Panzer 4H/J is 3.7 not 4.0.
Yes, and it performs very well above its own br. The only thing holding it back is not being rank 3.
That’s because my calculator uses linear interpolation between slope effects, which are in intervals of 5 degrees, so already the values are only truly accurate at each 5 degree interval. The actual values aren’t straight lines but slightly curved, which I have figured out how to calculate but I genuinely cannot be bothered to implement.
Additionally, the graph is only when caliber and actual armor thickness match (specifically a 75mm plate being hit by 75mm rounds, but you can apply the multipliers to any combination of caliber = thickness). If I were to do more caliber to armor thickness ratios I would be there all day, there’s too many cases to cover (quite literally infinite).
By sheer coincidence this exact situation is shown on the SU-85M versus the Chi-Nu II and Pz.IV J.
3 Likes
Should move up to 4.0 and rank 3, with the addition of late G model in 3.7 in rank 3 too like italian one.
Only after this we can talk about good line.
4 Likes
It’s still a very powerful lineup, but I do agree it should be 4.0 rank 3.
2 Likes
Yes, agree with that. Exactly why 85mm of USSR is superior to Sherman cannon - it can do some wild sidepen stuff
Now i see what you mean, and now get thats completely valid. It sure is proven now that the japanese cannon forgives more mistakes of shooting, and has some viable advantage, you persuaded me.
1 Like
caliber of shot makes less shrapnell plus less energy left after penetration. 57 has some issues with damage, and some issues with penetrating modules.
I’ll ve honest, it’s not some world beating weapon as flat pen is what gets you through the turrets in most cases, but vs M4A2 shooting the turret is not that great of an idea and in general - good hull shot is ending the fight.
Of course Panther cannon is still vastly superior to Japanese gun in terms of overal effectiveness, but 80-100g of explosive filler is surely a nice thing to have.
My Pz IV issue is - it performs about as well at 3.7 as it does at 4.3, as the turret gets penetrated by everyone anyway.
On the other hand, at 4.7 we have T14 and KV-1 Zis, and at 4.3 we have KV-1 Sport, which is basically a heavily armored medium tank, so a good spot for Pz IVH could be 4.0.
I’d still consider it a horrible medium tank at 4.0 but an effective TD for sure.
But then there’s M10 at 3.3 (shot the guy a few times in the turret and hull from 800m away with M61 75mm and it did nothing, only killed him with HE that took like 1,6s to get there, lol) and M24 at 3.7, and M4A2 at 4.0 that basically is better protected frontally than KV-1Zis, so this game really needs some rebelancing.
tbh panzer 4s are very good and you have a ton of heavy artillery
1 Like
The thing is, the ‘Germany suffers’ argument is practically always used when discussing any German vehicle. However, if you look at the Pz IV in other nations, you will find that it also performs worse there. This raises the question of how valid the ‘Germany suffers’ argument is in that case.
Just compare the global stats of the Italian premium Pz IV with the premium Sherman.
They are both premium vehicles from the same nation and have been played roughly the same amount. Yet the Sherman performs significantly better than the Pz IV. According to you, the Pz IV should be significantly superior.
In that case, it seems a bit odd that you want massive BR changes for a vehicle that you haven’t played for 3,000 hours. When was the Pz IV H 4.7? 2016? 2017? So, you want one of the largest BR changes for any vehicle in WT that you haven’t played in almost a decade?
So, what would happen if you moved every tank with a good flat penetration gun, but nothing else, such as the Pz IVs, StuG IIIAs, Marder IIIs, etc. up in br? You would just be giving a massive buff to the already extremely potent M4s, T-34s, KV-1s and Churchills. You already have a very slim chance of beating a full US or USSR line-up at the 2.7 - 4.0 BR range. What exactly are you going to do with the 3.3 Chi-Nu against hordes of M4s and T-34s? The only tanks you can reliably fight with the Chi-Nu are the Pz IVs. This is precisely why the Pz IVs are at their current BRs. Nobody struggles to kill them. They are among the easiest and most reliable tanks to destroy. If you play as any nation other than Germany, you don’t want to face the Soviets, M4s or Churchills, because you will almost always have difficulty killing them, while they can kill most vehicles frontally (there are exceptions, of course).
Even absolutely terrible vehicles like the Swedish 3.3 pvkv III with its 88 mm penetration shell can more reliably deal with the Pz IVs. If you encounter an M4 or M4A2, it’s usually game over. If you encounter a T-34? Shoot the turret and hope your shell doesn’t get eaten by volumetric damage (which happens more often than not). Yes, the Pz IV can penetrate your armour at any distance. But guess what? So can the M4s and the T-34s.
It’s the same story with many of the British AP slingers, such as the Cromwells or Churchills. The same goes for 2.7 tanks like the Stuart. The only medium tanks they can reliably kill in a frontal engagement are the Pz IVs. If you encounter a T-34 or an M4, you’re in trouble.
Well I can’t make a statement on the tank since I don’t own it but to me it appears to be a glass cannon just like the pz4s. But just compare the Chi-To at 4.7 to the also 4.7 T-34-57.
The T-34-57 has:
-
Slightly better mobility (17.7hp/t to 16.7hp/t)
-
Better armour when angled (most noticable in a downtier and against aircraft)
-
Can angle in general, the Chi-To just dies when it even tries
-
Considerably faster reload (5s to 6.5s)
-
Much faster aim time (25°/s to 12.7°/s)
-
Higher shell velocity (990m/s to 865m/s) (helps in longe range engagements tho rare)
-
Smaller size
-
Volumetric nightmare of a turret that absorbs more rounds than it should
Chi-To has:
-
Better gun depression
-
Considerably better post-pen damage
-
More crew (won’t help you much but ok)
-
Top-mounted mg (tho good luck with that)
-
Better optics
Equal:
-
Reverse Speed
-
Flat pen
This comparison looks even worse when you consider the Chi-Nu2, which is much slower and has 50% less frontal armour than the Chi-To. In the current CQC meta, where you have to capture tiny objectives on small, often urban maps, the Chi-To, the Chi-Nu2 and the Pz IVs are at a significant disadvantage. Good mobility, fast reaction times, and a short reload time with good damage are key. That’s why the Shermans and T-34s are performing so well.
So why do you think the Pz IVs should go up instead of the Japanese tanks going down? The only thing they have going for them is the flat penetration and post-pen damage. In my opinion, the Chi-Nu 2 could be 3.3 or 3.7, and the Chi-Tos could be 0.3 above that.
Also:
The pz4s mega super gun (according to you) against an inconveniently angled T-34.
4 Likes
Germany is really strong all around. The only guess I have is that he likes playing light tanks, not heavy tanks, and thinks that means Germany is bad.
1 Like
Also guess what is the best target for CAS, not counting open tops?
Yup, entire German lineup, because 10mm top armor gets shredded by everything.
😏😏
1 Like
To be honest Shermans are absolutely better than the panzer IV’s in almost all ways other than the gun, while the Panzer IV H is actually pretty fun to play because of the 80+20mm armor it has, the turret gets nothing and there is a giant cupola that is begging to be shot at. Germany is actually pretty decent at BR 5.0+, the panther is actually a really good tank as well as the tiger if played right.
4 Likes
I don’t think they’re that bad. The gun is nice and a big upgrade over the german 75mm. Though not much would change since they would still be able to pen and be penned by 99% of enemies.
2021 to 2022 was the last time i think.
uuuuuuuuuhh i find that a little bit of unfair comparison. Thy the IV G is a premium also, there are also this examples:
which shows that the panzer IV easilly competes with best tanks of the rank on same br or even a bit higher
and there`s also this
that shows that it performs significantly better in the hands of the germans
And even more - the Chi-Nu2 stats at 4.3 that show how panzer should perform
As i already said, global stats are something that makes panzer IV look bad even tho its characteristics show it as very strong machine.
My guess is only who buy panzer IV are german mains and newbies that perform bad either way, tho i may be mistaken.
we’ll just put them in position when they meet worthy opponents. T-34E of germany sits 4.3 with basically same pros and cons as t-34E of USSR, and KV`s are also higher. That means that each time you use KV-1E you meet TEAMS of panzer 4s who shred you if they try to play smart, while others require 4.7 BR to do the same. Same goes around for every tank. T-34-42 sits 4,0 while 4H is 3.7, meaning each time 34 gets to play against 3,0 there is an ENTIRE team with 75mm cannons except those who actualy have 3.0 only.
Nuthing, and if the panzer IV keeps being 3.7 you still will be doing nuthing with chi-nu. How’s that even an argument? the chi-nu is easilly worst 3.3 so it needs repbalancing, and keeping panzer IV F2 which practically the same tank but with better gun and aim speed is ridiculous.
No, i would certainly love to meet them within each other. Its best when you play churchill 3 and meet 34s or shermans as they can do practically nothing to you, and its best to meet t-34 when you play sherman as you can almost unstoppably push it and fear nothing.
Thats why they sit 4.0+, while their only worthy opponents sit 3.3-3.7 :/
Lets revert it that way: 3.3, you play your favourite Churchill 1 that struggles with much things, even armor is not that great but it stops some bad shells of early 34s and Shermans from 3.3
And then some german main with skill issue just gets a 3.3 nuker F2 that has literally zero tanks at 3.0-3.3 capable of bouncing its cannon. And even better - the 3.3 IV G that YOU at the Churchill struggle to penetrate as 80 + 20 hull and 50+20 turret makes your 40mm shots bounce regularly. Even F2 with additional armor can bounce such shots with a bit of luck or angle.
Fair enough?
And even then, if we take Valentine for example, that sits an entire 3.0 is basically same “gun with engine” as panzer IV F2 and G, but its SO bad compared to IV that 0.3 BR difference is just a scam for brits.
well its easy to defeat 34 with any cannon that has 80mm flat pen. Its turret is pretty busted, and gets penned well. I myself love to use Duster`s 40mils and get aroud damaging 34s pretty well. And them shermans? Yes, they are a big trouble frontally to any opponent but panzer 4. But they dont get moved up on BR, only 34s do, so much about soviet bias there tbh. 34-42 is 4.0 while Sherman M4 is 3.7, and the Sherman A2 is 4.0. Great job with balance
Yes, but it keeps the mobility of IV G and armor of IV F2 while being at 4.3, and still plays perfectly. Yes, we agreed here it has noticeably better cannon, but still 2 steps more than latest panzer 4s does not compensate it.
that also is one hell of a balance trap. Arguably CHi-To`s have no advantage over CHi-Nu-2s, as the game devs decided with F2 and G panzers. Chi-to’s better armored but much bigger making them better targets, and other stats arent that well for 4.7. BUT THEY STILL MANAGE to survive easilly!
If apply global stats, them Chi-To’s play pretty good with close to 2kd ratio. Even my stats say that they play pretty well, and i dont even like them that much.
While i agree with you much that the 34-57 is actually preferable with city maps as offers smaller size + better mobility, i cant say that CHi-To’s and Chi-Nu’s are by any chance play bad nowadays. Strongly because their cannon makes them usable even at downtier while shermans from 4.0 suffer. And the 57mm leaves you in situations where enemy is not stopped after penetration.
Because based on the japanese tanks, that machinery easilly makes it through 4.3. And while i agree that chi-to’s can go 4.3, i cant see them moving lower. It makes any armor useless, which is not good for gameplay.
easiest oneshot to turret tbh
Turret is not a oneshot with Pzgr 39.
And M42 vs T-34 turret is hilarious. You pen him 8 times, loader goes red, gunner goes yellow, blam, ded.
40mm AP is extremely ineffective.
Interesting stats, I guess when playing Italian M24 and Sherman Composito I simply become a better player, lol.
It often is?
Especialy side
ah not sure about that. At least M42 i played recenyly and it was a fun challenge, tho 34s got bonked pretty well, three shots to kill an entire turret at worst
xD that sure is an interesting statistics tbh, i never thought that basic shermans of USA play as bad as german panzers globally
1 Like
What are you still discussing here?
Germany is very strong at 4.7-7.0 br bracket. Has a few really good vehicles up to 9.7, pretty decent at 10.7. And completely bashed at top tier due to it being a TOP, a PINNACLE. So it’s popular, hence all the handouts for soviet low-skills.
If we look at soviets, they’re just good all around, OP CAS at every br, amount of bad vehicles can be counted on one hand, handholding, angular performance of rounds, plausable deniability used at it’s full potential for their benefit etc.
If we look at USA - strange at low br, decent at mid, overshadowed by soviet handholding past that, still playable, just not the best, but has some very interesting vehicles on every BR. + one of the strongest heavies at mid BRs.