Panzer IV in CMBO: Workhorse or Toast?

[Sensible Toad]

Yes! It is a great scenario, my favorite so far. I didn't want to give away any spoilers, but I guess I was vague enough. "Move it or lose it" is white-hot-action from the get go.

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Kelly wrote:

The Sherman tanks (all M4A3's) encountered the German medium tank in question and immediately went into reverse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Shermans probably mistook them for Tigers, maybe the MkIVs only redeeming feature!

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Gee, is someone playing Move It or Lose It?

Great scenario...

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you remember? Nothing like a scenario that has lead flying :01 seconds into the game.

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Mark IV]

I'm in the middle of Move it or Lose It with Ichiu-san now... please, no spoilers... but he has aptly described our position now as that of a snake swallowing its tail.

Definitely action-packed and from what I can see, balanced. One of my favorite canned scenarios so far.

[Jeff Heidman]

What I realy like about MIOLI was how, at the end, both sides have fought it out, and are lying, spent, on the field of battle.

Then that flight of B-24s comes over and carpet bombs the whole area, killing everything and everyone. That was cool! Really illustrated the futility of war...

Jeff Heidman

[Juardis]

I was always under the assumption that the Mk-IV was the infantry support tank while the Pz III series were to be the tank killers. But at this time of the war the Pz III's were gone and replaced with Panthers and Tigers.

So riddle me this. If you're in an all armor QB playing with the Short 75 house rules, which German tank do you pick? Answer, your only choice is the Mk-IV or the Lynx, Pumas, ACs. So yeah, you may be forced to use them in a role they were unintended for. In which case their shortcomings are exposed.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Marlow]

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

I was always under the assumption that the Mk-IV was the infantry support tank while the Pz III series were to be the tank killers. But at this time of the war the Pz III's were gone and replaced with Panthers and Tigers.

So riddle me this. If you're in an all armor QB playing with the Short 75 house rules, which German tank do you pick? Answer, your only choice is the Mk-IV or the Lynx, Pumas, ACs. So yeah, you may be forced to use them in a role they were unintended for. In which case their shortcomings are exposed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mark IV was originally intended as an IS tank, but because the Mark III could not carry a long 75, the Mark IV was switched to the AT role.

[Major Tom]

I think that the main problem is, is that when people see 'German tank' they assume 'invincible'. I have fallen under this spell as well.

While reading through war history books, I have come accross a lot of statements saying that weapons such as the 37mm and 40mm were useless, EXCEPT at close range. They didn't say that they were ALWAYS useless, just at any extreme or medium range.

Also, the Mark IV tanks seen in CM will not be that different to the later short barreled Mark IV tanks seen in CM3 in the desert (in regards to armour). In CM3, these Mark IV re-armoured tanks (ie. extra armour bolted around the thing) were taken out by 40mm gunned Cruisers, Crusaders, Valentines and Matildas. There is only so much improvement you can do to a specific design.

Remember, the basic design of the Mark IV is 5+ years old at the time of CM. Improvements can only go so far.

[M Hofbauer]

(RMC): The Panzer IV is really just an upgunned cardboard tank used for training in the early 30's.

(MarkIV): Sounds like someone needs to go to www.achtungpanzer or somewhere and do a little brushing up.

there seems to be a misunderstanding.

MarkIV, indeed I can attest to the grog status of RMC, even though I have currently bereft him of a significant part of his library, what remains in the back of his head despite his recent FPSing is enough leaves most of us far behind when it comes to ww2 german armor.

btw RMC is the guy who researched and largely solved the Nahverteidigungswaffe mystery (http://home.t-online.de/home/rcunningham/nahvert/nah.htm)

so it was obvious to me that his post on the Pz IV in this thread (the PzIV is really just a cardboard training tank) was a jovial hyperbole of someobne who knows exactly what he's talking about.

Mark IV, telling him to go to George's site (which btw will prove both of RMC's notions that a) the germans did make extensive use of wooden training tanks during the rebuilding of the Reichswehr / Wehrmacht in the years leading up to ww2 and that the early Pz IV models despite their (then) relative size indeed had very very thin armor plates) would be like telling Fionn to read what ww2 was about...

sorry for my elaboration I'm on sick leave...

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[RMC]

This is your Panzer IV.

This is your Panzer IV exposed to direct sunlight.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 12-20-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

it was obvious to me that (RMC's) post on the Pz IV in this thread (the PzIV is really just a cardboard training tank) was a jovial hyperbole of someobne who knows exactly what he's talking about.

Yes, he clarified that about a page ago.

telling him to go to George's site (which btw will prove both of RMC's notions that a) the germans did make extensive use of wooden training tanks during the rebuilding of the Reichswehr / Wehrmacht in the years leading up to ww2

Common knowledge, never disputed, and not the point that he was making, in what is now understood as a jocular reference.

and that the early Pz IV models despite their (then) relative size indeed had very very thin armor plates)

They did indeedy, but they aren't the ones modeled in CM, which his now-understood-to-be-jocular reference was in regard to.

would be like telling Fionn to read what ww2 was about...

Clearly, I did not know who I was dealing with. I did not look at his profile, nor his credentials. I did not recognize his nick and I foolishly took his statement at face value. I should know every poster on this board by now, as well as the contents of their libraries. He is indeed fortunate to count you among his friends and vice versa. I will slink back to my cesspool now, where I will be beaten like a cur and deservedly so, for venturing into the world of the erudite.

[PzKpfw 1]

Well I have to disagree the PzKpfw IV H & J are junk in CM as well as any assertions that PzKpfw IV's were useless in 1944, as operationaly their is no support for these assumptions.

Also CM is ia game albeit an detailed one, and X gun is scientificly going to do X penetration at X range etc, what it cannot simulate is that no armored car, or Lt tank is going to go, toe to toe with an medium or heavy tank, as they do in CM.

Even if the crews had known their 2lb or 37mm could defeat the turret front armor on a PzKpfw IVJ, but like Steve said one time IIRC how fun would it be if your AC's & Lt tanks turned and bolted as they did in reality in CM.

Regards,John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 12-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, well I think the two pages of posts has largely laid waste to the notion that we should be tweaking values just because someone doesn't like the results of a battle or two. Anybody who has been around this BBS for long will not be surprised by this

The fact is that the PzIV was outdated for CM's time period. That is why they stopped making them in favor of the Panther (and others). So anybody that is surprised that the PzIV can't drive around the map like a Jagdtiger needs to study up on tank tactics a bit more However, the Germans used the PzIV very effectively, on all fronts, until the end of the war. In the East it was seriously outclassed, but in the West it managed to hold its own in spite of its aged design.

The PzIV is a great vehicle at medium to long ranges vs. the average Allied tank. Do a test for yourself and see for yourself (I did a test at 1500m a while back and the Shermans really ate it). It fares less well against something like an M10 in ambush, but against such a TD in a head to head shoot out I'd take the PzIV any day.

The real weakness of the PzIV is the same for most vehicles -> close range (sub 1000m) tank to tank combat. Very few tanks in WWII could shrug off hits from the average AT weapon fielded by the other side at close range. The problem for German-biased players is that they have most of these few vehicle models available to them. Tigers, King Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Jagdtigers, and even to some extent the Hetzer. So it is not surprising that such a player feels the PzIV is out of place. Compared to these bulked up vehicles, it is. But that doesn't mean it is useless.

I personally love the PzIV and have had great success with them. In fact, I rather take 4 PzIVs than 2 Panthers any day of the week. The key to success is using the PzIVs cautiously and at maximum range. On the attack I generally try to identify where the enemy armor/AT guns are before engaging my PzIVs. On the defense, I pick nice hull down positions that offer quick retreat routs and alternate firing positions at MAXIMUM range.

While it is certainly more difficult to use the PzIV to great effect, compared to something like the Panther, I still find it to be a tank that the average Allied armored vehicle needs to fear.

As for RMC's changed veiew of the PzIV's effectiveness on the CM battlefield vs. other games, I agree. Because CM's modeling is more detailed, and more accountable (i.e. Allied AFVs aren't unfairly inept and German vehicles unfairly strong), most of the German tanks have come down a peg or two compared to other games. The problem with the PzIV is that it is at the bottom of the German tank pile, and therefore the most adversely affected by CM's more accountable modeling. But hey... people said they wanted us to make things as realistic as possible

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The fact is that the PzIV was outdated for CM's time period. That is why they stopped making them in favor of the Panther (and others). Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve when did they stop producing PzKpfw IV's in favor of the Panther etc?.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Steve when did they stop producing PzKpfw IV's in favor of the Panther etc?.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did not.

They were supposed to, but the famoulsy inept German production system never managed to completely switch over to Panther production.

Which was very (un)fortunate, since the Panther actually did not cost any more to produce once you got the factory machinery switched.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

Well put

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also CM is ia game albeit an detailed one, and X gun is scientificly going to do X penetration at X range etc, what it cannot simulate is that no armored car, or Lt tank is going to go, toe to toe with an medium or heavy tank, as they do in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you hinted at, we could attempt to simulate realistic behavior for overmatched engagements. But I would put you in charge of Customer Support and Relations to answer all the angry emails yelling about "how my &$(%ing vehicles won't do #&%$!!! YOU SUCK!!!" Yes, a large number of our beloved customers would sink to this level if their M8s turned right around and drove off the nearest map edge if they even heard a squad mention a Tiger was over the next hill

So... as John states... part of the problem in CM is unrealistic use of units (i.e. counter to historical tactics, training, and likely human reaction) to achieve realistic results (x gun penetrating y armor at z range). While a M8 could in fact kill a King Tiger, they were first of all highly unlikely to have ever met in battle, and if they did the M8 would likely have beat a hasty retreat.

We have some thoughts about how to minimize this behavior for the Eastern Front without having things drive away, but it still will not be airtight.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

Jeff has beat me to it. Production was supposed to have stopped in Feb of 45, but chaos and short term planning were the norm for German production during the last phase of the war. However, if I am not mistaken production was drastically reduced in favor of other models (not just the Panther, but something like the JPzIV and StuGIV). From what I can tell production rate of the J model dramatically decreased in 1945.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Right after the US invaded North Africa, a gaggle of Stuarts ambushed and destroyed a handful of PzIVs (with the long 75) and PzIIIs in a close range fight. The US armored crewmen took this, about their first fight against German armor, to mean that they would always have the edge on the Germans. How surprised were THEY at Kasserine Pass?

DjB

[Jasper]

Something to think about: Select the year you want to fight in. The only effect would be to alter the list of available equipment to choose from. Then the grogs could fight in '42 while the flash-bangers could select "None chosen" and buy all the FireFly's that they want to. PS Can you buy the Brit 17lb AT gun as well or only the Brits tanks?

[M Hofbauer]

Jeff Heidman: They were supposed to, but the famoulsy inept German production system never managed to completely switch over to Panther production.

Steve: Production was supposed to have stopped in Feb of 45, but chaos and short term planning were the norm for German production during the last phase of the war.

actually, the production output of the Panther (excl. Jagdpanther) in 1944 with 3777 (not incl. 227 recovery Panthers) already was higher than the PzIV (pure PzIV w/o the conversions and derivates) production of that year with 3225 (not including direct PzIV-subversions 36 recovery, 96 observation and 97 command Pz IV). In 1945, 507 Panthers (+38) were built as opposed to 438 (+3/31/-) Pz IV.

Jeff Heidmann: Which was very (un)fortunate, since the Panther actually did not cost any more to produce once you got the factory machinery switched.

Indeed. If you take the price the industry (which was despite the total war run commercially and profit-oriented) charged the Wehrmacht per vehicle as a basis for the rough amount of effort to produce it (manhours+resources etc.), the difference between the two vehicles is minimal.

One Panzer IV Ausf. F2 ready to drive into combat costed 115,962.00 Reichsmark. This includes radios, optics and the KwK 40 L/43, the latter alone costed 12,500.00 RM.

For comparison, an early Panther costed 117,100.00 RM for the vehicle alone (excluding optics, radio and guns). Can't find the prices for the KwK 42 L/70 right now but I think it's somewhere in the 20,000 - range.

data on the amount of actual resources and manhours neccessary to build the respective vehicles would be even more valuable but I can't find such data right now.

Mark IV: Chill. I wish you a Merry pre-Christmas time!

Jasper: not sure what you mean?? do you not have the game??

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[Jasper]

All I got's the demo. Waiting for either Santa Clause or if that fails I'll find the checkbook. So what is the deal with British equipment? If you can buy the British 17lb AT gun - who would ever buy the crappy 57mm US widow maker?

[Jarmo]

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

All I got's the demo. Waiting for either Santa Clause or if that fails I'll find the checkbook. So what is the deal with British equipment? If you can buy the British 17lb AT gun - who would ever buy the crappy 57mm US widow maker?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a choice between getting one good, or two adequate guns.

[Trooper]

I don't see the MkIV as being any worse off than a Sherman. Indeed, I'd basically call it the German counterpart.

I treat -all- my tanks, up to and including Jumbos as vehicles that I don't want to get shot at. I view armor as a last-ditch defense against the enemy. Better to outflank him and nab him first, or use concealing terrain. The problem with relying on your armor is that the enmy might hit a weak point, or knock out your gun, or some such.

I use my MkIVs just as I use my Shermans. Cautiously. Don't ask it to do things you wouldn't want a Sherman to do, and the MkIV will do you very nicely indeed, thank you.

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[kump]

The US 57mm AT gun is not a crappy gun, especially at less than 1000 meters, which happens often in CM. Just last night I had one enemy 57mm AT gun manned by a crack crew take out my Mk-IVH and TWO Panthers, both side turret hits, all in one turn. Damn crew got three first shot hits and that 57mm laid waste to my German armor. It did make me scratch my noggin. Did not know the 57mm was so effective against Panthers, even with side turret hits...

At the close ranges, everything that can shoot is dangerous.

[Guest Big Time Software]

The 57mm AT gun had three problems:

1. HEAVY! This was an operational problem, of course, but it had an impact on the weapon's overall performance. IIRC the Pak40 is about the same weight, but is obviously a better gun.

2. Long range plinking. It didn't have much of a hope of hitting even typical German AFVs at decent ranges (1000m +).

3. Dealing with the heavies. When put up against the Heavy tanks, and even the Panther (frontally), it was simply not up to the task. Fortunately, the average AT gunner was very unlikely to ever go up against the heavy stuff.

The thing about Panthers is that they have fairly weak side armor. If you have to shoot one of these things from the front... forgetaboutit The shortcoming of the thin Panther side armor wasn't such a big deal when the vehicle was used as designed (i.e. long range engagements), but in a close in battle it was vulnerable. I remember reading about a 57mm AT killing a Panther from the front at close range. Shot right into the bow ball MG and that was that!

Steve