Panzer IVJ compared to M4 Sherman

[lcm1947]

Oh I see. Thank you very much for that info. I was really disappointed in the game, well a little, that it wasn't correct in their ratings. Now that you explained it I feel better. And it does make sense. So OK all's well now. I can now go back to playing the game without any hard feelings. Thanks Ron.

[bojangles]

I did a test first to ten and the panzer to me one 10 to 9.

[gatpr]

There's an old Russian military maxim (pun!) that goes quantity has a quality all its own.

[Snake Eyes]

<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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M4's of all models should never sit and slug it out with German tanks, even the much maligned PzIV. M4's and most U.S. AFV's must be used with finesse, bringing to bear their unique qualities; floatation, turret speed, ROF, and speed. They were built to be hell on infantry, which they are, especially those equipped with the 75mm. M4's were not meant to go toe-to-toe with other tanks. The fact that they did says more about the misguided U.S. tank doctrine than the weaknesses of the M4.

U.S. tank destroyers were made to take on enemy tanks. American TD's must use finesse as well. The trick is to figure out the best qualities of each vehicle and use them against the weaknesses of the opposition.

Personally I feel that U.S. AFV's, when used properly, can stand against any German AFV.

[Michael Emrys]

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

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but that's not where BTS is coming from. The cost to purchase units in CM has nothing to do with the historical cost of production. It is a way of rating the relative battlefield performance of the various units. In other words, the higher the cost, the better BTS thinks the unit performed in combat. Obviously this is a judgement call, and any of those figures can be (and many of them have been) quibbled over. But it's BTS' call and that's how they've made it.

Michael

[Warmaker]

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

There's an old Russian military maxim (pun!) that goes quantity has a quality all its own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quantity has it's place, but used improperly just means lots, lots, lots, and maybe, just maybe, a lot more dead men and destroyed equipment. Not to mention a lot more mourning moms and widows back home. The Russians early in WWII before they finally got their act together readily come to mind...

In sharp contrast: I would prefer a disciplined, trained, and equipped military over a large armed mob. A field day anyone?

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[PawBroon]

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

I would prefer a disciplined, trained, and equipped military over a large armed mob.

A field day anyone?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends just how large the mob...

Isandhlwana anyone?

[Warmaker]

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

Depends just how large the mob...

Isandhlwana anyone?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one. But don't forget the vengeance the Brits came back with after that...

In another part of the world, how about the Boxer Rebellion in China? Lots of traditionally clothed, armored, and armed (swords) Chinese rose up against European and American colonialism in China. Quite a hairy situation for the foreigners there (like in embassies). When a multinational Western force finally showed up they commenced to clean up the rebellion to relieve the holed up Western survivors.

American Revolution. We know the end result to this and it came about by a number of factors that would take too long to cover. What I want to touch upon is the contrast between the U.S. military and the British Army, namely the militias. History has shown repeatedly that militias fare very poorly against a professional army. Sure there may have been certain units that were the exception but on a whole were no match to the well trained and equipped British Army. It's one thing to be a soldier living the military life to fight. It's another to be farming one day and finding yourself in a makeshift untrained militia the next.

Besides, nowadays we've got a good way to clear out large hostile mobs... how about artillery? Machineguns?*boom!*zip!*

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[tools4fools]

Here a test I did some time ago, 10 M4 against 10 Pz IVG:

Test No.1

Range: 475m

10 runs with 10 tanks each (immobile) facing each other each pair separated by a line of tall pines.

M4 is given a hit chance of 38%

Pz IV is given a hit chance of 42%

First shots were about even (51% for Pz IV to 49% for M4)

In two test runs each side got once a first shot ratio of 7:3, but usually they were about even.

Kills: 65 M4 got knocked out while 49 Pz IV got knocked out.

In one test run all M4's were knocked out with a loss of only two PzIV. However this was an exception. Highest number of Pz IV knocked out was 6 with 4 M4's lost.

No Ricochets on both sides were observed.

The advantage on kills for the Pz IV seems to result on the higher accuracy of the 75mm L/48 gun.

Of course this test does not include where the strenght of the M4 is: manouverability and a fast turret.

On a different test (same range) with the M4 showing its side and moving into LOS of a stationary Pz IV I observed some ricochets on the front hull of the M4. While turning to face the Pz IV shots hitting the frontal armor ricocheted sometimes. Once facing the Pz IV there where no more ricochets on the M's front armour. It seems the combination of the sloped armour and the the angle of the hit made it possible to deflect the shot.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I would prefer a disciplined, trained, and equipped military over a large armed mob. A field day anyone?

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans had an disciplined, trained, and equipped military in the East, and yet, were basicly, beaten by an 'large armed mob' qantity has a quality all it's own.

Regards, John Waters

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Chad Harrison]

my two bits to the original question: i have questioned this one for awhile and have run some tests of my own (about 500m range). to be honest, they were pretty even par. the more i ran the same firing test, the more it seemed to be whoever had lady luck on their side. the 75mm had little problem penetrating the mark IV's frontal armour. i greatly prefer the sherman because of: more armour, more MG's and MG ammo, and a LOT more main gun rounds. i love having a old M4A1 with 61 rounds of HE for infantry support. you cant beat that for about 115 pts! i do also use the mark IV's quite a bit, and they are more accurate at times, but i prefer sherman, hands down.