Well, congrats, you win. Forgot it’s pointless to argue with a German main.
I’m a noob (even with stuff in multiple trees above 8.0 and two trees with TT stuff above 10.0)
Everything else in WT is over BRed.
1 Like
Don´t forget the Object 292 with almost whopping 700mm pen at Br. 10.7
Which tank is that supposed to be?
So Germany has 3 of 38-39? brackets with the best cannons, so your argument underlines that they don´t have always the best cannon.
Unlike a lot of players that’ll claim a certain vehicle is overpowered/undertiered, I actually play multiple tech trees and vehicles, including the ones I’m talking about in this topic.
3 Likes
If I searched his name properly on Statshark, he’s severely negative in the Panzer IVs in both Arcade and Realistic, but argues for a BR increase.
2 Likes
I wasn’t going to bring that up as it’s perhaps a bit of a low blow, but I can’t help but notice the 0-11 K/D ratio in the M4A1 either…
2 Likes
Clearly this Topic is Ragebait, but here is my only comment ill leave.
Should any of the Pz IVs go up in BR (Relative to the others): NO
Should ALL tanks from 3.3 and up go up 1 BR as decompression, so that 2.3 tanks dont see them: Yes.
Also Ausf.E can go to 1.7, its 20mm armor and 30mm turret front arent really good relatively speaking and barely an improvement over the Ausf.C, aside from the 30 → 50/60mm (With weakspots) hull armor.
5 Likes
I’d suggest taking a look at the French M4A1 if you want to go that way.
Where it is 9 games with 18 kills to 11 deaths.
It is not “designed” for any of those things - it is “designed” to provide good HE performance with what was considered adequate AT performance at the time.
I don’t like pulling up stats either but sometimes you have to do it. You exhausted all other points in the argument so it only leaves player skill.
I’d make the general argument that the Pz 4H should be 4.0.
This comes not because the vehicles themselves are drastically better then before, but because the vehicles that made them suck have moved up. The KV-1s have moved up, in particularly the ZiS one. The T-34-57 is no longer 4.3. The M6A1 is 5.0, the M4A1(76) is 5.0. All these vehicles have moved up in the spirit of decompression. Also, look at the vehicles counterparts; both the M4A2 and T-34(1942) are 4.0. So why not the Pz 4H? It has a fantastic gun at the sacrifice of armor. It’s mobility is less than the two vehicles BUT it has better depression and reload than the T-34, and is smaller than the M4A2. It feels logical to have it be at 4.0, with the understanding of maybe making all three of these vehicles Rank III (returning them all to Rank III, I should say).
if we talk about the 5.0 M4A1 that it doesn’t face.
except u’re smart and play at +500m.
this needs to be a serious joke.
just a dumb Pz.IV H player wouldn’t aim for the turret, and most of the time T-34s are head-on and btw they don’t even have enough pen to penetrate the Pz.IV H’s frontal armor (78mm of pen only).
M4A1
Pz.IV H
Pz.IV H
M4A1
M4A1
if this facts are the only ones u consider to say if a tank is good or not i recommend u to go back to play them and tell me if u’re correct.
ragebait, right?
it isn’t.
cuestionable.
1 Like
Okay, at this point you’re simply being lazy.
It takes but two seconds to check the relevant data here.
M4A1 has 71mm of penetration at 1800 metres distance, the turret front of a Pz IV H is 66mm (including track addons).
Spoiler
Spoiler
Which brings us back to War Thunder’s map selection…
T-34 (1940) will easily penetrate the glacis plate of a Pz IV H at 1000 metres distance and wipe out the entire crew in a single shot.
Armour Analysis Tool doesn’t let us rotate the turret, that matters because a T-34’s turret has less than half the frontal profile of a Pz IV.
Again, there’s no excuse for being this ignorant/lazy.
All of these things are easily accessible and can be verified in 2 seconds:
Spoiler
The Sherman has over twice the equivalent TNT filling.
3 Likes
*70mm
wtf do WT’s map selection come to the conversation, dude?
tell me how many times will u hit that part in a public match?
just aim for the turret frontally and imagine the hull is angled🙏
i’ll give u that one, however the high penetration of the Pz.IV H makes aiming much easier, compared to the Sherman’s penetration that mainly relies on it’s HE filler.
cool stats, now pls go back to the main theme.
Okay, going by your replies thus far I’m guessing you’re very new to the game. I’ll explain this stuff as it goes.
Tracks consist of mild steel, that means they have a negative modifier.
20mm thick tracks are the equivalent of 16mm of steel. You can find the same negative modifier on track add-on armour across the various vehicles and nation in the game.
Pz IV H’s turret front is 66mm, as can be clearly seen by the screenshots I’ve provided you with.
3 Likes
i’m casually not new in the game, and have enough time to at least know which vehicles are better than other ones.
Pz.IV H is superior in all aspects to any other 3.3/3.7 tank.
if u see bad stats on my Pz.IVs is cuz the last time i played with them was years and years ago when i was a total noob.
1 Like
The tanks are fine where they’re at. The guns can easily penetrate nearly anything it faces while having a decent amount of mobility and the tanks are decently armored against the low-velocity American and Russian guns.
1 Like
War Thunder’s map rotation at 3.7 consists of primarily close range engagements.
The meta isn’t long range sniping either, that’s why the equivalent BR Shermans and T-34’s are better suited to the meta.
And I’m sorry to be blunt here, but I’ve had this discussion a million times before, and not a single person that has disagreed with me on this topic has had stats even close to mine.
Coincidentally, the people who’ve agreed with me have often had some of the best stats I’ve seen anyone have.
*Cough japes *Cough
Every time?
Why would you not be aiming for the area that guarantees a one-hit-kill at practically any distance?
So you’re arguing that the Pz IV H has no issues dealing with the T-34’s narrow turret profile here, yet in the comment immediately prior you’re arguing that the Pz IV H’s glacis plate isn’t a likely target to be hit by the T-34.
This is the very definition of double standards.
You told me to play these vehicles.
I then show you that I do in fact play these vehicles, and then you get snarky about the stats.
Seems like you’re just being difficult with me for the sake of being difficult with me.
Then you should’ve known about track armour not being equivalent to armoured steel.
Experienced players are expected to know that not all material types have the same armour modifier.
If you want to believe that’s true against all the facts and data presented, that’s fine.
How convenient.
3 Likes
as i always say: there’s a lot of factors that affect a vehicle and make it good or not.
u can’t say a KV-2 is better than a Pz.IV H just cuz it has better penetration/overpressure capabilities, cuz the KV-2 has a lot of bad things that the Pz.IV H doesn’t.
saying the Pz.IV H is bad cuz a 3.3 tank with less than 80mm of pen “can pen it at 2000m” is the biggest ragebait i have ever heard.
I don’t think I ever used my Italian Pz 4 G in a single 3.7 match ever. I always had it in the same line-up with the Turán. It can handle 4.0 pretty well. I actually have marginally better stats in it then the Turán, but that is probably the effect of not having to stock grind + smaller sample size. I think it’s on pair with the 4.0 sherman and t-34s but not better than them.
thats just compresion its not one vehicle in particular i wouldnt say a T34 or M4A1 or M4 is fair to fight for a 2.7 since the Panzer 4 is the least armored of the three its pretty easy to kill
1 Like