Panzer VS Panzer

>>32397918
fudge! I meant to say to T34 VS panzer... ahhh well...

>>32397918
You didn't even specify what models of T-34 and Pz IV

If I was in charge of a tank company? Panzer 4
If I was in charge of a country at war? T34

>>32397918
Even numbers? Not factoring for individual variants then PzIV.

>>32397918
You have to get more specific about terrain, crew, and other context, but I'd think Panzer would win.

>>32399938

I don't know, the Ausf. A is pretty lousy compared to even the early production model T-34.

>>32397918

Statistically?

M4 Sherman. Best crew survivability rate overall.

Have to wreck shit?

M4A3E2 Sherman. Heavier armor than a Tiger. , better HE delivery.
Only way it could have been better was if they'd made a 105mm version.

Worked on a M4A3E2 that stopped a Pak 40 shot dead, point blank. Killed the gun by running it over.
Took a hit to the transmission cover and went "nope, fuck you".

It was in the Littlefield collection. You could see it took a lot of fixing, but it also took a huge hit, and kept on going.

Barring that I have an uncle who swears the M48A1 is the best tank ever, as it saved him innumerable times in Vietnam.

It's a close second for me, as it does have a really neat hull design.

>>32400079
Yes but only 35 of the A were ever made and were rather quickly modified to B Standards. Same happened after 42 Ausf B's were made and were retrofitted with a lot (but not all) of the C upgrades. Realistically though based off timeline of when they would face each other the lowest models that "should" face a T-34 would be Ausf D.

The biggest advantage though is still the situational awareness and communications advantage of the Panzers.

>>32397918

From your image OP, I assume the two models in question are the T-34-85 D5T and the Panzer IVJ.

There's a lot of factors that would potentially decide a conflict, but if we assume even numbers, equal training, and no logistics problems, the T34's have it in the bag no contest. They're just better fighting machines in so many ways, and that's saying something because the Panzer IV H/J models were fairly capable themselves.

In real life as it happened the p4 was the better tank. On paper and having someone other that drunk slavs half ass putting them together (the welding was atrocious and nutless one armed chimp could have done a better job) the t34 is the better tank.

File: soviet party fels.jpg (57KB, 669x562px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 669x562px

>>32397918
The Pz. IV is completely outdated by the time the T34-85 is out.

Think about it, what it is is essentially a mid 30s boxy design, that happened to survive as long as it did simply because it's earlier version happened to have a larger turret ring to facilitate the short barrel 75mm for infantry support.

The later versions were upgunned and uparmored, but the turret stayed weak as hell during the whole war.

By the Ausf. G and later H version and the 80mm front hull armor upgrade, the front suspension was overstressed and gave up often. The engine was pathetically underpowered compared to contemporary designs like the T34 and the M4. The only redeeming feature of the feature Panzer 4 as a tank is the fact that it carries an adequete anti tank weapon, the KwK-40 L43 or L48. Other than that, it is outclassed in every way by other designs. The T34 76 could effectively fight against it at 600m, and with a turret hit could destroy the Pz. IV at distances exceeding 1.5km. The 85mm gun could basically kill it at any combat range no matter the hit area. Sure the IV could fight the 34 effectively at those ranges as well, but when the 85 with the improved turret rolled around, achieving turret hit kills became much more challenging.

Sure you can make the case that it was more comfy to drive than a T34, but being more comfy to drive does not make it a better tank, it makes it a more comfy tank. And if comfyness won wars, ww2 would have worked out quite differently.