Sven Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 I keep on losing my PzIVs. Frontal hits with not that big guns (i.e. Stuarts). Were they really THAT easy to knock out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Yeah they were. Reason you get the accounts of 'pz IVs egad runaway!' on the western front (from what i've read) is that they frequently hung out with Panthers and Tigers! :> On their own, Pz IVs are the Shermans of the German army hehe. I love the little buggers tho. PeterNZ ------------------ "What do I care, I got laid last week" - Chupacabra "Bjorn again are really quite good!" - Germanboy - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem and Croda - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 >Yeah they were. Not quite. The applique armor on the mantlet and upper hull front was designed to defeat the Soviet 76,2mm gun. While not impervious they were much more resilient IRL than they are currently in CM when it comes to frontal hits. I think the reason they are currently so fragile is in the targeting and hit accuracy modelling more than faulty armour modelling. The targeting and hit accuracy modelling as it is now modelled favours the Allies quite heavily (even bordering on gamey advantage, in my view). >is that they frequently hung out with Panthers and Tigers! :> And yet most of the Tigers engaged turned out to be PzKw-IV's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Yep, it's quite surprising how vulnerable those Pzkpfw IVs are. Against what guns they were armored exactly? A Daimler drilling those babies FRONTALLY is quite embarrassing from the German point of view. I would like to quote Rexford (the Grognard ) from an earlier thread: Originally posted by rexford: Not to sound like an Uber-Tank fanatic, but 75L40 APCBC penetration is about 7% higher than U.S. test data in TM-9-1907, and if PzKpfw IVH armor is 10% more resistant than British than CM overestimates 75L40 APCBC penetration capability against PzKpfw IVH by about 17%. Thousands of destroyed PzKpfw IVH's, cluttering up CM battlefields and filling the air with their burning smoke, cry out for justice! So there may be something to correct. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 I doubt CM is off on this subject, much or at all, based on the unit histories. The Pz IV was part of the German force that *conquered* France 4-5 years previously. Yes, the gun had been upgraded, and minor improvements made to the chassis and armor. But this is an *old* tank by 1944. Second, I have never read in unit histories a single account of bouncing frustration after achieving hits against the Pz IV, with any gun above the British 2 lber. You do hear about 2-lber rounds failing to kill Pz IVs, e.g. in North Africa. It is generally at range, and from the front or "angled" approaches. The U.S. 37mm AT (E.g. Stuarts and M-8s) should be similar, and in my CM experience it is. These light guns usually need side hits. The next couple paragraphs are about CM data. The only exception is the turret front, which is more weakly armored than the front hull. The 2 lber and 37mm can penetrate the turret front if the range is close (as it usually is in CM - <600-800 yards is fine). These guns will get through the side, but will bounce off the front hull. With the 40mm AA, the penetration is not as high as with the ATs, and the turret front of the Pz IV is only vunerable at ~250 yards or so. The 57mm and 6-lb ATGs can't penetrate the hull front unless the range is close, <500 yards. Again, it usually is in CM. And the Sherman 75mm can have problems with the front hull armor at ranges of about 1000 yards, or somewhat closer in an "angled approach". Piats and zooks have the punch to get through any part of the tank, but the variability of HEAT penetration with the impact angle can change this. Front hull penetrations require reasonably "flat", straight hits. I've personally seen a Pz IV bounce 5 zook rounds, from upper hull and even turret front (though that is lucky). Third, data has previously been cited on this board about a British survey of number of hits vs. number of kills on various AFVs in Normandy. These means looking over the wrecks and counting holes, etc. The Pz IV actually had a lower ratio of hits per kill than Shermans, about 1.3 vs. 1.6. But that difference may reflect second "making sure" shots. It still contrasts sharply with the ~4-5 figure for Panthers and the even higher number for Tigers. Remember that the U.S. practically had an all short-75 weapons mix in Normandy, and the Brits had no more than 1 17-lb per 3 of those. The ranges were, however, generally fairly close. The conclusion is that the Sherman's 75mm had no difficulty defeating the Pz IVs armor in practice, from turret hits, side shots, or moderately range (<1 kilometer). This is not in the least surprising. No Allied tank fielded a tank gun of that AT ability at the time the Pz IV was originally designed. The few 75mm armed tanks in the early-war Allied fleets, were even shorter 75/18s and similar types, meant for HE use - incidentally, the same sort of gun the Pz. IV itself originally mounted. (In CM you find those in gun-armed HTs, Germans and U.S.). It is still a fine tank, better than the Sherman in a number of respects. Its gun is more powerful. Coupled with generally weaker Allied armor, this lets it kill just about any Allied tank. Ask any Allied tanker if that isn't a valuable attribute! It also has a lower profile than the Sherman. It has a somewhat smaller, but still ample, HE load, and 2 MGs. But in most respects it is fully equal to a Sherman 76mm - which incidentally costs 4/3rds as much. (For what? A faster turret? 4/3rds?!) Anyone dissing it should play the Allies for a while, to improve your tanker skills and learn to walk, instead of hobbling on the front-armor crutch. You will quickly realize what a pack of these can do when you try the Germans again. Using proper team tactics ("wingmen", infantry "eyes", etc), the Pz IV is a fine tank. [This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 02-28-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 I'm with Jason C. The Pz IV just requires a different approach to the later German tanks (an approach I haven't completely got the hang of). They're cheap enough to get the numbers you need to use them effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Since the game does not give you a shoot n scoot capability, you have to adapt. I keep them either near large buildings, on the edge of woods or with access to pulling back behind a hill. The game does not allow you to give smoke n reverse orders either (the smoke projectors are TACAI realm), you cant count on this. If I feel that a PIV will get overwhelmed, then I will give it a pause/reverse order so that his exposure time is minimized. Hopefully I can reinforce this with a hunt order to another tank/sp from another quarter to cover the area of attack. I believe the turret area may be overmodeled in size. BTS has already admitted tanks are a generic distribution model for placement of hits. The gun shield may have an unmodeled effect similar to the Tiger I front turret (where overlapping of armor and metal was demonstrated to BTS). In CM2 this should be changed or T34 will be getting popped on thier front turrets also by 50mml42 and such. Field expediant armor was so commen with these vehicles that I wonder if they were delivered from the factory that way. I have seen pics of extra armor/tracks added to the ffront turrtes also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Well yes to an extent the Stuart etc, can defeat the PzKpfw IV's 50mm TF armor. The PzKpfw IV uparmoring program was mainly reactions to improvements in Soviet AT guns, Ie, it was found that the Soviet 57mm AT gun IIRC could defeat the PzKpfw IV's 50mm glacis @ 1000m, so the Germans uparmored it to 80mm, which made it immune to the 57mm etc. Another aspect is that tank gunnery training for most countries in WW2 stressed center mass shots, which meant most impacts were in the glacis,front turret ring area, but we also know from Russian reports, in 44 - 45 that around 80% of all Soviet tanks lost in combat, were due to turret front penetrations. Basicly I have always thought their have been to many TF penetrations in CM vs PzKpfw IVs, in that Stuarts etc; always seem to get an TF penetration, instead of the repeated bounces off the glacis i want , so I tend to think of the PzKpfw IV as a Sherman in armor protection. It still remains my tank of choice as the Germans. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by rexford: Not to sound like an Uber-Tank fanatic, but 75L40 APCBC penetration is about 7% higher than U.S. test data in TM-9-1907, and if >PzKpfw IVH armor is 10% more resistant than British than CM overestimates 75L40 APCBC penetration capability against PzKpfw IVH by about 17%. Thousands of destroyed PzKpfw IVH's, cluttering up CM battlefields and filling the air with their burning smoke, cry out for justice! Since there is absolutely NO, NIX, NINGUNO, NADA, EI SITTEN ENISMMÄISTÄKÄÄN figures available on actual Allied tank losses I think there is something fishy going on. Has been since the end of the war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts