PzIV tactical suggestions?

[Silvio Manuel]

Generally speaking, I try to keep my PzIV's further away from the enemy that I would with a StuG, due to the thin turret armor of course. Out around 500m+ I get a happy amount of ricochets against 37mm and 40mm AP rounds vs. both the turret and hull.

Staying at greater range also better utilizes the greater m/s speed of the PzIV gun vs. Sherman 75mm's.

[Chad Harrison]

you could say alot about the weaknesses of the markIV, but its just like using the sherman or an armored car: you have to be carefull. dont get in any straight on shoot outs, youll always lose (trust me, you never win! , atleast i dont). nail those allies with side shots and just be carefull.

i would also take 3 markIV's over two panthers. you can do a lot more, and have more flexibility and you dont pound the desk as hard when you lose one!

[D'arcy Montague]

Now I don't mean to rile anyone for the sake of it, but I can't believe the amount of whinging and whining on this thread.

One should be comfortable playing with less than best spec units. After all, this game is about simulating your average company/battalion commanders role, someone who has to work with whats to hand. If you can't play with vanilla infantry & vehicles then why play at all?

But I digress, the Mk4 in my opinion is a fine tank. Alot of the unfortunate circumstances related in this thread seem to be just that, bad luck. Which happens with any unit.

One fires round after round at dead cert targets to no effect, all the time (well at least I seem to)! So stack the odds wherever possible.

Yes that turret armour is a problem, but on the other hand, the gun is pretty kickarse. All in all I think the points value is pretty fair.

The following seems to work for me:

- Engage targets at range. 'Roll up' to the fire position with all four tanks if possible. Unlike the Sherman commander, who has to fear the likes the Panther picking off his defenseless tanks, the Mk4 is capable of destroying most targets it is likely to encounter (The Pershing is pretty rare even in CM, and the Churchill is slow, and accordingly, usually unable to react in a timely fashion to new developments).

-As someone pointed out earlier, avoid melee engagements. Sniping and establishing brief firebases is where its at. When moving, I find it is best to use two tanks in overwatch.

-When taking opportunity shots do so like your using an assault gun ie. avoid the hunt command, instead use a move/reverse combo or staggered orders using the pause between orders as a fire window.

[JasonC]

That was an illuminating explanation, Charles, and I agree the present system is much more sensible than magically gifted gunners always hitting the weakest plate.

Vanir B said "75mm can penetrate the Pz IV hull out past 1000m anyway". "Can" is the operative word. Beyond around 1050 meters, the worst it will do with a hull hit is internal armor flaking, occasionally with a crewmen down. And some will bounce from the hull in the range 800-1050 meters, depending on side angles. If you have the US 75mm and want to be certain, the range to head for is 750 meters, not 1000. On the other hand if you are in the Pz IV, you want to stay out at 1100-1500 meters. And if they get closer, turn the tank to one side slightly (often a good idea anyway). 15-20 degrees will do, you don't want to go too far or you will expose side armor. Just use a short "move" in the appropriate direction.

D'Arcy M said the Pz IV gun can kill most things you run across, and discussed the Perhsing and Churchills as exceptions. The Sherman Jumbo also belongs in that category. But this is still not exhaustive, because the other improved armor Shermans are not vunerable at all points, though their turret is out to long range.

The W+ hull front will bounce just about anything the Pz IV gun can do, and the plain W hull front will ricochet shots from the lower hull beyond 500 meters, and from the upper hulls (the largest surface) beyond 250 meters, and even closer if you've got a side angle problem. 76mm gun versions of these tanks have to be watched double, because they can get through the Pz IV hull even at range, with plain AP.

So Pz IVs do have to be wary of improved Shermans. All of these types can be killed with side shots, and from the front with a turret hit; they aren't invunerable like the makes D'Arcy M. mentioned. But you don't want to pop out in front of the W and W+ tanks without thinking through your kill chances, not just who is going to fire first.

Hull down duels at range are your best bet against these types, because both can kill by turret hits, but your outline is lower and (vs. 75mm anyway) your gun is more accurate (especially at long range) because of its higher muzzle velocity.

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC:

I think people's disappointment with them stems from (1) being spoiled by uberarmor, to the point of not knowing what to do if any part of the tank is vunerable to enemy AP rounds, (2) only fighting at knife-fight ranges, where the hull armor isn't good enough even against 37mm and short 75mm, and (3) not using proper teamwork and combined arms, the same as Allied tankers always have to do.<hr></blockquote>

As Jason C's detailed analysis suggests, those who complain about PzIVs need to learn how the other half lives--if you play mostly Allies, you already know how to use PzIVs because they have most of the same strengths and liabilites of a Sherman 75, and guys who play Allies a lot are used to living with those liabilites and trying to still find a way to win somehow with a very vulnerable tank.

Essentially, when you think PzIV, think Sherman. It's basically equivalent to, even if in several ways somewhat superior to, a vanilla Sherman--with thinner frontal armor but a better gun and better ground pressure. Its thinner armor but better, higher velocity gun than the vanilla Sherman makes them about even--each can penetrate the other from the front most of the time. But, as JasonC and others have indicated, PzIVs will more often than not win long range duels against vanilla Shermans, because of the longer, more accurate gun. The (unhistorical) prevalence of Pumas (with their 50mm guns) on the CM battlefield means that Shermans will die at close range when facing German armored cars, as PzIV do against Greyhounds and Stuarts, so that part, too, tends to even out.

To get the fighting equivalent of a PzIV as an AT weapon, an Allied commander has to buy a Sherman M1A1 76 (comparatively porous frontal armor, pretty good gun) for a lot more points. Even that tank suffers from the vanilla Sherman's high ground pressure characteristics and will bog much more readily than a PzIV in damp or wet conditions. To get decent ground pressure characteristics Allied commanders have to pay a LOT for an Easy Eight, whereas most Axis tanks seem to get these qualities basically for free.

As with Sherman, the key here is to work with the PzIV's strengths, while trying to minimize its weaknesses. It's a good anti-infantry tank. It can win long range duels against many Allied tanks more often than not, and, overall, its pretty cheap for the value it delivers. When facing British forces, PzIVs are useful to target the British Fireflies, since they can kill these threatening, higher cost tanks quite readily, and use the Panthers/Tigers to take on the vanilla Shermans or Churchills. If you get a 50/50 kill rate against Fireflies with your PzIVs, your ahead of the game points-wise.

In any case, some of your PzIVs are inevitably going to burn, but by using cagey tactics, scooting around behind cover, etc., you can work to keep them alive. A team of PzIVs and Hetzers is one low cost approach to the Axis armored mix. Too get the equivalent value in AT gun power (from both the PzIV and Hetzer) and frontal armor protection (from the Hetzer) the Allied player has to spend a lot more.

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[Redwolf]

Good Post, CA.

I'd like to add that the Pz IV doesn't only have less tendency to bog down. It is also much faster in open or difficult ground, snow etc. than the vanilla Shermans, including the Fireflies.

Note that the tendency to bog down does not always corrospond with the ground pressure. A CMBO StuG bogs down a lot more often than a Pz IV in mud. Try it out.

I think the Pz IV is better compared to the Cromwell, since both are good goings over country you chose (not always streets) and they share the basic tactical problem, vulnerability to cheap guns, towed and on vehicles. The Cromwell is quite vulnerable -even at big distances- to the 50mm AT gun, which you see a lot in Axis hinterlands and on the Puma. The worst Pz IV nightmare is the Bofor AA gun with its extreme hit probability. Luckily, while it will almost always hit, it will hit the hull more often than not

I also think that the model of front turret hit in CMBO is a bit too simple and that the PZ IV suffers from it. If you look at the front of a Pz IV, you see that the turret is quite small and on upgunned Pz IV a significant part of the turret front is behind the additional cover of gun parts. However, the turret hit chance seems to be the same, and if the turret is hit there is not "chance of extra armour" modeling the chance to hit the gun mantlet and not penetrate the turret.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

that was a nice post Combined Arms, better tactics are the key, when the germans invaded france, they did so with mostly light tanks, pz1's and 2's, some panzer3's, and some chezck 38t's. the french armor was superior in numbers and quality to what the germans had in thier armor arsenal, but ther germans figured out a way to decivley beat the british expeditionary force, (wich was 2/3 of britains militarty might)and french, tacticly with what they had to work with. and to relate it to the game itself, and this coming from someone who prefers to play as axis, just because you buy a king tiger, or panther or jagdpanther or any other impressive unit in the german arsenal, does not entitle you to a victory. in 1941 the Soviets had the best tanks in the world. were they wntitled to stop the panzer corps just because of that fact? well if it did the germand certainly did'nt agree and proved so in desicivly defeating and encircling one soviet ary after another despite the huge odds difference. maybe that was stalin purged his people in 37 starting with the soviet high command, must have figured he had plenty of good quality tanks and artillary that he didnt need tactics for them