Fundamentally the problem is that the Panzer 4 is a very good gun on a tank of average mobility along with dubious armour. If people played it like a glass cannon then it’d be fine and it could (and in my opinion) should probably get a BR bump. I’m less sure on the H and J but the F2 and G should absolutely get BR bumps up.
2 Likes
it’s a good tank, principally a glass cannon (like @Firestarter said) and it should be played as one.
even if it can tank some shots from time to time and can penetrate most tanks, it’s not a heavy tank and should not be played as one.
It’s not ragebait at all. I’ve just genuinely been enjoying the Panzer IV Ausf. J in a lineup with the KV-1 (1942) and it got me thinking about how it performs relative to its BR. That’s where the question came from, not frustration.
Seeing how split the responses are kind of proves the point. Half the comments argue it’s perfectly fine or even strong, while the other half call it one of the worst vehicles compared to the Sherman and T-34. When opinions are that polarized, it usually means the vehicle is very playstyle-dependent rather than objectively broken in one direction.
At this point I’m mostly just observing the discussion^^ It’s clear it’s not really going anywhere productive, but I still think it’s interesting how differently people evaluate the same tank depending on how they use it. or look at it :p
3 Likes
do u have any tips for playing Sweden lowtier? using the rank II tanks is a hell
Here’s my take. The Pz.IVs, T-34s, and M4s are the most meta-defining medium tanks at this rank. You can’t move around one of them without at least giving some thought to the other two. I think examples of all 3 famlies do need some adjustment to give 3.3 some breathing room.
Panzer IVs
Pz.IV Ausf.F2
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_F2
- Nothing
The Ausf.F2 is pretty alright where it is. The armor is poor enough to offset having such a high performance gun at this BR. It has less trouble penning most vehicles, but most vehicles can pen it in turn.
Pz.IV Ausf.G
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_G
- Ground RB BR: 3.3 → 3.7
- Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Aside from worse penetration, the Ausf.G isn’t that much of a step down compared to the Ausf.H. If anything, the lower weight and higher top speed make it slightly more useable than the Ausf.H in uptiers.
The addition of the flat-nosed Pzgr.40(W) APBC round would give it an option for dealing with the sloped armor of T-34s more reliably thanks to the improved angle performance of flat-nosed rounds.
Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Pz.IV Ausf.G (L/48)
it_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_G
- Ground RB BR: 3.7 → 4.0
- Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
- Add Gr.38 Hl/C (HEAT)
Because of the L/48, the Italian Ausf.G is no worse than the Ausf.H in any meaningful manner, so it should also go up to 4.0. Similarly the the standard Ausf.G, the lower weight and higher top speed make it slightly more useable than the Ausf.H in uptiers.
The addition of the flat-nosed Pzgr.40(W) APBC round would give it an option for dealing with the sloped armor of T-34s more reliably thanks to the improved angle performance of flat-nosed rounds.
It should also have the option to use the superior Gr.38 Hl/C HEAT round, with the Gr.38 Hl/B round becoming a Rank I modification. This wouldn’t strongly affect balance, so there’s no reason to arbitrarily limit it to the less useful HEAT round.
Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Gr.38 Hl/C (HEAT)
Panzer IV Ausf.H
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_H
- Ground RB BR: 3.7 → 4.0
- Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
- Add Gr.38 Hl/C (HEAT)
I’m not sure I’d put the Pz.IV H as high as 4.3. It’s undertiered at 3.7 for sure, but it is still quite sluggish and isn’t that well armored aside from the front hull. 4.0 seems like an ok spot for now where it will stay competitive, and won’t overshadowed other vehicles.
The addition of the flat-nosed Pzgr.40(W) APBC round would give it an option for dealing with the sloped armor of T-34s more reliably thanks to the improved angle performance of flat-nosed rounds.
It should also have the option to use the superior Gr.38 Hl/C HEAT round, with the Gr.38 Hl/B round becoming a Rank I modification. This wouldn’t strongly affect balance, so there’s no reason to arbitrarily limit it to the less useful HEAT round.
Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Gr.38 Hl/C (HEAT)
Pz.IV Ausf.J & Pz.Bef.Wg.IV Ausf.J
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_J
germ_panzerbefelhswagen_IV_ausf_J
- Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
- Add Gr.38 Hl/C (HEAT)
The Ausf.J is in a pretty good spot as is. If the Ausf.H going up to 4.0, it would actually serve a purpose. Rather than being in the Ausf.H’s shadow as an inferior variant, it would get to have a nice dichotomy with the more mobile Ausf.G.
The addition of the flat-nosed Pzgr.40(W) APBC round would give it an option for dealing with the sloped armor of T-34s more reliably thanks to the improved angle performance of flat-nosed rounds.
It should also have the option to use the superior Gr.38 Hl/C HEAT round, with the Gr.38 Hl/B round becoming a Rank I modification. This wouldn’t strongly affect balance, so there’s no reason to arbitrarily limit it to the less useful HEAT round.
Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Gr.38 Hl/C (HEAT)
T-34 (1940)
T-34 (1940)
ussr_t_34_1941_l_11
- Ground RB BR: 3.3 → 3.7
- Reload Speed: 9.3-7.1 s → 9.0-6.9 s
- Add BR-350B (MD-8 fuze) (APHEBC)
The T-34 (1940) excels in pretty much every aspect. The solid armor all-round, great mobility, fast turret traverse, and high post-pen damage allow it to be very aggressive and dominate in slight downtiers. Adding the BR-350B APHEBC round with better penetration (~87 mm like the KV-1E) would address this T-34’s main limitation of penetration, allowing it to be moved up in BR. Gajin could always still add the A-32 if they want a T-34-esque tank at 3.3.
M4 Shermans
M4A1
us_m4a1_1942_sherman
fr_m4a1_sherman
- Ground RB BR: 3.3 → 3.7
- Correct the armor model
The 75 mm M3 gun is arguably one of the best guns in its general BR range due to its combination of stabilization, decent penetration, and good post-pen damage. Against lower BR vehicles, the M4A1 is essentially playing a point-and-click game. All the while, it still has sufficient armor across most of the front to resist poorly aimed shots.
The only thing holding the M4A1 back from going up is the dated armor model, which makes the hull front roof and corners more exploitable as weak points, which is not historically correct. The Sherman II, which is just a British M4A1, has a much more historical and up-to-date armor model, and it is currently sitting comfortably at 3.7.
M4A3 (105)
us_m4a3_105_sherman
fr_m4a3_105_sherman
- Ground RB BR: 3.0 → 3.3
- Add T24E1 (APHEBC)
I’ve always felt it was silly for the M4A3 (105) to be placed so low despite being a late-war Sherman. Being basically a Rank II Jumbo, it’s quite difficult to handle for most equal BR vehicles. A large limitation of this Sherman that keeps it at its current BR is the ammunition pool. The HE round can destroy most low rank vehicles with some aiming, and the HEAT round has more than enough penetration to deal with any higher BR heavy tank. But neither round is quite consistent enough in terms of damage, which makes the long reload more punishing when the shells inevitably decide to not cooperate.
Fortunately, there were many rounds made for the US 105 mm that could make it more consistent. T24E1 APHEBC was an experimental round that would have a fair 84~87 mm of penetration at 10 m in-game, and more than enough filler to overpressure, giving the M4A3 (105) a means of reliably one-shotting many medium and lightly armored vehicles.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/7dkgoq/arming_105_mm_m4_howitzer_with_ap_the_t24e1_apbche/
??
This angle is all it takes for the hull to be immune to a Pz IV G’s gun at 600 metres distance:
For a Pz IV H this angle is already sufficient:
None of this is true.
You’re under a very, very common misconception, a misconception that has popped up for years and years across many players, hence why I took the time to create a handy reference that explains how to properly use the tool:
3 Likes
It’s just pointless to argue with someone who knows he is right.
Your not going to change the opinion on someone who knows the world is a sphere and then telling them it’s pointless to argue with them.
After playing the game for thousands of hours you know which metrics are important and which are overrated.
New players only compare two vehicles and determine that one must be better than the other, while veterans know that you have to look at the whole picture.
Meaning you need to look at all opponents and the environment to see how well a vehicle can do in a match.
2 Likes
None of this is true.
You still have to point the camera from the angle of the turret. Unless you’re using something like the ASU-57, there will ALWAYS be a downward angle if you’re firing from flat ground. The images you showed are still from the perspective of a Pz. IV that’s sitting lower than the T-34, where the gun is level with the hull rather than the turret. It’s still exaggerating how effective the hull of the T-34 actually is.
Edit: The shell is literally going upwards with the extreme angle you’ve put the camera at.
Not sure what your point is here.
Not any harder than the front of a T-34 (1940)'s turret.
I’m under no obligation to do what you tell me to do.
Me playing the vehicles today also has absolutely no relation to any of the points raised.
All of my matches in the Sherman III/IV are very recent given that I purchased it during the Christmas sales.
I’m currently on a 7.7 - 1 K/D ratio, and that includes two disconnects due to crappy internet. This thing regularly faces Pz IV H’s given it shares the same BR, and Pz IV H’s are among the easiest tanks to deal with.
It’s not about the thickness of the armour.
But putting that aside for the moment, surely you didn’t expect the wooden logs on the back of some vehicles to be equal to 100mm of steel, correct?
Regardless, my point stands and the turret front of a Pz IV H is only 66mm including the portions covered by tracks. That means a M4A1 can penetrate the front of a Pz IV H at 1800 metres distance.
2 Likes
Please read the chart again, you’ve not understood it.
This is basic trigonometry. The Hangar only allows us to zoom out to a distance of a couple of metres, obviously, tanks do not fight at a average combat distance of 20 metres.
This is why a camera placement that more accurately represents an average of 500m is needed, and that means placing the camera level with the centre of the hull.
You can disagree all you want, but the math doesn’t change. 0.07° is entirely negligible and that’s why the turret height can be ignored.
2 Likes
But it isn’t only 0.07°. It’s also shell-drop, and the angle you’ve put the camera at literally causes the shell to go upwards from the camera perspective. I perfectly understand the chart, it’s just that the chart is crap and doesn’t take into account shell drop. A flat-on near 0° angle is impossible with munitions as slow as the Pz. IV’s, without it sitting lower than the T-34 to start with.
You grossly overestimate the degree to which shell drop plays a factor.
Go and hop into a test drive, bind your scroll wheel to Sight Distance Control.
Take a look at the vehicle from the side, then scroll to around 1000 metres of elevation, watch how little the gun moves.
Shell drop at that distance is entirely negligible.
3 Likes
It’s not negligible enough to make the shell go perfectly flat-on to the hull.
Of course not, but 0.14° is so incredibly minor, that you don’t even have the fine controls over the camera in the Armour Analysis Tool to replicate such a minor difference, that’s why you pick the next best thing, which is a completely flat angle.
2 Likes
It is. It will hardly change the impact angle by 1° even at 1000m or more.
Here, that’s 1° up, 1° down. Range 1700m.
0.5° would get you like 900m range.
3 Likes
And if the math/graphs don’t do it, here’s just a plain and simple test, Pz IV G firing PzGr 39 at a distance of 450 metres against a minimally angled T-34:
3 Likes
Oh. I didn’t know that was a thing. I stand corrected, then, but that doesn’t change much from my original post. It just changes the angle from 28 degrees to 24 degrees, while the angle the side can be penetrated remains the same.
1 Like
What? The Pz. IV can still easily penetrate the T-34. It doesn’t need to be moved up or needs to be moved down, it’s perfectly balanced where it is already.