Panzer 4 F characteristics

[Debrody]

A lovely little gv, i found my new favourite.
Its armor is from paper, a t34/76 will kill you with a single ping, even at medium ranges. Once youre spotted, youre dead unless you can kill your opponent quick enough.
The long-barrelled cannon is great, has a fair armor penetration, enough to kill shermans or t34s with 1-2 pings from 1-1,5k distance. Never tryed the short one, the 53mm penetration at 0 yards makes you totally lost against a t34/76, couse there are only a few sweet spots on the 34 it can penetrate, even when its right next to it.

Question: whats the point is choosing the short cannon? its totaly inpotent against anything (heck an m8 can kill the panzer from the distance it can kill the m8...) someone said scenarios, but thats still a chop suey mission.

[Soulyss]

I think the short barrel cannon will not see much MA use, I can't think of any reason to take it over the other gun other than it can load more HE shells. 

I think will see some use in scenarios however, I believe it had an earlier service date so in some cases may be the more representative model.

[Karnak]

For a Barbarossa setup it would be the Panzer IV F1 vs the T-34/76, and that is a really bad deal for the Panzer.

[SmokinLoon]

A lovely little gv, i found my new favourite.
Its armor is from paper, a t34/76 will kill you with a single ping, even at medium ranges. Once youre spotted, youre dead unless you can kill your opponent quick enough.
The long-barrelled cannon is great, has a fair armor penetration, enough to kill shermans or t34s with 1-2 pings from 1-1,5k distance. Never tryed the short one, the 53mm penetration at 0 yards makes you totally lost against a t34/76, couse there are only a few sweet spots on the 34 it can penetrate, even when its right next to it.

Question: whats the point is choosing the short cannon? its totaly inpotent against anything (heck an m8 can kill the panzer from the distance it can kill the m8...) someone said scenarios, but thats still a chop suey mission.

Short cannon is EW use, especially in scenarios.  Remember, the Panzer IV was not used by the Germans to deal with enemy armor, that is what the Panzer III was for.  The Panzer IV was purely an infantry support tank and was only used for anti-armor when needed. 

[StokesAk]

Excuse my ignorance but if we got an M3 Lee in the next update, that might be a fair math for it.

[Mister Fork]

I'm actually thinking the Panzer F4 is ideal as Japanese armour sub for SEA and AvA setups.

[SmokinLoon]

I'm actually thinking the Panzer F4 is ideal as Japanese armour sub for SEA and AvA setups.

Good call.  It might actually be a bit more that the Japs had.     The Type 95 "Ha-Go" and Type 97 Chi-Ha "Shinhoto" both only went 20mph max, had about the same AP capability as the Panzer IV F's 75mm L/24, but far less HE capability.  Oh yeah, and the Panzer IV has far better armor, too.   

But yes indeed, now the Japanese will have at least something comparable to use in scenarios.   

[Lepape2]

The short barrel has two main advantages, the first one being that given the very slow projectile speed, it becomes easier to range ground targets effectively. The second advantage I believe is that the shell casing can be thinner and thus carry more explosives in an HE round. However, I notcied that the projectile weight in the AH armor chart is the same for both barrels so I don't know if that is implemented.

In the AH world, I see the short barrel used only on town and field attacks to destroy solid objects or pop some goons running for the map room.

[MK-84]

Keep in mind the side armour is very thin.  I flew an Il2 against them and found that they are very easy to destroy with a short burst from a shallow dive from almost any angle.  This makes it one of the easiest (if not the easiest) true tank to be killed by cannon fire.  I would suggest that turning into an incoming attack is even more important when driving this.

[Oldman731]

The short barrel has two main advantages

Short barrel results in very low velocity, hence low recoil (well...comparatively...).  Gun and mount are lighter, recoil mechanism can be shorter, tank is lighter (or can carry more armor, designer picks).  For HE effectiveness, velocity doesn't play much of a role.

One of the LVTs in the game has a short-barrel 75mm.  Same idea.  You couldn't mount a bigger, heavier, stronger-recoiling gun on that vehicle.  Similarly:  the Brumbaer version of the Mark IV had a short 150mm gun to launch big shells short distances.  Could not have mounted a long-barrel 150 on that chassis. 

Remember, Pzr IV is a very pre-war design.  Like most weapons systems, as the war progressed the designers found ways to improve the vehicle, so that the Mark IV of 1945 was not very similar to the Mark IV of 1940.

- oldman

[321BAR]

The short barrel has two main advantages, the first one being that given the very slow projectile speed, it becomes easier to range ground targets effectively. The second advantage I believe is that the shell casing can be thinner and thus carry more explosives in an HE round. However, I notcied that the projectile weight in the AH armor chart is the same for both barrels so I don't know if that is implemented.

In the AH world, I see the short barrel used only on town and field attacks to destroy solid objects or pop some goons running for the map room.

the IVF has a nice reload rate also. but in my opinion the HE of the 75mm L24 can go stay in the hangar when i can use the M4/75 HE for the town and get a longer range and even use the calliope if i chose so. the L24's a scenario weapon and will always only be such

[skorpion]

The short barrel has two main advantages, the first one being that given the very slow projectile speed, it becomes easier to range ground targets effectively. The second advantage I believe is that the shell casing can be thinner and thus carry more explosives in an HE round. However, I notcied that the projectile weight in the AH armor chart is the same for both barrels so I don't know if that is implemented.

In the AH world, I see the short barrel used only on town and field attacks to destroy solid objects or pop some goons running for the map room.

LVT-A4 has a range of 5.1k when aimed all the way up. talk about reaching out and touching someone! the projectile itself is very slow, and very easy to track. the destructive power of the howitzer on the A4 is very nice too, i took out one of those non-controlled cities and was able to wipe out 65-ish % of it with only 50 shots. i think the LVT-A4 has much better explosive destruction capability when compared to the stubby panzer because it carries more rounds (100), has a much better range and is easy to track the rounds.

[PR3D4TOR]

The Pz IV was designed as an infantry support tank. The short 75 mm was never meant to deal with enemy armor. The Pz III served the function of break-trough tank and spearhead of the Panzerwaffe. Later in the war the Pz III was found to be too small to upgrade with guns larger than 50 mm and so the Pz IV was up-gunned and up-armored to fill the medium-tank role. The Pz III's were converted into assault guns and tank-destroyers. The Pz IV F would not alone adequately represent the Panzerwaffe in early-war scenarios without the Pz III alongside it.

[Karnak]

The Pz IV was designed as an infantry support tank. The short 75 mm was never meant to deal with enemy armor. The Pz III served the function of break-trough tank and spearhead of the Panzerwaffe. Later in the war the Pz III was found to be too small to upgrade with guns larger than 50 mm and so the Pz IV was up-gunned and up-armored to fill the medium-tank role. The Pz III's were converted into assault guns and tank-destroyers. The Pz IV F would not alone adequately represent the Panzerwaffe in early-war scenarios without the Pz III alongside it.

This is true.

How did the Panzer III do against the T-34/76 and KV-1?

[skorpion]

This is true.

How did the Panzer III do against the T-34/76 and KV-1?

im pretty sure the KV-1 kicked the panzer 3's rectum hole, but i think the  T34/76 was an even match for it.