Talk:Panzer IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I don't think we need a crew heading since it's already listed in the specifications table. Oberiko 13:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Naming

As the list of links should make clear, "Panzer IV" is almost universally used in English, "Panzerkampfwagen IV" being a less-seen full name, a la "William Jefferson Clinton" better known as Bill Clinton. This should be moved back. Stan 14:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Oberiko 14:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Same. --Carnildo 01:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Being that we have an agreement here, what should we rename some of the other tanks to? Ex. Panzer V Panther or Panther tank? Oberiko 14:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Based on my experience, the Panzer V should be at Panther (tank), the Tiger should be at Tiger (tank), and the Tiger II could be at either Tiger II or Königstiger, with appropriate redirects for the other common names and for people who can't type accent marks in the search box.
Wouldn't it be easier to redirect Panther_(tank) to Panzer V than copy it? GraemeLeggett 13:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Variants

Why not drop the Panzer IV wher it gets repeated each time and just stick with the Ausf, or alternatively don't bother with bold at all. It looks worse than Fraktur to read. GraemeLeggett 19:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

Panzer IV had top speed of 40km per hour, certainly not 38km. The off-road speed is also ridiculously low.

The diff between 38 and 40 is very modest about 1 mph - depending on load that could be expected. 20 kmh is what the source at wwiivehicles has but without a definiton of conditions. GraemeLeggett 9 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with T-34 and M-4?

The article currently states that the Pzkw-IV was "more than a match" for the M-4 and T-34. I'm not sure this is justified. The three vehicles are pretty closely matched in combat effectiveness, and of course much depends on which versions we're talking about. Maybe a more neutral statement such as "the later versions kept pace with newer designs such as the T-34 and M-4?"

Even that sounds a little generous, although the Pz IV design was upgraded. The Germans were forced to spend precious resources developing the new Panther tank in direct response to the T-34. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 20:14 Z
I think, all things considered, it owuld be tough to rate one of these three vehicles much higher than the others. Without developing a fairly complex table, the huge variations in all three designs can't be captured. I suggest it's best to make a cautious, broad statement rather than get into it too much. DMorpheus 20:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Could be interesting. Look at the table of models in T-34#Soviet medium tank models of World War Two and imagine comparing the speed, hp/t, armour, and gun of two or three variants of Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 20:27 Z
I'm not sure if this answer abit of your question, but if a Panzer Mrk. IV came face to face with an M4 Sherman, the panzer would rarely lose. It have a far better armour better firepower, compare to the Sherman to traded off protection and firepower for speed and manouverability. But that rarely happened ( 1 panzer vs. 1 Sherman). There were alot more Shermans that were built suring WW2, and usually, the Shermans would win against the panzers only by outnumbering the panzer. It has been said that one or two Panzers IV have held up a good fight ( taking out a handfull or two) against Shermans, before getting destroyed itself. The thing is that the Shermans had to attack the rear of the Panzer, where the armour was its weakest. I may be repeating some parts from the article, but its cuz im doign a project on the Sherman and the panzer, so I've spoken to some historians of WW2 and D-day. As for the T-34, I'm really not sure, and I wont say anything about that since I dont wanto mislead sumone or give the wrong info. paat 21:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonesense! The lowly basic 75mm gun penetrates 89mm of steel armor, far more than Panzer IV's turret or glacis.(50mm/80mm ausf G) Paat, you need to figure out what MODEL of Panzerkampwagen you are talking about--you seem to confuse Panzer V and VI with IV--NOT ALL PANZERS ARE THE SAME! Chin, Cheng-chuan

I have to agree, the sherman and Panzer 4 were pretty equally matched. The Panzer 4 would have an advantage in the fact its gun was a higher velocity and had less drop then the shermans gun, which gave it a slightly better chance for a first shot hit, and also its optics in some ways were better. Otherwise it was a pretty even match with both being able to kill the other from 1000m, and the sherman 76 and T-34-85 were quite superior to the mark4. Wokelly 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Wokelly

Hmmm. Given a typical meeting in North Africa in '43 we would have the Sherman M4A1 with the 75 M3 meeting F2's (yes I know, F2 is unofficial) and G's with the 75/L43 or 75/L48. At 500 yards the M3 penetrated 60 mm while the 75/L43 penetrated a minimum of 91 mm using Pzgr.39 (the lousy ammo) and 96 mm for the L48. In Europe in '44 the matchup was slightly worse, as the majority of P.IV's were now H models with 80 mm frontal armor and universally armed with the L48 and increased stocks of Pzgr.40. It's only when the 76mm M1 arrived that the Shermans had anything matching the P.IV, but that was July 1944. Maury 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Steven Zaloga considered T-34-76 "essentially equal" to Panzer IV. Panzer IV's chief advantage is the suprior reach of its 75mm gun, allowing it to shoot at Shermans and T-34s beyond the range at which they could return effective fire. But in regard to the lethality of the guns, there were little to no difference between the three. US gun penetration figures are taken against steel plate sloped at THIRTY DEGREES. At this angle the plate's Line Of Sight (LOS) thickness is increased by 20%. Therefor 75mm M3's effective penetration against vertical armor is 79mm at 500 yards and 72mm at 1,000 yards, sufficient to kill Gs and capable of killing Hs at medium to close range. Similarily, T-34-76 was outgunned in the Battle of Kursk in terms of effective range, but no report I know of suggest that the F-34 could not put down a Panzer IV. On the other hand, KwK 40's performance against well-sloped armor could only be described as insipid, in spite of its great range and accuracy. More likely than not, hits on the Sherman's glaicis plate will richotte. In effect, Panzer IV was only slightly better than its competitors in combat, but loses out in mobility, reliability, ease of maintenance, and manufacturing cost. That in my opion makes them equal weapons. -Chin, Cheng-chuan
Nope what? Sorry, my mind reading helmet isn't working today.
US gun penetration figures are taken against steel plate sloped AT THIRTY DEGREES ANGLE.
So are the German ones, see: [1]. Seems like a moot point to me.
The M4A1 of North Africa had 2" (51 mm) sloped at 37-55 degrees in the galcis and 3" (76 mm) at 0 degrees on the front turret. Let's work those numbers out: the 51 mm at 55 degrees is 87 mm, the 51 at 37 is 62.5 mm. Of course the turret is still 76 mm. And that's NOT adjusting for the low-quality US castings of the 42-43 era, which "It was determined reliably that a large proportion of USA armor, both cast and rolled, produced prior to November 1943 was flawed to such an extent that it resisted about 5% to 50% less than it should have"
Now let's do the same conversion on the KwK 40. It got 81 mm of 30 degrees at 1000 m, 72 at 1500 and 63 at 2000. Converting back to zero that's 94 mm at 1000m, 83 mm at 1500 and 73 mm at 2000.
Now let us reverse that analysis.
The PzIV in NA is actually quite difficult to pin down, many received appliqué armor of various sorts. The baseline factory model had 50 mm at 14 degrees[2], but this was often upgraded to as much as 80 mm, either contact or spaced. The "horizontal" area with the driver's hatch was 20 mm at 72 degrees, and the lower hull (below the nose) was 30 mm at 61 degrees. Converting these numbers back to zero we get 52 mm for the main part, or 82 mm for the uparmored versions, 65 mm for the "horizontal" top, and 62 mm for the lower nose. The PzIV was generally comparable in the early F1/F2 models, and definitely better in the uparmored versions.
Now let's convert the M3 numbers. It got 66 mm at 457 m, 60 mm at 914 and 51 mm at 1,371. Converting back to zero that's 76, 69 and 59 mm, respectively.
And now let's compare the results. The KwK 40 has to penetrate a small amount of 87 mm and a much larger amount of 76 and 62 mm armor. Thus could penetrate any point of the M4A1 at 1000 m, most of it at 1500, and a significant portion at 2000. In comparison, the M3 has to penetrate at least 52 mm, and more often about 60 mm. That means it's going to be under 1300 m in the absolute best case, leaving the PzIV with a distinct range advantage. And again, this is ignoring the fact that the real-world armor gave the PzIV an even greater range.
I know which take I'd rather be in. But don't take my word for it, ask the guys that were in them: "When encountered in North Africa, British nicknamed Ausf F2 (early Ausf G) - "Mark IV Special", since it was superior to any American or British tank at the time"
Feel free to point out the problems with this analysis. But please, a little more than "nope" would be appreciated. Maury 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean offense; if there is I apologize in advance. Certainly it was not a "rare" event when a Pz IV lose to a Sherman in tank-to-tank fighting; the M4 is the superior to Pz IV in the the speed with which it could train and deliver the first shot and having a higher rate of fire, thanks to its electrically powered traverse, the quickest in World War II. In a bocage, forest or town, those were major advantages that a competent Sherman crew would exploit. The M4's gyro-stabalizer also made fire on the move a practical possibility, a very effective method of dealing with antitank guns when deployed at the right time. Given the prevalance of close-quarters fighting in the more restricted European terrain, the Pz IV does not always have the full advantage of using its superior gun. By the way; one of the former Wiki editors of the Sherman tank article (MWAK I think?) was pretty adamant in KwK 40's high failure rate in defeating Sherman's armor, due to a high probability of richotte. Since I am not a member and he doesn't have an account, I could not confirm the details or get a citation. However the makers of Steel Panthers seems to agree. -Chin, Cheng-chuan
No offense taken! BTW, I agree in most cases with the M4 and PzIV were pretty much evenly matched in ConEuro, as you note above. Even with the thicker armor and new gun on the IVG's, the shorter ranges would generally nullify those sorts of advantages. But in Tunisia? No contest! Maury 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. After some digging, I realized that it was the better armored M4A3 Sherman (hull 64mm/turret front+gun shield 104mm) that was resistant againt KwK 40. Of course, this type was unavailable in Africa, but distributed widely in ETO. Figure that would make sense. Chin, Cheng-chuan

The above is very interesting but fails to mention the firefly variant which was issued on a on to three basis in British units by heavy adaption work a british 17 pounder heavy A/T gun was fitted into a standard tank. The turret had been extended to allow the gun to be fitted this gave the British support varaint combined with SABOT shells gave an armour penetration equivellant to a late mark German 88mm gun. They were not a healthy tank to man since the Germans were under standing orders to kill the Firefly varaints as a priority above all other targets. A number of these conversions were offered to the US and the 17 pounder was offered for licence building but they decided to stick to the 76mm gun.

The reason that it was only used as a supplement was both because of supply and the fact that the standard 75mm gun was actually superior against infantry and anti tank guns whih were the main threat to allied tanks. The seventeen pounder would pass through buildings without exploding or bury itself so far into the ground that it HE yield was less effective. Nevertheless it was an excellent support weapon providing the means to successfully engage Tigers and Panthers on their frontal armour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.159.224 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petrol/Diesel

You quote the tank as running on petrol 'as all German WWII tanks'. I am speaking from the point of view of an enthusiast, not an expert but I can say with some certainty that not all German tanks ran on petrol. I have certainly heard that a huge draw back was that all German tanks ran on DIESEL... a drawback as this could congeal on the Eastern front making mobility and reliability poor. I would not go as far as to say I am certain of this but like I said, I think a little more research should be put into the fuel that this, and other tanks used as I would disagree especially with the section 'as all German WWII tanks.'

All German tanks in WW2 ran on gasoline (petrol) engines. If you have some evidence that they deployed any diesel-powered tank please provide it; if you think a little more research should go into this, by all means do it and show us the results. A great thing about wikipedia is that anyone can do this sort of improvement.
By the way, with the exception of the Soviets, most WW2 tanks from any nation ran on gasoline. There were a few diesel-powered British and US tanks, but gas was the preferred fuel in both armies. The Red Army alone preferred diesel, due to the lower risk of fire.
If you type four tildes (~) at the end of your comments we will know who you are. Thanks. DMorpheus 19:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/matilda.html Quotes the Matilda II as being the first British diesel tank http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/infantry/valentine.html Many of these valentine variants are quoted as running on diesel http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html Quotes the Polish 7TP "czolg lekki" as being diesel powered http://ww2hq.tripod.com/id3.html The M3 and M3A1 are quoted to have diesel variants http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/71/a2059571.shtml A personal account, recounting the story of a Sherman tank crew, diesel engines mentioned several times. http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/soldierstories_wwii/knight.htm Another account of diesel Shermans, found quite a few accounts of this.

My brief search turned up no evidence of diesel powered German tanks other than prototypes but I hope to turn up some results in the library tomorrow. It seems I took the 'fact' that they ran on diesel for granted although I'd like to know where all the 'myths' IF indeed they are myths, about German tank crews lighting fires under their hulls to thaw the congealed diesel, and Axis tanks on the Eastern front having to warm up their noisy engines for a matter of hours before movement, alerting Allied forces, came from. I have certainly heard this on many occasions and it would be odd for these 'facts' to be based on nothing, even incorrect. My research will continue as I will be interested to find out the truth either way.

81.129.116.179 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All your findings are correct, but do not contradict the main point. Most WW2 tanks ran on gas, including most Matildas, most M3 series light tanks, and about 80% of all Shermans. You can check the wiki articles on any of these tanks or any reputable source.
DMorpheus 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Gearboxes, possibly, or iced-up treads. Gas tanks aren't the only thing that has trouble with the cold. --Carnildo 05:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Carnildo! It appears, you were correct about German tanks DMorpheus... but I do, however, as an aside, appear to have found evidence of sorts that the USSR did not prefer diesel and I quote D Morpheus when I say "with the exception of the Soviets, most WW2 tanks from any nation ran on gasoline." I observed in the library, in one particular book (World War II Tanks, Eric Grove, Black Cat publishing) that most USSR tanks listed, ran on petrol. The T-26 series, as well as the T-28 series, the BT series, the T7OA and the SU76, had petrol engines such as the GAZ T26 8 cylinder air cooled (T-26) and the M17T V12 liquid cooled (BT) to name but two. Only three series, i.e. the KV, the T34 and the JS ran on diesel, these three, from what I could gather from this trulty comrehensive book, were in the minority within the USSR. Thank you for correcting what I previously thought and encouraging me to do some more research into the subject.

81.129.116.179 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The T-34, IS-2, and KV were a minority of *types* but the vast majority of tanks *produced*. For example, over 50,000 T-34s were produced, but the most common gas-powered Soviet AFV (by far), the SU-76, was produced in about 12,000 examples. The T-26 entered production in 1931 and was not produced at all during WW2. The T-28 entered production in 1933 and was not produced at all after 1938. The BT entered production around 1932 and the last version, the BT-8, had a diesel; none were produced after 1941. What this shows is that once they had the experience of the Spanish Civil War behind them, almost all new Soviet tank designs employed diesel engines. Every major Soviet AFV of WW2 ran on diesel, except for the very light types such as the T-60, T-70, and SU-76, which ran on gas.
If you research the actual types in service in 1941-45, as well as types that were planned but not widely deployed such as the T-50, the overwhelming majority were diesel. There's no question about their preference. DMorpheus 02:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for correcting me although surely, just because the series stated above were built during the war years, this doesn't mean that they were not used. I have seen pictures to the contrary. Thanks for providing me with all this information as this has caused me to look more into Tanks of the Second World War, an aside from my main interest of firearms. I had always had certain preconceptions and ideas I had assumed fact about tanks and thank you for putting them right although I'd really be interested to find out where these myths came from. I have heard the examples of stories that I have given (e.g. lighting fires under hulls) in many more than just one place and I've come to see that it is common ignorance. I would be interested to know where such a myth came from however as I have heard it over and over again since my interest in the Second World War began at around 10, 6 years ago. It was interesting to find, not only that the stories are unfounded, but that they do not hold any truth from the point of view of thawing congealed diesel. Thanks again Carnildo for the ideas on this.

81.129.116.179

Lighting fires under tanks, trucks and even airplanes happened, just not for the reason you were told. As Carnildo wrote, there are other things that can go badly wrong in very cold weather. Batteries lose their charge, lubricants lose viscosity, steel tracks can freeze to the ground, etc. DMorpheus 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


The t-26 and t-28 were used in ww2 these pea shooters were the back bone of the tank brigades in the winter counter offensive during the battle of moscow. One tank brigade would have 16 pea shoters and one t-34. Those facts come from John Erickossn "The road to Stalingrad" he uses the word pea shooters so I use it to. Now back to the point DMorpheus is right about the fuel, also he is a huge ww2 equipment fan so he would know. You can read more about it in . German weapons of World War II / edited by Chris Bishop and Adam Warner or in other books of similar nature. (Deng 02:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Main Armament

Was the main armament of the up-gunned Panzer IV stronger or weaker in armour pentration than the T-34's 76.2mm weapon? And which had greater range?--chubbychicken 07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Both 75 mm guns, the earlier L43 and the longer L48 were better in penetration and in range. --Denniss

T-34 also used blunt nose ammo, so the 76.2mm performed worse then it should have (Blunt nose was better against sloped armor, less likely to deflect as well). Wokelly 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Wokelly

[edit] Finnish Pzkw IV's..

Did take part in the "Lapland War" against Germans, its just that cause "phony war" start and later destruction of roads and bridges they were never able to make contact with retreating Germans and were soon after this was realized pulled from the front. And of other armor in that conflict some T-34's did take part only to roll over some mines and they too were found ill suited for the fighting and soon pulled back, only finnish tanks to draw blood in the conflict was some T-26's that trashed few Somuas.

[edit] Original contest

The History section talks about the original contest that led to the P.IV, which seems extremely similar to the one in the P.III. Can someone explain why they ended up with two different tanks when it seems that one would fill both roles with a simple change of turret (or even just gun)? Maury 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

i think insted of the syrian one that may have differnces in it, we should ahve an origional german Pazner IV. i have a picture from the U.S ordance muesum—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs)

The Syrian tank has a mounting on the cupola for a DShK machinegun, but is otherwise pretty much the same late-version tank that would have been encountered in 1944-45. Its really in very good shape for a museum vehicle. If there is some other in even better shape, great. DMorpheus 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As an example of the longevity of the type, it's an interesting pic. My first impression was that it was a Mk VI Tiger (the turret shape fooled me): what are the technical details? A more recognisable version might be better as the lead photo, IMO. -- Folks at 137 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your question. The vehicle shown in the lead photo is virtually an as-built Ausf J except for the cupola Dushka mount. What exactly is un-'recognizable' about it? I certainly have no objection to other photos, but this *is* a good one. DMorpheus (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly I'm less well informed than most - I hadn't realised it was an Ausf J (perhaps a note on the caption) and the pic is a good, clear one. My first impression arose from the shape of the turret and the angle of the photo, I think, and the lack of "scale", ie a person next to it. Comparing with pics here, I can see it is a Mk IV, but without the familiar triangular cutouts at the front corners of the turret. No Problem, off to hide. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over lead photo

I see we are in a silly edit war over the lead photo. For what it's worth:

a) The Syrian Pzkw-IV is in standard ausf J configuration with the exception of the MG mount on the cupola, which is a post-1945 fitting. It may also have a Syrian stowage box on the far (left) fender but it is hard to tell from the photo.
b) The Parola Pzkw-IV is also a standard late configuration except it is missing its turret skirt armor and turret-rear stowage bin.

Both are good photos and, frankly, both vehicles are in similar condition in the sense that they are well-preserved and have a few minor non-German modifications. Neither is in 'perfect' WW2 configuration - but why should they be? This is a tank that was in use by several countries during WW2 and for over 20 years post-1945. So I don't really see the point in the edit warring. IMHO the Syrian photo is a better lead because it shows the vehicle from a quarter-view rather than side on. But changing it back and forth several times per week is really silly and a waste of time.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've protected the page with a lead image that neither party wants. I'll unprotect when you guys can come to a decision as to which image should be in the lead. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)