![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 May 2004 and 23 August 2008.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
I don't think we need a crew heading since it's already listed in the specifications table. Oberiko 13:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
As the list of links should make clear, "Panzer IV" is almost universally used in English, "Panzerkampfwagen IV" being a less-seen full name, a la "William Jefferson Clinton" better known as Bill Clinton. This should be moved back. Stan 14:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why not drop the Panzer IV wher it gets repeated each time and just stick with the Ausf, or alternatively don't bother with bold at all. It looks worse than Fraktur to read. GraemeLeggett 19:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Panzer IV had top speed of 40km per hour, certainly not 38km. The off-road speed is also ridiculously low.
The article currently states that the Pzkw-IV was "more than a match" for the M-4 and T-34. I'm not sure this is justified. The three vehicles are pretty closely matched in combat effectiveness, and of course much depends on which versions we're talking about. Maybe a more neutral statement such as "the later versions kept pace with newer designs such as the T-34 and M-4?"
Nonesense! The lowly basic 75mm gun penetrates 89mm of steel armor, far more than Panzer IV's turret or glacis.(50mm/80mm ausf G) Paat, you need to figure out what MODEL of Panzerkampwagen you are talking about--you seem to confuse Panzer V and VI with IV--NOT ALL PANZERS ARE THE SAME! Chin, Cheng-chuan
I have to agree, the sherman and Panzer 4 were pretty equally matched. The Panzer 4 would have an advantage in the fact its gun was a higher velocity and had less drop then the shermans gun, which gave it a slightly better chance for a first shot hit, and also its optics in some ways were better. Otherwise it was a pretty even match with both being able to kill the other from 1000m, and the sherman 76 and T-34-85 were quite superior to the mark4. Wokelly 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Wokelly
Hm. After some digging, I realized that it was the better armored M4A3 Sherman (hull 64mm/turret front+gun shield 104mm) that was resistant againt KwK 40. Of course, this type was unavailable in Africa, but distributed widely in ETO. Figure that would make sense. Chin, Cheng-chuan
The above is very interesting but fails to mention the firefly variant which was issued on a on to three basis in British units by heavy adaption work a british 17 pounder heavy A/T gun was fitted into a standard tank. The turret had been extended to allow the gun to be fitted this gave the British support varaint combined with SABOT shells gave an armour penetration equivellant to a late mark German 88mm gun. They were not a healthy tank to man since the Germans were under standing orders to kill the Firefly varaints as a priority above all other targets. A number of these conversions were offered to the US and the 17 pounder was offered for licence building but they decided to stick to the 76mm gun.
The reason that it was only used as a supplement was both because of supply and the fact that the standard 75mm gun was actually superior against infantry and anti tank guns whih were the main threat to allied tanks. The seventeen pounder would pass through buildings without exploding or bury itself so far into the ground that it HE yield was less effective. Nevertheless it was an excellent support weapon providing the means to successfully engage Tigers and Panthers on their frontal armour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.159.224 ( talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You quote the tank as running on petrol 'as all German WWII tanks'. I am speaking from the point of view of an enthusiast, not an expert but I can say with some certainty that not all German tanks ran on petrol. I have certainly heard that a huge draw back was that all German tanks ran on DIESEL... a drawback as this could congeal on the Eastern front making mobility and reliability poor. I would not go as far as to say I am certain of this but like I said, I think a little more research should be put into the fuel that this, and other tanks used as I would disagree especially with the section 'as all German WWII tanks.'
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/matilda.html Quotes the Matilda II as being the first British diesel tank http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/valentine.html Many of these valentine variants are quoted as running on diesel http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html Quotes the Polish 7TP "czolg lekki" as being diesel powered http://ww2hq.tripod.com/id3.html The M3 and M3A1 are quoted to have diesel variants http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/71/a2059571.shtml A personal account, recounting the story of a Sherman tank crew, diesel engines mentioned several times. http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/soldierstories_wwii/knight.htm Another account of diesel Shermans, found quite a few accounts of this.
My brief search turned up no evidence of diesel powered German tanks other than prototypes but I hope to turn up some results in the library tomorrow. It seems I took the 'fact' that they ran on diesel for granted although I'd like to know where all the 'myths' IF indeed they are myths, about German tank crews lighting fires under their hulls to thaw the congealed diesel, and Axis tanks on the Eastern front having to warm up their noisy engines for a matter of hours before movement, alerting Allied forces, came from. I have certainly heard this on many occasions and it would be odd for these 'facts' to be based on nothing, even incorrect. My research will continue as I will be interested to find out the truth either way.
81.129.116.179 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much Carnildo! It appears, you were correct about German tanks DMorpheus... but I do, however, as an aside, appear to have found evidence of sorts that the USSR did not prefer diesel and I quote D Morpheus when I say "with the exception of the Soviets, most WW2 tanks from any nation ran on gasoline." I observed in the library, in one particular book (World War II Tanks, Eric Grove, Black Cat publishing) that most USSR tanks listed, ran on petrol. The T-26 series, as well as the T-28 series, the BT series, the T7OA and the SU76, had petrol engines such as the GAZ T26 8 cylinder air cooled (T-26) and the M17T V12 liquid cooled (BT) to name but two. Only three series, i.e. the KV, the T34 and the JS ran on diesel, these three, from what I could gather from this trulty comrehensive book, were in the minority within the USSR. Thank you for correcting what I previously thought and encouraging me to do some more research into the subject.
81.129.116.179 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for correcting me although surely, just because the series stated above were built during the war years, this doesn't mean that they were not used. I have seen pictures to the contrary. Thanks for providing me with all this information as this has caused me to look more into Tanks of the Second World War, an aside from my main interest of firearms. I had always had certain preconceptions and ideas I had assumed fact about tanks and thank you for putting them right although I'd really be interested to find out where these myths came from. I have heard the examples of stories that I have given (e.g. lighting fires under hulls) in many more than just one place and I've come to see that it is common ignorance. I would be interested to know where such a myth came from however as I have heard it over and over again since my interest in the Second World War began at around 10, 6 years ago. It was interesting to find, not only that the stories are unfounded, but that they do not hold any truth from the point of view of thawing congealed diesel. Thanks again Carnildo for the ideas on this.
Was the main armament of the up-gunned Panzer IV stronger or weaker in armour pentration than the T-34's 76.2mm weapon? And which had greater range?--chubbychicken 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
T-34 also used blunt nose ammo, so the 76.2mm performed worse then it should have (Blunt nose was better against sloped armor, less likely to deflect as well). Wokelly 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Wokelly
Did take part in the "Lapland War" against Germans, its just that cause "phony war" start and later destruction of roads and bridges they were never able to make contact with retreating Germans and were soon after this was realized pulled from the front. And of other armor in that conflict some T-34's did take part only to roll over some mines and they too were found ill suited for the fighting and soon pulled back, only finnish tanks to draw blood in the conflict was some T-26's that trashed few Somuas.
The History section talks about the original contest that led to the P.IV, which seems extremely similar to the one in the P.III. Can someone explain why they ended up with two different tanks when it seems that one would fill both roles with a simple change of turret (or even just gun)? Maury 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
i think insted of the syrian one that may have differnces in it, we should ahve an origional german Pazner IV. i have a picture from the U.S ordance muesum—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esskater11 ( talk • contribs)
I see we are in a silly edit war over the lead photo. For what it's worth:
Both are good photos and, frankly, both vehicles are in similar condition in the sense that they are well-preserved and have a few minor non-German modifications. Neither is in 'perfect' WW2 configuration - but why should they be? This is a tank that was in use by several countries during WW2 and for over 20 years post-1945. So I don't really see the point in the edit warring. IMHO the Syrian photo is a better lead because it shows the vehicle from a quarter-view rather than side on. But changing it back and forth several times per week is really silly and a waste of time.
I've protected the page with a lead image that neither party wants. I'll unprotect when you guys can come to a decision as to which image should be in the lead. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "Variants" section the text states the Ausf J used "[...] 3 instead of 4 track return rollers.", while the image of the
Ausf J at Parola clearly has 4 return rollers. Where there exceptions to the rule, or? -- MoRsE ( talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Late Js (and SPs based on the chassis) had three. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Some comments.
TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that's accurate. Pzkw-IIIs were still in servie in 1945 also, albeit in very small numbers. DMorpheus ( talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Congrats on passing A-Class review. Dhatfield ( talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Questions, comments etc below. I'll add to the list as I go ;) EyeSerene talk 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have discussed it with him, but he feels that his online sources are more reliable. JonCatalán ( talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the KwK 37 L/24 wouldn't be able to penetrate so deep, if you moved it to a range of 2,296.61 ft instead of 2,296.59 ft? Or that it wouldn't penetrate at all? Gene Nygaard ( talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is Spielberger's production number for 1941 used in the table? This information from 1972 is now known to be incorrect. We can't just pick numbers as we like; we should use the best modern source, Jentz of course :o), and give its numbers.-- MWAK ( talk) 09:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving the captions blank so you can ID the models (use "|" after file name to enter a description):
OK, this is fun but you aren't going to keep making me do this are you?
DMorpheus ( talk) 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We've had a lot of photo changes and caption edits the last few days. It might be helpful to clear up some of the recognition features of various ausfrungs.
I changed the caption on one photo from ausf A to D; it was changed to C; I put it back to D again. The ausf D can be distinguished from the very similar ausf B and C from this angle by the single logitudinal bar on the engine intake vent. The ausf B and C had three or four longitudial bars there. Also, a bow MG is clearly visible; the ausf B-C did not have a bow MG, only a pistol port in the radio-operator's front plate.
The lead photo is a B or a C, not a D as originally captioned. Again the longitudial bars on the intake are visible, as is the lack of a bow MG. An easier feature is the internal mantlet characteristic of the ausfs A-C, but not D and later.
The Aberdeen example is a tough one since it has features of the E and F; I don't know what it is.
DMorpheus ( talk) 10:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is said about the munitionspanzer based on the Pz.IV chassis, that was used as an ammunition carrier for the Karl SP morser. Is there any particular reason for this? Regards, DPdH ( talk) 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Could an "Allied response" section such as those in the Tiger and Panther tank entries be added to the Panzer IV? It should mention the Sherman M4A3E2 and the T-34M/T-43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.32 ( talk) 07:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm not seeing a whole lot of progress here. I'll fail the article and start an A-class Review if I don't see some noticeable improvements by 26 March.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Panzer IV was in fact the L/70-armed tank destroyer version (i.e., the Panzer IV/70 (A) and Panzer IV/70 (V)). These vehicles were not known as Jagdpanzer IV/70, and the L/48-armed version was not known as Jagdpanzer IV/48. See Waffen Revue W 127, which contains facsimile data sheets of World War II German weapons. It makes sense to keep the article under the Panzer IV name, both for consistency, and because people will expect Panzer IV to lead to the tank, but an explanation was warented.
The proper German capitalisation for anti-tank guns was Pak, not PaK. Likewise, it's Flak, not FlaK. To make things confusing, it's Kw K, not Kwk, and Stu H, not Stuh. This is evident from war-time German documents, such as the above data sheets.
About the Ausf. F2/G issue: The (factually correct) sentence that that the F2 was re-named to G was followed by a sentence stating that there was no differences between early G's and F2's. This is nonsensical and confusing in its obviousness, so I deleted it. Christian Ankerstjerne ( talk) 12:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
While the number of german designed tanks is given in great detail for the campaign in Poland, the considerable amount of Panzer 35(t) and 38 (t) is completely omitted. 213.61.58.164 ( talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)koookeee
How realistic is this statement seeing that the Panzer IV's 75 mm KwK 40 L/48 has the following penetration performance at 30 deg from vertical:
Name | Weight | Velocity | 100 Meters | 500 Meters | 1,000 Meters | 1,500 Meters | 2,000 Meters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PzGr.39 (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap) | 6.8 kg | 790 m/s | 106 mm | 96 mm | 85 mm | 74 mm | 64 mm |
PzGr.40 (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) | 4.1 kg | 990 m/s | 143 mm | 120 mm | 97 mm | 77 mm | -- mm |
Gr.38 Hl/C (High Explosive Anti Tank) | 4.8 kg | 450 m/s | 100 mm | 100 mm | 100 mm | -- mm | -- mm |
And the T-34/85's ZIS-S-53 has the following penetration performance at 30 deg from vertical:
Name | Weight | Velocity | 100 Meters | 500 Meters | 1,000 Meters | 1,500 Meters | 2,000 Meters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BR-365 (Armor Piercing) | 9.2 kg | 792 m/s | 95 mm | 83 mm | 72 mm | 62 mm | 51 mm |
BR-365 (Armor Piercing Capped) | 9.2 kg | 792 m/s | 105 mm | 96 mm | 83 mm | 73 mm | 64 mm |
BR-365 P (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) | 4.99 kg | 1,200 m/s | 144 mm | 107 mm | 76 mm | 55 mm | 39 mm |
Armorwise the Panzer IV H has face hardened frontal armor of:
Hull front upper | Hull front lower | Turret front | Turret mantlet |
---|---|---|---|
80 mm at 9° | 80 mm at 12° | 50 mm at 10° | 50 mm at 0-30° |
Armorwise the T-34/85 has frontal armor of:
Hull front upper | Hull front lower | Turret front | Turret mantlet |
---|---|---|---|
45 mm at 60° | 45 mm at 60° | 90 mm round | 90 mm round |
Of course the Panzer IV H had the advantage at long range due to superior ballistics and optics whereas the T-34/85 had the better top speed and mobility due to better power to weight ratio and wider tracks. Looking at all this it seems they are more or less equally matched rather than 'definitively outclassed' as it currently states under the Panzer IV Eastern Front (1941–1945) section. Perhaps it is from an outdated source/information that has been overly repeated. Also here is some more interesting info:
Note that although the T34 had thicker armor than the American designs, Soviet metalurgy lagged well behind the US (as well as the Germans), so the thinner armor of the US tanks actually offered similar protection. The 76 mm American guns were considerably more powerful than the guns of the early T-34s and roughly equivalent to the T-34 armed with an 85 mm gun.
It was not until July 1944 that American Shermans, fitted with the 76 millimetre (2.99 in) M1 tank gun, began to achieve a parity in firepower with the Panzer IV, although they were still badly over-matched by the Panthers and Tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.152.192 ( talk) 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Even more significantly, German metallurgy was highly reliant on NORWEGIAN steel ... with the loss of Norway their tanks saw a massive decrease in quality ... With the loss of Norway? Norway was held by the Wehrmacht until 8 May 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.62.11 ( talk) 21:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The photo below right is captioned as being a tank of the 12th Waffen-SS PD "Hitlerjugend" but the file name gives it as a tank of the 1st Waffen-SS PD LSSAH. Given the vintage of the vehicle that seems more likely, but, does anyone have a source for the unit ID? If not shouldn't we use the filename's big hint to us? -
Regards, DMorpheus2 ( talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Was the Maybach V-12 engine a diesel or did it run on gasoline/petrol? Can that be clarified on all references to the power plant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Instead of " Zimmerit paste was added to all the vertical surfaces of the tank's armor. " shouldn't that read HORIZONTAL? Don't magnetic anti tank mines jump up and adhere to the bottom plate of the tank as it passes over it?
I have added the word "hull" to the passage refering to the invulnerability of the PzKw IV H/J tank. According to Jentz and Doyle's Panzer Tracks No.4. Panzerkampfwagen IV - Grosstraktor to Panzerbefehlswagen IV, the Pzkw IV's frontal turret and mantlet armor was just 50mm of face-hardened steel. According to US Army's ballistic test "ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES & WEAPONS SECTION APO 887" made at May 1944, quoted by one of the users above, the 75mm M61 APCBC projectile, fired from the M3 gun used on the Sherman tank, made through and through penetrations of 50mm of Face-Hardened Armor plus 20mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor at the range of 1000 yards. Note that the 50+20 armor was arrayed as spaced armor at 30 degrees obliquity---far stronger than Pzkw IV's turret of 50mm, basically with no slope. The only M61 round defeated by this spaced armor suffered premature detonation, and this would not be relevant in so far as Pzkw IV is concerned. The failure of the M61 against 70mm RHA would be irrelevant in a discussion about Pzkw IV, since the tank, according to Jentz and Dolye, used FH armor. The difference between FH armor and RHA's resistance could be found at US Ordnance Catalogue, 1944. The M3 failed against 3 in. of RHA at twenty degrees obliguity at 500 yards; however, against FH armor at the same obliquity and thickness, it pentrated at 1,000 yards. This means that the Pzkw IV's frontal hull armor would be in fact vulnerable at regular ranges when subjected to APCBC fire.
A tank with a large turret that is the part "most likely to be hit" of that tank's frontal arc that is also vulnerable to basic enemy tank weapons and common AP rounds cannot be said to have "invulnerable" frontal armor. Counting the less than well protected glacis (20mm at 20 degrees) and lower hull, the Pzkw could be and was defeated by regular AP shots from the Allied M3 75mm and Soviet 76.2mm gun; it was just less vulernable frontally then Allied and Soviet tanks in an engagement due to the potency of its gun. This is just AP ammo. APCBC of the Allies and APCR of the Russians could defeat superstructure and nose as well. "Invulnerability" in this case is a clear overstatement. And the citation of Jentz and Dolye is incorrect. That pasage appears on page 19-20 and refers to the 80mm front hull armor, versus Allied and Soviet "AP round". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.190.237 ( talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
-Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.190.237 ( talk) 11:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sirs, Sorry to be so dilatory. If work situation improves, I will be a able give you citations. The reference work I have is pg. 16, CATALOG OF STANDARD ORDNANCE ITEMS published by OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE DIVISION made available by the generosity of H. Yeide, a published writer, in the public folder of his official website.
The passage is as follows: "An A.P.C. projectile, fired from the 75mm M3 gun, has a muzzle velocity of 2,030 feet per second, and will penetrate 3.1 inches of face-hardened armor plate at 1,000 yards."
Recently it has been suggested to me that the Germans might very well ceased the production of all FH armor after 1943, according to one memo from the German side by a metallurgist and a Soviet intelligence report on the armor thickness and composition of captured specimens. But in any case, superstructure armor composition is a moot point when turret front, mantlet and the driver's plate armor remains a negligible 30-50mm. I just cannot find any US army history or report raising frentic alarms over the impenetrability of Mark IV frontal armor, though there was plenty of that over Mark V and VI.
Thanks. I am not very familiar with wiki edit interface or rules which is why I only make suggestions here. The problem is the wording of a graph saying that "M3 75mm was helpless" which is a quote attributed to Hastings (and he did write that). -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.133 ( talk) 05:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, since none of you are capable of doing any in depth research, I will TELL YOU how the Sherman stood up to the Panzer 4. Using the M61 APCBC round, the
Sherman could not penetrate the Pz4 frontal upper superstructure at 80mm thick. HOWEVER, The Sherman had TWO very common AP rounds, the M61 APCBC and M72 APC. The M72 could penetrate 91mm at 500m, can at a 25-20 degree angle, it could penetrate the Panzer Mk4 armor frontally at 500m or so. My sources for this are a combination of things, the U.S. Army's penetration tables for the 75mm M3 at 30 degs, and the ones for the 75mm M3 at 0 degs. the conversion to a 20-25 deg values was done with a armor penetration calculator with a margin of error no greater than 5mm, which is acceptable considering that no two tank rounds come out of the barrel of any gun with exactly the same penetration. I am extremely weary of the fact that none of you have a clue what you are talking about, and every time I have tried to change this article, if gets changed by some moron. I have done TWO YEARS OF RESEARCH ON JUST THIS MATTER. DO NOT CHANGE IT AGAIN. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.58.244.82 (
talk)
19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not have the gall to tell me to be reliable, when this website is a gargantuan void of misinformation. Second, ill be civil when this place gets its act cleaned up and stops allowing people with no concept of what they are talking about to write articles on the internet for all to see, which has for the past several years lead a whole lot of people thinking they know what they are talking about, which has in turn resulted in the writing of articles based on this site all over the internet. This website has done nothing but a disservice to history by allowing those with no more knowledge than having once upon a time read some tidbit writing very poor articles based on a very many misconceptions. I will take the time here, since i have gone on this tirade, to explain the Sherman in more detail.
The M4 Sherman had two types of armored piercing ammunition, the M61 Armored Piercing Cap Ballistic Cap, and and M72 Armored Piercing Capped. Both were in service in large numbers since 1942.(as stated in Pz3 vs M3 Grant Osprey Publishing) The main misconception I find, is that most people are making reference to the M61 when they claim the 75mm M3 could not defeat the Panzer 4's frontal armor on the J/H/G models, without actually knowing the difference. At 500m, the M72 could penetrate 91mm of armor. At 25 to 20 degrees it could penetrate the Panzer 4's frontal superstructure. On the other hand, the just as common M61 round, with 66mm of penetration at 500m @30 degrees obliquity, could not, being that at 0 degree's obliquity the penetration was approximately 81mm. The source for this information is from the penetration tables on guns vs armor. com, and a document I have in possession that has all the 90 degree penetrations listed from the US/German tests, and these same values can be found in many of Osprey's books by Mr. Zaloga. Penetration values that are not specifically listed were calculated using various armor penetration converters, and there is a simple one on the internet for you convenience. The calculations are accurate within 5mm(usually 1-2), which can be checked by taking the 0 degree tables and converting to 30 degree, and vice-verse. For those of you doubting 20 degrees to be a easily enough angle at 500m, you can take simple trigonometry and discover that at that range, a 20 degree angle is a space approximately 1500ys wide(it has been awhile since I did that math so there may be some error, but it is none the less a very large area for a Sherman to fit into.) It should be also noted that the Tigers side armor was also 80mm thick and that M4 crews were told to attack the sides and rear, and unusual tactic if the armor was impervious to Sherman shells at normal combat ranges. The tables so commonly listed stating the Sherman had to be within 100m to obtain a flanking tiger kill were done at a very high obliquity of 30degs, and the M61 shell, which no one seem to want to note, and yet they are so often quoted. what we have here is tremendous number of people who have or have not read information pertaining to this subject but have not thoroughly analyzed the data, but are publishing everything they read at face value. For instance, it was previously stated that the Sherman was less armored than the Panzer 4 in response to the accurate statement that the Sherman was in fact slightly better protected then the late model Pz4's. the counter argument was that the Sherman had 51mm of armor and the Pz4 had 80mm. technically true, but they did not calculate the effect of slope on the Sherman. No offense to the person who wrote this, but this is a perfect example of people publishing seemingly accurate data on the subject but but being ignorant of the fact necessary to properly analyze it. Ill explain. The Sherman had 51mm of armor sloped at 35 degrees(with a few negligible areas at 53degres.) The slope of the armor makes the actual thickness 91mm however, 11mm better then the 80mm on the Pz4. This can be calculated by taking the armor thickness and dividing by the sine of the angle of slope. (51mm/sine of 35 degrees) another example is the panther that had 80mm at 34 degs and the effective thickness as 140mm. Once again I am going to edit this article, and this time ill cite sources in the proper manner, and I EXPECT IT TO STAY THAT WAY. PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THINGS WHEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL ASPECTS OF THE INFORMATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.244.82 ( talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Thankyou very much for making it clear the wikipedia doesnt give a hoot about the truth and only cares about how many ignorant morons know how to type on a keyboard, good day, and have a nice time butchering history for future generations. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Usnstarkey (
talk •
contribs)
01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | For instance, it was previously stated that the Sherman was less armored than the Panzer 4 in response to the accurate statement that the Sherman was in fact slightly better protected then the late model Pz4's. The Sherman had 51mm of armor sloped at 35 degrees(with a few negligible areas at 53degres.).....but they did not calculate the effect of slope on the Sherman...The slope of the armor makes the actual thickness 91mm however, 11mm better then the 80mm on the Pz4........U.S. Army's penetration tables for the 75mm M3 at 30 degs....... | ” |
Seems like a case of allied fanboism/omission going on here. First, the Sherman you are mentioning had 50.8 mm of frontal hull armor at 35 degrees from horizontal which comes out to 88.5670 mm in an armor calculator. For comparison, the T-34 series of tanks has thinner armor but better slope at 45 mm of frontal hull armor at 30 degrees from horizontal which comes out to exactly 90.0000 mm. Here is where many people fail to grasp that the German tanks also had slope and an unseen advantage in its thicker armor. For example, the Panzer IV H has 80 mm at 76 degrees from horizontal (nose) and 80 mm at 80 degrees from horizontal (driver's front plate) which comes out to ~82 mm in an armor calculator. On the Tiger I's wikipedia discussion area, overmatch is mentioned:
.......in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness was a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration......
It also doesn't help that the Sherman 75 mm M3 has a relatively poor muzzle velocity of about lower than 620 m/s. Second, US penetration tables seem usually to be based on firings at a 70 mm plate at 30 degrees from vertical instead of an 80 mm plate therefor exploiting overmatch to a degree. In terms of the US round penetration definition it states that a significant portion of the projectile must pass as a free missile through a rolled homogenous armor (RHA) plate on at least 50% of the rounds fired. According to sources, starting with very late Panzer IV H's and including J's the frontal armor was changed from face hardened (FH) to rolled homogenous armor (RHA) creating discrepencies in penetration performance of the 75 mm M3. (RHA being superior against Allied (not Bolshevik) rounds) As for the M72 round its name and penetration numbers are all over the place. Some claim its an AP round, APC round, AP solid shot... ect. For example this states: M 72AP 6.32 kg 619 m/s Penetration at 500 meters at 90 degrees: 66 mm but this states something drastically different: http://wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns.asp If someone could somehow obtain and post pics of these documents from this website: http://www.military-info.com/MPHOTO/p110.htm it would probably put an end to all this discussion. In the meantime here is a pic of a Jagdpanzer IV / 70 (A) (same hull as a Panzer IV H) hit by 75 mm's at short range: http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2568740360101845556mxLlWM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.32.210 ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Sherman was not superior to the Panzer IV the Shermans had a huge numerical superiority over the german panzers, but despite allied air superiority it took at least 4 shermans for a panzer IV. you can look at each tanks preformance but the training of the crews are far more important.
Most of the Panzer divisions exept for the Hitler jugend had served on the Eastern front. But the allies coordinated air strikess with the ground units far better than the germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.48.61 ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, this is Jonathan. I know this is ancient and editors are probably not reading this, but actually you should ignore my post, Hohum, since I have misread the ballistic chart. According to it 75mm would defeat Panzer IV H/J's superstructure when fired from an aircraft moving towards the tank which boosts the velocity of the projectile. Page number of the doc is 41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.86.167 ( talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The Author on the aforementioned link, is speculating too much on what could have caused such vibrations and inaccuracy, while fairly suspecting the suspension. However, the originating cause still remains unclear. Also, there's no note about the final drive being weak and would shearing off as PanteraPudding have pointed twice. I'm questioning the credibility of his additional writing. However, a rewrite without the speculation could fit the section. Bouquey ( talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
How can the following excerpt from the book Panzer Tracts 4-3, circled in red, be worked into the Panzer IV J section? Link:
https://s14.postimg.org/mylmsxphd/image.jpg
...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 01:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Some mention should be made of the additional spaced frontal turret and superstructure armor mounted on some Panzer IV's (similar to Panzer III L through N's spaced armor) known as Vorpanzer. This image is from the book | Panzerkampfwagen IV and Its Variants 1935-1945: http://s9.postimg.org/jwepuzm8f/image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 02:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
http://i.imgur.com/gorD3fg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XCZTVGh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DN06L55.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OyMcP3N.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/r42WiOe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/K1Rd1rF.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/f7sQVem.jpg
The Nahverteidigungswaffe is mentioned and linked in the current Panzer IV Ausführung J section but predecessor devices found on earlier Ausführungs are not. One of them is called the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung which consisted of a rear mounted smoke grenade dispenser held by spring loaded catches:
http://i.imgur.com/m2oRq78.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/liFNeb4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PWcp1gQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ktMQUnw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lqd7A6l.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1Xkj7a9.png
http://i.imgur.com/Hz5yPGw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HmcQoBa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QsY1CAj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/z56dlXf.jpg
Since I am a noob at this, how does one create an article or entry called Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung and how does one insert a link to it in the section named Ausf. A to Ausf. F1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 04:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
https://s9.postimg.org/j5a8o8o1b/690zvb.jpg ISBN:1-85409-518-8 Page 256
https://s9.postimg.org/pcedjq4gv/addsau.jpg ISBN:1-84908-801-5 Page 56
https://s11.postimg.org/d3tugt8hf/nqr9yg.jpg
https://s3.postimg.org/73siikpab/1695kjs.jpg British measurements obtained from here: http://www.vmmv.org/newltr/nl53.htm
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 03:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 May 2004 and 23 August 2008.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
I don't think we need a crew heading since it's already listed in the specifications table. Oberiko 13:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
As the list of links should make clear, "Panzer IV" is almost universally used in English, "Panzerkampfwagen IV" being a less-seen full name, a la "William Jefferson Clinton" better known as Bill Clinton. This should be moved back. Stan 14:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why not drop the Panzer IV wher it gets repeated each time and just stick with the Ausf, or alternatively don't bother with bold at all. It looks worse than Fraktur to read. GraemeLeggett 19:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Panzer IV had top speed of 40km per hour, certainly not 38km. The off-road speed is also ridiculously low.
The article currently states that the Pzkw-IV was "more than a match" for the M-4 and T-34. I'm not sure this is justified. The three vehicles are pretty closely matched in combat effectiveness, and of course much depends on which versions we're talking about. Maybe a more neutral statement such as "the later versions kept pace with newer designs such as the T-34 and M-4?"
Nonesense! The lowly basic 75mm gun penetrates 89mm of steel armor, far more than Panzer IV's turret or glacis.(50mm/80mm ausf G) Paat, you need to figure out what MODEL of Panzerkampwagen you are talking about--you seem to confuse Panzer V and VI with IV--NOT ALL PANZERS ARE THE SAME! Chin, Cheng-chuan
I have to agree, the sherman and Panzer 4 were pretty equally matched. The Panzer 4 would have an advantage in the fact its gun was a higher velocity and had less drop then the shermans gun, which gave it a slightly better chance for a first shot hit, and also its optics in some ways were better. Otherwise it was a pretty even match with both being able to kill the other from 1000m, and the sherman 76 and T-34-85 were quite superior to the mark4. Wokelly 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Wokelly
Hm. After some digging, I realized that it was the better armored M4A3 Sherman (hull 64mm/turret front+gun shield 104mm) that was resistant againt KwK 40. Of course, this type was unavailable in Africa, but distributed widely in ETO. Figure that would make sense. Chin, Cheng-chuan
The above is very interesting but fails to mention the firefly variant which was issued on a on to three basis in British units by heavy adaption work a british 17 pounder heavy A/T gun was fitted into a standard tank. The turret had been extended to allow the gun to be fitted this gave the British support varaint combined with SABOT shells gave an armour penetration equivellant to a late mark German 88mm gun. They were not a healthy tank to man since the Germans were under standing orders to kill the Firefly varaints as a priority above all other targets. A number of these conversions were offered to the US and the 17 pounder was offered for licence building but they decided to stick to the 76mm gun.
The reason that it was only used as a supplement was both because of supply and the fact that the standard 75mm gun was actually superior against infantry and anti tank guns whih were the main threat to allied tanks. The seventeen pounder would pass through buildings without exploding or bury itself so far into the ground that it HE yield was less effective. Nevertheless it was an excellent support weapon providing the means to successfully engage Tigers and Panthers on their frontal armour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.159.224 ( talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You quote the tank as running on petrol 'as all German WWII tanks'. I am speaking from the point of view of an enthusiast, not an expert but I can say with some certainty that not all German tanks ran on petrol. I have certainly heard that a huge draw back was that all German tanks ran on DIESEL... a drawback as this could congeal on the Eastern front making mobility and reliability poor. I would not go as far as to say I am certain of this but like I said, I think a little more research should be put into the fuel that this, and other tanks used as I would disagree especially with the section 'as all German WWII tanks.'
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/matilda.html Quotes the Matilda II as being the first British diesel tank http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/valentine.html Many of these valentine variants are quoted as running on diesel http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html Quotes the Polish 7TP "czolg lekki" as being diesel powered http://ww2hq.tripod.com/id3.html The M3 and M3A1 are quoted to have diesel variants http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/71/a2059571.shtml A personal account, recounting the story of a Sherman tank crew, diesel engines mentioned several times. http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/soldierstories_wwii/knight.htm Another account of diesel Shermans, found quite a few accounts of this.
My brief search turned up no evidence of diesel powered German tanks other than prototypes but I hope to turn up some results in the library tomorrow. It seems I took the 'fact' that they ran on diesel for granted although I'd like to know where all the 'myths' IF indeed they are myths, about German tank crews lighting fires under their hulls to thaw the congealed diesel, and Axis tanks on the Eastern front having to warm up their noisy engines for a matter of hours before movement, alerting Allied forces, came from. I have certainly heard this on many occasions and it would be odd for these 'facts' to be based on nothing, even incorrect. My research will continue as I will be interested to find out the truth either way.
81.129.116.179 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much Carnildo! It appears, you were correct about German tanks DMorpheus... but I do, however, as an aside, appear to have found evidence of sorts that the USSR did not prefer diesel and I quote D Morpheus when I say "with the exception of the Soviets, most WW2 tanks from any nation ran on gasoline." I observed in the library, in one particular book (World War II Tanks, Eric Grove, Black Cat publishing) that most USSR tanks listed, ran on petrol. The T-26 series, as well as the T-28 series, the BT series, the T7OA and the SU76, had petrol engines such as the GAZ T26 8 cylinder air cooled (T-26) and the M17T V12 liquid cooled (BT) to name but two. Only three series, i.e. the KV, the T34 and the JS ran on diesel, these three, from what I could gather from this trulty comrehensive book, were in the minority within the USSR. Thank you for correcting what I previously thought and encouraging me to do some more research into the subject.
81.129.116.179 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for correcting me although surely, just because the series stated above were built during the war years, this doesn't mean that they were not used. I have seen pictures to the contrary. Thanks for providing me with all this information as this has caused me to look more into Tanks of the Second World War, an aside from my main interest of firearms. I had always had certain preconceptions and ideas I had assumed fact about tanks and thank you for putting them right although I'd really be interested to find out where these myths came from. I have heard the examples of stories that I have given (e.g. lighting fires under hulls) in many more than just one place and I've come to see that it is common ignorance. I would be interested to know where such a myth came from however as I have heard it over and over again since my interest in the Second World War began at around 10, 6 years ago. It was interesting to find, not only that the stories are unfounded, but that they do not hold any truth from the point of view of thawing congealed diesel. Thanks again Carnildo for the ideas on this.
Was the main armament of the up-gunned Panzer IV stronger or weaker in armour pentration than the T-34's 76.2mm weapon? And which had greater range?--chubbychicken 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
T-34 also used blunt nose ammo, so the 76.2mm performed worse then it should have (Blunt nose was better against sloped armor, less likely to deflect as well). Wokelly 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Wokelly
Did take part in the "Lapland War" against Germans, its just that cause "phony war" start and later destruction of roads and bridges they were never able to make contact with retreating Germans and were soon after this was realized pulled from the front. And of other armor in that conflict some T-34's did take part only to roll over some mines and they too were found ill suited for the fighting and soon pulled back, only finnish tanks to draw blood in the conflict was some T-26's that trashed few Somuas.
The History section talks about the original contest that led to the P.IV, which seems extremely similar to the one in the P.III. Can someone explain why they ended up with two different tanks when it seems that one would fill both roles with a simple change of turret (or even just gun)? Maury 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
i think insted of the syrian one that may have differnces in it, we should ahve an origional german Pazner IV. i have a picture from the U.S ordance muesum—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esskater11 ( talk • contribs)
I see we are in a silly edit war over the lead photo. For what it's worth:
Both are good photos and, frankly, both vehicles are in similar condition in the sense that they are well-preserved and have a few minor non-German modifications. Neither is in 'perfect' WW2 configuration - but why should they be? This is a tank that was in use by several countries during WW2 and for over 20 years post-1945. So I don't really see the point in the edit warring. IMHO the Syrian photo is a better lead because it shows the vehicle from a quarter-view rather than side on. But changing it back and forth several times per week is really silly and a waste of time.
I've protected the page with a lead image that neither party wants. I'll unprotect when you guys can come to a decision as to which image should be in the lead. -- Carnildo ( talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In the "Variants" section the text states the Ausf J used "[...] 3 instead of 4 track return rollers.", while the image of the
Ausf J at Parola clearly has 4 return rollers. Where there exceptions to the rule, or? -- MoRsE ( talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Late Js (and SPs based on the chassis) had three. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Some comments.
TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that's accurate. Pzkw-IIIs were still in servie in 1945 also, albeit in very small numbers. DMorpheus ( talk) 20:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Congrats on passing A-Class review. Dhatfield ( talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Questions, comments etc below. I'll add to the list as I go ;) EyeSerene talk 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have discussed it with him, but he feels that his online sources are more reliable. JonCatalán ( talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the KwK 37 L/24 wouldn't be able to penetrate so deep, if you moved it to a range of 2,296.61 ft instead of 2,296.59 ft? Or that it wouldn't penetrate at all? Gene Nygaard ( talk) 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is Spielberger's production number for 1941 used in the table? This information from 1972 is now known to be incorrect. We can't just pick numbers as we like; we should use the best modern source, Jentz of course :o), and give its numbers.-- MWAK ( talk) 09:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving the captions blank so you can ID the models (use "|" after file name to enter a description):
OK, this is fun but you aren't going to keep making me do this are you?
DMorpheus ( talk) 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We've had a lot of photo changes and caption edits the last few days. It might be helpful to clear up some of the recognition features of various ausfrungs.
I changed the caption on one photo from ausf A to D; it was changed to C; I put it back to D again. The ausf D can be distinguished from the very similar ausf B and C from this angle by the single logitudinal bar on the engine intake vent. The ausf B and C had three or four longitudial bars there. Also, a bow MG is clearly visible; the ausf B-C did not have a bow MG, only a pistol port in the radio-operator's front plate.
The lead photo is a B or a C, not a D as originally captioned. Again the longitudial bars on the intake are visible, as is the lack of a bow MG. An easier feature is the internal mantlet characteristic of the ausfs A-C, but not D and later.
The Aberdeen example is a tough one since it has features of the E and F; I don't know what it is.
DMorpheus ( talk) 10:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is said about the munitionspanzer based on the Pz.IV chassis, that was used as an ammunition carrier for the Karl SP morser. Is there any particular reason for this? Regards, DPdH ( talk) 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Could an "Allied response" section such as those in the Tiger and Panther tank entries be added to the Panzer IV? It should mention the Sherman M4A3E2 and the T-34M/T-43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.32 ( talk) 07:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm not seeing a whole lot of progress here. I'll fail the article and start an A-class Review if I don't see some noticeable improvements by 26 March.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Panzer IV was in fact the L/70-armed tank destroyer version (i.e., the Panzer IV/70 (A) and Panzer IV/70 (V)). These vehicles were not known as Jagdpanzer IV/70, and the L/48-armed version was not known as Jagdpanzer IV/48. See Waffen Revue W 127, which contains facsimile data sheets of World War II German weapons. It makes sense to keep the article under the Panzer IV name, both for consistency, and because people will expect Panzer IV to lead to the tank, but an explanation was warented.
The proper German capitalisation for anti-tank guns was Pak, not PaK. Likewise, it's Flak, not FlaK. To make things confusing, it's Kw K, not Kwk, and Stu H, not Stuh. This is evident from war-time German documents, such as the above data sheets.
About the Ausf. F2/G issue: The (factually correct) sentence that that the F2 was re-named to G was followed by a sentence stating that there was no differences between early G's and F2's. This is nonsensical and confusing in its obviousness, so I deleted it. Christian Ankerstjerne ( talk) 12:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
While the number of german designed tanks is given in great detail for the campaign in Poland, the considerable amount of Panzer 35(t) and 38 (t) is completely omitted. 213.61.58.164 ( talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)koookeee
How realistic is this statement seeing that the Panzer IV's 75 mm KwK 40 L/48 has the following penetration performance at 30 deg from vertical:
Name | Weight | Velocity | 100 Meters | 500 Meters | 1,000 Meters | 1,500 Meters | 2,000 Meters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PzGr.39 (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap) | 6.8 kg | 790 m/s | 106 mm | 96 mm | 85 mm | 74 mm | 64 mm |
PzGr.40 (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) | 4.1 kg | 990 m/s | 143 mm | 120 mm | 97 mm | 77 mm | -- mm |
Gr.38 Hl/C (High Explosive Anti Tank) | 4.8 kg | 450 m/s | 100 mm | 100 mm | 100 mm | -- mm | -- mm |
And the T-34/85's ZIS-S-53 has the following penetration performance at 30 deg from vertical:
Name | Weight | Velocity | 100 Meters | 500 Meters | 1,000 Meters | 1,500 Meters | 2,000 Meters |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BR-365 (Armor Piercing) | 9.2 kg | 792 m/s | 95 mm | 83 mm | 72 mm | 62 mm | 51 mm |
BR-365 (Armor Piercing Capped) | 9.2 kg | 792 m/s | 105 mm | 96 mm | 83 mm | 73 mm | 64 mm |
BR-365 P (Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) | 4.99 kg | 1,200 m/s | 144 mm | 107 mm | 76 mm | 55 mm | 39 mm |
Armorwise the Panzer IV H has face hardened frontal armor of:
Hull front upper | Hull front lower | Turret front | Turret mantlet |
---|---|---|---|
80 mm at 9° | 80 mm at 12° | 50 mm at 10° | 50 mm at 0-30° |
Armorwise the T-34/85 has frontal armor of:
Hull front upper | Hull front lower | Turret front | Turret mantlet |
---|---|---|---|
45 mm at 60° | 45 mm at 60° | 90 mm round | 90 mm round |
Of course the Panzer IV H had the advantage at long range due to superior ballistics and optics whereas the T-34/85 had the better top speed and mobility due to better power to weight ratio and wider tracks. Looking at all this it seems they are more or less equally matched rather than 'definitively outclassed' as it currently states under the Panzer IV Eastern Front (1941–1945) section. Perhaps it is from an outdated source/information that has been overly repeated. Also here is some more interesting info:
Note that although the T34 had thicker armor than the American designs, Soviet metalurgy lagged well behind the US (as well as the Germans), so the thinner armor of the US tanks actually offered similar protection. The 76 mm American guns were considerably more powerful than the guns of the early T-34s and roughly equivalent to the T-34 armed with an 85 mm gun.
It was not until July 1944 that American Shermans, fitted with the 76 millimetre (2.99 in) M1 tank gun, began to achieve a parity in firepower with the Panzer IV, although they were still badly over-matched by the Panthers and Tigers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.152.192 ( talk) 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Even more significantly, German metallurgy was highly reliant on NORWEGIAN steel ... with the loss of Norway their tanks saw a massive decrease in quality ... With the loss of Norway? Norway was held by the Wehrmacht until 8 May 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.62.11 ( talk) 21:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The photo below right is captioned as being a tank of the 12th Waffen-SS PD "Hitlerjugend" but the file name gives it as a tank of the 1st Waffen-SS PD LSSAH. Given the vintage of the vehicle that seems more likely, but, does anyone have a source for the unit ID? If not shouldn't we use the filename's big hint to us? -
Regards, DMorpheus2 ( talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Was the Maybach V-12 engine a diesel or did it run on gasoline/petrol? Can that be clarified on all references to the power plant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Instead of " Zimmerit paste was added to all the vertical surfaces of the tank's armor. " shouldn't that read HORIZONTAL? Don't magnetic anti tank mines jump up and adhere to the bottom plate of the tank as it passes over it?
I have added the word "hull" to the passage refering to the invulnerability of the PzKw IV H/J tank. According to Jentz and Doyle's Panzer Tracks No.4. Panzerkampfwagen IV - Grosstraktor to Panzerbefehlswagen IV, the Pzkw IV's frontal turret and mantlet armor was just 50mm of face-hardened steel. According to US Army's ballistic test "ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES & WEAPONS SECTION APO 887" made at May 1944, quoted by one of the users above, the 75mm M61 APCBC projectile, fired from the M3 gun used on the Sherman tank, made through and through penetrations of 50mm of Face-Hardened Armor plus 20mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor at the range of 1000 yards. Note that the 50+20 armor was arrayed as spaced armor at 30 degrees obliquity---far stronger than Pzkw IV's turret of 50mm, basically with no slope. The only M61 round defeated by this spaced armor suffered premature detonation, and this would not be relevant in so far as Pzkw IV is concerned. The failure of the M61 against 70mm RHA would be irrelevant in a discussion about Pzkw IV, since the tank, according to Jentz and Dolye, used FH armor. The difference between FH armor and RHA's resistance could be found at US Ordnance Catalogue, 1944. The M3 failed against 3 in. of RHA at twenty degrees obliguity at 500 yards; however, against FH armor at the same obliquity and thickness, it pentrated at 1,000 yards. This means that the Pzkw IV's frontal hull armor would be in fact vulnerable at regular ranges when subjected to APCBC fire.
A tank with a large turret that is the part "most likely to be hit" of that tank's frontal arc that is also vulnerable to basic enemy tank weapons and common AP rounds cannot be said to have "invulnerable" frontal armor. Counting the less than well protected glacis (20mm at 20 degrees) and lower hull, the Pzkw could be and was defeated by regular AP shots from the Allied M3 75mm and Soviet 76.2mm gun; it was just less vulernable frontally then Allied and Soviet tanks in an engagement due to the potency of its gun. This is just AP ammo. APCBC of the Allies and APCR of the Russians could defeat superstructure and nose as well. "Invulnerability" in this case is a clear overstatement. And the citation of Jentz and Dolye is incorrect. That pasage appears on page 19-20 and refers to the 80mm front hull armor, versus Allied and Soviet "AP round". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.190.237 ( talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
-Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.190.237 ( talk) 11:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sirs, Sorry to be so dilatory. If work situation improves, I will be a able give you citations. The reference work I have is pg. 16, CATALOG OF STANDARD ORDNANCE ITEMS published by OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE DIVISION made available by the generosity of H. Yeide, a published writer, in the public folder of his official website.
The passage is as follows: "An A.P.C. projectile, fired from the 75mm M3 gun, has a muzzle velocity of 2,030 feet per second, and will penetrate 3.1 inches of face-hardened armor plate at 1,000 yards."
Recently it has been suggested to me that the Germans might very well ceased the production of all FH armor after 1943, according to one memo from the German side by a metallurgist and a Soviet intelligence report on the armor thickness and composition of captured specimens. But in any case, superstructure armor composition is a moot point when turret front, mantlet and the driver's plate armor remains a negligible 30-50mm. I just cannot find any US army history or report raising frentic alarms over the impenetrability of Mark IV frontal armor, though there was plenty of that over Mark V and VI.
Thanks. I am not very familiar with wiki edit interface or rules which is why I only make suggestions here. The problem is the wording of a graph saying that "M3 75mm was helpless" which is a quote attributed to Hastings (and he did write that). -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.140.133 ( talk) 05:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, since none of you are capable of doing any in depth research, I will TELL YOU how the Sherman stood up to the Panzer 4. Using the M61 APCBC round, the
Sherman could not penetrate the Pz4 frontal upper superstructure at 80mm thick. HOWEVER, The Sherman had TWO very common AP rounds, the M61 APCBC and M72 APC. The M72 could penetrate 91mm at 500m, can at a 25-20 degree angle, it could penetrate the Panzer Mk4 armor frontally at 500m or so. My sources for this are a combination of things, the U.S. Army's penetration tables for the 75mm M3 at 30 degs, and the ones for the 75mm M3 at 0 degs. the conversion to a 20-25 deg values was done with a armor penetration calculator with a margin of error no greater than 5mm, which is acceptable considering that no two tank rounds come out of the barrel of any gun with exactly the same penetration. I am extremely weary of the fact that none of you have a clue what you are talking about, and every time I have tried to change this article, if gets changed by some moron. I have done TWO YEARS OF RESEARCH ON JUST THIS MATTER. DO NOT CHANGE IT AGAIN. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.58.244.82 (
talk)
19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not have the gall to tell me to be reliable, when this website is a gargantuan void of misinformation. Second, ill be civil when this place gets its act cleaned up and stops allowing people with no concept of what they are talking about to write articles on the internet for all to see, which has for the past several years lead a whole lot of people thinking they know what they are talking about, which has in turn resulted in the writing of articles based on this site all over the internet. This website has done nothing but a disservice to history by allowing those with no more knowledge than having once upon a time read some tidbit writing very poor articles based on a very many misconceptions. I will take the time here, since i have gone on this tirade, to explain the Sherman in more detail.
The M4 Sherman had two types of armored piercing ammunition, the M61 Armored Piercing Cap Ballistic Cap, and and M72 Armored Piercing Capped. Both were in service in large numbers since 1942.(as stated in Pz3 vs M3 Grant Osprey Publishing) The main misconception I find, is that most people are making reference to the M61 when they claim the 75mm M3 could not defeat the Panzer 4's frontal armor on the J/H/G models, without actually knowing the difference. At 500m, the M72 could penetrate 91mm of armor. At 25 to 20 degrees it could penetrate the Panzer 4's frontal superstructure. On the other hand, the just as common M61 round, with 66mm of penetration at 500m @30 degrees obliquity, could not, being that at 0 degree's obliquity the penetration was approximately 81mm. The source for this information is from the penetration tables on guns vs armor. com, and a document I have in possession that has all the 90 degree penetrations listed from the US/German tests, and these same values can be found in many of Osprey's books by Mr. Zaloga. Penetration values that are not specifically listed were calculated using various armor penetration converters, and there is a simple one on the internet for you convenience. The calculations are accurate within 5mm(usually 1-2), which can be checked by taking the 0 degree tables and converting to 30 degree, and vice-verse. For those of you doubting 20 degrees to be a easily enough angle at 500m, you can take simple trigonometry and discover that at that range, a 20 degree angle is a space approximately 1500ys wide(it has been awhile since I did that math so there may be some error, but it is none the less a very large area for a Sherman to fit into.) It should be also noted that the Tigers side armor was also 80mm thick and that M4 crews were told to attack the sides and rear, and unusual tactic if the armor was impervious to Sherman shells at normal combat ranges. The tables so commonly listed stating the Sherman had to be within 100m to obtain a flanking tiger kill were done at a very high obliquity of 30degs, and the M61 shell, which no one seem to want to note, and yet they are so often quoted. what we have here is tremendous number of people who have or have not read information pertaining to this subject but have not thoroughly analyzed the data, but are publishing everything they read at face value. For instance, it was previously stated that the Sherman was less armored than the Panzer 4 in response to the accurate statement that the Sherman was in fact slightly better protected then the late model Pz4's. the counter argument was that the Sherman had 51mm of armor and the Pz4 had 80mm. technically true, but they did not calculate the effect of slope on the Sherman. No offense to the person who wrote this, but this is a perfect example of people publishing seemingly accurate data on the subject but but being ignorant of the fact necessary to properly analyze it. Ill explain. The Sherman had 51mm of armor sloped at 35 degrees(with a few negligible areas at 53degres.) The slope of the armor makes the actual thickness 91mm however, 11mm better then the 80mm on the Pz4. This can be calculated by taking the armor thickness and dividing by the sine of the angle of slope. (51mm/sine of 35 degrees) another example is the panther that had 80mm at 34 degs and the effective thickness as 140mm. Once again I am going to edit this article, and this time ill cite sources in the proper manner, and I EXPECT IT TO STAY THAT WAY. PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THINGS WHEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL ASPECTS OF THE INFORMATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.244.82 ( talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Thankyou very much for making it clear the wikipedia doesnt give a hoot about the truth and only cares about how many ignorant morons know how to type on a keyboard, good day, and have a nice time butchering history for future generations. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Usnstarkey (
talk •
contribs)
01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | For instance, it was previously stated that the Sherman was less armored than the Panzer 4 in response to the accurate statement that the Sherman was in fact slightly better protected then the late model Pz4's. The Sherman had 51mm of armor sloped at 35 degrees(with a few negligible areas at 53degres.).....but they did not calculate the effect of slope on the Sherman...The slope of the armor makes the actual thickness 91mm however, 11mm better then the 80mm on the Pz4........U.S. Army's penetration tables for the 75mm M3 at 30 degs....... | ” |
Seems like a case of allied fanboism/omission going on here. First, the Sherman you are mentioning had 50.8 mm of frontal hull armor at 35 degrees from horizontal which comes out to 88.5670 mm in an armor calculator. For comparison, the T-34 series of tanks has thinner armor but better slope at 45 mm of frontal hull armor at 30 degrees from horizontal which comes out to exactly 90.0000 mm. Here is where many people fail to grasp that the German tanks also had slope and an unseen advantage in its thicker armor. For example, the Panzer IV H has 80 mm at 76 degrees from horizontal (nose) and 80 mm at 80 degrees from horizontal (driver's front plate) which comes out to ~82 mm in an armor calculator. On the Tiger I's wikipedia discussion area, overmatch is mentioned:
.......in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness was a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration......
It also doesn't help that the Sherman 75 mm M3 has a relatively poor muzzle velocity of about lower than 620 m/s. Second, US penetration tables seem usually to be based on firings at a 70 mm plate at 30 degrees from vertical instead of an 80 mm plate therefor exploiting overmatch to a degree. In terms of the US round penetration definition it states that a significant portion of the projectile must pass as a free missile through a rolled homogenous armor (RHA) plate on at least 50% of the rounds fired. According to sources, starting with very late Panzer IV H's and including J's the frontal armor was changed from face hardened (FH) to rolled homogenous armor (RHA) creating discrepencies in penetration performance of the 75 mm M3. (RHA being superior against Allied (not Bolshevik) rounds) As for the M72 round its name and penetration numbers are all over the place. Some claim its an AP round, APC round, AP solid shot... ect. For example this states: M 72AP 6.32 kg 619 m/s Penetration at 500 meters at 90 degrees: 66 mm but this states something drastically different: http://wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns.asp If someone could somehow obtain and post pics of these documents from this website: http://www.military-info.com/MPHOTO/p110.htm it would probably put an end to all this discussion. In the meantime here is a pic of a Jagdpanzer IV / 70 (A) (same hull as a Panzer IV H) hit by 75 mm's at short range: http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2568740360101845556mxLlWM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.32.210 ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Sherman was not superior to the Panzer IV the Shermans had a huge numerical superiority over the german panzers, but despite allied air superiority it took at least 4 shermans for a panzer IV. you can look at each tanks preformance but the training of the crews are far more important.
Most of the Panzer divisions exept for the Hitler jugend had served on the Eastern front. But the allies coordinated air strikess with the ground units far better than the germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.48.61 ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, this is Jonathan. I know this is ancient and editors are probably not reading this, but actually you should ignore my post, Hohum, since I have misread the ballistic chart. According to it 75mm would defeat Panzer IV H/J's superstructure when fired from an aircraft moving towards the tank which boosts the velocity of the projectile. Page number of the doc is 41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.86.167 ( talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The Author on the aforementioned link, is speculating too much on what could have caused such vibrations and inaccuracy, while fairly suspecting the suspension. However, the originating cause still remains unclear. Also, there's no note about the final drive being weak and would shearing off as PanteraPudding have pointed twice. I'm questioning the credibility of his additional writing. However, a rewrite without the speculation could fit the section. Bouquey ( talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
How can the following excerpt from the book Panzer Tracts 4-3, circled in red, be worked into the Panzer IV J section? Link:
https://s14.postimg.org/mylmsxphd/image.jpg
...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 01:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Some mention should be made of the additional spaced frontal turret and superstructure armor mounted on some Panzer IV's (similar to Panzer III L through N's spaced armor) known as Vorpanzer. This image is from the book | Panzerkampfwagen IV and Its Variants 1935-1945: http://s9.postimg.org/jwepuzm8f/image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 02:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
http://i.imgur.com/gorD3fg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XCZTVGh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DN06L55.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OyMcP3N.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/r42WiOe.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/K1Rd1rF.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/f7sQVem.jpg
The Nahverteidigungswaffe is mentioned and linked in the current Panzer IV Ausführung J section but predecessor devices found on earlier Ausführungs are not. One of them is called the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung which consisted of a rear mounted smoke grenade dispenser held by spring loaded catches:
http://i.imgur.com/m2oRq78.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/liFNeb4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PWcp1gQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ktMQUnw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lqd7A6l.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1Xkj7a9.png
http://i.imgur.com/Hz5yPGw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HmcQoBa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QsY1CAj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/z56dlXf.jpg
Since I am a noob at this, how does one create an article or entry called Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung and how does one insert a link to it in the section named Ausf. A to Ausf. F1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 04:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
https://s9.postimg.org/j5a8o8o1b/690zvb.jpg ISBN:1-85409-518-8 Page 256
https://s9.postimg.org/pcedjq4gv/addsau.jpg ISBN:1-84908-801-5 Page 56
https://s11.postimg.org/d3tugt8hf/nqr9yg.jpg
https://s3.postimg.org/73siikpab/1695kjs.jpg British measurements obtained from here: http://www.vmmv.org/newltr/nl53.htm
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 ( talk) 03:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)