Pz IV: Germany's Unsung Hero?

[Lurker]

I state up front that I am not a grognard, nor do I claim great knowledge of WWII history.

I'm fishing for opinions on the Panzerkamphwagon Mk IV.

Personally I think it was a good tank. From what I have read, it was reliable, fairly fast, had a fairly good main gun, was available in greater numbers than the glamour tanks like the Panther and the Tiger, and is rarely appreciated by today's wargamers.

Am I completely misinformed about the relative qualities of the Mk IV? Are there others out there who might claim this tank as their favorite tank of the war?

I'd like to hear what the experts have to say about this tank...

Thanks,

-Lurker

[Guest Big Time Software]

I'd agree to a point. Problem with the PzIV is that when it got to within say... 1000 meters of even the early 44 Shermans, it started to have survivability problems. Yes, its gun kicked ass, but when you got down to something like 500m it was at a disadvantage against the Sherman for several reasons. One being the slow turret traverse rate.

But overall I think it is an underrated tank because everybody oos and awwws over the Panther and Tigers.

Steve

[Rommel]

Ok now it has NOTHING to do with my interest in the game, but in my WW II history class, there is a mention in one of my textbooks of how the germans would have done much better to have mass produced one certain type of tank, instead of going with SOOO many different ones. Think of it like this. Sure the panzer MkIV wasn't the best tank, but it was a tried and true tank. It could get the job done. The better question would be, would germany have had a better panzer corps if they had stuck the main mk IV design up untill the panther, then switched over to the panther? They could have even had the Jagdpanzer cuz it had the same parts as the MkIV.

Its just soo many different tanks, with soo many different types of ammunition. They had logistic problems with it all. Just another contributing factor to their overall defeat.

[Guest Frankrad]

I have always thought that the Panzer IV, with side skirts, was the coolest LOOKING tank in World War 2. b There Sherman was the dorkiest by far.

[Guest Germanboy]

Whether Germany would have benefited very much from just going for a single tank design is an interesting question. After the invasion, the real problem was not the production of heavy metal, but of fuel, due to a switch in the Allied bomber offensive. And getting whatever you produced to the front in one piece. Also, there is no way on earth German industrial capacity could have beaten the combo of Soviets and USA. So it then it comes down to kill-ratios for the lower number of tanks that the Germans could produce. Say you can produce half the number of Panthers than you can of Panzer IVs, but each of these kills 2 times the number of Shermans/T-34 before it is taken out, you are obviously better off producing the Panther. Another issue is crew survivability. If manpower is a critical resource, you want to put the guys in a tank where they stand a good chance to get out alive.

Now I have no clue how they compare, all I try to say is that the argument is a bit more complex than - if the Germans had gone all-out for standardisation, things would have been much different (I know nobody here said that, but you find it in books every so often).

------------------

Andreas

[Guest R Cunningham]

The Pz IV is the underrated, undervalued hero of the Panzertruppen. It stayed in production throughout the war, had a sound basic design and with the upgrade to the 75mm L/48 was able to take on all comers except the JS series. Of course it was not perfect and it developed some steering and cross-country mobility problems as its weight continued to climb.

Against a Sherman the turret traverse would become an issue especially with the J model. Still the Pz IV had some significant advantages: a commander's cupola allowing all-round vision, the better gun, and a lower silhouette even with the cupola.

[Lurker]

Thanks for the response to my Panzer IV Question. Now for some more questions regarding the Pz IV.

Everything that I've read has stated that the Panzer IV was a mechanically reliable tank.

The same sources say that later machines such as the Tiger and Panther suffered from mechanical problems during their early production.

My question to the grogs out there is this:

In your opinion, how much weight would you put on reliability and weight in numbers versus lack of reliability and superior survivability?

How many Pz IV's does it take to balance out a Panther or a Tiger?

Thanks,

-Lurker

[Bastables]

I would disagree with the assumption that the Panther was mechanically unreliable relative to the PIV. Jentz book PanzerTruppen II has German operational figures for both Tanks and they are quite similar. Which suggests either both are unreliable/reliable

Anecdotal evidence in the form of a report to the British war office on captured/studied Panthers in Italy tends to bear this out as well; ‘Remaining 8 demolished and burnt out, no sign of battle damage nor mechanical trouble were found. Reliable evidence captured documents demolition ordered because of fuel shortages. Our opinion, no evidence of undue mechanical difficulties with the Panther.’ (1994 P 147, Jentz)

[Lurker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

I would disagree with the assumption that the Panther was mechanically unreliable relative to the PIV. Jentz book PanzerTruppen II has German operational figures for both Tanks and they are quite similar. Which suggests either both are unreliable/reliable

Anecdotal evidence in the form of a report to the British war office on captured/studied Panthers in Italy tends to bear this out as well; ‘Remaining 8 demolished and burnt out, no sign of battle damage nor mechanical trouble were found. Reliable evidence captured documents demolition ordered because of fuel shortages. Our opinion, no evidence of undue mechanical difficulties with the Panther.’ (1994 P 147, Jentz)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But which model of Panther was examined? The Panther G's ran well from what I understand, while the earlier versions did not.

-Lurker

[Guest Big Time Software]

Almost all new AFVs suffer a bit at first. This was pronounced for the Germans because they didn't have time to monkey around more and more as the war went along. They also tended to push mechanical aspects to the breaking point to make a more powerful tank. The Germans weren't alone at doing this (British had their fair share from what I recall), but it mattered more for them since they were always behind the 8 ball from 1941 on.

The early Panther D (the first production model) had serious mechanical problems. But these were resolved to a large degree with the Model A. The G further improved this. I think of the Panther as fairly reliable.

Steve

[Guest Rommel21]

It is said the Mark IV was the backbone of the German Panzer Army. As you said before, would the Germans benefit of mass producing a single tank like the Pz IV. They would, but only for a period of time. Later they would still have to upgrade to Pz V or Pz VI.

What Guderian wanted to do was wait till Germany had over 1000 tigers before realeasing them on the battlefield, this would of had a greater shock on the enemy. But Hitler refused and sent only a battalion strenght of tiger (one of the first ones) to Russia. The Russian were shcoked by the potential of the Tiger. Later that wore of as the Russian learned how to deal with this meneca. But can you imagine the Russian facing a new offensive, which consited of 1000 Tigers. The Russian would be decimated and can you imagine the effect on morale.

That's what Guderian had in mind, a smart man.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lurker:

But which model of Panther was examined? The Panther G's ran well from what I understand, while the earlier versions did not.

-Lurker<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Few Panthers in Italy were mid/late D and early A versions.

Regards

Keay

[Username]

I think its been said before. But the PZIV was no longer a main battle tank by mid 44.

You have to realize the german way of thinking. By 1944 the only offensive arm of the Heer was panzer divisions. the air force was defensive and the navy never was really offensive. They tried to put their money into tank warfare.

The PzIV had a good gun but couldnt trade shots. Period. It was over. They were great against T3476 due to many reasons. In fact mixtures of MkIIIL60 and PzIVL48 racked up impressive numbers at Kursk and other Eastern front battles.

But once 3 man turrets on two fronts and oppressive firepower like the allied airforce and artillery stood against the panzer force, PZIV was a has been.

The precious few tigerIs and slowly developing Panther force was too late. The heavy tanks were labor intensive and everyone realized the benefit of scrounging guns, engines, tracks, ammo, training, etc. Having a three tank army and a multitude of support armor was dumb.

Read "Death Traps". Its a first hand account of someone who put shermans back into the line. Its about who get the the "runners" numbers up. Germans blew up a hell of alot of panzers they could have fixed. Fixing tanks is hard when you are giving ground.

PzIV production should have been diverted to PnzrJgIV and StuGIV. Bottom line.

Lewis

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

...the PZIV was no longer a main battle tank by mid 44...

The PzIV had a good gun but couldnt trade shots. Period. It was over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was still winning tank battles on both fronts in 1944, as you probably know. Every weapons system's time comes and goes. Panther was looking pretty lame by 1950, but that doesn't mean it was poor.

But once 3 man turrets on two fronts and oppressive firepower like the allied airforce and artillery stood against the panzer force, PZIV was a has been.

So was the rest of the Wehrmacht.

The precious few tigerIs and slowly developing Panther force was too late. The heavy tanks were labor intensive and everyone realized the benefit of scrounging guns, engines, tracks, ammo, training, etc.

Then why argue that the MkIV should have been scrapped? When resources are scarce and time is limited, you don't just scrounge weapons, you scrounge tooling. Which is why the Germans used the PzKpfwIV carriage for so many purposes, because they were already equipped to build it.

Having a three tank army and a multitude of support armor was dumb.

Oh.

Germans blew up a hell of alot of panzers they could have fixed. Fixing tanks is hard when you are giving ground.

OK, and...? Maybe if you use smaller words?

PzIV production should have been diverted to PnzrJgIV and StuGIV. Bottom line.

It was. Production of any armored vehicle was a diversion of resources from other armored vehicles in 44-45. Pity for the Germans that Panther wasn't developed and refined earlier. But the turret wins shootouts, and assault guns are a weapon for not losing, not for winning. They corner poorly and are at a huge disadvantage in melee. The MkIV served well in its day and was eventually eclipsed, as was the Panther.

You might as well take the position that the Germans were wasting their time on anything less than Leopard, since all the other AFVs were bound to become outdated. It appears the world's biggest tank producers have still failed to eschew the turret, as assault guns hardly predominate among modern AFVs.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 05-12-2000).]

[Lurker]

Mark IV,

Thanks for the answers. Appreciate your effort.

-Lurker

[Guest R Cunningham]

I just got a new book today from Podzun Pallas called Tiger I & II Kampf und Taktik. Therein is a table which lays out the average readiness rates of Pz IV, Panther and Tiger from mid 44 to the end of the war.

What this table shows is that the Pz IV was only a little better than the heavier tanks. The table is incomplete. Months are missing and it is unclear whether these readiness figures are cumulative rate on simple snapshots of readiness on the given day (I suspect this is the case). Other questions that need answers include the level of resources dedicated to maintaining each fleet and the numbers in service on the dates in question.

You can see the decline in the last months of the war. It also interesting to note how often the Tiger had better readiness rates than the Panther.

A little late rin the text one finds the statement:

"Mit Ausnahme der bekannten Kinderheitskrankheiten hat sich der Pzkpfw VI gut bewährt. Es kann bereits festgestellt werden, daß seine Zuverlässigkeit höher ist als die der Pzkpfw III und IV."

Translation:

"With the exception of the known teething troubles the Pzkpfw VI (Tiger) proved itself well. It can be determined that its reliability was higher than that of the Pzkpfw III and IV."

This news to me. I always had the impression that they were very difficult to maintain and prone to frequent breakdowns.

[Mark IV]

Interesting table. Questions:

How exactly is "readiness rate" defined? I assume it means fit for service ("green" operational status, in motor pool parlance)?

Wouldn't the average age of the vehicles be interesting? Since the PzIV had been in service so much longer, we could assume that at least some of the PzIVs in the table were of an older vintage (mixed with the current production). The Panthers and Tigers had to be younger as a group, with lower mileage/hours (balancing this might be the argument that Panther and Tiger were internally more complex, so that readiness was more difficult to maintain).

At any rate, the author's conclusion is puzzling, since the chart shows PzIV as more "ready" than Tiger in the East. Still, one would think that many lessons in reliability had been learned in active service, and improvements would have been made in later designs...

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 05-13-2000).]

[Bastables]

Nice find Cunningham.

MIV: You have to remember that total number of Tigers (and Panthers on the Ost front) were lower than PIV. Also the Germans tended to lump PIV/70 and the 2 FlaK PIV in with the PIV in operational reports further confusing the issue.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 05-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 05-14-2000).]

[Bastables]

Decided to scrub this one and insert it above.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 05-14-2000).]

[Guest R Cunningham]

That book has some other neat things in it too. It's a little OT for this thread but here goes:

from a report written by Hauptmann Lange, commander of Tigerabeteilung 506, 15 jan 44.

"The MG34/40 jams frequently. Because the loader is mostly busy servicing the main gun, he has little time to clear stoppages. Unfortunately this leads to the coax being largely unused. It is requested to check if the MG42 can be installed in the tanks. The higher ammunition consumption is acceptable."

If has been discussed several places about how the MG34 was used in vehicles throughout the war and how it use inside the vehicles would help with the fouling problems it experienced in the field. But here we have a battalion commander specifically asking for the MG42 to be installed in his tanks because the MG34 jams too much.

[Gromit]

Great stuff guys!

You got me thinking about the Tiger and its reliability rating.

My educated guess is that the fact that Tiger crews were the elite of the Panzer bunch had more than a little to do with their being "up" a high percentage of the time. If you take into account that the Tiger was introduced in 1942 and its survivability, odds are you had some VERY knowledgeable mechanics (as well as other crew members) by 1944-45.

Michael Wittman is one famous example of a veteran Tiger commander- the prestige associated with being on a Tiger crew was fairly large (from what I have read).

Of course, the same was true of the Stuka crews in the early war, but Goering pulled them from the Battle of Britain after unacceptable losses to the bloody brits!

Other thoughts?

Paul