Panzer IV vs M4

triple c, interesting comments, just as a side note do you think the production numbers would go up drastically if the panzer IV was halted and panther take its place in all the factories where panzer IV/variants where made? vomag nibilungwereke and krupp.

 

didnt kno that gradner, thanks for the info. i'll make sure to include .50 as coaxle machine guns in my next 1/72 sherman models (all 2 of them lol)

 

Depends on the factories. I do remember reading that the Soviets kept producing light tanks in some of their factories because they were not capable of producing T-34s without extensiver modification. I'm not sure if the Germans were in the same postion or not. I do think I've read that at least one German general suggested going the other way and dropping the Panther.

 

I can't say this with any authority, but I am going to guess no. Mark IV and Pather shared little common parts so the production facilities are not interchangeable; erasing the production of one type means a factor becomes idle with no increase in production for the other type, though raw material situation might be somewhat improved if Panther production go off-line.

Guderian actually argued that JgPz Mark IV L70 production should cease to make more L70 guns available for Panther tanks and probably Mark IV hulls for real Mark IV tanks. A. Speer would probably support a proposal to build more lightly armored tanks if they were armed adequately and suited for mass production.

 

I don't think there were any parts which were common between the two, with the exception perhaps of some of the smaller things like optics, mgs, and maybe idler wheels.

 

nah not the idlers, they different.

i would have liked to see jagdpanther production go up. i hear of some commanders scoring ultimate successes in these beasts. i also think the raw materials problem might be lightly alleviated by not investing in so many different projects. maus, panzer IV with changed drive, and so many more wasted tank hulls that are used for projects that never materialise plus the manpower would increase if dumb projects were stopped

 

That's true. In the last quarter of 1944 germany was in the same position as in the last quarter of 1918. That time they weren't lead by the irrational nazis and surrendered. Therefore, in ww1 germany, with 70 million people, lost 2.3 million soldiers in battle, in ww2, with 83 million people, they lost 3.8 million soldiers in battle. However, of the 3.8 million lost, 1.4 million died between october 1944 and may 1945 (with 450.000 dead in january 1945), so the total number of battle casualties would be rougly 2.4 million, about the same as in ww1.

 

im sorry we got that topic a lonnnnnnnnng time ago.

 

Actually the Panther was probably one of the cheapest german tanks for its effectivness. It had the preformance of a tiger but it cost less then half the price.

"One source has cited the cost of a Panther tank as 117,100 Reichmarks" This compared with 82,500 RM for the StuG III, 96,163 RM for the Panzer III, 103,462 RM for the Panzer IV, and 250,800 RM for the Tiger I"

 

Depends on what you mean by performance. While it certainly had the same tank killing ability, it was a much easier tank to knock out than the Tiger. The allies found in Normandy on average it took 2.55 hits to KO a panther, and 4.3 hits to KO a tiger (Fun fact the Sherman on average took 1.65 hits to KO, compared to the Panthers 2.55 hits/killed the Panther was some 40% safer to ride in, not a notable margin when one considers the weapons each tank faced from their respective enemies)

Probably are right in that it had better bang for its buck than a Tiger, but the Tiger was much more survivable. Personally my hypothesis is that the flank armor on the Tiger which was much thicker than the Panthers side armor, and at a thickness that would cause the 75mm medium velocity gun mounted on so many allied tanks to be useless beyond a few hundred meters. In comparision the Panthers side armor could not reasonable expect to provide any protection at standard battles ranges from even a 75mm round.

 

Good points..Actually with flank shots at most battle ranges a Panther just as vulnerable to the 75mm M3 as a Sherman is too the 7.5cm/70,at least certainly out to around 1200-1500 yards..

 

It's usually a good idea to reference your quote, which appear to come from the Panther tank's wikipedia page. The same paragraph also notes the following "However, these cost figures should be understood in the context of the time period in which the various AFVs were first designed, as the Germans increasingly strove for designs and production methods that would allow for higher production rates, and thus steadily reduced the cost of their AFVs.".

That said the Panzer IV wikipedia page also states the Panzer IV's unit cost to be approximately 10,000 reichsmarks.

Panther tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Panzer IV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

wikipedia is crap!, they said at school "never use wiki, because its not reliable". everybody ive ever met has said DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA FOR INFORMATION.

all i use wiki for is pics and there references to other (more credible) sites.

 

It's hardly "crap". On more well known topics it's actually pretty good and is certainly a useful starting point. Defintily worth checking anything important though.

 

still crap, just looks pretty with its pictures.

now back on to the original topic, panzer IV ausf J. auxillary motor removed, all of you all think this is a downer to the overall project. put your hands up if you engineer tanks for a living....no one, i dont think its fair to critisize germanys engineers for such a decision. i mean they obviously didnt do it to have a bit of fun. it was done for a reason. most of you just look at it as a bad option. what about the positives? extra range which means it can stay in the fight longer than the H.

There has to be a logical reason for its being, the men that thought of this are the same ones that thought of the panther, tiger, the jager series and all those other nuisances that stopped the allies dead in there tracks and scrambling for air support! so before you reply with your allied favoured replies just think

ps shame this isnt my 100th post, only 99th that just sucks.

 

Your opinion is noted. As is the lack of support for it and the lack of any refutation of the counter arguments.

That's the originial topic? Certainly not what I would read from the thread title. Indeed the first post states in its entirety: "What tank is better (do you think) Panzer IV or the M4?"

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you.

Where were they so critized?

The allies didn't get stopped "dead in their tracks" until there were no Germans left to fight.

 

thank you for it being noted, much appreciated.

"That's the originial topic? Certainly not what I would read from the thread title. Indeed the first post states in its entirety: "What tank is better (do you think) Panzer IV or the M4?""
oh god get picky then.

they were critisized when people started saying the removed engine is a downer for the panzer IV.

i am sure you read panzer aces. one of the funny things i have noted from the book is when albert ernst is in a jagdtiger and spots a column of shermans 1.5 km away....fires hits one....shermans scramble and retreat then albert says "right everyone out of the tank....why says the loader (a new guy) because the allies have just called air support, dont worry they do this whenever they enter a fight they cant win with tanks" now im not sure the last part is exactly correct but there are numerous other accounts of germans holding out with such smalll sizes. now most of you being american i can not convince you to think that shermans would retreat and im sure in your eyes this is a load of sh#@. but i think its true.

 

Let us go through them, pick the best.........

It is as true as the fact that every German AFV spent its last year 'retreating'.

 

In general, I'd be more inclined to take Wiki's word on most subjects than Kurowski and his books, no matter what pseudonym he was using that week...

In fact, maybe check out his German Wiki entry:
Google Translate - Kurowski Wiki
His membership of the GfP is 'interesting', and well in line with his slant on the business of WW2 history.



...It doesn't fully explain the turgid romanticised prose though.


~A

 

Looks like you are worng again. It was pretty much SOP for US forces to when they found a strong postion to call in artillery or planes (usually the former). If it was the latter you certainly didn't want to be to close, the USAAF was not known to be extremely discriminating when it came to target selection.