How did the 75mm Panzer IV stack up against tanks like the 76mm

>>28524542
They're all pretty much the same.

Differences arise primarily from ammunition development, which gives the 76mm the advantage over the long run..

Its age began to show. After all, it was a 1936 support tank shoehorned into being the backbone of the Panzer forces.

It was inferior to the Sherman for sure, but had crew ergonomics over the T-34.

The 75mm, 76mm and 85mm all have nearly identical ballistic properties at nominal ranges.
The 75 had less HE than the 76, which had less HE than the 85, but the 75 also had the most velocity while the 85mm had the least.


For all intents and purposes the guns are remarkable similar, with the Soviet 85mm having better HE rounds than the other two.

Their panzer divisions had fewer tanks than American infantry divisions, and they couldn't move supply columns during the day without everyone dying to air strikes. They had other things to worry about than how their tank stacked up against the other guys' tanks.

>>28524652

That is correct, but doesn't answer OP's question.

In real life, it came down to who got the first shot off, not the caliber of the gun. Doesn't matter if an incoming round bounces or penetrates, you're not going to return effective fire because your shitting yourself.

In War Thunder the T-34-85 beats everything else and goes through angled tigers and sherman jumbos like tinfoil because sekret dokument APBC round ))))

>>28524741

>Angled Tigers

I'll never get this meme. The amount of angling Tigers can do is limited, unlike KV tanks.

Still Tiggers got no right to complain in WT, their armor is riddled with black holes that absorb anything.

>>28524616
>75 had less HE than the 76

Abso-fucking-lutely wrong. The Panzer IV's 75mm L/55 HE shells had more explosive material in them than the Sherman's 76mm HE shells, the reason being that the Sherman 76mm was designed as an anti-tank gun, as opposed to an anti-infantry gun like the Sherman 75mm (it just so happened that the Sherman 75mm was also okay at penetrating tanks with AP shells).

The Sherman 76mm shells flew at a higher velocity than the Sherman 75mm shells so that their armor-piercing capabilities were better. They weren't able to pack as much high-explosive material into the 76mm shell as the 75mm because it was less stable.

In order of armor-piercing capabilities with standard APCBC or APHE rounds, it goes:

Sherman 75mm < Panzer 75mm L/55 < Sherman 76mm < T-34 85mm

File: 1426468564409.jpg (95KB, 293x327px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 293x327px

>>28524616
>all of the wrong in this post

>>28524798
>No sloping anywhere ever
>weakpoints all over the place
>Gets penetrated by tanks under its tier from the front when angled
>Gets cucked into oblivion by KV-2s and SU-152s
>Literally insta-kill from the because ammo racks
Meanwhile ivan gets to roll around in his IS-2 with post-war ammo at the same BR

>>28524818

>75mm L/55

Just a tiny correction, it was L/48. The 17pdr was L/55.

File: clover charts (2).jpg (114KB, 992x1342px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 992x1342px

>>28524798

>>28524905

Alright naziboo, let's roll with it

>Unsloped armor meme

The driver viewport and MG ball absorb rounds, the transmission's top cover absorbs rounds, the turret is a fucking meme and about as strong as that of the Henschel Tiger II in practical use thanks to the -10% armor modifier of the latter.

>He drives with side ammoracks

kek

>IS-2 with postwar rounds at the same BR

No, Ivan gets the shitty IS-2 which has a butter turret and an easily penetrable hull, plus no postwar ammo and horrid reload time. The mod.44 has King Tiger BR.

>>28524997

I was just using the KV as an example since its armor is the same on all sides, which means you can take a nice 45 degree position.

The fact that the one with the ZiS-5 and its German cousin are tiered so high is a fucking disgrace.

>>28524542
Watch GuP

>>28525017
The rest of the hull front is very weak compared to the turret front. The parts of the hull that are directly above the tracks are 102mm thick and are angled at a whopping 9 degrees. Any tank that it sees can penetrate the front of the hull, minus the MG ball and driver's viewport, obviously.

Also,
>transmission's top cover
you mean the piece of armor that's angled at 80 degrees? Yeah, it better fucking bounce shots.

>>28525143

I'd say the armor is about on par with the standard IS-2. Both have a shitty LFP and an easily penetrable hull (The IS-2 less so, but it can't angle at all) and the IS-2's turret is a crapper.

>>28525017
German armor was shitty IRL and its shitty in war thunder, which is a shame because it means grinding nazi armor is a fucking pain

>The driver viewport and MG ball absorb rounds, the transmission's top cover absorbs rounds
Other tanks these are the places you have to shoot. On the tiger its the only place you can't shoot.

>, the turret is a fucking meme and about as strong as that of the Henschel Tiger II in practical use thanks to the -10% armor modifier of the latter.
And the Tiger II H's turret is a total fucking joke.

Add on the Tiger E being 6.0 and not 5.7 for no reason, and having to STILL use niggerrigged Panzer IVs until you get the panther (which is a glorified TD and sucks) and you're in for one hell of a grind my son

>>28525189
If it's on par with the IS-2 then why are you complaining?

Assuming you're the poster of >>28525017 of course.

>>28525198

I always found German tonks to be alright if you avoid the crappers. The Jagdpanzer line was tremendous fun until 6.0 happened, Panthers are alright with the A being a shining champion.

The Tiger I is a good solid heavy tank which I enjoy playing greatly. It's good in every category, but not outstanding.

>>28525270
Why couldn't the StuH be good, why god?

It's pure sex in CoH, why did it have to be garbage? It's all I wanted to play

Fuck you gaijin make HE shells actually spall shit REEEEE

>>28525250

>Why are you complaining?

I defended the Tiger here. It's a lot better in the game than its reputation.

>>28525285

Brummbär when?

>That 200mm pen HEAT round
>100mm sloped front

HNNNGH

>>28525335
As a premium BR 6.7 that costs 10,000 eagles )))))

Meanwhile BT-5 with 2 420mm rockets is BR 1.3 ))))))))))))))

File: clover charts (5).jpg (110KB, 985x1352px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 985x1352px

>>28525068
>The fact that the one with the ZiS-5 and its German cousin are tiered so high is a fucking disgrace.
the games never seem to get the balance right

I want TS aspies to leave

>>28525370
Gaijin's PR is a fucking nightmare, they're jewing so hard that they forgot to make the game fun to play. I unlocked a fucking 1 hour test drive for a piece of shit premium as my super special golden weekly reward box. Fuck you forever.

>>28525376
At least this thread took a meaningful turn rather than faceplanting like it should have

>>28525405

True. The amount of times these turned into a naziboo/slavshit/amerilard brawl is close to infinite.

>>28525516
I mean america did have the best tanks of the war desu

nnnhg them hellcats

>>28525602

American tanks were solid, but lacked individual class.

Overall the four big ETO beligerants were even I'd say.

Are people really saying the WT IS-2 is OP? The whole front and sides of the hull are almost vertical and are made of paper, meanwhile the Tiger II can't be penned at the front from any of the Russian tanks at that tier except the IS-2, and only in a small spot on the front of the turret, but only on the Tiger's left side, otherwise you don't kill the gunner and the 88mm pens you from any angle or distance. Also, the best possible reload time on the IS-2 is still twice as long as the Tiger's standard ass crew reload rate.

I got banned in WT chat for 15 days for "foul language" and i still have 3 days left of that ban. Fuck you Gaijin.

>>28525726
Well I image that happens when you say "fuck you you jew nigger butt fucker"

>>28524542
The Panzer IV was arguably the most poorly protected.

The T-34-85 was probably the best infantry support tank, but still suffered from the shit-tier drivetrain and track reliability of previous models.

The Sherman was probably the most reliable, though its high center of gravity gave it problems on ice. However, it had the best fire control which allowed to beat Panthers time and again in actual engagements

>>28525726
Do what I did and just quit
>sherman 76mm cant pen t34-85 frontal armor

shit game

>>28524589
>but had crew ergonomics over the T-34.
i've heard drivers actually needed to use a mallet or other tool to get the goddamn thing to shift gears

File: 1269149362886.jpg (690KB, 959x664px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 959x664px

>>28524542
Both M4A3 and T-34-85 had ap. 90mm LOS frontal armor. Sloped hull plates additionally increased it effectiveness.
Tests done by Yugoslavia showed that both 76mm Sherman and T-34-85 can penetrate each other glacis at 1km+, if loaded with HVAP/APCR.
T-34-85 had better off-road perfomance than pre-HVSS Sherman, and far better HE.
M4A3 had vertically stabilized maingun, which allowed faster target aquire, and also a heavy machinegun.
M4A3 engine and drivetrain were far more reliable than in T-34-85. Also in case of penetration Sherman's crew survivability was much higher.

Where does Panzer IV belong in all of this?
By 1944 it was plain obsolete. At 900m (most common kill range in late WW2) both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s. Mobility was problemative as suspension did not take weight increase kindly, reducing off-road speed to 15km/h. Tank was also prone to catastrophic kill, it chance of survival if knocked-out was 1 to 5, compared to Shermans's 50-50.

File: 1447497964969.jpg (108KB, 400x429px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x429px

>>28524542

1. It had better optics with greater magnification and FOV options than other tanks straight from the kwk 40. To compare, Sherman 76's still had 2x telescopic sights from the M3 were getting hit by enemy fire that they could not see.
2. What was told from the above, but most victories were made by Stug's or they were simply defensive with all Pak/kwk 40's not actually outranging, but out-hitting the enemy into combat kill or Fubar.
3. Panzer III/IV was still one of the only tanks during the war that offered great crew awareness during early Armor only skirmishes without infantry support, ironically by having 5 man crews turning out from escape hatches to take a field survey, the commander was issued binoculars. They all had wireless short range radios.

>>28524556
This. Even if Germans went full retard and made the 105 kwk44, they already deemed the 105mm Schwere Kanone 18 as a failed anti tank gun just because of stupid reasons that were not shell propellant related. Even the Soviets got HVAT tech for their 85mm guns, which rivaled kwk43's in performance and created the D-10 which only shot high velocity charged shells making D-25's (which never got HV shells) obsolete.

crew members of t-34s had a 90% chance of dying when their vehicle received a penetrating hit

75% of crew members in panzer IVs and shermans would survive a penetrating hit

File: T-34-85 crew loss, korea. source T-34-85 vs M26 pershing page 75.jpg (59KB, 576x171px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 576x171px

>>28530957
>crew members of t-34s had a 90% chance of dying when their vehicle received a penetrating hit
The sherman is the best, the panzer 4 is shit.

>>28525124
GuP?

>>28531652
It's a shitty weeb show popularized by the insufferable world of tanks community.

It's garbage, just like 99% of the weebshit out of jap land.

>>28524818
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18562&page=2
Guns vs T-34/85:

75mm M40 PaK40

M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m*
M40 subcaliber (PzGr.40?) penetrates glacis @ 1200m*
M40W** subcaliber (PzGr.40W?) fails to penetrate glacis.
M38B HEAT (Hl.38/B?) penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.

M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m
M40 subcalibre penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40W subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 200m
M38B HEAT penetrates side hull if side angle is less then 30 deg.

All rounds penetrate lower side hull at any efective range.

M39 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
M40 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1250m
M40W subcaliber fails t penetrate front turret
M38B HEAT fails to penetrate front turret

M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m
M40 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range
M40W subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 200m
M38B HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 30deg

76mm M1 (from M4A3E4 tank) firing AP and HVAP

M79 AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m
M53 subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m

M79 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1500m
M53 subcaliber penetrates upper side hull at any practical range.

Both rounds penetrate lower side hull at any practical range

M79 AP penetrates front turret @ 900m
M53 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m

M79 AP penetrates side turret @ 1500m
M53 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range.


85mm ZiS-S-53 (from T-34/85) firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

BR-365 AP penetrates glacis @ 1200m
BR-365P subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1300m

BR-365 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m
BR-365P subcaliber penetrates upper side hull at any practical range.

Both rounds penetrate lower side hull at any practical range.

BR-365 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
BR-365P subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m

BR-365 AP penetrates side turret @ 1500m
BR-365P subcaliber penetrates side turret at any practical range.

>>28529800
>if loaded with HVAP/APCR.
With plain AP too.

>both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s.
What is completely wrong. All these 3 tank guns had no problems with defeating their armor at 1000 meters range.

File: 11430202_994983513865414_1647469067_n.jpg (26KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 320x320px

>>28529800
>Where does Panzer IV belong in all of this?
By 1944 it was plain obsolete. At 900m (most common kill range in late WW2) both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s


I'm gonna ask for sauce on that, cause I call bullshit.

File: 1376355094467.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>28526740
>The Panzer IV was arguably the most poorly protected.
I generally consider myself a huge werhaboo and even I wouldn't consider it at all arguable.
50mm of turret front armor just wasn't sufficient past 1942.

>>28529800
>At 900m (most common kill range in late WW2) both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s.
The 75mm L/48 will penetrate 96mm at 500m and 85mm at 1km.
Pretty much any part of an M4 that isn't the mantle is vulnerable.

>>28533917
"Effective" for anti-tank weapon/munition literally means "penetrates armor more often than it doesn't"

>85mm at 1km.
while M4A3(76) glacis was 93mm LOS (2.5" at 47 degree from horizontal). Sloped armor also degrades perfomance of early subcaliber munition.

>>28531652
Girls Und Panzer, it pretty great. The only argument I have against it is how unrealistic it is. But it's nice to see many of different WW2 types of tanks and how they plan there attacks

File: 1372383601741.jpg (625KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1680x1050px

>>28535329
>"penetrates armor more often than it doesn't"
Not going by German penetration standards.
When I say "85mm at a kilometer" I mean every time and at thirty degrees.
By Allied standards the 75mm will crack 93mm at just over a kilometer and a half.

Sherman was also cheapest out of the 3 in terms of man-hours.

T-34 was anywhere from 3-5 times more labor intensive depending on timeframe.

Panzer 4 was in the 5-60000 man-hour range. Until the H model brought to 40k ish.

>>28535873

German standards are the loosest, because they used picked ammo rather than batched.

And German standards were 50/50, 50% of shell mass behind armor 50% of time. The only way it was more strict was that a harder test plate was used.

Soviet standards were the most stringent.

File: 1349172311284.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>28536118
>they used picked ammo rather than batched.
I'd ignore the tests altogether because of that if they didn't tend to match up with other nations testing.
It doesn't appear they used any sort of special ammunition for testing.

>And German standards were 50/50
From what I have read it was five penetrating hits in a row.

>Soviet standards were the most stringent.
Most of the Russian testing I've seen was atrocious, things like shooting the same tank's plate with different calibres and rounds as though the whole plate wouldn't degrade.

>itt, I get my information from the WoT Forums

>>28536378
>It doesn't appear they used any sort of special ammunition for testing.
German ammo for testing is manufacturer provided. The ammo makers put ammo in a crate and ship it to the testing grounds; they either turned up the quality for a test batch or picked the best ammo out of a production batch for this.

>And German standards were 50/50
got myself confused, 50/50 is naval standards, land is 5 in a row burster intact

> Most of the Russian testing I've seen was atrocious, things like shooting the same tank's plate with different calibres and rounds as though the whole plate wouldn't degrade.

That's Soviet testing on captured German vehicles, since they didn't have an awful lot of those to spare and needed to test as many guns as they could. Soviet acceptance testing is much more stringent, 80% of the shell mass must be behind the armor.