Short test: PZIVs against different types of shermans

[siffo998]

i have recently started to develop a tank vs tank scenario using CMBN. MKIVs against shermans. while doing that i have red some threads here and at the forum of theblitz.

at theblitz there was a rather large complaint from a member that MKIVs are useless: (http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=65808).

Over here at battlefront i`ve red a thread today that MKIVs are far superiour against shermans (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=115617). this was the reason why i started a little test scenario to show that theres a difference between the different types

of shermans.

map:

completely flat without obstacles. 1500m distance between the opposing tanks. All tanks are at regular experience with the modifiers at 0.

first test:

on the one side a company +1 (18 tanks) of PZIV H late

on the other side a company (18 tanks) of sherman M4A1 75mm late.

facing each other like i said above at 1500m distance.

I`ve used the two player head to head mode so that i could control both sides. i`ve unbottoned every tank at the start of the battle.

after that i hit the go button and let the battle unfold. I gave no further orders after unbuttoning the tanks.

I`ve expected the german Panzers to get the upper hand very quickly especially at that range.

here are the results after 5 battles with this setup:

1. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 6

2. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 6

3. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 3

4. battle: Americans lost 18 tanks; Germans lost 8

5. battle: Americans lost 13 tanks; Germans lost 18

rather clear 4 to 1 result in favour of the german tanks.

second test:

on the one side a company +1 (18 tanks) of PZIV H late

on the other side a company (18 tanks) of sherman M4A3 75mm early.

facing each other like i said above at 1500m distance.

Again i`ve used the two player head to head mode so that i could control both sides. i`ve unbottoned every tank at the start of the battle.

here are the results after 5 battles with this setup:

1. battle: Americans lost 14 tanks; Germans lost 16 (the last tank still able to fire was a german one. the remaining shermans lost their main gun)

2. battle: Americans lost 3 tanks; Germans lost 18

3. battle: Americans lost 7 tanks; Germans lost 18

4. battle: Americans lost 8 tanks; Germans lost 18

5. battle: Americans lost 5 tanks; Germans lost 18

a clear result in favour of the M4A3s. The additional armour really pays off at these distances. a lot of MKIV fire simply bounced off the glacis while the shermans had little problem destroying the german tanks (especially through the turret).

so all i wanted to show is that theres a difference between the versions of shermans (also the brit and canadian ones) and how they stand against MKIVs.

Conclusion:

The first two minutes of the test decided the outcome. The possibility to pop smoke is a rather big advantage from the sherman tanks in a real battle.

Against M4s and M4A1 and biritsh shermans I to III a head to head engagement at longer ranges might turn out in a good way, still a lucky hit can destroy your pzIV. I reccomand always using superiour numbers against the enemy.

Against M4A3s the story is a different one. Uparmored front plates make them a though foe at larger distances.

Well i leave it open to discussion how you think about those results.

[womble]

Thanks for illuminating the distinction between the different versions of the M4, Siffo. Enlightening.

For me, the suckiest thing about PzIVs is that they succumb to 37mm front turret hits. So they can lose a duel with an M8 Greyhound. Whereas even 50mm will pthwang off the front aspect of a Sherman, so you can at least be sure of dominating the enemy recon armour.

[Doug Williams]

Thanks for the information. Great post.

[WallysWorld]

Very interesting to see detailed results of how the extra armor helps. Thanks a bunch!

[General Jack Ripper]

That tank vs tank testing on a flat map is a great way to learn about different strengths and weaknesses.

Nice work on the tests.

[db_zero]

I've had both good and bad results with the Mark IV. When I used it like a Stug in the ambush role its done well. Other times not so well.

In a Red Thunder h2h game against my opponent playing the Russians I got shot up in a long range gunnery duel. It was open terrain at 700+ meters. My T34's lost that one. I chalk it up to 2 things:

1. Superior German optics

2. My T-34s were moving, then halting to shoot.

Once I settled down and used my T-34's in a ambush mode my kill success against the Mark IV went up. That being said-so far I think the optics on Russian tanks is inferior-just how inferior I don't know, but I'm guessing 600 meters is about the limit.

Played the same battle using what I learned in the first battle and my T-34s have butchered the Mark IVs.

I've so far learned the Mark IV is vulnerable to the Russian 45mm AT gun.

Think of the Mark IV as the German version of the Sherman and use it as such and perhaps you'll grow to appreciate it.

[womble]

I've so far learned the Mark IV is vulnerable to the Russian 45mm AT gun.

Heck, it's vulnerable to the American 37mm. It's vulnerable to 57mm at ranges where the tanks alone will, AFAICT, never spot the ATG.

Think of the Mark IV as the German version of the Sherman and use it as such and perhaps you'll grow to appreciate it.

I'd say, by '44, to treat it more like a Marder with a lower profile, a roof and a turret, and you'll get more use out of it...