I wouldn’t say that and there is a big difference in Panzer IVs across the board from early to late.Its a tank that has to be played a certain way.It has Tiger like similarities in some ways but at a lower level.Its a box so it can be angled. I don’t agree with calls for it to uptierd in any way though.
as for the Churchill I can only leave this
The side armor is extremely thin and to make matters worse it angles inwards. Angling in the hull of the Pz.IV H can make it substantially more vulnerable to cannons like the Russian 76 mm which otherwise would have more trouble penetrating.
And all that in the assumption that you get shot in the hull in the first place. Angling a Pz.IV only works if someone has quite literally no idea where to shoot.
I dont see your logic ,sloping armour increases thickness so angling would do the same whether intentionally angling or not.
By angling the front of the Pz.IV H, you actively have to decrease the impact angle on the side armor.
The side armor is already angled inwards and is extremely weak. This means you cannot angle much at all without having your sides easily penetrable.
Against something like the Russian 76 mm, angling just around 10 degrees makes the inwards angled side armor already vulnerable to the APHEBC rounds.
huh…? DUDE the 6 pounder legit knocked out the First 3 Tigers in North Africa, it was a AMAZING Anti Tank gun, it was not for Anti infantry, infact its HE rounds were so bad the British Nor the Russians who got a few Churchill MKIIIs through lend lease, NEVER used the HE rounds.
Yes its correct angling the tank puts the armour at a different angle and increases the thickness of the armour ,that is why the Panzer deflects shots when it suddenly turns as you are firing at it.Its physics that wont go away.Nearly every tank is a target if hit from the side.To say the Panzer is a glass cannon is rubbish,surely we all know that it isn’t ,we play the game ,right?
I would say that this a fine appraisal of the Churchill VII ,this is how I find it to be in the game.A good armoured tank with an average gun that is not totally impervious tot he Panzer IV gun.
DUDE DOUBLE DUDE,it was far from an amazing tank gun and it’s far from an amazing tank gun in the game DUDE.So you are fine facing the Tiger in your Churchill in this game ,good for you DUDE.If the 75mm gun is so good then why cant you take out a Panzer IV with it? Great armour ,good gun …bad player? Dude.
On a side note: Gaijin need to implement into the game provision for this very kind of scenario: where the shell strikes a highly sloped armor, makes a hole and bounces off without passing inside the tank. Therefore, it does not explode inside and the damage is more localized.
A scenario like this can be seen here:
In-game that scenario is a full penetration. Know it from many games in the Pz IV H.
So the OP is a skill issue? I think that is the general point here.
…
I never said it was over-BR’d, or under…
my comment was for clarification, and no, it really isnt, the mobility is rather stinky, traverse is on par with other tanks it faces, the armor (80mm) is paper (if you dont angle); and therefore one of the easiest tanks to destroy for 3.7, oh, and not to mention the crew is packed in like a can of sardines, it gets easily 1-shotted by even solid-shot.
and thats if you dont play it right, if you use it as a hull down sniper, its probably the best at its job in the BR range 3.7-4.7
yes, yes it is
Absolute bruh moment.
My top played tank is the BLACK PRINCE for fucks sake.
I know how to PROPERLY play a tank instead of relying on the Crutch of APHE and bullshit Russian Pen angles.
If you angle in the Panzer IV, you are actively being detrimental to your gameplay and survivability. Any angle will allow some rounds to penetrate the side armour, and that is ignoring the incredibly weak turret face they have.
Not really. I’d consider the Shermans the best 3.3-4.0 tanks. The T-34s have worse guns, and are less survivable. Russian tanks are overrated as hell.
Even when using a 6pdr gun, Panzer IVs are by far the easiest tanks to kill.
Because of early cold war heat slingers, ifv’s and so on, fighting against mid- to late-war heavy tanks?..
Derp units to neuter any armour in game start at 1.0, it is nothing new that out of era vehicles brought (until some properly balanced as shown by performance).
Pros and cons of individual vehicles in the context of how this video game works decide how various vehicles are matched.
What are the biggest “offenders” in people’s mind? Just a list of specific vehicles which cause the “problem”.
Heavy tanks were like this before many “out of era” vehicles filled gaps in trees. It was nothing new outside of maybe usual top tier at the time issues of balance.
You make it sound like the Black prince is hard to play lmao. It’s pretty easy.
Britian has some of my favorite heavies. Black prince and tog are great. The churchill with the US 75 is nice too and the churchill avre can be amazing on certain maps.
2nd are US and 3rd are German heavies.
And yet it does. Yes, theoretically 6 pounder and 2-pounder should just shear right through it, in practice they do not.