Excuse me? I never claimed that it had better armour, just the mobility to armour combination of it is better
it isnt tho think real hard one can angle and move to a point basically invunerable to enemy fire the other cant ? like most guns other than high pen guns like M10 and PZ4 75 will bounce off a angle churchill pZ4 has a decent chance to still bounce to same with m10 like its insane the armor of it
The Churchill’s MASSIVE weakspots glaring right at me:
like your point of the M4A1 at 3.3 makes no sense when both PZ4J/H are 3.7 same br as the M4 welded hull which can bounce the german 75 if you angle right but not guaranteed its still a chance your also faster have better top speed better acceleration. german panzer 4 has a good gun and decent armor and mediorce mobility compared to T34/M4
which have better armor better mobility and worse guns and M4 gets low speed STAB which gives you first shot of the bat T34 gets better armor than Sherman and PZ4 too make up for no STAB
like make it make sense
there smaller than panzer 4s and far easier to hide
Holy grammar. I just had a stroke and a half trying to read that. I genuinely don’t know what you’re attempting to say other than “You’re wrong”
The… the Sherman is smaller than a Panzer IV?
The Panzer IV series should not be anywhere near the M4A1 (76). That’s an outrageous suggestion. They’re worse than the Shermans at their BR.
3 Likes
the weak spots on the armor of the churchill
What about them…
Respectfully, ‘‘How it feels’’ is not a valid argument.
The mobility is factually superior on the Shermans. You can have personal feelings but as long as they’re not supported by any evidence, they can be dismissed without any evidence.
‘‘Tricky’’ ‘’ Volumetric’’
Here we go again with wishy washy terms that offer nothing measurable or substantive.
The turret armour alone is twice as effective on the Sherman compared to a Pz IV, that alone makes the Sherman much better protected, nevermind the fact that the hull is superior, especially on the M4 and the M4A2 (which also gets add-on tracks).
13 years here.
6 - 1 or 7 - 1 K/D’s in almost all of these vehicles. But that alone doesn’t prove my point, what proves my point is the actual hard data of the vehicles themselves.
1 Like
the weakspots on the churchill are easier to hide than the panzer 4
It is, it feels much sturdier at speeds and is a lot more stable
No matter how you position your Churchill there is always a significant weakspot present, unlike the Panzer IV, which BTW is much easier to conceal
again angle and your weakspot is gone
Uh… no… the Churchill’s track weakspot is always there and is always easily exploitable
Use a level 1 crew and forget everything you know about WT. Which is about the average Pz IV J enjoyer dragging it down the BR.
this applies to any average player at 3.7, except nobody actually plays the J so its where its probably supposed to be
1 Like
Nobody is ragebaiting you. Calm down child. You can’t call something ragebait for simply disagreeing with you.
Me not even going to give a sht about capital T:
Context comprehension :D
To everyone advocating that the Panzer 4s are fine where they are, please explain to me why they are fine sharing their BR with objectively inferior vehicles?
The F2 and G share their BR with the M10, which is bad enough as they’re very similar except with an actual turret drive, but then we look at tanks like the Chi-Nu. The Panzer 4s are faster, have a much better gun, better gun handling, better armor and a lower profile. The only advantage the Chi-Nu has is the generous amount of TNT equivalent, nice to have but in no way a game winning advantage.
Then there’s the Na-To. In order to get a gun anywhere close to the long 75mm, the Na-To gives up all armor, a turret, size, vulnerability to aircraft, mobility and survivability. For what possible reason would someone spawn a Na-To over a Panzer 4 F2/G? Just for the TNT filler?
IMO:
Put the J at 3.3. It’s effectively a sidegrade to the M10, trading the .50 and some mobility with better armor.
The F2 can go to 3.7.
The G goes to 4.0
And the H can go to either 4.0 or 4.3, depending on how things shake out.
3 Likes
M10’s gun is way better. The turret drive does suck but it is an SPG and not a medium tank. It also has slightly better armor than F2.
M4A1 is a better comparison since their guns are identical and it’s also 3.3. Except the Chi-Nu has worse armor, worse reload, no stabilizer, no .50cal, slower.
Na-To is a casemate SPG, no comparison. And the gun is much better than Pz IV’s, with much better angled pen and 3x the filler. This makes it so turret shots to other tanks will also often kill the hull crew too, no need to shoot twice most of the time.
Na-To is an M10 sidegrade, trading no turret and size for more mobility.
Everyone way overestimates the Pz IVs’ capabilities. They’re slow, everything can penetrate you, the turret is 50mm flat, slow to accelerate, very poor side armor. I would rather take an M4 in ~95% of situations where i’ll be far better served with armor, reload speed, post-penetration, a stabilizer, and mobility.
The only one that is really out of place is Pz IV G, it should be 3.7 along with H model. J had turret traverse buffed, but I haven’t played it since. Have no reason to play any of them when I have access to M4s in USA and China.