Talk:Panzer IV/Archive 1

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 May 2004 and 23 August 2008.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

First Comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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

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.

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)

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 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)

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)

Ausf J; 3 or 4 return rollers?

In the "Variants" section the text states the Ausf J used "[...] 3 instead of 4 track return rollers.", while the image of the

Ausf J at Parola

Ausf J at Parola clearly has 4 return rollers. Where there exceptions to the rule, or? --MoRsE (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Js (and SPs based on the chassis) had three. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)