
Other things lower than it take its lunch money day and night…including the KV-1 (L-11) at 3.7.
Would you prefer I use the term ‘firepower’ instead?
I already spelled out the terms that I was referring to on that matter in the accompanying paragraph, as the specifics of the cannon’s penetrating power and reload rate is a mixture issue (filler is an intermittent factor here, as many shells simply lack this):
To roughly illustrate this with a scenario:
In practice, you’re usually going to be better served running around with a StuG III F capable of lobbing 75mm shells every 8 seconds or so than an SU-152 that has to wait about 20 seconds to do the same thing with 152mm watermelons.
Can both be effective?
- Certainly! Success with the vehicle ultimately rests on who uses it and how.
Is one likely more practical in most scenarios?
- Yes, because once you have adequate firepower then ‘more’ just becomes excess and leads to waste (especially in terms of time).
Under the spoiler tab in the post above, I went into those matters.
For the most part, those differences are close enough to where specific gameplay choices decide the merit’s relevance more than their sheer performance does. (It’s effectively a dead heat in most cases.)
1 Like
Feel like the Pz. IV is a little trolly, but just because it’s gun is good, doesn’t make it worthy of a BR jump, because, like that Sherman photo, the damn M3 can knock it out, it’s not got great armor, unless you angle, which is a pro strat on the later models with more side armor. I personally prefer the damn Pz. III over the IV, it’s “better” in my eyes, I love the Pz. III N, I love the Pz. III M, and I love the Pz. III L, the “double stacked” or “spaced” armor is amazing at the BR, and the dumb little M4A3E8 (105) can’t pen you because of the HEAT panels. Overall, no, because the fact is, that (most) Pz. III’s (the ones I’ve named my favorite) have better armor, worse gun, and the Pz. IV has roughly the same armor, and a bigger, more powerful 75mm gun. This is like the argument of “The M-51 needs to go up in BR because it can pen everything at its BR from the front :whine: :cry: .” The Pz. IV, just like the M-51, trades armor for a decent gun.
TL;DR :
Pz. IV is where it is because it can kill everything and (almost) everything can kill it. It’s all about the effectiveness of the player and the tanks limits.
1 Like
The only real vice of the Panzer IVs (and the late model Panzer IIIs too) is their rank.
Rank II is a dungeon–put them at Rank III where tasks would be actionable and people’d jump on them.
1 Like
It’s a very underrated tank for what it is, the Pz III getting the 20mm + 50mm spaced armor. It’s a good vehicle, but not worthy of a BR jump. Pz IV H gets the 80mm plate, and the Pz IV J gets the 80mm plate, guns are identical, and they are identical, besides slight mobility buff and the HEAT “Schürze”
Earlier in the night, I was lobbing 40mm shells at a late model Panzer III L or M with the Swedish 40mm AA and its armor piercing belts.
I was getting rather aggravated at his driver port’s optics module eating the shells (there were probably 3 or 4 other enemies in the surrounding area to turn focus toward), but after a good dozen or so the Panzer bought the farm so it worked out.
While I could see the Panzer IVs being viable at higher BRs (I played the Panzer IV H back when it was 4.7), currently I do not advocate for higher BRs. (Changing the Panzers to Tier IIIs though…c’mon Gaijin…)
1 Like
Yes, I remember that too, I’d regularly use it when the Tiger line up was 5.3 with Panther D.
The cannon on the Panzer IVs allowed the vehicles at the time then (and even now too) to remain relevant well beyond their natural BR range.
Are they the cream of the crop in those circumstances? No–but their cannon being what it is gives them better conditions than many other vehicles of a similar vintage would have.
I still remember one user here tried to twist the matter of ‘relativity’ in uptiers years ago…he was so humiliated by that experience that he’s still sore at me.
1 Like
You finally got it. The maps make alot German tanks suffer. Expecially the panzer 4 models. No chance on all these close quarter labyrinth maps vs. faster traversing, gyrostabbed, cal50 (de-tracking pest) Shermans or T-34 with angled magic armor.
As most of the maps were of old Mozdok or Kursk type, Panzer IVs were rank III (G, H etc) and higher BRed. As the map mix changed towards city combat, Pz IV went downhill.
1 Like
The matter of “CQC maps” is rather meaningless in WT given the average map size. With that in mind, I’d disagree too.
Hard cover is generally more useful in WT than distance (because there is so little of this in-game) and so city maps don’t really favor anyone in particular.
1 Like
City maps are CQB enviroments, meaning they favour vehicles with high mobility and gun traverse rate.
Corners provide cover while allowing to look around them while staying hidden.
Buildings in general makes it difficult to stay protected from flanks due to the lack of visibility.
A vehicle can effectively lock down one path, yet is always at risk of enemies turning up from either side.
2 Likes
T-34s and Shermans are way better in CQC than Panzer IVs, none of their qualities are beneficial in that environment.
Really don’t see how they’re comically undertiered, aside from firepower they really don’t have many redeeming factors.
1 Like