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.
Refer to the video posted above (either of the two work in this context, actually).
1 Like
Yeah, and? It can still easily penetrate the T-34. The only T-34 it has an issue with is the model 1942, but that’s why it sits at a higher BR than any of the Pz. IVs.
You’re literally watching a Pz IV G non-pen a T-34 that’s barely angled at only 450 metres, and your conclusion is ‘‘It can easily penetrate’’.
At some point we reach a level of obtuseness that I’m not dealing with anymore.
Mate, the 1942 model has the exact same glacis armour as a 1940 model.
It makes no difference.
3 Likes
You’re literally watching a Pz IV G non-pen a T-34 that’s barely angled at only 450 metres, and your conclusion is ‘‘It can easily penetrate’’.
Yeah, because you can shoot the turret instead, and at that range the model 1940 would be struggling to do the same to the Pz. IV H.
It makes no difference.
It does because its turret is a volumetric blackhole.
Who cares about the Model 1940? The armor layout is basically the same on the 1941.
Because the model 1941 is already a higher BR than the Pz. IV. The model 1940 is the only T-34 at or below its BR.
4.0 for the J as itse turret is poor.
the H 4.3 minimum. Its as good as the firefly and im tired of people LARPing that it isnt
1 Like
All this BS supported by his brutal result playing the Panzer 4H with 41 deaths and only 11 kills!!!
Teaboos and his insane hate for Germany…
I‘m tired of people pretending like the Pz IVs have anything going for them that doesn’t prevent the enemies from instantly deleting them before they even can fire a shot.
The F2 is a glass cannon for any cannon bigger than 45mm but at least it has somewhat average mobility.
The Ausf. H just slaps some armor on the front but also making it a lot heavier.
So what‘s the advantage? You gain the ability to survive a bit better in frontal engagements but also lose even more on the mobility side.
Making it a brick compared to even KV tanks.
But when all your armor is on the front and your turret is comparatively slow, while your sides are very weak, it just turns your tank into a StuG G.
Which in turn performs better at long range engagements due to the lower profile.
3 Likes
- that’s a 1941 T-34.
- ragebait right?
lol then don’t yap about something that works in the way ur say without even proving u’re right.
i did what u didn’t and it’s better than u thought, i even got 14 kills 2 deaths in a match that i shared in this topic with the replay link attached too.
congrats for being the only WT player that knows how to play Pz.IV H and destroy it at the same time.
it does zero damage and can’t one shot it
They utilize the same turret.
You avoid the mantlet on both vehicles because the mantlet functions as a volumetric black hole on both models.
I just spent the past half a dozen replies explaining to someone how to properly use the Armour Analysis tool, and then you post a picture in which you completely mis-use the tool.
Please scroll back up and refer to the past several comments which explain why your screenshot is a terrible representation.
In the meantime, here’s a Pz IV failing to penetrate a T-34’s glacis at only 450 metres distance and with extremely minimal angling:
You’ve got a barely above 1-1 K/D with a negative winrate. I’m really not certain why you ever raised this point regarding personal stats and personal performance, because it evidently isn’t in your favour.
Your stat line matches exactly what I would expect from a player that has the opinions you have.
And if your argument rests on a single match in which you scored 14 kills for 2 deaths… I’ve got a replay folder with:
17 kills to 0 deaths in the Sherman.
14 kills to 0 deaths in the Sherman.
3x 12 kills to 0 deaths in the Sherman.
19 kills to 1 death in the Sherman.
18 kills to 0 deaths in the Sherman.
All of them very recent, and quite a lot of them facing Germany.
Shows a picture of it killing the gunner, commander and transmission, completely crippling the vehicle
3 Likes
and urs isn’t?
tbh WR is useless to compare people’s performance since u aren’t the only one in the match, and u can’t carry ur NPC team and win every single match.
aawww, a random is comparing me with a specific part of the world population ;c
did u even watch the replay?
and it’s a fact that Germany is full of NPC people that believes Tiger H1 is invencible, and being the only player that knows how to kill a german tank doesn’t instantly mean the tanks u’re playing are good, it just means u have skill, not too much more.
shooting to the almost exact same spot as u, in the almost exact same angle as u
400m shot at an even higher angle