Panzer IV Ausf. G

Crew . 5
Speed . 40 km/hr
Range . 200 km

What´s the sense of this? The Panzer IV is already ingame. The one with the skirts btw. isn´t the Ausführung G but the Ausführung H. The unvetted Panzer IV could be the Ausf. G though with it´s impotent frontal armor I like to imagine it´s the Ausf. F with 50mm armor.

Impotent frontal armor?
Out of medium tanks only panther got more armor.

The Panzer IV G had 50mm on the turret front and 80mm on the hull. Much of it was vertical so there was very poor armor efficiency. If translated in-game, the 76mm T-34 should have situational issues penetrating the hull (it would depend on the angling, range, etc.) but should punch a hole right through the turret there and then.

In both vCOH and COH, the Panzer IV can bounce shots from medium armor. I find this to be off.

I'm not talking realism, I'm talking balance as I don't see a reason talking realism on games forum.

the vet 0 P4 is the Panzer IV F2 Long barral version sometimes known as the early P4 G

frontal armor 50mm turret 50mm and a
7,5-cm-KwK 40/ L46 gun


the vet 2 P4 is tranforming to the Panzer IV H

frontal armor 80 turret 80mm KRUPPSTEEL. Also the H had Schürzen wich are only effectiv vs HEAT shells and a better gun wich should ve more penetration (but wouldnt be balanced)

the 7,5cm-KwK 40/L48

the CoH2 Vet

Vet 2 +30% Armor +40% Turret Rotation
Vet 3 -30% Reload +20% Rotation +10% Acceleration


So everything is fine with the Panzer 4 and btw the T34/76 had massiv problems with penetrating the late P4´s (H). Only the 85mm gun of the sovjets did a good job in killing P4´s

and btw CoH2 arcade RTS ( balance >>>>> realism ) when u wanna play a ww2 simulator go to Man of War!


In my opinion they should change the P4 to the PIII/ J in t3. they wouldve 50mm hull and 50mm Turret and only a 50mm Gun. So the T34/76 could better counter T3 without that stupid ram ability. and send the P4 to T4

In my opinion they should change the P4 to the PIII/ J in t3. they wouldve 50mm hull and 50mm Turret and only a 50mm Gun. So the T34/76 could better counter T3 without that stupid ram ability. and send the P4 to T4

Please no, I would hate that so much. I mean I've love a Panzer III somewhere in the game, but not to replace the Panzer IV. In practice, the Panzer III would just end up being Ostheer's better version of the T70, which is redundant because we have the Ostwind in T3.

I'd like the game to be extended too, but I don't think that's the way to go about it, leaving Ostheer with their pants down until they reach T4 would really suck, and if you're playing against Soviet industry it's gg, no way in hell you'll get T4 Panzer IV's by the time he fields at least 2 T-34's.

___

Actually it does give me an idea. I'd be okay with the Panzer III appearing in T3 and the Panzer IV being locked until you tech to T4 (but still built from the T3 building). On the other hand, Soviets would also need something to set themselves back, I'm not sure what though, but proper Medium Tanks should be within reach of both players around the same time, regardless.

Panzer III 50mm Long would be losing out to the T-34/76 as far as armor and main gun is concerned. By 44', which is when the game takes place- the P3 was already pulled out of the panzer regiments and either:

1. converted to Stugs
2. retained as training vehicles
3. kept around in odd places
4. Re-armed with the L/24 75mm stubby and used as a soft target tank.

On 'paper' the Panzer IV H was supposed to be well armored (bouncing Sherman 75 and T-34/76) but I have never encountered anything in history that has indicated that the P4 could not be easily penetrated from the front.

Panzer III 50mm Long would be losing out to the T-34/76 as far as
On 'paper' the Panzer IV H was supposed to be well armored (bouncing Sherman 75 and T-34/76) but I have never encountered anything in history that has indicated that the P4 could not be easily penetrated from the front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

"The Allies had also been developing lethality improvement programs of their own; the widely used American-designed M4 Sherman medium tank, while mechanically reliable, suffered from thin armor and an inadequate gun.[86] Against earlier-model Panzer IVs, it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, struggled against the late-model Panzer IV (and was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of Panther and Tiger tanks at virtually any range).[87] The late-model Panzer IV's 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal hull armor could easily withstand hits from the 75 mm (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges,[88] though the turret remained vulnerable."

The M4 with the 75mm gun and the T-34/76 were horribly outclassed by the Ausführung H. The Panzer IVs main advantage was it´s frontal armor + the gun, which were just enough to keep the advantage of engagement range over allied and soviet tanks until their upgunned versions began to appear somewhere in 1944.

Yet, the very common underarmed M4 and T-34/76 had great trouble dealing with the Panzer IV. That´s one of the reasons the Russians actually lost so many tanks in 1943.

I'm talking about actual combat reports and accounts from books- not wiki'. I've never read of an account of shots bouncing off the P4's front.

The 80mm vertical was a very theoretical protection that was within the upper limits of the 76mm/75mm's performance. Special AP rounds were enough to go through it although conventional AP rounds were less certain. Also, there was the question of substandard armor quality and the G's hull was a plate that was welded which would reduce the theoretical value.

To give you an example, the Tiger tank had 80mm Side hull armor with the highest quality steel used by the Germans. In close ranges the US 75mm AP would penetrate 70mm of the 80mm armor. But this was the top shelf armor of the Germans. The rest of the common tanks did not enjoy this luxury. In fact many of the late war tanks, including Panthers, were outfitted with armor that was progressively lower grader due to material shortages and cost cutting. They were brittle, had less protection than the theoretical paper value, and had a tendency to crack when struck.

Soviet evaluation of King Tiger tanks for instance, report that the armor is very thick, and well shaped to maximize deflection. But the armor quality was brittle and below Soviet standards.

The IV-H was very much a late war tank..within the last year of the war sort of business. T-34/85's, Shermans 76/Fireflies had proliferated greatly since then- the latter often encompassing half of tank platoons and the former being universally adopted by tank units.

I'm talking about actual combat reports and accounts from books- not wiki'. I've never read of an account of shots bouncing off the P4's front.

The 80mm vertical was a very theoretical protection that was within the upper limits of the 76mm/75mm's performance. Special AP rounds were enough to go through it although conventional AP rounds were less certain.

I can´t completely follow this logic. Tungsten rounds which greatly improved performance in regard to armor penetration weren´t very common. M4 Shermans, even with the 76mm gun didn´t get them in the west until 1945. Those were reserved for the tank hunters.

Those rounds were also less accurate.

And those few rounds don´t make the enemy tank bad in every engagement. It would be saying that the IS-2 would be an easy kill always, because the tungsten round of the Panther could penetrate it at long range - though if we look at the reality there were almost no Pzgr. 40 available.

You say yourself that regular AP rounds were less certain to go through the Panzer IVs armor. Thus I think we both agree that the Panzer IV actually had the advantage of engagement range and protection until 1944.

The IV-H was very much a late war tank..within the last year of the war sort of business. T-34/85's, Shermans 76/Fireflies had proliferated greatly since then- the latter often encompassing half of tank platoons and the former being universally adopted by tank units.

I´m not comparing the Panzer IV to the later Shermans and T-34 here. I´m talking about the time from early 1943 - summer 1944, were Soviet tank losses increased drastically. This actually has to do with the upgun and increase of protection on the Panzer IV. Actually Shermans were mostly 75mm versions in Normandy. Allies were surprised to see an increasing number of Panthers and only by August there was an increasing number of 76mm armed Shermans available. The British meanwhile had the Firefly, but only 1 of 5 Shermans was this version. The Germans in the defensive role thus picked Fireflies out first.

'Theoretically' 'less certain', that is. Reality is a different beast.

The Panzer IV H is pretty late in the service life the Panzer IV. You see H and J models being armed by the panzer divisions in 1944, or later.

As far as the Sherman 76 and Sherman Firefly, they initially were scattered pro rata but by late 1944 to 1945 they were increasingly issued to the point where almost half of the front line tanks were upgunned.

The Panzer IVs during Citadel and the summer soviet offensives were not mostly the H model. They were mostly earlier models, like the G. Not only that, but the Panzer III long 50mm was the most common German tank in the summer of 1943.

Second, the 'losses' are less attributable to tank to tank. The core of German anti-tank defense was also their towed antitank gun fleet. (panzerjaeger battalions of infantry divisions) and their Flak Korps in the East. German minefields, infantry AT, anti-tank air wings, and artillery concentrations also took their toll.

The Germans also overclaimed enormously in their tank kills and the Soviets were able to recover large numbers of their tanks as they retook ground. Many of the losses at Citadel for instance, were recovered.

The high soviet tank losses point more towards the fact that the soviets were rapidly advancing after they stopped the Germans at their last gasp @ Citadel. The offensive operations they performed wrote off armor for rapid strategic gains. You have situations where, for instance, the 5th Guards Tank Army suffered huge losses of tanks- several hundred- in days during Citadel but then the crews get rearmed 2 weeks later with a full set of equipment for the counteroffensive.

As in, the armor was very aggressively used and sacrificed for big wins. Tank corps & mechanized corps made many frontal attacks to smash the German defenses, and with predictable high losses.

I always wondered what was the most common distance that tanks engaged each other?

^

400 meters plus.