Its literally getting onetapped by 3.3 tanks due to the weak armor. And you cant even angle it cause its just one giant box. Besides the J and H have unusable turret,mostly J due to being handcranked. The only good thing about the tank is gun. Meanwhile baby Panther sits at 5.0 with superior armor profile and gun.
5 Likes
4.0 at MOST
how tf is a shitbox with no armor comparable to something like a sherman firefly?
5 Likes
Which is why I said 4.3 minimum. Armour and mobility are similar. Firefly has better penetration but Panzer IV H has APHE, Firefly has better traverse but Panzer IV H has far better depression (-10 to -4). The Firefly’s depression is near Russian level bad.
Not sure what you’re saying about the armour. Side armour is only 8mm difference, not accounting for the side skirts.
3 Likes
In August 2025, the Italian Pz IV G ranks #100th in its rank for K/D and #70th for win rates. So we have the same tank, supposedly undertiered by as much as one full BR, being played by minor nations players with a reputation for being very skilled; it should be a monster, dominating its bracket. And yet it is not. Worth noting that this is a premium, so it is likely not being played by the noobest of noobs.
Same month, August 2025, same BR 3.7, same tech tree (Italy), same status (premium), the Sherman I composito is 11th for win rate, and 10th for K/D.
While the players certainly contribute to the problem, and I would not be against reshuffling these vehicles’ BRs by a bit with an eye to decompression, it is evident that they are not outstanding performers at their BR. Even in non-noob hands.
I have pointed this out before but I’ll say it again - the problem is not so much the lack of armour, it’s the lack of mobility. Lacking both mobility and armour means that the vehicle is a pretty good killer at range (where its gun handling issues are minimised, and extra bonuses like 50cals matter less) but it struggles to influence matches and brawl for caps. Which is half the meta in WT. The other half being using a fast flanker and/or getting into CAS.
4 Likes
Composito is better than the M4. It’s got the late M4A1 hull (as seen on the M4A1 76). It’s a pay to win vehicle, like that Swedish Sherman which has the welded large hatch front at 3.7. Both of those vehicles should be at 4.0 with the M4A2.
1 Like
Always thought the Panzer IV’s being 3.7 was weird given the Chi To felt basically the same as them, though tbf i only played the Chi To’s at 5.0 with the Chi Ri II so i have no idea what they play like at 4.7
3 Likes
Ok, but you’re suggesting sending the Composito to 4.0, while sending the Pz IVs to minimum 4.3 (implying an ideal 4.7) while there is a literal order of magnitude between their K/D positions in August…
The firefly has worse armor bad example
The Cast front plate is equal to 59.5mm of RHA and it still has that terrible weakspot
The reason why it’s at the BR that it’s at is because that’s the appropriate Battle Rating for a vehicle with it’s limited capabilities, it’s only got two things going for it: Penetration and reverse speed. Everything else it’s rivals do better.
- Pz IV F2: Fine at 3.3.
- Pz IV G: Fine at 3.3.
- Pz IV H: Fine at 3.7.
- Pz IV J: Overtiered, should be 3.3.
The T-34’s and M4 Shermans at equal BR’s are consistently better suited to the meta compared to the PzKpfw IV’s. As long as that is the case, these PzKpfw IV’s won’t see any BR increases.
And to reiterate: That’s not because of it’s players being worse.
It’s also disingenuous to blame it all on the playerbase whilst you yourself have never played the PzKpfw IV’s, let alone any of it’s rivals in the American, Russian, Italian, etc. etc. tech trees. You have no experience with any of the vehicles involved yet you’re confidently claiming to know what BR’s are appropriate.
8 Likes
Pz IV J is perfectly fine at 3.7 the other Pz’s should just go up and match the Chi To’s which are essentially 4.7 Pz IV’s
Cherry-picking the Japanese vehicles doesn’t make for a compelling argument.
By that logic every other 3.3 - 3.7 medium, including all of the M4’s, T-34’s, P40’s, Cromwells, etc. etc. would need to move upwards to match the Chi To’s and not just the PzKpfw IV’s.
In other words: You’ve got it backwards, it’s the Chi-To’s that (probably, I do not have any experience playing those) need to be lowered to match the BR’s of all other nations.
3 Likes
I say the Pz IVJ is good since im going 98 deaths and 258 kills with it and still use it at 4.7 because its a good vehicle. The Chi Tos i never played at 4.7 as i waited until i had the 5.0 Chi Ri II to spade them when i had a proper lineup.
Im going 15 deaths and 40 kills in the Chi To’s
Okay, so firstly: I don’t consider a 2.5 K/D particularly great at such a low BR.
Secondly: in isolation that means nothing. You could have a 5 - 1 K/D in a M4 Sherman which would still make the Pz IV J half as good at the same BR.
Thirdly: I’ve got a 6.4 - 1 K/D in my Pz IV G, that doesn’t change the fact that the T-34 and M4 are superior vehicles.
And lastly: K/D doesn’t even relate to my argument about the PzKpfw IV’s having nothing to offer aside from a slightly better reverse speed than it’s opposition and better pen values. Everything else about them is worse than it’s rivals.
Nobody said the Pz IV’s were bad.
What I’m saying is that the M4 and T-34 at the same BR are better. As long as that’s the case, there’s zero justification for the Pz IV’s moving up in BR.
5 Likes
Eh, id say the T34, were blatantly better. Im also not an avid Panzer IV user, id say the Sherman can be pretty git or miss given their pen and how their armor is set up id rather a Pz IV over a sherman. Definitely not a T34 though, those are just good all around vehicles imo, meh flat pen but some seriously busted angle pen. Id say the Pz IV sit just below the T34-57 and that vehicle is a proper monster at 4.7, id say more annoying thsn any KV-1 guven they have enough armor to stop most tanks while having good mobility and pen. Also the guns not too bouncy so i can usually hit my shots when i come to a stop quickly. Id say Pz IV should probably be 4.0-4.3
The M4 is kinda good but not so much at 4.0 since the armor doesn’t really get better and thers nothing special about them at that BR imo. If they had better pen maybe id say they were probably under BR’d but they are just kinda eh
2 Likes
Doesn’t change the fact that the Shermans are objectively much better vehicles.
Firepower? M4 Sherman.
Mobility? M4 Sherman.
Gun handling? M4 Sherman.
Armour? M4 Sherman.
Survivability? Tied.
3.3 - 3.7*
It objectively does, by a significant margin no less.
By the time you get to the 4.0 M4A2 variant, the UFP is covered with tracks that offer up to 134mm of protection, it no longer has the rounded hull and can effectively angle to the point that the Soviet 76mm guns stand virtually no chance of penetrating the hull and it’s turret armour is still double that of the Pz IV’s.
The M4A2 at 4.0 especially has massively superior armour protection compared to any PzKpfw IV variant.
I see this all the time (especially from people discussing top-tier), and I’ve got a common saying when it comes it this argument: ‘‘Poor/inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of raw pen values.’’.
The M4’s superior reload rate, 50. cal MG, stabilization and superior post-penetration damage outweigh the advantage of higher penetration, not to mention the fact that a M4’s penetration is still above average for it’s BR.
8 Likes
even mobility. better armour. equally good gun, trade 30mm of pen for a nuclear APHE is a bargain
1 Like
You know if you only say M4 you are talking about 2 M4’s the 3.7 called the M4, and the 4.0, the M4 still has the two massive holes that are easy to just punch through on their chassis. The Panzer IV imo is a bit more survivable imo compared to the shermans, i do good in both but you’re main argument seems more like you just want them to seal club rather than actual comparison, the reason id rather more pen is to deal with angle performance on the round which is why i prefer the Soviet 75 to the american 75. The Shermans are good but id never take them over the Pz IV because they are better but now im doing the same as you and just saying its better. Gun handling definitely goes to the Shermans but the round is definitely better on the Pz IV especially for handling uptiers. Mobility wise id say it depends on the Sherman as some are just terrible and others faurly solid.
Yeah idk why people say the Pz IV is bad, its got a gun capable of handling most uptiers with enough filler to nuke most tanks, also a very fast reload given its pen. The mobility is pretty meh but definitely not terrible.
3 Likes
i take it all the way to 5.3 and still stomp with it in uptiers. 4.7 would be fair considering what its actually proportional to.
1 Like