The best comparison to me is the M10.
It has a very similar gun, roughly similar armor and comparable mobility. The only differences are the lack of a roof (Making it very vulnerable to CAS and artillery) and a .50 cal.
Oh, right, and an actual turret drive. How is it at the same tier as the F2 and G? They’re practically identical in all other respects, but absolutely crush it on flexibility due to having an electric turret drive.
Also a good example, the Na-To. Gun and mobility are similar, but that’s about it. The Na-To is a giant, unarmored box with no turret or any roof armor. It is absolutely forced into the sniping role as a result (While being easily wiped by CAS), a role the Panzer IVs can fill even better than it can due to the turret.
Also worth mentioning, the YaG. Where to even start here? Worse gun (Albeit it faster reload and rangefinder). Effectively zero armor, coaxial MGs will wipe you. Appalling mobility. An incredibly awkward gun platform due to the dead zone forwards and back and a wheeled chassis, and even when you get it aligned properly you have to fight -3 degrees of gun depression.
All 3 of those tanks are 3.3, the same BR as the Panzer IVs which can do almost exactly what they can, just much more reliably.
IMO, here are the BRs that make sense.
3.3: Panzer IV J: No turret drive makes it very comparable to the M10.
3.7: Pz IV F2: Complete glass cannon armor makes it a credible sniper, but unreliable at closer ranges.
4.0: Pz IV G/H: The combo of improved armor with still very solid firepower would allow them to work fine here.
Frankly, you could argue me up to 4.0/4.3 for the turret drive equipped ones. But comparing them to the hilariously overtiered Chi-Tos is a bit of a false start. They need to come down regardless.

