Talk:Panzer IV

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (15 August 2004 - 23 August 2008)

First Comment · Naming · Variants · Ridiculous · Comparison with T-34 and M-4? · Petrol/Diesel · Main Armament · Finnish Pzkw IV's.. · Original contest · Picture · Edit war over lead photo · Page protection · Ausf J; 3 or 4 return rollers?

Ausgeseichnet?

Some comments.

1. "number of return rollers was reduced from four to three to cut production time" Production time, or cost? Or both?
2. Formatting, I personally prefer panzer & ausf(uhrung) be italicized...but I just don't have the patience now to wade thru & change 'em all... If somebody does? And spelling out "millimeter" while abbrev "in." strikes me inconsistent...
3. "greater degree of vertical deflection of the roadwheels" Do I understand this to mean the same as "wheel travel" in automotive suspension systems? Change to that as clearer?
4. "augmented" Seems to me augmented use of augmented should be less augmented.
5. L/70. As I understand it, the L/70 overstressed only the forward suspension elements. Can somebody confirm?
6. L/33. I've usually seen it an L/34, unless I'm badly mistaken.

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses below,

1. Production time, as far as I know (costs could be another reason, but not covered by the source). It's probably a similar case as the reduction of the Panther's headlights from two to one.
2. From the Panzer I article, Panzer isn't italicized because it's a frequent word used in English. I believe that Ausfuhrung should be italicized, but I don't italicize the abbreviate (didn't do it in Panzer I either). From past FACs the word it's measured in primarily should be spelled out, while the unit in which it's converted to should be abbreviated (came up in the Verdeja (tank) article, where neither words were spelled out).
3. It seems the wheel travel and vertical deflection are the same - vertical deflection is how Perrett puts it, and this is also how it's explained by Simpkin (his book doesn't cover the Panzer IV, but is about tank design in general).
4. I can replace some with improved, I guess, although that's used a lot, as well.
5. The source which is referenced after that sentence says that the chassis was 'overloaded'. But, it mentions that they tried to mount it along with the Panther turret, which is another reason why it might have to do with available volume (recoil length - the recoil length of the L/43 already had to be shortened to fit it in the Panzer IV's turret) and weight (although, I'm not sure how much the Panther turret weighed).
6. You're right, and I can't believe I missed this before. A L/33 was developed, but it says that a singe 75mm L/34.5 was completed in December 1941 (doesn't mention if this was development stemming from the L/33) and was mounted on the Ausf. F. I will edit the article accordingly.
7. The article is currently undergoing an A-class review and your comments would be very welcomed.

Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice your edits, and some of them are incorrect according to Wiki MoS (these issues have come up in past FACs), so could you correct them? I don't want to do it myself, as it's sort of frustrating. Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Questions, comments etc below. I'll add to the list as I go ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• First pass complete; is it worth mentioning that the Pz IV is often referred to as a 'heavy' tank (at least, until the Tiger I appeared)?

Development history

• First pass completed.

Ausf. A—Ausf. F

• I think some clarification is needed with regards to service acceptance. According to the article, the Pz IV was accepted into service in 1936 as the VsKfz 622... and again in 1939 as the SdKfz 161. How was this possible?
• Was there a Mk E? Noticed this is mentioned later in the section.
• Sometimes abbreviations are italicised and sometimes not (eg Kwk, Ausf). Foreign words not in common English usage should be italicised, but I'm not sure if this applies to abbreviations. Your thoughts?
• Irrelevant to the copyedit (and nothing we can do much about), but regarding the photo of the DAK Pz IV (which I've tentatively identified as an E variantchanged my mind, I think it's a D with battlefield modifications), the tank appears to have been painted with both the 10th and 15th Pz Div's insignia.

Images

• I've tried to find a few more images of the various marks - I think the A, E, F2, and J are probably the most important, as they illustrate significant landmarks in the vehicle's life. Unfortunately we have a D rather than an E (couldn't find one on Commons), but it's still a good photo ;)
• I've also tinkered with the layout a little - please feel free to change anything you don't like. My changes have introduced a bit of image bunching lower down the article, but if you decide to keep the images we can spread them out to address that (and I haven't got to the text there yet anyway).
• Is it possible to upload your opening Pz IV image to commons?

Some early responses -

1. I believe I have a source that does mention that it was considered a "heavy" tank, but it's a book on the IS-2 and it's not really mentioned by any of my "only-Panzer IV" books. I'm not disputing that it was, but I don't feel comfortable adding it if it's not mentioned in any of the sources, except one that really has nothing to do with the Panzer IV.
2. I tried to clarify what I meant with the two "acceptance" dates. The first one was acceptance into the German Army, while the second one was acceptance as a standard tank - in 1936 not all divisions were outfitted with the Panzer IV, while after the war in Poland they were.
3. I normally don't italicize abbreviations.

Thanks so far! It looks really good. JonCatalán (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I may be able to source the heavy tank thing - it's not hugely important, but I think it does make an interesting illustration of how armoured vehicles evolved during the war. The acceptance dates make sense now too. I'm grateful to you for the opportunity to work on such an interesting and well-researched article ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I've finished, though there are always further prose improvements that can be made! I've added a few {{fact}} tags for numbers that will need explicit citation, but hopefully that's the last outstanding 'to-do'. I also ought to check with you that achtungpanzer.com is WP:RS, as I used it to cite a couple of assertions. EyeSerene^talk 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the CE began, I feel that this article is a lost cause. So much information was changed and now left unreferenced that the article is left in worst state than it began. Not because of you - you did a great job, but because of other editors, who feel that the information they have found online is more reliable than the five different books I use (and coincide with each other). JonCatalán (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that. Serious published scholarly books always trump websites, especially where they are in agreement with each other; if you think it would be helpful, I can go back over the article and, with reference to the page history, remove the alterations. Perhaps the editor (looking at the history, I assume Denniss) could discuss changes here on the talk page before altering referenced material? EyeSerene^talk 17:44, 3 September 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)

From WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The relevant policy page, WP:V, gives an order of precedence here. The article sources certainly look good to me; one or two of the books could maybe be described as 'lightweight', but I wouldn't question their accuracy, and the authors are for the most part acknowledged experts in their field (particularly Thomas L Jentz, whose work is generally taken to be authoritative). That your sources agree with each other means we have academic consensus, which is another strong indication of reliability. It would need a very compelling argument indeed to over-ride this. What website were the changes from? EyeSerene^talk 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job Jon

Congrats on passing A-Class review. Dhatfield (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Only German tank to serve throughout the war?

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)

True, even if only because the Germans never scrapped anything (just passed it on to their allies). Besides, the Pz III chassis certainly was, at least in the guise of StuG III. We may have to rethink that. Thanks for the caption correction BTW - the image is mislabelled on Commons (I should have looked closer!) EyeSerene^talk 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum On a closer look, the article says 'only German tank to remain in continuous production throughout the war' - are we looking at the same bit? EyeSerene^talk 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene is correct. JonCatalán (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this may have been referring to "The Panzer IV was the only German tank which saw combat throughout World War II,", which (even though it's referenced) I agree is dubious because there were still Pz IIIs in service in 1945. I've tweaked this by adding information from earlier in the article, which I had commented out until I found a home for it, so hopefully it's less likely to attract objections now... EyeSerene^talk 15:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What happens at 2,296.61 ft?

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)

It would penetrate; although, penetration is never linear. But, it wouldn't be able to perforate the armor (the decimals may be off, but the article should use conversion templates, as opposed to manual conversions). JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that is the whole point. The precision is ridiculous, for this and other measurements in the article. Conversion errors, however, and be fixed without templates, and templates can introduce many types of new errors as well as minimize others. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of these, if left to its own devices the convert function does a reasonable rounding job.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of the time it does. But try something like 11⁄16 inch (17 mm) and it might cure you of unrealistic reliance on black boxes. Always double-check your results. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "convert" template is that it uses "digits to the right of the decimal point" as its measure of precision, rather than the more sensible "significant figures". --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this isn't a problem with {{convert}}—read its documentation. When you state a precision, you can choose to do it either by the number of decimal places--and it is not limited to the right of the decimal point, it can be to the left as well--or you can specify the number of significant digits. But when you do not explicitly state a precision in one of those ways, the default rounding works. That default is based on the number of significant digits, not on where the decimal point is. For example, try {{convert|5678|mi|nm}} which gives you 5,678 miles (9.138×10¹⁵ nm). The precision here is the default; no precision was specified by me. That is not determined in relation to the decimal point. Of course, if you thought you were converting to nautical miles, you were wrong; those aren't the units you get. But that is a different problem. It works the same when it doesn't spill over into scientific notation; the results don't depend on the location of the decimal point:

• {{convert|5678|mi|cm}} which gives you 5,678 miles (913,800,000 cm)
• {{convert|5678|mi|m}} which gives you 5,678 miles (9,138,000 m)
• {{convert|5678|mm|mi}} which gives you 5,678 millimetres (0.003528 mi)

So, like GrahamLeggett said, the default precision of this template is usually pretty reasonable; though, as I showed, that isn't always the case.

Of course, saying that you would base it on significant digits still doesn't determine the proper rounding. If the mantissas of the common logarithms are significantly far apart, for example, the one with the lower mantissa should have more significant digits. Furthermore, it depends on actually knowing the precision in the first place, and often the best we can do is guess at that. Furthermore, the real precision is usually not decimal in nature. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Production numbers

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)

ID'ing variants

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)

Heh, I'm sure there were different images for the Ausf. A and lead originally... The reason I identified the Aberdeen variant as the F2 was the shorter muzzle-brake compared to the G, but given the amount of turret/chassis swapping that went on, I agree it's not 100%. EyeSerene^talk 11:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job, I need to brush up on my Panzer recognition. Might have a few more historical photos. I've got one more question for you German AFV experts, what is the project standard for the abbreviated vehicle designations? I mostly encounter Pz.Kpfw. X and Sd.Kfz. X in literature but noticed most of these are simplified here on WP, "PzKpfw" or worse yet "Panzer". Is there a standard or guide I can refer to? Koalorka (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A decent image of the Ausf. A would be excellent, if you have one ;) Regarding abbreviations, I'm not aware of any specific guidelines that prefer one form over the other. I suppose it's more grammatically correct to use the punctuated version, but modern usage seems to be to eschew the punctuation. As long as an article is internally consistent, I doubt anyone would object. I'm not a fan of 'Panzer' either, unless it's specifically referring to a formation (as in 'panzer division'). EyeSerene^talk 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Still browsing through the hundreds of photos recently donated to Wikipedia by the German Federal Archives, I'll try to find some early model pictures and then post them here for you guys to ID and select, I have a lot of difficulty properly identifying the early models. Koalorka (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best with them, I kinda have fun with this. Why not post them to the talk page first, we'll get a consensus on the ID, then put them in the article?

The ausf A is exceedingly rare but easy to recognize if you find one. The Aberdeen version to which I referred is the D/E/F1, not the G. That is, the one with the short gun tube. It has a B-C-D cupola and front hull, but the sprockets and idlers are from an F or later. I also want to check the lead photo again now that I know how to tell a B from a C. DMorpheus (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right - I thought you meant the long-gun version (para 4, A-F). And yes, this is fun ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The candidates

I'm leaving the captions blank so you can ID the models (use "|" after file name to enter a description):

• 
  Ausf. B or C
• 
  Ausf. D
• 
  Ausf C during the Polish campaign
• 
  Ausf B or C, same time period
• 
  Ausf D, USSR 1941
• 
  Ausf G, Greece?
• 
  Ausf F
• 
  Near pzkw-IV is an E; more distant one is also an E
• 
  Ausf F
• 
  Early ausf H
• 
  Late H or early J, 12th W-SS div
• 
  Late H or early J, 12th W-SS Div
• 
  Early ausf H
• 
  Ausf H with nonstandard roof armor
• 
  Late ausf H
• 
  Ausf H or J
• 
  Early ausf H
• 
  Late H or J
• 
  H or J
• 
  Early J
• 
  H or J, 12th W-SS Div, 1944
• 
  Ausf C with some updates, Normandy 1944
• 
  same tanks as previous photo
• 
  Ausf. F1
• 
• 
• 

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)

By the final months of the war, the Panzer IV was definitively outclassed by the upgraded T-34/85, mounting an 85-millimetre (3.35 in) gun.

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)

I'm not sure that the statement about Soviet metalurgy is fair. T-34's were made from large casts making them structually more sound then their contemporaries so even hits that penetrated were unlikely to break the tank unless they struck something vital. While the rivetted construction of their opponents (due to inferior casting capabilities) resulted in German tanks being disabled often without any penetration. Additionally, the Soviet Union in the 1930's surpassed the rest of the world in quality and quantity of steel production, at least according to Stalin era propaganda. Even more significantly, German metallurgy was highly reliant on NORWEGIAN steel ... with the loss of Norway their tanks saw a massive decrease in quality ... holes in the middle of armour plates were common so a rated thickness of 100mm might've been effectively 2x 20mm sections and a 60mm gap.

Also, armour thickness vs. armour penetration of a shell is not the only deciding factor in a tank battle. If I for example hurled a catapult stone at one target wearing kevlar and shot the other with a pistol sized AP cartridge, while the second shot would be more likely to penetrate the targets armour the first shot would be more likely to cause catastrophic damage. This disparity is amplified by complex mechanics and other sensitive parts on the interior of the armour and this proved a big problem to German armour ... in particular the Panzer IV. Sometimes the amount of kinetic energy or explosive force delivered to a piece of armour is a more important demonstration of the effectiveness of a shell then its penetration especially when spalling is taken into account and in these areas the T-34 was VASTLY superior to the Panzer IV.

Another quick note; a head to head confrontation isn't the only thing under consideration when looking at how much one vehicle outclasses another. A vehicles survivability or usefulness in other roles comes into play. If the T-34 can deliver more weight of explosives on infantry en route to an armoured confrontation it has a higher chance of winning the coming clash. If it has thicker armour it has a higher chance of surviving hits from infantry weapons or aircraft. If it has higher road or off road speed it is more capable of filling different tactical roles and getting into position when needed.

In other words, the T-34/85 was the better tank by a significant degree BEFORE you factor in how much easier it was to construct and deploy. Arguing otherwise is pure semantics as the historical record is there and agreed upon by WW2 historians.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"the Soviet Union in the 1930's surpassed the rest of the world in quality and quantity of steel production, at least according to Stalin era propaganda" - Nice source. ;) Hohum (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Panzer IV Invulernability

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