Panzer IVJ compared to M4 Sherman

[lcm1947]

I was or should say have been buying a lot of M4's in my games since I enjoy playing the early periods of the game. In these games I normally go up against the Panzer IVJ. Well, I've noticed that they are so much a better tank then the M4 I thought I would take a closer look at them so I did some comparing and it seems that someting is wrong. They both cost about the same $118.00 and the figures actually show the M4 to be better armored, a little heavier and has a faster turrert but the Panzer has more penetration close up as well as well as far off. Now, here's the rub. Unless I get a flank shot or come up on the Panzer's rear the M4 doesn't have a chance of taking one on. So what's the problem you say, well if the Panzer is so much better why does it cost the same. I mean that's not correct. It should for cost quite a bit more for being the tank it is. And don't tell me that it's not that much better because it is really is. Also if the M4 has a faster turrert you would think that it would get the first shot off most of the time but it doesn't. I just can't figure out why they don't cost more. Anybody know? Just a pet peeve.

:confused:

[Bog]

Actually I find that when going head to head the two tanks seem almost equal. The M4 has the advantage of fast turret and better armor (I've seen M4s richochet the Pz IV's shells at medium range), and the Pz IV has better muzzle velocity.

[Desantnik]

i found that PzIV actually performs worse than Shermans. I never had Pz IV survive more than one shot from anything bigger than 30mm. Shermans on other hand seem to deflect shells with regularity that makes me jealous. Also allies get more points to spend on armor so you can buy alot of M4s and simply swarm the Axis player. Quantity seems to overcome quality in CM (which indeed is true, in practically every war quantity has won).

[Foobar]

I have had a hot MarkIV kill 4 shermans in a row, unanswered. But I usually see shermans dominating the markIV's at anything below 300 meter range, which is the usual CMBO tank combat range I experience.

[lcm1947]

Am I playing the same game as you guys? I mean I am dumbfounded that you think that the M4 is better. WoW! Ok that does it I'm going to do some testing. Maybe I'm just a cry baby but it sure seems like what I said is true. Thanks for the fed back however.

[offtaskagain]

I find the M4 to be the better tank. That horrible front turret armor is a major flaw in the PzIV.

[PiggDogg]

In CM (& I would guess in real life), the M4 & the Pz4 are just about the same. As Desantnik said, Shermans will bounce some (well i say, 20mm or so) shells. I have never seen a Pz4 have anything bounce off of it.

If a Sherman & Pz4 shoot it out at CM ranges (150 - 300 meters), whoever hits first, kills first. In such a head to head battle versus each other, they are eggshells with hammers.

Cheers, Richard

[Gen-x87H]

Pretty much equals. But I would take the M4 due to the higher turret speed.

Gen

[Mark IV]

I like the gun on the PzIV, and all other things being equal, would prefer to stand off in a nice hull down and snipe the hell out of Shermans.

Every situation is different, but that is the one I strive to create.

[Sergeant Saunders]

I have seen a lot of of double kills. Sherman & PZIV spot each other ... then each fire and both go up in smoke. :eek:

[Slapdragon]

I think the problem is, which M4 are you talking about. The M4 -- is a better infantry killer but a worse tank killer than the IV series. Lots of marks burn easy though, so they do not get a second chance. The E2 is a fort on wheels -- deadly in infantry support since it needs a long 75 at pretty close range to take it. The E8 is a fair armor killer, and a great infantry support weapon, with good cross country, and in later models, nice armor. It eats Mk4s for breakfast.

Both the Mk4 and the M4 though are dogfight tanks. All offense, no defence. They need infantry support, corrdination between tanks, and artillery to be effective in the battlefield.

[Warmaker]

I've lost more PzKpfw IVs frontally to plain Jane Shermans than I can care to count. If the PzKpfw IV can engage it's targets at ranges of maybe about 800-1000m then the German tank gets an advantage with it's superior gun (higher velocity). This is against 75mm Shermans though. In playing with the PzKpfw IV I have come to prefer the H variant. The 50mm of "thick" armor on the turret front is a damn liability. I have come to firmly believe that placing a PzKpfw IV hull-down is a death sentence since you're forcing everyone to aim for the paper thin turret armor. Stuarts have no problem piercing it this way too.

With longer engagement ranges you maybe have the hope of deflecting inferior 75mm Allied guns even with the PzKpfw IV's armor. It's turret isn't fast and the J version is even worse. If you're really dying to pick a turreted panzer, go with a Tiger I or Panther. At least they can take the punishment since the PzKfpw IV doesn't have a turret any faster than the Panther's.

[Simon Fox]

Slapdragon is right.

Personally I use my Shermans against infantry and use Stuarts or Daimlers to deal with the MkIVs.

[Silvio Manuel]

I agree with Simon Fox- Stuarts and Daimlers are the AT-capability even of the PzIV.

Does anyone here ever take IVJ's over IVH's??? If so, why? IVJ has a slow turret, and the G and H have medium. Everything else is the same, correct?

Sherman armor does make 50mm AT shots bounce off sometimes, in my experience, even at close range. Then again sometimes my opponent's tanks get "x-ray vision" and apparently shoot through a buildings' windows and ruin my day.

[Amedeo]

The fact is that many CM games feature too small scale actions to let the PzKpfw-IV gain the upper hand in tank vs. tank combat. If you make a test scenario with open and flat fields and pit M4s vs. Pz-IVs at 1500m range or so the Panzers will readily destroy all the Shermans with minimum casualties. But this is a very idealized situation (especially in CM's scale).

Amedeo

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

Does anyone here ever take IVJ's over IVH's??? If so, why? IVJ has a slow turret, and the G and H have medium. Everything else is the same, correct?

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always assumed due to BTS earlier showing that the included the diffrence in FH armour for the PIV H and RH armour for the PIV J (front plate). The RH being more effective vs British and USA APC and APCBC shot/shell. On the basis of this I tend towards the PIV J.

[Wolfe]

As Slapdragon says, beware of the differences in the Shermans. In CM the M4, M4 Croc, M4A1, and M4A3 all have only 85% armor strength. The M4's weakened upper hull will generally not shed shots from the PzIV gun. But the M4A3(75)w has 100% armor strength and has a good chance of bouncing shots (its armor is also thicker, though less sloped). At medium ranges, this does make a difference. At extreme ranges (2000m), the 85% UH armor is less relevant.

With weak turret armor both tanks are very similarly matched, but the PzIV has better accuracy because of its higher muzzle velocity, which would seem to favor the PzIV. Though at 2000m the PzIV's paper-thin turret armor becomes more of a liability than the Sherman's turret.

One thing that would help both tanks is if they could stay obliqued longer, and not always square off after each shot. I've seen a highly obliqued French M4A2 shed a shot from a Tiger off of its upper hull at ~900m. Unfortunately, CM will usually keep turning the tank hulls until they're perfectly facing each other. Something I've whined about for a while now.

BTW, hull down isn't necessarily always the best position. When hull down, the weak turret will take the majority of hits. When fully exposed, its the upper hull that's hit most. Of course, when hull down, you're less likely to be hit at all. The choice between more exposed but stronger armor and less exposed but weaker armor isn't always easy to make.

- Chris

[Pzman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

I was or should say have been buying a lot of M4's in my games since I enjoy playing the early periods of the game. In these games I normally go up against the Panzer IVJ. Well, I've noticed that they are so much a better tank then the M4 I thought I would take a closer look at them so I did some comparing and it seems that someting is wrong. They both cost about the same $118.00 and the figures actually show the M4 to be better armored, a little heavier and has a faster turrert but the Panzer has more penetration close up as well as well as far off. Now, here's the rub. Unless I get a flank shot or come up on the Panzer's rear the M4 doesn't have a chance of taking one on. So what's the problem you say, well if the Panzer is so much better why does it cost the same. I mean that's not correct. It should for cost quite a bit more for being the tank it is. And don't tell me that it's not that much better because it is really is. Also if the M4 has a faster turrert you would think that it would get the first shot off most of the time but it doesn't. I just can't figure out why they don't cost more. Anybody know? Just a pet peeve.

:confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now when you are talking about the Panzer IV you must think about when it started production... 1936-7. Now after about 6-7 years its going to be cheep. After all there are tanks out there that are a lot better. So the company selling Panzer IVs is going to make them cheep. See where I am coming from?

It has flat frontal armor which dosn't help it any. Yes its up gunned and armored but mostly it still a 1936 tank.

[ 07-30-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[Fieldmarshall]

The reason a Panzer IV shell will bounce off a Sherman M4, and the Shermans shell will penetrate the Panzers forward armor with little trouble, is because of the armor slope. If you take a look at a Sherman it has very sloped frontal armor, when you look at a Panzer IV it has flat frontal armor. Resulting in penetrations.

-Fieldmarshall

[General Petrovsky]

The most important diffence between the German Panzers and the M4 Sherman is accuracy. The Panzers not only have greater muzzle velocity, but they have a longer gun barrel which gives them greater accuracy then the short 75mm of the M4 Sherman. Couple this with the fact that the first one to hit wins a duel you have to give the nod to the more accurate tank. At longer ranges the Sherman's accuracy is pitiful. I'm in a PBEM game now where I have a Stug in my sights at 530 meters, a perfect flank shot and I'm seriously concerned of the outcome. He was to totally rotate his tank 55 - 60 degrees to shoot at me and I'm worried, I will probably get at least 3 shots off before he shoots at me and I know they will all miss. It will probably come down to the 4th or 5th shot, if I'm still alive. I'll find out tonite what happens.

[Jarmo]

Sherman is the better infantry killer of the two tanks. It also has the better armour (although the benefit of it is noexistent). CM recognizes these factors and includes them in the price.

PzIV J has a bit lower ground pressure than H version. Better for muddy ground. Although I would still take G version, with low ground pressure and a medium turret.

[Enoch]

I was looking through my copy of the Encyclopedia of German Tanks in WW II and saw a picture and brief mention of a prototype Pz Iv with a hydrostatic drive and sloped frontal armor. I'd think that the germans could have greatly increased the effectiveness of the Pz IV had they modified the tank to incorporate this.

[Chad Harrison]

ironic, i was just running a test this morning comparing the mark IV to the sherman 75. heres what i saw: the accuracy is pretty par with each other. in almost every case (regular crews) it was just lady luck deciding who won the shoot off (neither moving), almost every shot was a KO (frontal armor). when i brought in the sherman 76, it was a high knotch above the mark IV. i personally love the old 75 shermans. cheap, lots of MG's, and LOTS of 75 HE ammo which never seems to run out. they die just like every other tank and you save a lot of points with them.

[lcm1947]

Well I ran a test to see which was the better tank and it turns out the PZ IVG hands down. The first test was at 552m. Ten tanks each, face to pretty face. After it was over no Sherman's but 5 PZ IVG's left. So I think - OK, that's kind of expected due to the range. The PZ is more accurate at the longer distances. Now I set up same number of tanks but at 284m. Well, when the smoke clears there again are no Sherman's left but this time 6 PZ's left. Now I'm not sure but I do believe the PZ IVG is a better tank and therefore should cost more. One other test was run. This was same 10 tanks but they were back to back about 20 meters apart. Well the Shermans do have a faster turrert. No PZ's left but 9 Sherman's were laughing and joking about how easy PZ's blow up. Anyway, it was rather interesting but now more then ever I feel that the valve of the PZ's are understated.

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Well I ran a test to see which was the better tank and it turns out the PZ IVG hands down. The first test was at 552m. Ten tanks each, face to pretty face. After it was over no Sherman's but 5 PZ IVG's left. So I think - OK, that's kind of expected due to the range. The PZ is more accurate at the longer distances. Now I set up same number of tanks but at 284m. Well, when the smoke clears there again are no Sherman's left but this time 6 PZ's left. Now I'm not sure but I do believe the PZ IVG is a better tank and therefore should cost more. One other test was run. This was same 10 tanks but they were back to back about 20 meters apart. Well the Shermans do have a faster turrert. No PZ's left but 9 Sherman's were laughing and joking about how easy PZ's blow up. Anyway, it was rather interesting but now more then ever I feel that the valve of the PZ's are understated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are only looking at AT capability when the factors for a unit's "cost" include also armor and its quality, turret speed, ammo loadout etc etc. The M4, M4A1, M4A3 and the three PzIV variants are all roughly "equal" in overall cost, each side with differing strengths and weaknesses but both able to KO the other. The M4s are more well rounded and versatile in my opinion. The part I question is the big jump in price to the M4A3(W) as the "improvements" of wet stowage, slightly better armor and quality, and more ammo don't seem to justify it.

Ron