Talk:Panzer IV

message: Dear all,
Frankly I find this incredulous: "Against earlier-model Panzer IVs it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, was almost helpless in the face of the late-model Panzer IV, as well as the Panther and Tiger tanks, unable to penetrate their frontal armor at virtually any range.[88] The 80-millimetre (3.15 in) frontal armor could easily withstand hits fron the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges.[89] "
Harry Yeides in Tank Killers note that US 75mm gun is capable of penetrating 3 in. of face hardened armor at 1,000 yards. Zaloga in his M4 Sherman stated that either the 75 or 76 armed Sherman variant could fire at the Panzer IV's front armor at regular battle ranges with good chance of success. The History of US Army Ordnance in WW2, From Beachhead to Battlefront, contends that the M4 was vastly inferior to the Tiger or Panther tanks, but an equal or superior to Mk. IV.
Similarly in the Army's official history of The Ardennes Battle, "The Battle of the Ardennes", in the Opposing Weapons Chapter, it is stated that the Panzer Mk IV "outgunned the M4" but had slighly thinner armor and less mobile. Overall, it considers the M4 Sherman tank to be "slightly superior" to the Mk IV. General Maurice Rose, in a report he sent to the Pentagon about the performance of M4 tanks against German armor in general--meaning all types of panzers and assault guns--states that except for the gun the American tank was superior in every respect.
US Army Ballistic Research Lab's studies show that, in 98 tank to tank engagements studied, the average German tank was knocked out at a range of almost 900 yards. The US units involved in this study was the 3AD and 4AD. Time frame was mid to late 1944. Neither of those units had an abundant supply of 76mm armed tanks. The 3AD had about 1/3; the 4AD had almost none during August-September in the heaviest tank battles it had fought, and only 1/4 76mm gun armed Shermans. The German tanks represented in the study were predominately Mark IV or equavalents.
Reading of AARs and official histories, from US armored units certainly did not impress the mind with the idea that Mk IV was somehow invulnerable to Sherman fire, as those tanks that were identified as such were knocked out in vast numbers in duels that appear to be fairly equal, with no special effort to bypass the frontal armor. Before the Tiger phobia argument is brought up again--how than are we going to discount the fact that in US official histories kill claims could actually be varified because the Americans usually hold ground at the end of the fight and there for is in a position to inspect knocked out tanks?
Claims of invulnerability are hard to believe because all of those are based on US penetration tables derived from firing at test rolled homogenous armor test plates at 30 degrees incline from the verticle. German Panzer Mk IV armor was faced hardened plate that offered increased resistance towards uncapped Russian armor piercing rounds but was actually more vulnerable than RHA to capped armor piercing rounds.
Guys, I am not trying to be the partisan here. I saw a couple of references to Hastings and Jentz. Hastings is good historian but no expert at weapons or tactics; of Jentz, he is the authority in German tanks and I'd love to see an exact quotation on the alleged invulnerability of Mk IV armor to allied weaponry. If he does say say, it would be an amazing fact as he would be contradicting about every other historian and American tank soldier on this subject. 
Sincerley yours,
Chinchenchuan/Jonathan Chin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.4.234 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The unfortunate fact-of-life for the Sherman crew was that the Panzer IV could knock them out as soon as they were seen, whereas the Sherman crew had to get within the effective range of the Sherman's relatively-short 75mm. Which BTW, IIRC, was based on a gun designed in 1897.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Panzer IV Invulernability

message: From Beachhead to Battlefront, contends that the M4 was vastly inferior to the Tiger or Panther tanks, but an equal or superior to Mk. IV.
Yes but what model of the M4? 75 mm, 76 mm, other?
Similarly in the Army's official history of The Ardennes Battle, "The Battle of the Ardennes", in the Opposing Weapons Chapter, it is stated that the Panzer Mk IV "outgunned the M4" but had slighly thinner armor and less mobile. Overall, it considers the M4 Sherman tank to be "slightly superior" to the Mk IV. General Maurice Rose, in a report he sent to the Pentagon about the performance of M4 tanks against German armor in general--meaning all types of panzers and assault guns--states that except for the gun the American tank was superior in every respect.
Slightly thinner armor? Judging by that comment then they are talking about the 50 mm hull front Panzer IV F2 because the Panzer IV late G/J had 80 mm of hull armor, thicker than that of the most common Shermans at 50.8 mm or 64 mm of hull armor. About the mobility the Panzer IV had lower ground pressure resulting in greater floatation and better performance in bad terrain. For the M4 being "slightly superior" to the Pz IV this is probably for the 76 mm models seeing that the cannon performance is very equal if not marginally better to that of the KwK 40 L/48.
US Army Ballistic Research Lab's studies show that, in 98 tank to tank engagements studied, the average German tank was knocked out at a range of almost 900 yards. The US units involved in this study was the 3AD and 4AD. Time frame was mid to late 1944. Neither of those units had an abundant supply of 76mm armed tanks. The 3AD had about 1/3; the 4AD had almost none during August-September in the heaviest tank battles it had fought, and only 1/4 76mm gun armed Shermans. The German tanks represented in the study were predominately Mark IV or equavalents.
According to the Soviets who conducted a study on tank vulnerability in combat they concluded that hits on the turret front were by far most often the cause of a tank loss. Using the results of this study they designed a radical new form of turret for thier IS 3 tank. For the Panzer IV G-J the weakest frontal area would be the turret front/turret mantlet which was 50 mm instead of 80 mm like the hull. Assuming that the Sherman's 75 mm is accurate enough to hit with consistency the turret then it is more than possible to kill a Pz IV at 900 yds.
Claims of invulnerability are hard to believe because all of those are based on US penetration tables derived from firing at test rolled homogenous armor test plates at 30 degrees incline from the verticle. German Panzer Mk IV armor was faced hardened plate that offered increased resistance towards uncapped Russian armor piercing rounds but was actually more vulnerable than RHA to capped armor piercing rounds.
1.)According to US Army TM9-1907 75 mm M3 gun AP performance:
Round: M61 APCBC
Penetration at 0 degrees slope: 90mm at 0yds; 83mm at 400yds; 76mm at 1000yds
Penetration at 30 degrees slope: 71.1mm at 0yds; 66.5mm at 400yds; 60.2mm at 1000yds
According to this then at about 400 yds and less not 900 yds it would be capable of penetrating the front hull of the Panzer IV G/J which is 80 mm sloped at 9 through 12 deg (~=81.66666...)
2.)According to this:U.S. Army Firing Test No.1 Chart at the bottom (http://wargaming.info/ww2/ustest1.htm)
Against a 70 mm face hardened plate sloped at 30 deg (~= 81 mm) positive penetration occurs at 1,900 feet per second or at about slightly less than 500 yds'''
Against earlier-model Panzer IVs it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, was almost helpless in the face of the late-model Panzer IV, as well as the Panther and Tiger tanks, unable to penetrate their frontal armor at virtually any range.[88] The 80-millimetre (3.15 in) frontal armor could easily withstand hits fron the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges.[89]
As for this the second quote should be kept because normal combat ranges in the Western front were around 500 meters to 750 meters ranges at which according to the stuff above the Sherman 75 mm would not be able to penetrate the frontal hull armor of the Panzer IV G/J.
The citation says this comment is proved by page 176 Jentz and Doyle's book. I do not have it, but the book has only 48 pages according to Google book
Google book is wrong. I have the book and its exactly 216 pages long. Look it up on Amazon.com as well.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.165.159 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panzer IV Invulernability 

message: In good faith, check your reference. It is impossible for Jentz and Doyle's Pzkw IV G, H, J book to have 216 pages, at least not the edition listed on this Wiki Entry. Both Google Book and Amazon shows that the book contains just 48 pages of content. One can see that clearly in the TABLE OF CONTENTS that Amazon allows access to. The GLOSSARY, which is also open to public inspection, lists no entry whatsoever after Page 47; the page number for the GLOSSARY itself is 48. I have no less than a six Osprey Reference books on tanks, all of them are standardized at 48 pages.
Cole's THE BATTLE OF ARDENNES states the following:
Exact figures on German tank strength are not available, but it would appear that of the estimated 1,800 panzers in the Ardennes battle some 250 were Tigers and the balance was divided equally between the Mark IV and the Panther. Battle experience in France, which was confirmed in the Ardennes, gave the Sherman the edge over the Mark IV in frontal, flank, and rear attack.
He is clearly speaking of Sherman tanks in general, i.e. both 75 and 76 variants.  This is not indicative of a thoroughly inferior or hopelessly outmatched tank. In those battles, 76 armed Sherman tanks accounted for a small minority of tanks in the USA First and Third Armies. The First Army's 2AD and 3AD did not recieve 76mm tank until the Cobra breakout, after which there was almost no fierce tank fighting. The Third Army received almost no 76mm gun armed Shermans at all, though it fought the biggest tank battle in ETO prior to the Bulge. It would be disingenuous for Cole to state the superiority of the Sherman by emphasizing the 76, even though it was barely present in France and appear only in small numbers in the Ardennes.
Mayo's FROM BEACHHEAD TO BATTLE FRONT neglects the issue of Panzer Mark IV all together. It is a frankly scathing critique on the inadequacy of the Sherman tank of both 75 and 76 variants versus Panzer Mark V and VI, recorded in the chapter "Lessons of the Roer". In this battle, the history is concerned with the 2AD's fight against the 9th Pz Div. 1/3 of all Shermans in 2AD had the 76mm gun. The report goes in depth to discuss how 76mm gun could only achieve penetration of Tiger front armor at point-blank, and penetrate Panther gantlet one in six shots. Panzer Mark IV however was not considered a problem at all and left undiscussed. 
Harry Yeides' TANK KILLERS that the M3 gun could penetrate three inches of face-hardened armor. The official penetration performance of all US Army's guns are based on RHA penetration, though face-hardened plate were also tested. All tests are made firing at 30 degrees angle of impact at the test plate; For example, 90mm of penetration at 400 yards with standard method of testing would mean 103mm of penetration if the shot was "straight". If a 75mm M3 gun fired at a Panzer IV directly in front of it, the impact angle would be 9 degrees as is the slope of the superstructure armor. Three inches of face-hardened plate at 1,000 yards effectively means 88mm of armor. This meshes with Steven Zaloga's THE SHERMAN TANK (also published by Osprey), which state that at regular battle range the Sherman tank "stands a good chance" to defeat Panzer IV's frontal armor.
According to the Soviets who conducted a study on tank vulnerability in combat they concluded that hits on the turret front were by far most often the cause of a tank loss. Using the results of this study they designed a radical new form of turret for thier IS 3 tank. For the Panzer IV G-J the weakest frontal area would be the turret front/turret mantlet which was 50 mm instead of 80 mm like the hull. Assuming that the Sherman's 75 mm is accurate enough to hit with consistency the turret then it is more than possible to kill a Pz IV at 900 yds.
First of all, if the part of a tank's frontal armor most likely to be hit by enemy projectiles is fact vulnerable, then the tank could not be said to be invulnerable on the frontal arc. Secondly, according to Perret's Panzer IV book (also published by Osprey) the turret mantlet of Mark IV H & J should be 80mm, not 50mm. This would imply that the 80mm armor was vulnerable to regular US ammunition.
:" ...  it fought the biggest tank battle in ETO prior to the Bulge" - that's curious because the British and Canadians were facing most of the German armour - 7-and-a-half panzer divisions - which had been converging on the area around Caen. The Germans initially had a total of 9 panzer divisions in the West. 
:The standard 75mm Sherman may not have been at too much of a disadvantage against the Panzer IV but against the Panther, Tiger I, and Tiger II, which the British and Canadians were facing, it was outclassed, and it wasn't the American Army that was facing these vehicles, but actually the British and Canadians, whose views were therefore likely to be more relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Sir,

message: See this here: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzer_IV.pdf
Xerton (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining Panzer IV's 

message: "The chassis had originally been designed with a six-wheeled Schachtellaufwerk interleaved-roadwheel suspension (as already adopted for German half-tracks), but the German Army amended this to a torsion bar system."
Isn't the Schachtellaufwerk suspension already a typically a torsion bar design? Isn't this kind of redundant? Doesn't this mean that they ditched the interleaved torsion bar suspension for a plain torsion bar suspension, and then ditched torsion bars entirely and went with leave sprung bogies? 
Also it seems like the infobox should be clarified. It says "length" and "length with gun forward". I assume this means hull length and total length including the barrel, but it's not clear. It could be length with gun to the rear, length with gun forward. The only reason it's obvious that that is not the case is that the gun barrel actually protrudes further from the rear when it's reversed, and so the total length would be longer. So what is the first dimension? With gun to the side? Wouldn't "hull length" be clearer?
Idumea47b (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torsion bar 

message: I can find mixed reports on the Panzer 4 in Saumur, some stating it's an Ausf. H, others that it's an Ausf. J. Can anybody provide a good identification of the vehicle on question and arguments as to why it is that variant. I just now reverted an edit from H to J, so now ot says H again, on the ground that the vehicle has zimmerit and the table in the article says the H has zimmerit and the J doesn't. DynCoder (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Side note: we need references because WP:NOR of course. DynCoder (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the depicted tank is said to be chassis number 89660 which is an early production Ausf. J --Denniss (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed reports on the Panzer 4 in Saumur 

message: what are the numbers of running panzer lV's are left 173.206.144.246 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of running panzer lV's left