the panzer 4 is well overdue for a buff

[Thonar]

Dude, face it. The Panzer 4 has its role in the game and it kills Shermans effectively. It's not and wasn't superior to the Sherman. Use the 10000 tools you have to kill that tank. Most German 1200m tanks are even impervious to 76mm variants.

You've been screaming 1200m p4 since day 1 beta. Let it go. Your logic is flawed. You can have your ultimate super accurate ballistic PIV when your airforce tab disappears and your tiger tanks break down randomly. You don't see people screaming about railway off map considering it would seem every railway gun in Normandy would need to fire to simulate that.

No point made, just assumptions.
I was never saying the PzIV was superior, all I want is similiar stats for similiar capabilities, nothing more.
It's just not the case ingame.
Or do you have a different opinion on that matter?
If so fine, but then please accept you want to play a fantasy game.

No problemo

Here we see a comparison of the MV of the Pak 40 and KwK 40. For those of who who do not know, 2,300 fps is about 700m/s and 2,600 is 790m/s. This is important to realize, because in game, units like the Marder 1 and Pak 40 AT gun (both of which, obviously use the Pak 40) do indeed have 1,200m range because of this far higher muzzle velocity. In contrast, guns with the KwK 40 (Panzer IV, for example) only have 1,000m range, but still benefit from its tremendous accuracy in game. The reason they do not have 1,200m range is because of the fact they fire projectiles at a much slower velocity. For comparison, we see the M1 76.2mm's performance and MV here...

2,600 fps again, like the Pak 40, AKA ~790m/s (not to mention being half a pound heavier than the PzGr 39), and significantly faster than the KwK 40. This is why the 76.2mm guns, and the Pak 40 should have 1,200m range, but the KwK 40 not. Furthermore, we need to be incredibly judicious about which units we hand out 1,200m range, as otherwise we encounter a scenario of power-creep where a unit must have 1,200m range to be useful, rather than having it as a unique advantage. In fact, in many ways I think we have already gone a bit too far with it and should probably either scale back the amount of units with 1,200m range, or decrease their accuracy at such range to give a greater role for the 1,000m units. As for the Panzer IV, I already said that it is well-deserving of a CP buff, along the -10 or so CP line. Give it the M4A3 75mm treatment and hopefully we will see more of them on the battlefield as a bread-and-butter tank that it always was and should become in game.

1. 75mm M3 gun had a muzzle velocity of roundabout 600m/s... so by your measurment it deserves only 800m range?
2. Ingame the KwK40 L48 gets 1200m and 1000m range... why different stats?
3. By your tables above:
Penetration Performance against 30° at a velocity of 2300ft/s is for KwK48: 98mm, while in your table the 76mm achieves only 93mm. At 500yards, KwK40 gets a penetration value of 85mm, the 76mm 101mm. Nevertheless, it seems you use two different sources, here two tables from the same source:

Similiar Performance, despite lower MV.

 

[Think Tanker]

1. the pzgr 39 could penetrate more armor than the m62
2. the projectile was not much slower than the m62, Much closer to the 76mm than the 75mm

panzer 4 have a problem where its anti-tank and anti-infantry capability are both mediocre compare to everything else on the axis team. Tiger, stug 4, jpz4, and the marder basically do everything the pz4 can do except better. Even the panther still have okay HE round that goes out to 1200m.

By comparison the allies CS tank can't engage armor and the HE on the firefly, m4a3, m10, and hellcat are underwhelming. Allies mixed their unit because their high end units are specialized.

German tanks are more well-round. although panzer 4 run into the problem of being mediocre at both.

The question though is, is there anything which can be done to improve its HE capacity? From what I can tell it is almost on par with that of the 75mm HE. In my eyes, the most useful thing to be done is to make it incredibly inexpensive, insofar as to make it more attractive for infantry support than the StuG and comparable vehicles.

 

[Nordhammer]

@Think Tanker

You may want to research that a bit more(your second chart is for the 3inch gun of the M10 which is not the same gun as an 76L52 M1.

Each country tested differently-Is this from the Aberdeen testing btw?
Take for example PRO document WO 219/2806, Appendix G to SHAEF/16652/GCT/Arty-dated 11 July 1944.
This has the 75 mm M3 M61 round outperforming the 76 mm M62a round.



From a Waffenpruefamter 6 report dated 8.4.44 -

L/43: Vo 750 m/s, the Pz.Gr.39 penetrated (1000m 60°) 81 mm
L/48: Vo 770 m/s, the Pz.Gr.39 penetrated (1000m 60°) 84 mm

Spielberger: "Begleitwagen..." p. 176 which shows a difference between the two of 30 m/s. The difference was probably so small that it didn't really matter in real life.(between the L43 & L48)
The velocity of the PaK 40 was higher than either of the tank guns, being in the 790 m/s range, while that of the KwK 40 was in the 750-770 m/s range.

 

[IronHat]

The question though is, is there anything which can be done to improve its HE capacity? From what I can tell it is almost on par with that of the 75mm HE. In my eyes, the most useful thing to be done is to make it incredibly inexpensive, insofar as to make it more attractive for infantry support than the StuG and comparable vehicles.

the jdpanzer 4 and stug 4 basically throw the same HE as the pz4 except farrther out, and they are about 6-7% weaker than the HE on the sherman.

The pak40, marder, and panther all throw statistically identically HE, about 15% weaker than the HE on the sherman.

the 76mm HE is ~26% weaker,

17 pdr HE is ~ 32.5% weaker

buffing the panzer4's range is basically power creep the unit to similar standard as other axis unit.

 

[Think Tanker]

1. 75mm M3 gun had a muzzle velocity of roundabout 600m/s... so by your measurment it deserves only 800m range?

Since when did the M3 75mm L/40 become apart of this? If you wish to make a lobby on how slow the M3 75mm was and how it should have lower range, go ahead, and do so, but for this discussion we are comparing the 76.2mm M1, KwK 40 and Pak 40, thus at best bringing in the M3 75mm seems to be a...

2. Ingame the KwK40 L48 gets 1200m and 1000m range... why different stats?

Your guess is as good as mine, my guess is that Eugen did so as a balance consideration and in more of a doctrine decision (Tank-Destroyers get a range advantage (?) ) but who knows, maybe it should go back down to 1,000m range and get a large CP buff to compensate.

3. By your tables above:
Penetration Performance against 30° at a velocity of 2300ft/s is for KwK48: 98mm, while in your table the 76mm achieves only 93mm. At 500yards, KwK40 gets a penetration value of 85mm, the 76mm 101mm. Nevertheless, it seems you use two different sources, here two tables from the same source:

I do not see where you find this 93mm figure for the M1 76.2mm, what is cited is that at the MV of both guns (2,300 fps and 2,600 fps respectively) we have 98mm of penetration at an angle 30 degrees from vertical, and 111.7mm penetration at 30 degrees from vertical for the 76.2mm. Does this not coincide with the next figure which you proudly present? Additionally, there is no denying that these documents, as primary sources, are far more reliable a source of information than a secondary or even tertiary source providing blanket information on Allied and Axis guns.

 

[Think Tanker]

@Think Tanker

You may want to research that a bit more(your second chart is for the 3inch gun of the M10 which is not the same gun as an 76L52 M1.

It says directly at the top, "Fired From the 76mm-Gun M1A2." The information chart on the right, which the M1A2 76mm gun is using the M2 power, is supposed to replicate the MV of the 3-inch gun. But the chart on the left is still the standard information for the 76mm M1 cannon.

Each country tested differently-Is this from the Aberdeen testing btw?
Take for example PRO document WO 219/2806, Appendix G to SHAEF/16652/GCT/Arty-dated 11 July 1944.
This has the 75 mm M3 M61 round outperforming the 76 mm M62a round.

What point does this serve, what is this to mean? Other than, of course, being as your compadre already demonstrated...a

From a Waffenpruefamter 6 report dated 8.4.44 -

L/43: Vo 750 m/s, the Pz.Gr.39 penetrated (1000m 60°) 81 mm
L/48: Vo 770 m/s, the Pz.Gr.39 penetrated (1000m 60°) 84 mm

Neat.
First and foremost, source? There is nothing to be gained from you simply stating MV without substantiation as there is nothing to be done to rebuke or otherwise analyze the data you posted.

Spielberger: "Begleitwagen..." p. 176 which shows a difference between the two of 30 m/s. The difference was probably so small that it didn't really matter in real life.(between the L43 & L48)
The velocity of the PaK 40 was higher than either of the tank guns, being in the 790 m/s range, while that of the KwK 40 was in the 750-770 m/s range.

Cut it with the embedded citation, will you? Post a link for God's sake. The highest figure I have reliably seen for the KwK 40 L/48 is 750m/s, which is still about 100mph slower than the M1 76.2mm, and still over 200mph slower than the M7 3-inch, and still 400mph slower than the KwK42, all of which have, rightfully, 1,200m range. Hell, there is even the case to be made about optics in comparison of these guns to the Panzer IV's, but that, in my opinion, should relate more to accuracy than it does range (even though it does not appear to be the case in game). Again, provide a direct link so everyone can view your resource and be sufficiently able to witness, support, or refute your argument.

 

[Think Tanker]

the jdpanzer 4 and stug 4 basically throw the same HE as the pz4 except farrther out, and they are about 6-7% weaker than the HE on the sherman.

The pak40, marder, and panther all throw statistically identically HE, about 15% weaker than the HE on the sherman.

the 76mm HE is ~26% weaker,

17 pdr HE is ~ 32.5% weaker

buffing the panzer4's range is basically power creep the unit to similar standard as other axis unit.

Indeed, which would be why, in my opinion, the best move would be to drop its cost dramatically in order to increase its prevalence throughout the battlefield. Eugen's buff to the M4A3 75mm was the right approach, effectively combating potential power-creep that could have been granted to the unit. Instead of increasing its accuracy, armor, or some other portion of the tank (which could, using more liberal estimates, have been done) they instead reduced its price to make it what it should be, a bread-and-butter tank. The Panzer IV should be the same, and not a Panther-lite.

 

[Thonar]

Since when did the M3 75mm L/40 become apart of this? If you wish to make a lobby on how slow the M3 75mm was and how it should have lower range, go ahead, and do so, but for this discussion we are comparing the 76.2mm M1, KwK 40 and Pak 40, thus at best bringing in the M3 75mm seems to be a...

So, you want your logic only getting applied when your own view is confirmed by it?
Thanks for this clarification.
Nevertheless, you're a hypocrite:

Indeed, which would be why, in my opinion, the best move would be to drop its cost dramatically in order to increase its prevalence throughout the battlefield. Eugen's buff to the M4A3 75mm was the right approach, effectively combating potential power-creep that could have been granted to the unit. Instead of increasing its accuracy, armor, or some other portion of the tank (which could, using more liberal estimates, have been done) they instead reduced its price to make it what it should be, a bread-and-butter tank. The Panzer IV should be the same, and not a Panther-lite.

As liberal, as your view on the KwK40 vs 76mm topic?

Your guess is as good as mine, my guess is that Eugen did so as a balance consideration and in more of a doctrine decision (Tank-Destroyers get a range advantage (?) ) but who knows, maybe it should go back down to 1,000m range and get a large CP buff to compensate.

So, you admit that the game is a fantasy game? Thanks.

I do not see where you find this 93mm figure for the M1 76.2mm, what is cited is that at the MV of both guns (2,300 fps and 2,600 fps respectively) we have 98mm of penetration at an angle 30 degrees from vertical, and 111.7mm penetration at 30 degrees from vertical for the 76.2mm. Does this not coincide with the next figure which you proudly present? Additionally, there is no denying that these documents, as primary sources, are far more reliable a source of information than a secondary or even tertiary source providing blanket information on Allied and Axis guns.

1. Read again.
2. Isn't it funny that the primary sources are contradictory, as shown in Nordhammers posts? (You asking for a source, when he actually cited it, is what's most interesting, since it shows your unwillingness to accept everything that doesn't fit with your view)
Thus, I rather believe the interpretation of primary sources of an expert and provide here secondary sources, than your interpretation of a primary source.

 

[Think Tanker]

So, you want your logic only getting applied when your own view is confirmed by it?
Thanks for this clarification.
Nevertheless, you're a hypocrite.

If you would elaborate, I would be happy to dispel that belief.

So, you admit that the game is a fantasy game? Thanks.

If you managed to draw that conclusion, you do as you will. However, admitting that on your behalf doesn't support your argument, so what is the point of this, exactly?

1. Read again.

Done.

2. Isn't it funny that the primary sources are contradictory, as shown in Nordhammers posts? (You asking for a source, when he actually cited it, is what's most interesting, since it shows your unwillingness to accept everything that doesn't fit with your view)

I am only unwilling to accept statistics at face value when I cannot see them myself. Citing them in text is not helpful, but if we were to have a reviewable copy of this citation, that might change my mind. You should know damn well by now that I have ceded in the past and am still willing to do so once we have ample evidence backing it up. The only conclusion one can sufficiently draw from this is your, as you put it "unwillingness to accept everything that doesn't fit with your view" as long as your argument has words to back it up, meanwhile I posted actual primary sources with links to where they may be found. Go ahead, look over them if you like. It is not as if they are any secret (any longer).

Thus, I rather believe the interpretation of primary sources of an expert and provide here secondary sources, than your interpretation of a primary source.

With no reason to do so, besides of course, the fact that it supports your argument better than it otherwise would be. You want to make an actually tenable argument? Then post primary sources which are consistent, and I might change my argument. But as of now you are only utilizing broad and meaningless counter-arguments with no substantiation.

Nevertheless, you're a hypocrite.

So, you reveal that your argument is not only fallacious, but also is fantastical? Thanks.

 

[Thonar]

So... which ability and/ or credibility do you have to interpret primary sources on this topic?
What are you mechanical or engineering credentials? What your historical credentials?

As long as you don't have any, every secondary source is better than your interpretation of primary sources, which might even be flawed as you got no credential so far to compare different historical, technical sources to draw a conclusion.

So, as long as you can't disprove the secondary source, except with "it isn't a primary one", you show that you have simply no point left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[IronHat]

think tanker, can you get velocity information for high explosive used on the panzer 4, panther, tiger, 17 pounder, 76mm, and 75mm sherman?

 

[Nordhammer]

@Think Tanker

Yes I simply saw the 3inch first and foremost and ran with it,my apologies.

Now eh? sources?
I asked you from what studies did to find those two reports you posted.
And countered with a US primary source from SHEAF (sorry not about to type that out),and a German primary source coming from Spielberger.I did not bother with Balls & Gun,as Thonar had already,nor a British source.

My point being each such tests differ from country to country.
Did the 2nd chart you posted take into consideration what cartridge was used,when said round was made along with a host of other variables...


But the above does not matter since you're stating that the L43 & L48 armed Pz IVs should be limited to 1000 meters.
Bringing up actual facts to back this premise is a waste of time,the Devs stated their reasoning,part of which is the maps sizes.

Now sorry for the disjointed reply but the Game is on and my Pats may have turned their defense around(though it is just the Jets).

 

[Nordhammer]

think tanker, can you get velocity information for high explosive used on the panzer 4, panther, tiger, 17 pounder, 76mm, and 75mm sherman?

Well he is using US War Department sources, so as for the 7.5 cm Kwk 40/Stu. K 40/Pak 39.

He should answer back with-

APCBC f/s 2300
HE f/s 1800
HC f/s 1475
AP40 f/s 3248
Smoke f/s 1771

As for the 7.5 cm KwK 42/Stu K. 42

APCBC f/s 3068
HE 2,300
AP40 3674

8.8 cm KwK 43 /Pak 43/1 thru 4.../Stu. K 43 (Tiger II,Nashorn,Ferdi,JagdPanther)
APCBC 3280
HE 2460
HC 1968
AP40 3705

 

[Think Tanker]

think tanker, can you get velocity information for high explosive used on the panzer 4, panther, tiger, 17 pounder, 76mm, and 75mm sherman?

Sure, you'll have to give me a bit though, work is not playing nice

 

[Think Tanker]

@Think Tanker

Yes I simply saw the 3inch first and foremost and ran with it,my apologies.

No worries, you are not the first, and most certainly will not be the last.

Did the 2nd chart you posted take into consideration what cartridge was used,when said round was made along with a host of other variables...

Indeed it did, this comes from a report on the possibility of up-gunning the M1 76mm guns by giving them the M2 charge, but as for the "3-inch ammunition" this does not change anything, since the M62 is universally used by both the 3-Inch M7 and M1 76.2mm, the name is simply designated as the "3-Inch M62" because this round originally was used on such, with the M1 76.2mm using it later.

But the above does not matter since you're stating that the L43 & L48 armed Pz IVs should be limited to 1000 meters.
Bringing up actual facts to back this premise is a waste of time,the Devs stated their reasoning,part of which is the maps sizes.

On that, we are in agreement . Although, I still am developing my point in case FLX decides to listen to us here (no feelings against FLX though, great chap and I understand how he has to navigate the very narrow tight-rope between realism and balance).

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Now you're cherry picking. You have so many tanks that are impervious to Shermans and American 76mm. The fact that you are hell bent on the PIV just outclassing American divisions ten fold is ridiculous.

Normandy wasn't easy but it wasn't just because of wehraboo tanks. It was the terrain that favored defenders heavily too.

You do realize that the best tank in the game is the m4a3 76mm. This wont change with a range buff to the pnzr 4. The sherman has one thing that no other tanks have, a stabilizer. Being able to get the first shot in an offensive move is a huge advantage. With the vetted shermans that 3rd or 2E gets, you can deal with any axis tank in the game. This is for one fundamental reason- tanks can only point their armour in one direction. You can exploit this by attacking the side of the vehicle. The quick turret traverse aids this. If you miss the shot, which is unlikely because it has high veteran, you can move it back into cover before the tiger 2/panther/whatever can return fire.

We want a buff for the panzer 4 for the following reasons.

1. it current stats needs the price to be much lower
2. if you want to pay full price, then you need to give it stats that are worth the price. lets increase the range? How about let the commander shoot his gun at a plane?
3. the Sherman are much better but they cost less lol

 

[Ulatersk]

Jesus.

L/43 had a velocity of 740 m/s.
L/48 had a velocity of 750 m/s.
L/46 had a velocity of 790 m/s.

 

[Nordhammer]

Jesus.

L/43 had a velocity of 740 m/s.
L/48 had a velocity of 750 m/s.
L/46 had a velocity of 790 m/s.

My point was each test gave different numbers.Think Tanker posted two different tests,his first is an incomplete test of the KwK 40 (and could it be the British test and not the Aberdeen test?)

There was a comparison test in 1942 between the L43 L48 and the L46(Pak 40)
Using different cartridges(with various amounts of propellants) it was reported that the L48 attained 810 m/s firing off PzGr 39 rounds...

But the following is a report on the L43's capabilities circa 1943.

 

[Nordhammer]

No problemo

Here we see a comparison of the MV of the Pak 40 and KwK 40. For those of who who do not know, 2,300 fps is about 700m/s and 2,600 is 790m/s.

And now for something not so completely different a British test..of the Kwk 40 L43

 

[Nordhammer]

The following is a US test using a model of the Pak 40,using a test projectile, test was set at 2400 f/s.