Shermans have superior firepower to Pz IV’s.
Yeah… good luck with that.
2 Likes
me when boing boing boing really only late german tanks that are slow like TIGER 2 able to shoot on the move like 10 to 12 MPH
panzer 4 is only a little less bouncy than a T34
mind it takes 15 times more skill to hit a shot on move than the guy using STAB
1 Like
I disagree mostly
Gun handling yeah thats fair
Armour vs a pz 4: T34>Pz 4>M4A1
in the front the Pz 4 with track armour has up to 96mm of armour and turret up to about 70, the armour is enough to stop a 75mm on the hull frontally from over 400m and the turret is quite low down but the armour isnt amazing
Firepower: Pz IV > M4A1 > T34/76
Mobility: T-34 > M4A1 > Pz IV (debatable bc the pz 4 isnt exactly slow and the reverse gears of the tanks differ considerably too)
Survivability: T34 > M4A1 > Pz 4 simply because the pz4 is so cramped
Visibility: T34 > Pz 4 > M4A1
and you cant angle it cause german designs or something
legit could not made worse armor tank if i tried its one tap city against anything with 100MM pen plus
your armor is volumetric
1 Like
-
UFP: T-34 (1940) (92mm) > M4A1 (91mm) > Pz IV G (80-96mm) > Pz IV F2 (50-65mm)
-
Turret front: M4A1 (108mm) > T-34 (1940) (45-58mm) > Pz IV G/F2 (50mm)
-
Lower front plate: T-34 (1940) (92mm) > Pz IV G (82-97mm) > M4A1 (55-68mm) > Pz IV F2 (52-67mm)
The images speak for themselves;
Let’s also keep in mind that turret protection is more important than hull protection.
Reload rate? M4A1 > Pz IV.
Post-pen damage? M4A1 > Pz IV.
Stabilization? M4A1 > Pz IV.
Penetration? Pz IV > M4A1.
Secondary armament? M4A1 > Pz IV.
The M4A1 has superior firepower.
It’s still slower than a M4A1, both in terms of practical top speed, acceleration and hull traverse.
No idea what this means exactly.
7 Likes
i was on about the Pz 4H and J with tracks on the turret and just about everywhere else
Sherman huge and easy to spot
Shermans awful at hills is one thing tho
Those are 3.7, not 3.3.
That means I’d have to compare them to the Sherman Composito, M4 Sherman and Sherman III/IV, all of which possess better armour.
If you can spot a Sherman, you can spot a T-34/Pz IV. It really is that simple.
Not any worse than Pz IV’s are.
3 Likes
So basically what you are saying is the panzer is only good on the few maps that offer long LOS? Not feeling that argument either
1 Like
The long barrled Pzer IVs are under-tiered.
Fun fact 3.0 is unplayable, same with 2.,7 3.,3 etc. because with the pen the tanks at those BR have the Panzer have the armour of heavys without the firepower loss of stuff like the Churchill has to be so low. As every battle is as full up tier as you see stuff with the specs of something with a full up tier at your BR.
The IV H pear is the Sherman Firefly, so it should be 4.3 with the rest of the long barreled going down until the F2 at 3.7
2 Likes
4.0 for the J and 4.3 for the H
Gun’s comparable to the 57mm Soviet on the T-34 which has better armour and mobility so 4.7 is probably too high. If the StuG can be 4.0 then the J Should be too.
1 Like
They are not.
The Pz IV Ausf. J in overtiered, in fact.
I’ve explained why they’re not undertiered across multiple comments above, please reference those for further explanation.
There are plenty of vehicles with equivalent or better penetration than the Pz IV’s at the same or lower BR’s.
Pz IV’s are far more easy to deal with using 3.0’s than T-34’s and M4 Shermans are, because these Pz IV’s have significantly weaker armour and worse mobility.
You can’t be serious.
No, the peers are the Sherman III/IV, Sherman Composito and M4 Sherman, all of which sit at 3.7.
3 Likes
personally i’d say
3.7 for F2 G and J (+finnish)
4.0 for H and Italian G
F2 and G get good guns, mobility and turret traverse, all very good for 3.3
J gets the same BR as while its got a better gun and armour, its less mobile and the awful manual turret traverse
Pz IV H is the pinnacle of the Pz IVs, my literal first match in the thing was a 15 kill game, its quite good and has the best of the Pz IV lineage in it, And the Italian G has the better gun of the H/J while also having the best mobility and good turret traverse, you’re trading armour for mobility compared to Pz IV H
the main T-34s and the M4A2 are the equals to Pz IV H and their BR should reflect it
3.7 T-34/M4A1 can’t pen the Pz.IV H at almost any distance while Pz.IV can even pen the turret of the Sherman which is usually the most well armored part of a Sherman.
if we count the 5.0 Sherman, yes M4A1 has better firepower than the Pz.IV, but if we talk about the 3.7 (even 4.0) Sherman, it has way worse firepower in all aspects.
none of them has good survivability😭
T-34 dies with one shot, M4A1 also dies from one single shot and Pz.IV is the only one that can actually outstand a shot if used correctly.
1 Like
But I am, here are a few tanks I always non-pen:
M3 Lee, Ram I, everything with a worse pen than those. SO everything not a TD or longer barreled Pz IV at 3.3 and below.
Next thing you’re telling me, the Tiger II should be 3.0.
145mm of pen vs 104mm, 80mm. That TD pen not Medium tank pen, stuff that has that level of pen is 4.7.
It gets better hull armour than it
Armour (Hull)
Pz IV H: 80 / 30 / 20 mm
M4: 50 / 38 / 38 mm
T-34 (1940): 45 / 45 / 40 mm
Armour (Turret)
Pz IV H: 50 / 30 / 30 mm
M4: 76 / 50 / 50 mm
T-34 (1940): 45 / 45 / 45 mm
i mean, german tanks were and will always be the most undertiered ones.
they have the best cannons at 3.7, 6.7, 8.0, 10.7 and 12.7/13.0. i feel taking away their superiority would make them lack a good tank at 3.7 (that many people usually use with the 4.0 StuG), so i feel increasing it’s BR would be a bit opressive if we keep in mind it has bad mobility and bad armor (VK 3002 with way better mobility, cannon and armor at 5.0/M4A1 (76) with the same penetration but half-stabilized and better gun handling/T-34-57 with basically the exact same cannon at 4.7 which it already faces and has way better reload, gun handling and mobility/KV-85 with the better 85mm cannon).
The Chally’s and russians beat them, L26 and 3BM42 (3BM60 if you include 10.0 2S25M) have more pen than 120mm DM23, but Chally has better reload and the russians have equal/worse
nvm i just checked and they have worse APFSDS.
if Gaijin would just give them DM33…
M4A1 can penetrate the entirety of a Pz IV H’s turret front at 1800 metres distance.
Not that that matters, because they’re never going to fighting eachother at 1800 metres distance to begin with.
Average combat distances in War Thunder at around 3.7 are roughly 500 metres, at that range a Sherman can penetrate 50% of the Pz IV H’s frontal profile, and that’s assuming the Pz IV H is perfectly head-on and not showing those paper-maché shoulder plates or cardboard sides.
If the Pz IV H is angles as little as 25 degrees, the sides are penetrable at 2000 metres and beyond.
As for the T-34: It will happily penetrate the Pz IV H’s glacis plate at any combat range, and one-shot it in the process.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of a angled T-34’s (3.3) hull cannot be penetrated by a Pz IV H (3.7) even at point blank range.
Pz IV H has 143mm of penetration at 100 metres distance, UFP of a T-34 at this angle is 160mm, upper sides are 170mm, lower sides are 144mm.
Reload rate? M4A1.
Post-penetration damage? M4A1.
Penetration? Pz IV.
Secondary armament? M4A1.
Stabilization? M4A1.
Any of the US Shermans have superior firepower to any Panzer IV.
The stabilizer alone is enough to compensate for the penetration difference, but aside from the stabilizer these Shermans also reload quicker, deal more damage and shred SPAA, light tanks and aircraft alike with their 50. cals.
50mm flat turret fronts mean even reserve tier tanks will roflpen a Pz IV.
The claim that Pz IV have ‘heavy tank’ armour is completely absurd. The KV-1’s are found at the same BR’s and have VASTLY better armour.
No idea what that is supposed to mean.
Please stop thinking that penetration is the only relevant statistic.
In fact, here we come back to my usual quote: ‘‘poor/inexperienced players can be easily identified by them overrating the importance of penetration.’’
Mobility, gun handling characteristics, armour, survivability, etc. are all more or equally important, and the Pz IV’s are inferior to their US and Russian counterparts in all of these areas.
I’m getting the distinct feeling you’re very inexperienced/new to the game here.
Stat cards do not take into account effective armour via sloping. The T-34 has 92mm of effective glacis armour, M4A1 has 91mm.
4 Likes