Pz IV Mark H-J model vs Sherman T-34

[GhostRider3/3]

I did a search and could not find anything regarding this subject.

I was extremely frustrated that my PZ. IVH could not stand up to the pathetic Sherman M4 basic models, Im not talking about the Fire Fly equivilant as I know they were deffinetly tank killers and had long barelled 76mm or 17lb guns.

Short barrel (16 calibres) pack howitzer gun.

Rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute

Muzzle velocity: 1,250 ft/s (380 m/s)

Range: 9,610 yards (8790 m)

Shell: 6.3 kg

Armor: 2 inches (50 mm) (front upper hull glacis)

VS PZ IV H or J

Armor: 80mm

Gun : KwK 40 L/48

I went to Achtung Panzer, and was not suprised that the M3 was inferior to the German Long barreled 75mm. Its penetration chart thanks to Achtung Panzer which is a highly respected web site shows the German Superiority vs the Sherman M3.

My issue is that the Penetration for the Sherman seems wrong in CMBB or CMAK. The Information in the game seems correct when you hit Enter and look at the stats, but the dynamics seem wrong in game.

It is too easy for the sherman at 500m to even 800m, the sherman usualy comes out ahead.

So I guess Im at a lost, I have replaye scenerios that I have created and the Pz IV H seems at a major disadvantage, even with its Shurzten. (skirts) Can I edit my TANK....LOL

Anyone else annoyed with this?

Juergen.

[Guest Mike]

Um...the Sherman doesn't ahve the 16 calibre howitzer - it has a 38 calibre gun.

Not as good as the German L48, but the Pz-IV has weaker front armour than the Sherman, so it doesn't have to be as good.

also of course a good % of hits are on turrects, where the Sherman's 80+mm compared very well to the Pz-IV's 50mm (IIRC)

[GhostRider3/3]

My bad.... Early shermans were equiped with the following.

A version used on early M3 medium tanks.

Barrel length: 31 calibres

Muzzle velocity: 588 m/s

Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg

Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 30 degrees): 60 mm

Taken from Achtung Panzer;

Gun Type:

Soviet 76.2mm F-34 L/41.5

German 75mm KwK 40 L/48

American 75mm M3 L/37.5

Anyways question not answered.

What Im talking about is the unrealistic dynamics in the game. The German tank should be able to engage the sherman at range, and win everytime. (early version) Range being over 500m and facing each other. The PzIV H and J had better turret armor than the earlier models and the velocity of the earlier shermans could not penetrate crap. Look at the Battle of Caan in Normady for example. Germans usually lost the advantage at close range ie 250m or so.

But again, Im talking about facing a Sherman early with its short 75mm vs a Pz IV H or J.

In game it has unrealistic charcteristics.

[zmoney]

Personally the Pz IV series tanks have always disappointed me. Maybe it’s my own bad luck but I’ve witnessed it happen to my opponents as well. The problem is that it doesn’t seem to have an advantage at ranges of 800m plus. For example; there were four Pz IV’s sitting on a hill, down below at 800-1000m where some T-34’s ducking in and out of cover. The T-34’s were using shoot and scoot and pinging the Pz IV’s repeatedly until the remaining Pz’s with drew. This whole time not a single T-34 was even hit all the Pz’s shots missed.

I’ve even witnessed in one of George’s scenario’s (that are well know for big beautiful maps) that at ranges of 800-1000m the T-34 performs better than my veteran crewed Pz IV’s. It seems the Pz IV’s would have the advantage due to better optics and gun velocity.

Plus and I know this has been discussed before but you’d think that a tank that is hull down at 800m would be hard to hit, yet Pz IV’s turrets seem to be a magnet for enemy shells even though the enemy doesn’t have great optic’s and are shooting at a small target at 800m.

The armor issue I don’t think is a big deal. You yourself even said they were accurate when you hit the enter button. You’ve got to remember that the Pz IV’s armor isn’t sloped very much. IIRC only 10 degree’s at most in some spots. So at 500 or even 1000m the Sherman with the M3 can easily penetrate 50mm of armor. What bugs me is the frequency at which they are able to make contact.

I also believe that the Stuart’s 37mm gun can penetrate the turret of a Pz’IVH at 500m. Which to me sounds accurate but here you might be affected by poor behind armor effect by the 37mm.

[zmoney]

Oh, one more thing the skirt's on the German tanks won't protect them from AP rounds. The skirts are used to limit the effect of HEAT rounds. Like from bazookas and HC rounds that are actually HEAT rounds.

[McIvan]

I think you have unrealistic expectations of the PIV. When the Sherman first came out and was used in the desert, it was the best thing since sliced bread. The reason the PIV long barrel tanks had a good reputation against it was because the engagement ranges in the desert were often extreme range, and the long 75mm of the PIV could penetrate the Sherman from a much longer range than the reverse.

In the western theatre of operations, most engagement ranges (I'm over-generalising, I know) were much shorter...so it was a case of whichever hit first.

Anyways, your PIV will still bounce Sherman rounds from its hull, just not from its turret, whereas it will be a fortunate Sherman that bounces a 75mm L/48.....usually only a later model hit on the front glacis from an angle.

Your M3 data is, incidentally, not the gun used in the Sherman.

As has been pointed out, the PIV didn't have decently sloped armour and skirts are of no effect against AP rounds.

At short to medium range the Sherman is a match for any PIV....that's real life.

I agree with zmoney that calibre and velocity don't seem to make much difference in Combat Mission at longish range, at least not as much as I was expecting. Generally though, like my advice to you, the thing to do is challenge our own expectations rather than assume the game (or whatever) is wrong and our expectations are right. Mine frequently prove to have been misguided.

[John Kettler]

The skirts were originally installed to defeat antitank rifles. Effectiveness vs. HEAT was a kind of bonus. Shermans have gyrostabilizers modeled, SOFAIK, as always working. The J model Panzer IV

has no power traverse, and none of the models has a gyrostabilizer.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bannon DC]

Jurgen -- edit the title of your thread... Sherman T-34? I came in expecting to find a delusional tanker. :eek:

[JasonC]

Your expectations are simply horsefeathers.

The 75L48 regularly bounced from the Sherman glacis at ranges above about 800 yards. I've seen the AARs from Jagdpanzer crews complaining about it, wishing they have a Jagd-70, etc.

At longer ranges, both need turret hits to kill, from the front. The front of the Pz IV turret is no problem at any range. The front of the hull is reasonably protected at 1000-1200m or so.

There is no reason whatever to think the Pz IV was in any way superior to the plain Sherman in gun armor terms. The better gun is entirely made up by the crappier unsloped armor.

Panthers are superior tanks, Pz IVs are not. They are "plain vanilla". The same is true of StuGs.

In fact, only about 30% of German AFVs produced in the second half of the war had armor effective against the plain 75 at typical combat ranges. And around 40% of the allied AFVs fielded in the west in the later part of the war had guns superior to that. (TDs, Sherman 76s, Sherman 105s, etc).

[GhostRider3/3]

Thanks for the input,

However I still disagree with the gun-armor dynamics of the game. The T-34, and sherman M3 not the M4 as I have been discussing does not have the same penetrating value as the 75mm KwK 40 L/48 which was actualy a very decent AT gun.

again I think some of you are missing my point, I know in Normady distaces were close... However I think alot of you need to read the battles around the Caen area. I know the Pz IV H and J were not the best tank.

As I pull my hair out because some of you are not listening...

My argument is with

1. Better optics

2. Vetran crew vs Green crew or Regular

3. High velocity vs Low Velocity

4. Ammunition

5. Range im talking about is 500m to 1000m

All this and the Sherman.. Tinder box seems like it still has an edge over Pz IV H or J..

Its a wonder how you can even use them in a scenerio.

And as a Historian I know the Kill ratio was alot higher on the Axis side vs the Allies.

In fact the Morale of the US tankers and even British tankers were so bad in Normady they cried out to DC.

Anyways... I think I got my point accross... when they developed the Pz IV... it seems that the dynamics are wrong for it. That tank should be more acurate than it is, and should be able to penetrate the Sherman at long range with a vetran crew well before that slow 75mm gun of the Sherman with a regular or green crew can hit the Pz IVH...unless the Sherman gets lucky dice rolls every round.

For instance... I had a entire Platoon of Pz IVH spread accross a large field... vs a Platoon of Sherman M3 with the short 75mm... at a range of 1000m facing each other...German crews were Vetran with a Crack Platoon leader.. Shermans were all Green except for a Regular Platoon leader.

end result were 2 shermans destroyed.. 4 Pz IVH destroyed...

Oh and for the shurzen..I know they wont stop AP rounds.. however they will slow them down and affect there penetration value.

Also my M3 data...in my second post was taken straight from the Sherman web site.. Im not talking about the 76mm 17lb gun.

Check out Achtung Panzer! look at there data, they have a great web site.

sad.... makes no sense.

[ October 25, 2006, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Jurgen12/26HJ ]

[Shmavis]

Originally posted by Jurgen12/26HJ:

Thanks for the input,

However I still disagree with the gun-armor dynamics of the game. The T-34, and sherman M3 not the M4 as I have been discussing does not have the same penetrating value as the 75mm KwK 40 L/48 which was actualy a very decent AT gun.

again I think some of you are missing my point, I know in Normady distaces were close... However I think alot of you need to read the battles around the Caen area. I know the Pz IV H and J were not the best tank.

As I pull my hair out because some of you are not listening...

My argument is with

1. Better optics

2. Vetran crew vs Green crew or Regular

3. High velocity vs Low Velocity

4. Ammunition

5. Range im talking about is 500m to 1000m

All this and the Sherman.. Tinder box seems like it still has an edge over Pz IV H or J..

Its a wonder how you can even use them in a scenerio.

And as a Historian I know the Kill ratio was alot higher on the Axis side vs the Allies.

In fact the Morale of the US tankers and even British tankers were so bad in Normady they cried out to DC.

Anyways... I think I got my point accross... when they developed the Pz IV... it seems that the dynamics are wrong for it. That tank should be more acurate than it is, and should be able to penetrate the Sherman at long range with a vetran crew well before that slow 75mm gun of the Sherman with a regular or green crew can hit the Pz IVH...unless the Sherman gets lucky dice rolls every round.

For instance... I had a entire Platoon of Pz IVH spread accross a large field... vs a Platoon of Sherman M3 with the short 75mm... at a range of 1000m facing each other...German crews were Vetran with a Crack Platoon leader.. Shermans were all Green except for a Regular Platoon leader.

end result were 2 shermans destroyed.. 4 Pz IVH destroyed...

Oh and for the shurzen..I know they wont stop AP rounds.. however they will slow them down and affect there penetration value.

Also my M3 data...in my second post was taken straight from the Sherman web site.. Im not talking about the 76mm 17lb gun.

Check out Achtung Panzer! look at there data, they have a great web site.

sad.... makes no sense.

My bias-o-meter(or is it BS-o-meter?) is ringing loudly. Try checking more than one site as a reference.

[JasonC]

Oh, as an historian you know the kill ratio was higher. Oh that settles it then. Not.

What do you think the kill ratio was between Pz IVs and Shermans in Normandy?

What do you think the overall tank losses German compared to Allied was in Normandy? Down to the end of Mortain on 11 August, say.

What portion of those losses do you think were due to PAK, heavy FLAK, panzerschrecks, panzerfausts, and AT mines for the Allied side?

What portion of the remainder do you think were due to the actual heavies sent to Normandy - over 100 Tigers and about 500 Panthers? (Jagdpanzers have better armor and similar gun, include them in this total too if you like).

What achieved kills remain for the plain vanilla portion of the German fleet sent to Normandy, the Panzer IVs and the StuGs?

Do the math and show your work.

If the average Pz IV or StuG sent to Normandy killed less than 1 allied AFV before its own loss over the entire campaign there, how exactly is that evidence that even number duels between IVs and Shermans should result in lots of dead Shermans and few dead IVs?

Do you know the first theorem of operations research? "The average weapon system never accounts for a single similar item destroyed, over its entire service life".

You simply don't have any idea what you are talking about.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Sherman M3? Boy, I really do need to catch up on my reading.

You are, I assume, speaking of the early M2 armed M3 Medium tanks. Most M3s were armed with the M3, which is the same gun as the one in the Sherman. Lovely Americans with their insane numbering scheme, what were they thinking?

Look, Jurgen, no offence, but you seem to believe German tanks were all über. They were not, and especially not the Mark IVs. They were a pre-war design stretched to the limit. Their armour especially remained behind the times. As a result even the general purpose gun of the Sherman, a much newer design, could easily defeat it's armour.

You seem to have rejected what others have told you as wrong. I hope you re-read their posts, as they are some of the most knowledgeable ww2 grogs around. If what they are saying does not conform to your beliefs, I suggest you investigate why that is. You'll find that in this particular case you are just plain wrong.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Sherman M3? Boy, I really do need to catch up on my reading.

You are, I assume, speaking of the early M2 armed M3 Medium tanks. Most M3s were armed with the M3, which is the same gun as the one in the Sherman. Lovely Americans with their insane numbering scheme, what were they thinking?

In the title he speaks of Sherman T-34...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Sherman M3? Boy, I really do need to catch up on my reading.

You are, I assume, speaking of the early M2 armed M3 Medium tanks. Most M3s were armed with the M3, which is the same gun as the one in the Sherman. Lovely Americans with their insane numbering scheme, what were they thinking?

In the title he speaks of Sherman T-34... </font>

[GhostRider3/3]

Well I guess you all have not really read what I was talking about in the first place, and im not going on and on about it. No... shi..t the Pz IVH was not a great tank. but the Long barrel it used was better than the stupid shermans...

and Im talking about the freaking Game Dynamics.. not what happend in Normady... As I said if you would read

Im talking about how I think the game designers have flaws with their calculations when it comes to Vetran crew, optics, and a long barrel 75mm AT gun, that really does have better penetration value over the early sherman tanks!

So respond to what the thread was about in the first place, im talking about the game play dynamics.

[GhostRider3/3]

And as far as the Title of the Thread... I guess it should have been.

Green Crews of Soviet and Allied Armor are superior to Vetran and Crack crews of the Whermacht! LOL that was the point I was trying to make.. on Game Dynamics... does not seem extremely acurate.

Dont get me wrong the game is great, but I dont think that when they include Optics, armor quality and type of crew it really matters. If it does you really cant tell the difference with the exception Vetran crews are harder to panic under fire.

[Fußball]

Originally posted by Jurgen12/26HJ:

Anyways... I think I got my point accross... when they developed the Pz IV... it seems that the dynamics are wrong for it. That tank should be more acurate than it is, and should be able to penetrate the Sherman at long range with a vetran crew well before that slow 75mm gun of the Sherman with a regular or green crew can hit the Pz IVH...unless the Sherman gets lucky dice rolls every round.

This is really the only thing here I can agree with. The 7,5cm L43/46/48 seem to be notorious for missing. I have had tank after tank with the exceptionally accurate and powerful 7,5cm gun shoot round after round only to miss and be dispatched by the first or second round from a Sherman or T34.

The hit percentage tends to tell lies in the number provided when it comes to the 7,5cm German gun. That or the crews were trained in a pasture throwing rocks at cattle as their "training". This coming from very sour past experiences and rampant testing.

Originally posted by Jurgen12/26HJ:

For instance... I had a entire Platoon of Pz IVH spread accross a large field... vs a Platoon of Sherman M3 with the short 75mm... at a range of 1000m facing each other...German crews were Vetran with a Crack Platoon leader.. Shermans were all Green except for a Regular Platoon leader.

If you want your PzIVs from model G middle to model J living a bit longer I suggest never use hull down unless the enemy's gun is powerful enough to eat holes in the 8cm hull anyway. Do a search on why you never hull down with a PzIV. You may find a lot of resources related to this topic.

One problem is you cannot ambush with tanks very well. Once they are spotted by someone they are spotted by everyone. If you have one carefully placed PzIV in a well keyholed position to ambush and one lone infantryman spots it, it is over for the PzIV's plan of surprise.

About the only thing you can do to lower the chance of an enemy spotting your tank is cause the enemy tanks to button up. Which in pure armor can be rather difficult without constant MG fire or a sharpshooter. And if you are playing German, the American tanks can more easily button up your tanks with .50cal fire from the flexible MG mount.

All of these factors can be very frustrating when using a tank with a very vulnerable turret. In short try to engage at longest ranges possible with your tank anything but hull down. That will only get it killed faster. Just remember if the 7,5cm gun on the PzIV actually hits the enemy then there is an unlikely chance the enemy is going to react further.

That and try not to engage one on one. Try to target one tank with as many others as possible. As well as making sure your tank is angled which will add to the effectiveness of the PzIV's lackluster 8cm armor. At range the 8cm armor will bounce plenty of Sherman rounds.

All in all be patient and use your PzIV's as effectively as possible. A great gun in a somewhat protective box is what you get. They are not invincible but if you try hard enough they are winners.

O and before I forget...

Originally posted by Jurgen12/26HJ:

Green Crews of Soviet and Allied Armor are superior to Vetran and Crack crews of the Whermacht!

It is Wehrmacht by the way.

Tschüß!

Erich

[Elmar Bijlsma]

No.... it's that you aren't listening to us . It's no good having a hot **** gun if you have crapola armour.

Optics is considered in game but only in those tanks where the optics are special. As for a veteran crew advantage, what are you proposing here? A veteran Allied crew will do just as well as a veteran German crew. How are the Mark IVs supposed to be disadvantaged by this? Are you perhaps advocating that German crews should get some bonus simply for being German? That's silly!

As for the 75L48 being a better gun then the M3 75mm gun, yes, you are quite right. BUT YOU CAN'T JUST LOOK AT THE GUNS! The Mark IVs armour was less then most other medium tanks, including the Sherman that you have such a low opinion of. THat kinda takes away the advantage the 75L48 gives. Hence the combat mechanics work out fairly well. You just underestimate grossly the capabilities of the Sherman.

And another thing. Don't go on about how we are not reading you properly. Various people are disagreeing with you. Either we are all wrong and ****ty readers... or you are wrong. Have you considered that possibility? You have not succesfully argued why you think the Mark IV was short changed in the game. You put forth some some vague notions but you never factually back this up. Please, I invite you to clearly, factually prove to us why the Pzkfw IV was short changed in this game.

So what specific advantages do you think the real PzKfw IV had that it hasn't in game?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Can you tell us more about what makes you believe that green Sherman crews are better then veteran Pzkfw crews? Because I can tell you green crews of ANY nation are worse then veteran crews. But veterans crews are not invulnerable to shells from a green crew. Nor do veteran crews come with a guarantee to hit what they are aiming with. So expect that green Sherman to get lucky every now and again. And if you handle your Pzkfw badly, don't expect it be a rare occurrence either!

[GhostRider3/3]

Well sense I did not develop the game I cant tell you what calculations they have programed in.. and Im really not a Techy! on that subject.

I never said that being German made them special.. LOL However Im German and Consider myself Special! LOL

I think the only way to feel better is to get about 10 Tigers.... on HUGE>.. HUGE map.. and blow the crap out of about 60 Shermans or more.. that sounds good for today's acitivities. LOL

Yes The PZ IV had Crap armor....

[realest]

As to status of crew i'd say that "veteran" and such has as much if not more to do with the knowing of ones machine as it does to the abilty to withstand fire or score direct hits all the time in combat. Even veterans get excited and hasty, it's the ability to continue to load and fire in a repetitive manner or the drivers knowledge to keep the vehicle from having to remain in place for long in the commander wants it moved fast.

It appears that all i read here, although i'm shocked to find that the concensus is that the Sherman was as good as the PzIV's that the game engine appears to me highly accurate by what others have said.

I'm not so into my tanks and weapons that i know armor ratings and muzzle velocities, most i know comes from reading accounts and other historical shows and such. The concensus i've understood was the Sherman was underarmored and undergunned. But maybe that's simply a grass is greener on the other side issue, and we simply don't want to admit our armor tactics weren't as sophisticated at the germans. I don't know, but it appears they were even or close nuff.

[GhostRider3/3]

True...very true.. and I agree with you Realest, I have read many accounts of Panzer IV H and J's doing well in combat. Read Michael Reynolds series of the ISS PzKorps, or II SS pzKporps. Even though the Pz IV H suffered heavy casualties, on the west coast mostly due to lack of fuel or Airpower they performed very well to tank killing. Again it was the Allies that hated the Sherman and did not feel exactly safe in it.. but you would always 90% of the time German crews happy with their machines, confident and quite sure of themselves.... allthough at the end of the war it was airpower that was truly an overwhelming factor for them..

in fact there are other good reads as well of the conflict in the Eastern front where the Pz IV H and J's did very well against the T-34's not the T-34/85 of course, as that was an excellent platform. And yes we bloody all know that the Pz IV was a medium tank at best, howver at long range I think that it would get the better of the early version shermans....

[Corvidae]

Didnt we just have basicly the same argument in another thread?

[realest]

Not me, LOL