Noobish question: Was the Pz IV a failure as a MBT on the Eastern front?

[warspite]

Just playing various CMBB scenarios, I've noticed I almost never choose the Pz IV.

Early on, the Pz III seems to be a better choice for several reasons. Like Pz IVs, they need to get incredibly close to deal with KVs, but they're better armored, smaller, faster, and more accurate at long range (for those lucky weak spots and track hits). Oh, and let's not forget cheaper.

By the time the Pz IV has the L43 gun, it's so underarmored relative to Russian guns that the extra expense for Tigers, and later, Panthers is completely justified. Only in those situations when I expect an infantry-heavy force would I trade 4 Tigers for 8 Pz IVs.

Even a Pz IVH has enough trouble stopping the 76mm round, so the appearance of the 85 makes an inferior tank completely obsolescent unless you happen to use ambush tactics more in line with those for a StuG on the offensive.

Or is it just me?

[Mattias]

A failure on the eastern front? No, of course not.

The panzer IV was the only tank to fight throughout the war, so yes, by the end it was getting old. However…

In 1941 it was intended as a support tank (firing HE, smoke and HC) for the Pz III’s and served well in that function. The fact that it doesn’t stand up to Russian heavy and medium tank designs that constituted, what, 5-10% at the most of the Red army forces does not disqualify it as a weapon system.

In 1942 when the Pz IV’s begun receiving L43 guns (a weapon that could reach out and kill all enemy tanks before they could effectively engage you) there were zero Tigers around. By the end of the year some 500-700 Pz “long” had been built and Tigers still were nothing more than an impressive novelty.

Besides, arguments based on price / performance comparisons in CM works poorly when compared to the real life situation where availability, reliability, strategic and tactical suitability for a wide range of missions are important factors. After all, there was a reason why there were no tank divisions armed solely with Tigers.

1943 the Pz IV can still hold up against the opposition and is in full production with another, what, almost 3000 units being produced during the year. The Panther was moving in as the new Pz Divisional tank (again, as opposed to the Tiger heavy tank) improving on the weak aspects of the Pz IV, but it never reached the numbers necessary to fully replace the Pz IV. At this point it is a matter of using the tanks you have at hand. And the by this time there were no T-34/85´s around.

In 1944 the T-34/85´s, Sherman 76´s and Fireflies (among others) reached allied units, all of which were superior to the Pz IV. But more powerful weapon systems also reached German hands, and still the Pz IV soldiered on, not least by virtue of numbers available (and production continued to the end). It was now a very reliable piece of equipment that still could be deployed in a full range of missions and reasonably expected to succeed against the bulk of the enemies armour. Add to this the fact that armour on armour fights only constitutes a minor part of the time spent in battle for a Pz Division.

But yes at the end of the day the Pz IV was loosing it’s edge.

I wouldn’t say it’s you though, the reality in CM just doesn’t capture the full complexity of the considerations involved. These tanks were never designed to stand at X meters range to exchange fire with a model Y tank, the ability to do so only became a factor once the tank became unsuitable for it’s mission within a Pz Division due it’s inability to handle enemy armour. And as far as I can see the Pz IV never became completely obsolescent in this context during WWII.

[ June 25, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[AOK. 11]

Just playing various CMBB scenarios, I've noticed I almost never choose the Pz IV.

Early on, the Pz III seems to be a better choice for several reasons. Like Pz IVs, they need to get incredibly close to deal with KVs, but they're better armored, smaller, faster, and more accurate at long range (for those lucky weak spots and track hits). Oh, and let's not forget cheaper.

By the time the Pz IV has the L43 gun, it's so underarmored relative to Russian guns that the extra expense for Tigers, and later, Panthers is completely justified. Only in those situations when I expect an infantry-heavy force would I trade 4 Tigers for 8 Pz IVs.

Even a Pz IVH has enough trouble stopping the 76mm round, so the appearance of the 85 makes an inferior tank completely obsolescent unless you happen to use ambush tactics more in line with those for a StuG on the offensive.

Or is it just me?

Well, I'm not sure that anyone is willing to waste their time to explain the obvious, however I will provide a short answer. The Panzer IV was an excellent AFW, and it was this Panzer that made up the heart of many Panzer Abteilung at the beginning of 1943 onward. Being the fact that the Panzer V Panther was not in mass production unil May 1943, and that it took a significant amount of time to provide Panthers to the Panzer Abteilung in any significant numbers, the Panzer IV was a large part of the German Panzer formations. The production of Panzer IV's was not stopped until early 45', but even then General Guderian made sure that the stoppage never took place. You talk about choosing Panzer VI Tiger's instead of Panzer IV's. I'm not sure that a German Panzer crew could take this course of action. Even if they could have, German industries only produced around 1300 Panzer VI Tigers during the time after July 1942 when the first Tiger was battlefield ready. This being the case, the Tiger's reputation went far beyond their actual effectiveness. Don't read that statement the wrong way, everybody knows the Tiger's battlefield ability is superior, however when the Soviets put out over 40,000 T/34's the situation is very bleak. The point of this is that the Panzer IV played a much bigger role in the Axis war effort than many people realize.

Calling the later model Panzer IV's with the additional armor and the 75mm/43 or 75mm/48 gun "inferior" or "obsolete" is absolute drivel. I would encourage you to stop playing with most of your force being Panzer VI Tigers, Panzer V Panthers, Uber Sturmgeschütz, and Jagdpanzers in order to see how effective the Panzer IV can be if used correctly.

In short, it is definitely you.

I know the above may sound harsh, however I have seen many other threads where people start complaining about the combat performance of the Panzer IV and I am quite tired of this nonsense. :mad:

Indeed, it is definitely you.

[warspite]

I have played many scenarios with mostly Pz IV and Pz III tanks. I'll throw in the occasional Panther or Tiger for ****s and giggles or variety, but...

I just find the Pz III more cost effective up until 1943, at least as long as the combat distances are under 1km. Pz IVs drop like flies. Yes, the L48 and the L43 Pz IVs can effectively engage their foes from long range, but because of its light armor, the Pz IV can be hit just as hard with the 76.2. Hull down isn't nearly as effective with a Pz IV because of its giant paper mache turret.

I don't like the assumptions you're making about me. Contrary to what you've implied, I like using the IV because of the thought that goes into working with it. It can generally successfully engage and kill anything up to and including KVs, but it's also very vulnerable. I don't worry much about a Pz III getting close to a M42 or later T-34, but I worry about even T70s getting within range of Pz IVs.

What I'm saying is that while the Pz IV's later guns let it hit a later T-34 or even a KV-1 from equal range (and with greater accuracy), it's much more vulnerable to lighter guns up close.

This is why I wonder if the Pz IV is really a successful MBT. It's not that it has a roughly even exchange with tanks its size, it's that it can't ignore smaller enemy tanks as long as its Russian counterparts do. Ergo, I end up using tactics similar to those of a StuG (non-80mm) or Marder.

[Vossiewulf]

Um, yeah, XI_Legion, lighten up. The guy asked a reasonable question, no need for that tone.

Warspite, I understand what you're saying- yes, Pz-IVs in CMBB can die with frightening rapidity in late war scenarios, and if you're up against enemy armor and you DO have a choice (which the Germans in the war didn't), I would agree with you and take 4 Tigers over 8 Pz-IVs.

In early/mid war engagements if you have a mix of Pz-IIIs and Pz-IVs, it's useful to lead (if on the advance) with the Pz-IIIs for the reasons you've stated- they can take turret hits that the IV can't. And if you let the Pz-IIIs be the targets, while your L43 IVs are the real shooters, things can work well.

If you're up against significant infantry, however, I'd lean to the IV over the III. The III's 50mm gun isn't terribly effective against infantry, especially if you want to take buildings down.

And even though the III can be as effective or more getting penetrating hits (especially compared to 75/L24 IVs) because of the higher ROF and accuracy, don't forget that Russian tanks will all too frequently shrug off a 50mm penetration with no damage.

Basically I treat L24 IVs as turreted assault guns, primarily for infantry support. Mid war, with late model IIIs and L43 IVs, it's a tossup. The IV has a much better gun but dies more easily. Late war, again yes, the IV has to be used quite carefully against 85s to be successful.

At least that's been my experience.

[flamingknives]

If you usually play allies, with the Sherman, the PzIV comes in about even, so I use the same playing style and expectations for either side. Putting a T34 against a PzIV, I usually expect the PzIV to win as it has a higher velocity gun and better optics.

[Sirocco]

The quality of the crew shouldn't be overlooked when considering a tanks worth.

[Corvidae]

ummmm, Tha mark 4 panzer was a great tank,

a bit thin skined yes, but armed with the 75 mm gun, the L24 was a bit feeble against soviet armour, but the upgrade to the L43 fixed that little problem easily, I still feel they should have gone to an L50 or so, but.....

the fact is that the mark 4 was meant as a support tank, and this thinking dominated the design for most of the war, the mark 4 J however was an exelent up close and personal tank, ie; main battle tank,,,

the mark 4 was a sucess throughout the war,

not only was it well armed, but it was ergonomicaly designed, easy to repair and maintain, and came with monogramed leather seat covers and those little doily things on the shell bins, it even had a good stereo system, although the onboard beer cooler was a tad small, but thats just my oppinion,

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

I still feel they should have gone to an L50 or so, but.....

From the G model onwards it had the L/48 gun.

I have a question: what is the definition of a 'main battle tank'? I thought that was a later classification, not applicable to WW2 AFV's (possibly save Panther).

[imported_no_one]

Where is rexford?

Was I imagining things when I read that the PzIV front turret is undermodeled in CM?(i.e. it shouldnt die as easily as it does in game)

Then again though,this isnt a complaint about how unbalanced the game is for the russians so I guess its unimportant.

[PiggDogg]

In CM terms, once the PzIVs get a decent tank killing gun (L/43 & especially L/48), they are most adequate tanks.

PzIVs are not invulnerable by any means.

With the decent tank killing guns, used carefully, used in numbers, and used in close formations (hub to hub), PzIVs are most adequate and fine tanks.

However, if without the decent tank killing guns, if not used carefully, if not used in numbers, or if not used in close formations, PzIVs will be barely adequate and marginal tanks.

Cheers, Richard

[AOK. 11]

Please forgive my harsh tone in the earlier post, as I realize it was unnecessary.

I will try to explain my position in the following :

_______________________

If you see the Pz.Kpfw. IV (model G onward) as "inferior" or "obsolete" in its deployment on the Eastern Front, I would encourage you to examine your opinion through historical perspective:

1 September 1939 - "Fall Weiss"

The entire inventory of available Panzers was the following:

1445 - Pz.Kpfw. I

1223 - Pz.Kpfw. II

202 - Pz.Kpfw. 35t

78 - Pz.Kpfw. 38t

98 - Pz.Kpfw. III

211 - Pz.Kpfw. IV

215 - Pz.Befw.

As you can see, the large majority of the Panzer formations were equiped with the Pz.Kpfw. I or Pz.Kpfw. II. Cleary, even in the earliest stages of the war these Panzers were indeed "inferior" and "obsolete" as they could be destroyed by any AT weapon in service and even HMG fire at close range (if firing S.m.K.H. amunition). If this is the case, how were the Panzers able to overun Poland in less than a month if they were outfitted with mostly Pz.Kpfw. I's and II's?

Even the heavier Panzer III's and IV's were not sufficiently armored to withstand most of the AT weapons employed by the Polish Army. Despite this, the Panzers overan Poland and then exploded across Europe. Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece, Yugoslavia, and finally France were all defeated in rapid sucession. How can this be? Even by the fall of France many Panzer Abteilung were still equiped with Pz.Kpfw. I's and II's. The Panzer III's that were available were equipped with the 37mm KwK L/46.5 gun and were not refitted with the 50mm KwK L/42 until August 1940-1942. The Pz.Kpfw. III was intended to be the main AT defeating AFW in the Panzer Abteilung, however the French had tanks with better armor and more powerful guns. For example the French 4.7cm AT gun could penetrate the Pz.Kpfw. III's frontal armor at ranges exceeding 1500m! In order to enguage the heaviest French armor, the B2, the Panzers had to close to a range of under 250m and get clear shots at the flat plates at the rear of the B2, as firing at any other place, even at point blank range was a waste of ammunition. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, the Panzer Abteilung ripped through Allied defenses with relative ease.

What is the point of all this? It is intended to illustrate the fact that utilizing Panzer formations which were outnumbered and whose large majority of tanks were clearly "inferior" were able to achieve one of the greatest military victories of modern times.

Concerning the later models of the Pz.Kpfw. IV,

all of the German after action reports that I have read have indicated that the Pz.Kpfw. IV was indeed an excellent AFW.

Therefore I would encourage you to put more value on historical evidence and perspective than on a CM simulation. As I have explained the Panzer Abteilung were almost always outnumbered and outgunned during the entire war including the time that the Pz.Kpfw.IV proved itself on the battlefield. Therefore, I would encourage you to examine the situation in more detail before you declare the Pz.Kpfw.IV "inferior", "obsolete", and an outright failure. I would imagine a large number of German officers and Panzer crews would take issue with your opinion.

[AOK. 11]

To further my point, examine the following (from Achtung Panzer!)

_________________________

Pz.Kpfw.IV's in action.

On February 7th of 1944, few remaining Panzer IV tanks from the 5th SS Panzer Division "Wiking" spearheaded the attempt to breakout from the Cherkassy Pocket against largely superior Soviet force. During the breakout, SS-Untersturmfuehrer Kurt Schumacher commanded two Panzer IVs, which counterattacked a Soviet tank company destroying in the process some 8 T-34 tanks. On the next day, Schumacher alone engaged another Soviet tank company and during both actions destroyed some 21 Soviet AFVs. For his achievement, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.

On the afternoon of June 11th of 1944, the 8th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") counterattacked the attempt by Canadian 6th Armored Regiment (along with support units) to capture the area of Le Mesnil-Patry. The 12th SS Panzer Regiment commanded by SS-Obersturmfuehrer Hans Siegel destroyed some 37 Shermans, while losing 2 Panzer IVs and forcing Canadians to retreat.

SS-Unterscharfuehrer Willy Kretzschmar, who commanded Panzer IV of the 5th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") destroyed some 15 Allied tanks during the Normandy battles, including the heavy fighting at Caen area.

[Mr. Tittles]

An interesting stat is that Panther units on the eastern front were about equal to Tiger Is till May 44. Only after May do the Panthers reach Panzer IV numbers (which were about 60% of Panther plus Tiger I numbers).

During summer 44, the Panzer IV write offs start to exceed production (300 a month produced). Sep 44 sees deckine in production to 180 a month and Panzer IV starts taking a back seat till the end of the war.

The funny thing is even in Mar 45, they were majority MBT in Italy and nearly equal on eastern front to Panther but minority against the allies on western front!

[warspite]

Thanks for the explanation, Legion.

Sergei, I only used MBT as a loose term - I'm not sure of its origins or specific military meaning. Basically I was implying the default tank for combat scenarios, one which could generally fulfill all its roles even when faced with enemy tanks. I don't hesitate to put T-34s in these situations, but the T-34 is considerably cheaper and at least feels more resistant to lighter gun fire.

Maybe I'm too protective in my use of the IV...

[Mr. Tittles]

The Panzer IV is sort of a showcase of limitations of the CM system. The generic hit location model, lack of gun depression angle modeling, odd hull down system modeling, 5 man crew advantage, etc. all add up to short changing the most common and important German AFV!

[Shmavis]

How does having a 5-man crew shortchange the Pz IV?

[Vossiewulf]

It's the fact that that advantages of a five-man crew aren't fully represented in the game that short-changes the IV.

Warspite, T-34s have a major weakness themselves- force them to button and their already poor spotting becomes abysmal. Sometimes I think a German tank has to drive back and forth for several minutes with sparklers attached to the turret roof before a T-34 will spot it.

[warspite]

Could you elaborate on the advantages of a five man crew? It seems like Pz IV loading is faster than a captured T-34 already, for example.

[Vossiewulf]

The most obvious difference would be what happens when the crew takes a single casualty. With a 5-man Pz-IV crew, the only thing you would lose is that someone would no longer be monitoring the radio full time.

In a T-34, you now have just two guys trying to drive, spot, aim, load, and fire.

As it is, take a single casualty and a T-34 behaves pretty much identically to a buttoned T-34- all you lose is some spotting ability because it won't unbutton anymore. At least I've never noticed the huge drop in efficiency that should accompany having just a two-man crew trying to operate a medium tank in combat.

[warspite]

T-34s have 4 man crews.

[warspite]

Haha crap, I just realized where all this confusion with Legion started.

My original starting sentence was a little confusing. I should have said "I almost never choose the Pz IV as my main tank." I'm sorry about that.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by warspite:

T-34s have 4 man crews.

But two of them are in the hull, leaving you with a 2 man turret.

[Shmavis]

I'll take even a short-barrelled Pz IV over a Pz III. The Pz III's sturdier turret doesn't make up for its weak main armament. I've read about Pz III's firing on KV-1's from 30 and even 10(!) meters without penetrating. At least the early Pz IV's have HC ammo. There's a reason the Pz IV, as previously stated, was produced throughout the war and the Pz III was not.

[Vossiewulf]

Sigh, yes, you're right, 4 man crew. As vacant as my mind was, the point stands...add another guy and you still have too few to operate a tank of that era effectively With a IV down to four crew, you still have enough guys to cover TC/driver/gunner/loader, no huge performance impact.

Remind me in the future that if I want to state a number, to add one to whatever I'm thinking of first.