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?

Engine Fuel

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)

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
• 
  Ausf C or D
• 
• 

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)

I know ... but there was something to it. The Soviet steel industry was the biggest in the world. It had more output then the USA and higher quality then Australia or the UK and that was acknowledged fact. The Kremlin would always fudge the figures in their favour but they made incredible gains throughout the 1930's and 3 of those areas are KEY to understanding the armour of the T-34 vs. the Panzer IV argument. The first is the quality of steel and the second is the size of the casts and the third is the quantity of steel they were able to produce.

In the first area the answer is not easily defineable. The USSR had better steel in their armoured vehicles at the start and the end of the war but in the midst of it the quality dipped while Germany acquired serious assistance from occupied territories. In the second area the Soviets were making casts the size of the largest German tanks while Germany was making plates that you could fit in the back of a Volkswagen Golf. In the third area ... the Soviets out-performed all other countries combined asides from the USA. So they were pretty damn good at making steel and their 55,000 T-34's demonstrates that.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet steel industry was not even close to being the biggest in the world during WW2. USA dwarfed them and even Germany had higher output. But that's a minor issue in this context; this is a tank article. The late Pzkw-IV and T-34-85 were pretty evenly matched, and the crew quality and tactical situation are far larger issues.

I am not sure what you mean by the loss of Norway, but Norway was in nazi hands until after the surrender.

regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:44, 28 April 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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.4.234 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Script: I have deleted the passage which says Pz. Mk. IV is invulernable to the 75mm gun of the M4 Shermans, becaues the citation is incorrect. 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. I have other standard tank reference books from New Vanguard, and none of them have one page more or less than 48.

I am considering to delete Max Hasting's quotation as well. The only thing that he seems to be saying is that M4 tank's frontal armor was thin and vulnerable to the Pz Mk IV's 75mm L/48 gun. It does not follow that Pz Mk IV would be invulnerable to M4's 75mm L/40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.96.118 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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 1895.

Panzer IV Invulernability

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)

Good Sir,

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.

Variant missing...

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)

Panzer IV Invulernability Again

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)

Well done, DMorpheus (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but that's added to a cited sentence. I'm sure you're right, but unless the source actually says that we can't include it. Incidentally, nowhere does the word 'invulnerable' come up in the article... EyeSerene^talk 19:53, 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 for your further research. For what it's worth, I think you're right; I don't recall reading any reports of British or US tankers being overly worried by the MkIV - IIRC the Sherman and various British tanks were considered comparable. I have to admit though that I'm still not sure what you're arguing against. Nothing in the article implies the PzIV was proof against US or Britsh tanks. The other potential issue is that you're taking information from two different sources (the US penetration data and the German armour thickness data) and using it to come to your own (admittedly logical!) conclusion. This is against one of our many editing policies (WP:SYNTH). We'd need a source that expresses what you're saying in those terms for it to be valid for inclusion in the article. Again, I'm sure you're right - the lack of concern among the Allies about the PzIV (given the amount of fuss about the Panthers and Tigers) is evidence that PzIVs weren't a problem, but it's negative evidence. We unfortunately can't cite no reports as proof of something! EyeSerene^talk 08:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

If I recall, Hastings was making a point in that section about the British & American failure to make available a decent general tank capable of contending with the German machines, so I think you're right that for the article to state it without attributing the opinion might be over-stretching the source. The Hastings book is a good read, but it's perspective is from the 1980's revisionist school of thought that seems to find it a wonder that the Allies ever won the war :) More recent works take a more balanced view. I'll tweak the text - see what you think (by the way, it may well have been me who put that sentence into the article in the first place...) EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 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)

"US ARMY TABLES AS SOURCE" is far too vague and unverifiable, so I have reverted your unacceptable addition. Please read WP:V, WP:RELIABLE and then definitely consult WP:CIVIL. Since you have spent so much effort researching this I am sure you can find verifiable, reliable sources. Hohum (talk) 00:16, 25 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)

Since you can't be bothered to read the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, I'll spell it out for you from the relevant wikipedia policy WP:V

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.

When you can comply with this, which you surely must be able to do, having done so much research, your addition will be usable, otherwise it isn't. Before you go off on another massive wall of text, read the requirements for inclusion on wikipedia. It's probably also worth noting that original research and synthesis also isn't allowed, which most of your wall of text was. See WP:OR. Thankyou. Hohum (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Hello Editors,

If you are still monitoring this page, I have conclusive evidence to prove that a passage regarding Pz-IV(H)'s performance in the Western Front 44-45 need revision. The passage in dispute:

Against earlier-model Panzer IVs, it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, struggled against the late-model Panzer IV (and was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of Panther and Tiger tanks at virtually any range).[96] The late-model Panzer IV's 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal hull armor could easily withstand hits from the 75 mm (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges...

I have argued this passage does not appear to be correct according to my reading of unit combat histories but that proved inadequate to meet wiki's verifiability criteria. I have recently acquired TERMINAL BALLISTIC DATA: Vol. II, ARTILLERY FIRE from Combined Arms Library.

According to the same study, all portions of Pz-IV(G)/(H)'s frontal armor was in fact defeated by 75mm APCBC fired from M3 tank gun at a range of 1,000 yards at 0 degrees. When angle of attack is greater than 25 degrees, the bulk of Pz-IV(G)/(H)cannot be defeated by said gun/ammo combination, with the important exception of the turret.

Test criteria was live fire against captured Pz-IV tanks. An armor is determined to be defeated if it is either perforated or suffers catastrophic wield seam failure/backplate shattering.

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33384244/Terminal-Ballisic-Data-Vol-2-Artillery-Fire.

I respect the quality of Jentz and Doyle's scholarship, but in this case the US study conducted in field by munitions experts should take precedence over the secondary work done by historians of armor. If memory serves, Jentz and Doyle's cited evidence was a ballistic chart based on German military intelligence's ESTIMATION of enemy gun performance and friendly armor resistance.

Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.74.184 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Which page on the link you gave is this on Jonathan? (Hohum ^@) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (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)

Allied Response?

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panzer IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Remove pages from books, unless they for a chapter in a book.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Several cites needed.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There's tons of jargon in this article that really should be linked, but it doesn't affect this review. Examples include sprocket, turret, torque shaft, bogie, etc. How was the HL 120 TRM an improvement over the HL 120TR?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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)

Failed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming (Panzer IV, Jagdpanzer IV and Pak)

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)

Combar history

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

Photo error?

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? -

A Panzer Mk IV of the 12th SS Panzer Division in Paris shortly before the Normandy invasion.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The original in the Bundesarchiv says "Paris, Panzer IV der LSSAH vor Triumphbogen" with a date of "1942 Juli - August" ([view=detail&search[focus]=1 details]) So I'd go with that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerit?

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?

No, magnetic mines are placed manually on tanks by infantry. They can be placed on both horizontal and vertical surfaces, but obviously, the effect of Zimmerit on the roof of the tank would have been limited. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Finnish experiences

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)

Panzer IV J turret traverse excerpt from Panzer Tracts 4-3 book

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)

Panzer IV Vorpanzer

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)

No spaced armor on the Pz IV, just additional plates bolted onto existing armor to strengthen it. --Denniss (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so, the vorpanzer did feature spaced armor. Very rare variant however. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really a specific variant but many different ausführungs are fitted with it. Here are more pictures of it: http://photo.qip.ru/users/coast70/150272649/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.174 (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the additional hull plates as spaced armor - it was the standard armor upgrade on the Ausf.E also refitted to some older variants. The front was bent or curved so they had to use extensions to mount easier-to-manufacture flat plates. Never seen that strange turret mod though, either a special variant or a later-war survivability upgrade for older variants with 3 cm turret armor. --Denniss (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That strange turret mod is the thing that we are talking about: Vorpanzer. Here are some excerpts from some Panzer IV books. Hopefully all the images work let me know if they don't:

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

Great photos and diagrams, thank you. Again it is obvious this is spaced armor. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Panzer IV Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung

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)

Well...not precisely analogous. The close-in defense system was very different from the earlier smoke grenade launchers. Also, it was mounted on other AFVs such as the Panther so it is perhaps more noteworthy than smoke grenade launchers. Just sayin. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Schürzen thicknesses

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)

Those are just random clippings. Without the actual name of the books, they are entirely irrelevant. Considering the mistake made by the first in referring to the skirts as being a defense against hollow-charge ammunition, it is doubtful that it's of a newer data.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)