I want you to tell me what the pz4h does better than any 4.3 tank
Than any 4.3? Can’t because they all have their own quirks and weaknesses, however it’s penetration and explosive filler along with mobility/armour make it better than Churchill iiis, cannon is better than any Russian cannon at that BR (Aside the SU-85A, in which case it’s slightly worse due to the angled performance, but has mobility and armour over it).
I think what you should be asking is what’s comparable to the Panzer IV at that BR, Sherman VC is, however has a better gun and as such is higher. T-34-57 is on par however has more mobility and armour so it’s higher, Avenger is similar but with better gun/mobility so it’s at a higher BR, Chi-Nu ii is essentially the same thing at 4.3,
Why would they need to go up when they’re already inferior to their opposition in the form of the T-34 and M4?
Now you’re making even less sense.
The PzKpfw IV Ausf. J is worse than the Ausf. G, why would it be at a higher BR?
The Ausf. J should be 3.3 alongside the F2 and G.
The Ausf. H being a higher BR than a T-34E, M4A2, Sherman III/IV or T-34 STZ makes absolutely no sense.
You’re just cherry-picking the one singular tank with the worst post-pen damage and then only comparing it against that specific model.
The P40, T-34 1940, M4A1, Chi-Nu, PvKv IV and Sherman II all have superior post-penetration damage to a Pz IV.
Try to compare any of them in a pros and cons list here to the pz 4
I am asking about medium tanks at 4.0-4.7, not heavy tanks. It is also debatable if it is better.
How is it inferior? They have different playstyles and use-cases that’s all
No, the Ausf. J has a punchier cannon with the L/48 (iirc), making it better for the Panzer IVs playstyle
No, it is better at range, and if you play it like that it’s not touchable by the Sherman/T-34
Yes but bar the Chi-Nu they all have worse cannons overall
No, it’s, definitely fine at 5.0, it has more than competitive penetration, average maneuverability, small size, and lighter armor.
Haha
Sure.
No.
Yes.
Is this a PRO?
M4A1 76mm is strictly superior at the same BR, case closed.
Please read my posts correctly.
I said that the Sherman has superior ‘‘overall firepower’’, which it does.
I did not state that the Sherman has superior penetration, penetration is a part of the overall firepower picture, but it is not the only part.
- Reload rate? M4A1.
- Stabilization? M4A1.
- Post-penetration damage? M4A1.
- Penetration? Pz IV G.
- Secondary armament? M4A1.
There’s a common saying that I repeat quite often: ‘‘Poor/inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of flat pen values’’.
I’m afraid it’s applicable here too, the M4A1 Sherman does not struggle to penetrate it’s opponents, meanwhile it fires faster, fires the shot first, has the highest likelihood of one-shotting the opponent and also gains the 50. cal with which it shreds aircraft, SPAA and anything light skinned with ease.
All of these contribute to the M4’s having better overall firepower.
I’m afraid that facts aren’t on your side.
And I’m being generous by selecting one of the lighter PzKpfw IV’s here, I could’ve also selected the Ausf. H, Ausf. J or Befehls IV.
2 Likes
2mm of penetration at 60 degrees at 1000m is not gonna make a difference, nor is the 6mm of flat penetration.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to claim that a 6mm pen difference warrants a 0.3 - 0.7 BR increase.
Mobility? T-34.
Gun handling? M4A1.
Armour? M4A1 and T-34.
Firepower? M4A1.
Survivability? Roughly equal.
The PzKpfw IV’s have nothing going for them except flat penetration and reverse speed being a few km/h better.
That’s not to say they’re bad tanks, they can do just fine but it comes with the caveat that the playstyle is limited by their inherent drawbacks, that makes them less versatile and less suited to the meta compared to the T-34 and M4.
2 Likes
T-34 mobility is better than the Panzer IV, but the Panzer IV has a better cannon and better mobility than the Sherman
M4A1 has better gun handling than the Panzer IV but the Panzer IV has a better cannon, also T-34 has worse both
No. I’d rather take the trolly volumetrics and tracks over the M4A1, and the T-34 just has better armour than both
German 75mm clears both the American M3 and the Russian 76
Agreed, with T-34 slightly taking the edge
1 Like
Firepower is superior for the M4A1, refer to my comment above for further detail.
Outright false, again, refer to my comment above for proof.
Regardless of whether you think the T-34’s armour is better than the M4A1’s, the fact remains that they both have superior armour to a PzKpfw IV.
I’ll once again say: ‘‘Poor/inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of flat pen values’’.
There’s numerous aspects to firepower, stop hyper fixating on pure flat pen values.
M4A1 fires first guaranteed thanks to the stabilization, it reloads faster, deals much greater post-pen damage and shreds anything light-skinned with it’s 50.cal.
All of that out-weighs the singular advantage of the Pz IV in the form of penetration.
This is a compression problem, it’s not really fair for a 2.7 vehicle to be fighting a panzer IV J or H, and considering a lot of 2.7 lineups still have 2.3 or 2.0 vehicles in them, it gets even worse.
Blatantly false. Try again.
Overall it is but the Panzer IV has a better cannon, I would rather take the better cannon due to my playstyle
It’s better in my opinion because of how it feels when maneuvering at speeds, I personally like it more
I was stating the Panzer IV’s trolly volumetrics and tricky track armour, and yes the T-34 has obviously better armour than both, but Panzer IV clears Shermans in armour aside from the Composite
I’m not inexperienced, I have been playing this game for 7 years. Also, I’m not overrating the performance of flat pen values. I’m talking about everything from velocity to pen to drop to overall feel
I’m not
I’m sorry, I don’t have the time or energy to entertain you right now.
1 Like
Translation: I’m wrong, but I’m going to send a little quip on the way out to try and save face.
No where close to same armor a churchill has 90mms of armor all over front and can angle and the 57 has more pen than the 75mm on the sherman just a little less than what the PZ4H has while it is solid shot is spalls well and reloads quick
No, really?
i know im just telling you how bad that other guy is
my reaction to someone comparing a heavy tank to a medium in armor
Spoiler
