Should the Panzer IV (H / J) move up to 4.0 / 4.3?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
226

The stabilizer is accurately modeled, it’s just that everything else isn’t and if everything else was accurately modeled then gameplay would be pretty crap.

Tank crews were still trained to stop before firing because even with the stabilizer, it would’ve been difficult or just outright impossible for crews to get the gun on target because, unlike in-game, the gunner can’t just point an invisible reticle onto their target and expect the turret to automatically rotate. This already meant that fire-on-the-move was only theoretically possible on flat ground, since any rough terrain would require the turret to be constantly rotated to keep on-target, but even then you have the issue of them actually looking through the sight while moving. Again, that isn’t an issue in-game, but in reality tanks aren’t exactly smooth rides and they can could easily be bumped up and down from debris on the ground. Any braking would also likely throw the gunner off from looking through the sight.

227

A few more words on current Pz IV/Stug III/Turan III vs Sherman balance.

Stug IIIG: it’s a ton of weakspots upon weakspots.
The gun is nice, it just took me 3 penetrating shots and 5 shots total to take out Sherman III/IV from a few hundred meters (he was mostly moving).
Sherman II casually 1-shot me. Another game, another 1-shot.
Stug IIIG is 4.0 because it has armor.
Which is hilarious, as aiming exactly in the middle allows for EZ penetration vs paper early mantlet because for whatever reason, this is an early Stug IIIG.

Same match, fired 3 times at M10’s turret from 1200m away. Result? Broke his breech. 0 crew damage, as 2 shots were bounces.

Same M10 would have absolutely deleted Pz IV/Turan III at the same distance by hitting it virtually ANYWHERE.

Again, why would anyone even consider moving Pz IV up, when at 4.0 they get curbstomped simply because the enemy has more armor than they can penetrate reliably, while also having better gun handing and ROF.

Pz IV would be 4.0 material if it had A STABILISER. That would even the odds, a bit, because M4A2 would still be superior vs anything but frontally engaging KV-1 Zis (non-advisable in Pz IV anyway, since KV-1 1-shots you and you don’t exactly 1-shot KV-1, M4A2 on the other hand facerolls KV-1 into oblivion).

The only scenario in which Pz IV goes up is if all Shermans go up, T-34s go up too. M4A2 can happily engage Soviet 4.7 heavies on equal terms. Actually I think it has a huge advantage in a frontal engagement.
Penetration code needs to get more realistic, so idiotic bounces are less common, which would benefit German gun a lot.
But still - in all of these hilly and city maps Sherman wins.
Actually there’s no setting where Pz IV wins, as long range it can’t really hurt 3.7 M4 reliably, while all M4 has to do is hit Pz IV turret.

Thanks to magical perfect stabiliser, which basically works like a 2-plane modern one at 23km/h, one can accurately fire at insane ranges in WT.
It was NOWHERE near as good IRL, it was nice for quick stop shots and short range firing. In WT it’s perfectly good for sniping.

Highly doubt it was mechanically anywhere near as precise as in WT.
Also the fact it’s single plane basically means nothing in WT, as the tanks have insane lateral stability in this game.

2 Likes
228

A lot of people don’t realize that the gun mantlet was changed to 50mm and you can just kill it with a BT-5.

2 Likes
229

Highly doubt it was mechanically anywhere near as precise as in WT.

The gyrostabilizer kept targets within 1 mil of where it had been set and gunnery manuals mention that, while only intending to be done in emergencies due to how inaccurate it would be, the gyrostabilizer could be used to effectively aim and fire the gun at targets up to 600 yards away. The only reason it seems so uncannily precise in WT is because all guns are uncannily precise. Guns constantly update their elevation and azimuth onto where the reticle is, sometimes both at the same time depending on how high the gunner’s Targeting skill is leveled, regardless if it was even possible to move both at the same time. That constant updating wouldn’t have been possible in real-life, both because the gunner would both have to target within the FoV of the gunner’s sight in the first place, either taking directions from the commander and/or using his periscope (if he has one), and because constantly making small adjustments like that would have been exhausting.

The role of the gyrostabilizer was mainly to allow the tank to fire almost immediately after stopping by circumventing part of the aiming which could be handled on-the-move. On-the-move firing was mainly prevented due to what I stated in the last reply; the gunner’s couldn’t keep their eyes on their sights while traveling over rough terrain due to a combination of the gyrostabilizer constantly moving the sight away from their eye and due to whatever bumps causing the gunner himself to be moved around. That goes back to the uncanny accuracy that tanks have in-game, as this is something that would affect every tank.

So it has nothing to do with it having a magical perfect stabilizer. It has everything to do with it, and every tank in-game, having magical perfect crewmen that can aim guns with uncanny precision.

3 Likes
230

The question is, is it really so easy for a Sherman or a T-34 to stop a KwK 39 bullet so easily?

231

with open-top roof that gets clapped with 50mm HE in UFP (and even 75mm HEAT that exploded NEAR the tank) and any 7.62 plane out there, and with less mobile turret i can easilly see that. Lets not pretend that M10 is in any way better than Panzer IV.

Say how it is fair to have Chi-Nu 1 and IV F2 at the same BR and we`ll stop if its a fair reason. But as for now the bigger picture is german players suck, so their tanks are undertiered.

I started my career in WT with IV H with a GuP livery, that tank made my day back then. And it wasnt struggle at any point. T-34s didnt suddenly become stronger, nor IV H did become weaker. But somehow them are now on different BRs.

232

Say how it is fair to have Chi-Nu 1 and IV F2 at the same BR

It isn’t. The Chi-Nu should be 3.0.

233

and then you tell me to look a bigger picture. WHile fail to understand that most tanks that rely on armor at lower BRs get clapped with undertirered germans. So having them breath at least in downtieres is the bigger picture.

234

Either that or the Pz IV should be higher.

235

No. The Chi-Nu takes the worst aspects of all of the 3.3 mediums and combines them into one. It should be 3.0 and it’s a horrible example to point to as an excuse to move the Pz. IVs up.

1 Like
236

Would love to hear them

I didnt like playing it as much as i liked playing the T-34-40 but id say i liked it more than P40 or Cromwell with 75mm.
Chi-Nu 1 has decent APHEs (P40, t-34-40 have worse), it has some mobility (again, P40 has worse) but lacks armor (tho its the same as Cromwell V).

I can name Cromwell V as the proof of my position. The tank that only has good front speed as good side.

237

It has the armor of the Pz. IV F2 without any of the firepower. It has the firepower of the Sherman without any of the armor. It has absolutely average mobility, with its only notable feature being its “fast” reverse speed of 7 km/h.

Chi-Nu 1 has decent APHEs (P40, t-34-40 have worse)

The P 40 and the T-34 are both substantially more armored. The T-34 is also substantially more mobile. The Chi-Nu is literally the only 3.3 medium using uncapped projectiles, resulting in it performing worse against angles. The only advantage it has over them is sheer explosive mass.

it has some mobility (again, P40 has worse)

The P 40 has 0.1 hp/t less. It’s too small of a difference to even mention.

but lacks armor (tho its the same as Cromwell V).

The Cromwell has 64 mm of frontal armor and is far more mobile.

2 Likes
238

Thats no doubt.

As much as i can see it has better angle pen that both 76mm of L11 and 75mm of Cromvell V, so idk about that.

on the paper maybe. But ingame its a noticeable difference. At least i felt it whilist trying out new camo for Chi-Nu. And even so, it isnt the immobile tank?

So:

  1. It doesnt have worst cannon (same penetration as Sherman with better explosive mass)
  2. It doesnt have worst mobility

That itself makes it not “collector of everything worst”.
Id rather play CHi-Nu 1 than Cromwell V honestly. But i`d better play Cromwell 1 than Chi-Nu. Tho comparing it with several 3.0 tanks makes sense to me to position it there.

Id also say it doesnt have worst armor as there is one PVKV that is somehow 3.3, but i dont like it being there so i wont.

239

Same with most low tier tanks. The Chaffee is easily 4.0 material, but it performs badly cuz of the Playerbase, so there’s no real need for it to go up. Panzers are ok where they are, keep in mind that most maps don’t favour their sniping play style

240

Yep i love chaffe even i killed jagdpanther and tiger 2 with that but dont think its 6.7 br tanks sometimes some tanks need to stay where they are

241

It doesnt have worst cannon (same penetration as Sherman with better explosive mass)

Except that the only tanks that have worse guns than it are substantially more armored and can penetrate the Chi-Nu far more easily than the Chi-Nu can penetrate them back. The Sherman has a comparable gun, but is far better armored and has a vertical stabilizer with a .50 cal. machine gun.

It doesnt have worst mobility

Except that the P 40 is compensated with its “worse” mobility by being substantially more armored. The Pz. IV F2 is compensated with its worse mobility by having substantially better firepower.

That itself makes it not “collector of everything worst”.

It is. It takes the worst aspects of the Pz. IV and of the Sherman and whatever benefits it has over the T-34, the P 40, and the Cromwell are overshadowed by its glaring flaws.

PVKV that is somehow 3.3

The Pvkv IV is 3.0 with APDS.

242

Which is also true

Which is fairly true

It is not. It would be if it was 30mm round + Cromwell V gun + Churchill level mobility.

image
image1046×429 74.7 KB

nah?

1 Like
243

It is not.

It is when you take it as a package deal. Why are you taking it so literal? Pointing out that it isn’t the worst in some areas doesn’t change that the Chi-Nu is objectively trash compared to the rest of the 3.3 mediums.

nah?

Why are you comparing the Pvkv III? It’s an entirely different vehicle and is just as overtiered as the Chi-Nu.

244

Only so, because you have this bad boy there to use at 4.3, instead:

Spoiler

Screenshot_12

So you’d just play that (with M44).

1 Like
245

Again, i would rather play it than cromwell V.
It is certainly one of the weakest 3.3, thats no doubt.

I dont. As i stated earlier