Like I said, they’re pretty good at their current BRs (especially in a full downtier), but yes, they struggle even in a slight uptier.
The armour is quite useless against most things – with the UFP being the most armoured part and only being worth ~85mm.
The gun is the only reasonably good thing about it (though the TNT equivalent isn’t that great).
I think they are mostly fine at where they are, though the 2.7-3.7 area is somewhat compressed.
There isn’t much a B1 Bis / Ter can do against them… but the Panzer IV easily kills them.
I think the Chi-Nu II should be moved down to 4.0… as it’s only a slightly better Panzer IV H (and somewhat worse in other aspects).
The japanese guns have uncapped shells which perform drastically worse against angles/slopes. It does do more damage than the German 7.5cm but its actually worse against armor in practice.
I don’t find the Panzer IV worse than others in any drastic way. Its more mobile than Shermans. The armor works well enough, especially if you angle appropriately. The gun is of course amazing, the rotation speed of the turret is just fine.
The Tiger I is amazing. Short 88 is an amazing gun and when angled, basically unkillable until a 6.7 thing comes and bullies you. Don’t insult my Panzer VI
There’s no reliable way to angle it. The Panzer 4 has angled hull corners which become flat and extremely vulnerable if you angle the hull. Even if you angle it while using a building to hide the corner, you have to expose your 50mm turret to shoot at anything.
That the Panzer IV is a good and capable tank. As is usually the case, players have to construct a reason other than “skill issue” to explain why they do bad. Not helping the stereotype of german players being bad fellas!
The whole point is that the Panzer 4 does not have a box shaped hull like the Tiger 1 or T-34. When you angle the frontal armor it will expose the edges of the frontal hull where it curves inwards. Theres no reliable way to protect that area while also angling the frontal armor. You are just basically hoping that the enemy cant think or aim and will blindly hit the bit of the frontal plate that’s angled and not the rest of the armor that’s less angled than before.
The sponson plates are angled at 15° from the front.
The tank itself can only be angled at 12° before the sponson plates start to be less effective than the front plate. Once the tank is angled at 20°, the sponson plates become susceptible to most rank I vehicles. 30° and it becomes susceptible to all rank I vehicles that haven’t been removed. 40° and it’s on the brink of being able to penetrated by the Ha-Go.
@OctopusDaddy is right that there’s no reliable way to angle it, not if you want to maintain an effective cover. You might be able to get away from 20° against newbies, but by 30° the side is a larger target than the front. 12° is the absolute best angle to maintain it, but that only increases the effective thickness of the upper frontal plate to a staggering 81-86 mm.
i completely agree just replayed them there basically a little better than M4A1 thats it armor is worse in my opinon than any M4 model excluding the cast hull
there fine where they are as for most matches i seemed to 4.0 to 4.3 at best angle you can get roughly 100mm out of your front plate with add on armor and majority of tanks at this rank pen roughly that yall complain to much and if you hit the side instead of front plate your armor is 49mms
if your having tuff time with it just shoot the side if it angles its way weaker than most 4.7s i could kill it in a stuart
Did you even read it? There’s no way to angle properly. The best way to angle any Pz. IV is to not angle it at all, unless you can find a non-penetrable barrier to cover the thin side, but that’s highly situational and something that can really only be done defensively rather than offensively. The hull of the Pz. IV is just not built for angling like most tanks that have sloped sponson plates.
