Well, they are not. The long barreled StuGs for the longest time had even a higher BR, simply because the Pz IV is only good when you play it like a StuG, sniping from range.
Sure you are better at brawling then a StuG but every other tank is still better then the Pz IV.
The real topic is why the Italian Pz IV G is 3.7 and the German 3.3.
And I guess the answer is: They are not the same vehicle but so similiar that they could be.
But it’s also the question why the T-34 1941 is the same BR as the 1942.
The 1942 is clearly better.
It probably makes little difference whether the Pz IV G is 3.3 or 3.7.
But 9/10 times a T-34 will target a Pz IV first.
The T-34 is simply much more mobile in addition to the much faster turret traverse.
So it’s really more about: “If the T-34 doesn’t notice me, I can penetrate his armor and take him out.”
While for the T-34 it’s more like: “I can push out and shoot the Pz IV before he can shoot me.”
It makes a massive difference. Don’t underestimate a 3.3 and 3.7 gap. It looks like a small gap of 1 BR bracket, but what makes 3.7 so much worse than 3.3 is ability to go against 4.7
4.7 is the most played BR of rank III and anything from 3.7 - 4.3 range is just in a constant uptier loop. Not to mention that you can find a tone of very oppresive tanks at that BR such as T-14 or Churchill VII whose sole point of existance is bullying lower BR enemies.
Also Pz IVs are better than StuGs and deserve to have same BR exactly because of what you’ve just said.
You will play them very similarly most of the time, but with Pz IV you are not limited to do so. You are much more versatile. You can do the same things as StuG, but you can also do other things a StuG wouldn’t be as effective at.
T-34 can only allow itself to push out if the Pz IV didn’t notice it earlier either. If a T-34 pushes a pre aimed Pz IV he definitely isn’t the greatest player of all time
You got it completely backwards. The gun of M4A1 (75mm M3) is objectively superior to that of Pz IV F2 / G.
Difference in velocity is meaningless because it is only 122 m/s. At that battle rating, you rarely make any shots beyond 800 m. If people frequently shot at each other from 800 m at 3.3 br, you would be right because Pz IV preserves its penetration better than Sherman. That gun is good for 4.3, not for 3.3. Different guns for different situations.
Penetration is meaningless because at that battle rating, both tanks can penetrate every enemy they face. Churchill has a weak spot at the top of its turret and KV series tanks have very vulnerable LFP. So Sherman doesn’t lose anything by having lower penetration but gets several, much more impactful benefits. If Sherman and Pz IV had higher br, the penetration would matter. Currently the pen is overkill on Pz IV. Penetration matters even less when you account for barrel shots. Simply shooting a heavy tanks barrel and going for the side shot solves most of your problems. You would be right if we were talking about T-34, it has just too low pen in my opinion and Sherman has the better gun. You might say: Why? The difference between Pz IV and Sherman is bigger than the difference between Sherman and T-34! Yes but this isn’t actually about differences, it is about thresholds. Compared to Sherman, Pz IV gives up too much damage for very little gain in terms of what new enemies you can pen that you couldn’t before. T-34 gets a lot of filler but now you can’t pen many enemies you face.
However,
The explosive filler matters a lot. The Sherman gets twice the filler Pz IV gets. This alone would make it a better gun compared to what Pz IV gets. Many people think filler doesn’t matter because they imagine themselves always hitting the enemy gunner and immediately moving in for the kill. That’s not how it works out. What if you are facing multiple enemies? What if you misremember the position of the gunner and shoot the loader instead? What if you aim too low and hit the hull instead? More HE = Higher chances of killing the whole crew in one shot or a fragment to end up hitting the ammo rack. Trust me, try both tanks and the difference in gun damage is just day and night. If I could switch Sherman’s gun with the 75mm of Pz IV while keeping the 12.7 mm, I wouldn’t. The damage is that bad.
Reload matters a lot in every scenario. It doesn’t matter if you reload only 1 second faster, it is still faster. That means if both fired at the same time, Sherman will have a full second to aim and shoot before Pz IV can reload. Reload is very important, more than penetration in my opinion, that is one of the reasons why Char 25t is so high up in br. You will regularly face multiple enemies. Your shell will be eaten by volumetric. Having another shell ready to go asap is important.
Stabilizer matters too and you didn’t even mention it. You can put your tank in CC1-2 and your gun will act as if it is fully stabilized. You can use this to close the distance without any penalty to your accuracy. Yes, you will be slow but you only use it when you are approaching an enemy anyway. It has another benefit: When you hit the breaks, your gun will be stabilized and ready to shoot near instantly. Whereas for other tanks, you have to wait for it to stop swaying.
The 12.7 mm gun is also a deadly weapon. At 3.3 battle rating you face plenty of targets that can be penetrated by it. Especially Pumas, you can just hold space bar and they disappear. It also deals heavy damage to CAS. Marder series, Zis/SU series tank destroyers, every single milk truck and most SPAA die to this quickly.
And I want to mention another thing: Sherman has a much better turret armor and that armor is angled. Turret armor > hull armor and this applies every time. Because you can hide your hull by going hull down but you will never ever be able to hide the frontal armor of your turret from the enemy. All you can do is angle it while reloading (which doesn’t work because Pz IV’s turret side armor is too weak) but then what? You are just stuck like that. If you rotate your turret to shoot, they will just hit you first because it isn’t angled anymore. This makes Pz IV much less survivable. 50mm turret armor without any angles is just a no go. Most reserve tanks can penetrate it. Pretty much any tank at 2.3-4.3 br range will cut through that turret like butter.
Difference in velocity matter a lot, because it’s you who partially dictates the range of engagement. If you play in a way that will make you be further from your enemies, you will make a great use of it. Penetration is also meaningfull, especially in uptiers.
KV-1 series? Vulnerable lower front plate? What? you never shoot KV-1’s lower front plate unless he is driving over an obstacle. The correct place to shoot at is the turret (whenever you want with Pz IV, or unangled only with sherman)
Also all churchills besides mk VII have huge weakspot on the hull so they are meaningless. Only the Mk VII variant matters and this one sherman is incapable of penetrating even into the roof most of the time.
Barell shots since Gajin updated gun models to hardly ever be destroyed with 1 shot from american 75 became very unreliable and are still much harder to pull of than a center mass shot from Pz IV that instantly deletes the enemy.
Of course they still work, but now are way harder to pull off as sometimes you will need more than 1 shot to destroy the barell frontally and it may cost you your life
Read the whole conversation. The gun does create a downwards angle, but at close ranges below 100m. He showed a picture of T-34 at point blank range, that’s why i brought it up.
And KV-1 L-11 is not immune to Pz IV by any means. You just never shoot a well angled hull. It’s as simple as that. And tell me, how often will you find an enemy that perfectly angles up to every single degree? Yeah, never.
KV-1 L-11 is a swiss cheese with Pz IV’s gun. Just aim at the turret.
Better turret is the exact reason why KV-1E is so busted. Because it takes away the best weakspot to shoot at you can find on a KV tank
No, I addressed your reply to me.
What you said to me is just plain and simple wrong. The chart shows exactly how it’s wrong with factual data to back it up.
I’m getting the distinct feeling I’m talking to a wall.
The very comment you just replied to addressed that argument, including with two hard-to-miss screenshots showing even a poorly angled KV-1 is still immune to the Pz IV.
Shooting the turret doesn’t change the fact that A) It’s a volumetric nightmare, and B) That it’s still a massively smaller target than what the Pz IV presents to a KV-1.
Except both of your shots were aimed at the places you never shoot the KV-1 at. Also, i have a weird feeling that if your mouse was moved more to the front of the tank on the 1st screenshot where the angle is smaller you would butcher that KV.
A) Also, no, it’s not a volumetric nightmare like T-34 1942. KV-1’s turret eats everything, only sides of mantlet create volumetric effect. I’ve never had any issues with penetrating an L-11 with Pz IV into the turret, because unlike in T-34 1942 (assuming you can’t just pen his hull) you aren’t forced to shoot anywhere near the volumetric areas vertically.
B) well, no crap, a Pz IV is a sniper medium tank and KV-1 is a frontilne heavy, who would have thought a frontline heavy will have much stronger armor?
Okay, I’m becoming a broken record because you’re not reading my replies or it’s content.
You refuse to read the chart I’ve provided you with, that explains in-detail how the angle of the camera and position of the cursor doesn’t matter due to basic trigonometry. Others have also pointed out the ‘‘Consider camera vertical angle’’ feature and why it’s important.
If you prefer to stick your head into the sand and remain ignorant, that’s fine, but I’ll just stop replying from here on.
What? Are you dumb? at 500m vertical angle of camera indeed doesn’t matter, but horizontal one is a whole different story.
If enemy angles and you stand in front of him, the further towards the back of enemy tank you aim, the higher the angle and just as well, the closer you aim to the front of him, the lower the impact angle will be.
You don’t need to be a genius to understand that. You try to shoot at the lowest possible angle to increase the chance of penetration. That 1st screen of KV-1 certainly isn’t done like that.
That is completely ignoring the fact that you need to be a smoothbrain to shoot at angled KV-1’s hull to begin wuth
I’d 100% take a BR increase to the german Pz IVs if they were moved to rank 3 like the premium Pz IV J and G. Then they’d be useful for events, and I think that’s the difference lol.
" Thecommunication range of +/- 2 standard deviationsor 30 IQ points (60 points total) has originally been suggested by researcher Leta Hollingworth and popularized by Grady M. Towers, Michael J. Ferguson and Darryl Miyaguchi. It denotes the range of difference on intelligence between two individualswhere meaningful human interaction is possible. Note the word “meaningful”. *Not all human interaction is “meaningful”.
If you have nothing more interesting to say, then don’t reply anymore.
Just don’t aim at the stupidest possible spot and there goes all of that “immunity”
Regardless of whether you use the consider vertical angle or not, the reult won’t change. You know why? Because i am not creating any vertical angle here what so ever. Just as i’ve said, at such distance, vertical angle won’t matter. But horizontal one will
Panzer IV G you say? I made a post recently that sadly was canceled about Leopard 2 a4 being op as hell. This thing is just blatantly unfair for 9.3 palyers and superior to any 10.3 ingame. If shitty merkavas mk 3 can be 11.0 this thing can be put to 10.7 or 11.0 even, with a better round of. I just can’t take anymore fighting this monstrosity every game, they are so damn mobile and as if this wasn’t enough it’s a sturdy tank difficult to kill, they seem not to have any weakness really.
Leopard 2A4 is ‘alright’.
It’s got poor protection, great mobility, great gun handling, average firepower and average survivability.
I suspect you’d change you mind if you played it yourself, ‘‘Grass is always greener on the other side’’ and such.
But I’m not sure what this has to do with the PzKpfw IV G though?
Nothing, just pointing out another german tank that is undertiered imo. At 11 with a better round could become a german type 90, at least it won’t ruin 9.3 for others. It’s hands down the most annoying tank to face at 9.3-9.7.
Neither are undertiered.
I’ve explained why the Pz IV G isn’t undertiered in detail, but I’ll summarize by saying the M4’s and T-34’s are better suited to the meta than the Pz IV’s are.
The Pz IV J is also overtiered.
That makes no sense at all.
11.0 is M1A1 territory, and an M1A1 will curbstomp a Leopard 2A4 all day, every day (even if it had a better round).
10.3 is where the Leopard 2A4 belongs because it’s average there, and also where it closest equals (T-80B, Object 292, M1 Abrams, M1 KVT, Ariete, Challenger Mk3) sit.
11.0 would be appropriate for a Leopard 2A4 C technologie (improved armour) with DM33 APFSDS instead of DM23 APFSDS, and even then it’s arguable whether that’d make it a 10.7 or 11.0 vehicle.
