What do you think about the panzer 4, do you think it was the best medium tank of the war? If not which tank do you think was? Welcome back! If you are new here make sure to hit subscribe to expand your knowledge on Military History and join the growing Premier History Community!
@@michaelpielorz9283 Ano ,byl poruchový,malý dojezd a vysoká spotřeba.Nejlepší tank byl ten, co vyhrál válku.Na to,že Německo vyrábělo svoje stroje doma,kde se neválčilo a pracovala pro ně celá Západní Evropa,kterou porazili za pár týdnů,měli slabou produkci.Rusové měli těžší podmínky a přesto už u Stalingradu Němce zastavili a v podstatě začal konec 3.říše.Kdyby spojenci nečekali 2 roky,jak dopadne boj mezi Němci a Sověty,mohla válka skončit dříve.V podstatě nepočítali,že Rus Německo porazí a doufali,že si kořist s Němci podělí.Ale jak poznali,že Rus vítězí,rychle chtěli urvat kousek Evropy,ale příprava jim trvala dlouhé 2.roky.
Sloped armor doesn't matter. Panzer IV was the best mass produced tank of WW2. It was a modular design revolution tank with chassis supporting the STUG and Jagdpanzer.
I always admired Panzer IV for remaining as a formidable opponent until the war’s end despite being such an old design.It may not be as glamorous as big cats but it was always there when need.A reliable workhorse!
Think about it. A country smaller than Texas was fighting two of the largest countries in the world. No way could Germany produce enough tanks to hold them both back. It’s astonishing they did as well as they did.
Three; include the British EMPIRE;which in 1939 controlled 25% of the World's population,land mass and resources.That" Britian alone" is a bunch of crap.
They literally subjugated and recruited divisions from the entirety of Europe mate, a whole continent, they used European industry and man power, not just German
Greatest advantage of Panzer IV vs. Panthers and Tigers: it was easy to be repaired. In case of a wheel or chain damage, a little bit welding and replacing the wheel, that's all. The Panther however, was a real nightmare for maintenance units. Any damage on the wheel, and you must remove the whole track and fix it after the replacement again.
Yup... the interleaved wheels were good in theory from an engineering stand point. But, bad in practice. They should have stuck w/ the VI as medium and Tiger I as heavy. Period.
Thanks but I can read wikipedia articles myself, i dont need anyone to do that for me, although the added pictures are nice. However, you have basically no arguments. A topic like this needa hours of examination, not some clickbait noob farming like felton
The PZ 4 was smaller than the US Sherman and Soviet T 34. 25ish tons to 38 and 31 or so. Going toe to toe with much larger enemies and holding it's own is pretty good results.
Not really much smaller at all. it was comparable in most respects to the T-34 and the M4 Medium. It would have been heavier, with increased armour all round but by the time of the F2 and G models the suspension simply could not take any significant weight increases.
@@Einzeilhandery Don't get me wrong, the Panzer IV was indeed the workhorse of the German army, but do not forget that even Germany intended to replace the panzer IV and its replacement was already on the drawing boards in 1939 (the VK 20). They were aware that the basic design at 26 tons was already at its weight limit. The Panzer IV did not last until the end of the war because of its technical superiority but because they did not have its replacement on and in 1941-2.
@@freddieclark The Pz 4 started out at 18 tons and went to 25 tons, the T-34 was 26 tons and went to 34 or so tons, the M4 Sherman was 33 - 42 tons so yes the Pz 4 was considerably smaller.
@@richjageman3976 The early production Panzer IV's were lighter yes, but by 1941 that was no longer the case. by the time of the Ausf E in early 1941, weight was already up to 23 tons. The point here, of course, Is that the tank by now was reaching the limits of its suspension capabilities. however its armour, gun size and turret were of similar size to those of its adversaries, so, no, it was not considerably smaller in a tactical sense.
I think the versatility, fuel efficiency, weight (crossing bridges), cost to build, ease of maintenance, etc. made it a very good machine. Some of the H's were used over a decade later by other countries.
In high school I worked for a man (Fred Tetzneir) for 2 years who was a tank commander under Rommel in North Africa. His assistant (Herb Bernhard) was an American captured in battle of the bulge. Heard some crazy stories!
How was the American from the Ardennes forest in the Battle of the Bulge but in North Africa, Battle of the Bulge (1944) and I believe the campaign of Africa was in 1941-1943 or something and wouldn't the American be a POW.
Stalin had over 50,000 T-34 tanks produced during WW2. The U.S. produced the same number of Sherman tanks. While not the best tanks of this War, combined with overwhelming Air Superiority, Artillery Superiority and Fuel Superiority, these German tanks were like Elephants being bitten and clawed to death by thousands of ants. Stalin once remarked, “Quantity has a quality all its own”.
Panzer IV, T34 and Sherman were in the sweet spot class for WW2. Light enough to go anywhere, yet powerful enough with upgrades to defeat all but heavy tanks. Fast to manufacture. The three tanks have their pros and cons, none really excelling over the other two, more about the skill of the crews operating them.
@@matrick5155 i mean i fully agree that it was total bullshit and far from reliable, while only good thing it had is that not everywhere you could find a tank supporting infantry so with it's numbers it could fight in battles against infantry with no enemy tanks which would be basicly main advantage of it, but i don't realy like idea of trusting one video while i do agree with it
@@striuk4259 you're correct, however lazerpigs's video kinda proves the myth of the T-34 wrong. it was good on paper, not so much in reality, like most of russia's military tech
@@matrick5155 The problem, that Lazerpig did not address, was to produce the tank up to paper specs would have meant far fewer reaching battle. Removing the numerical superiority would remove much of the value of having the T34 in the first place.
That is the scariest part of the Pz III. When the hatches on the sides between the tracks were eliminated, the driver and radio operator had to use the turret. Did the Pz III have usable escape hatches in the floor. At least the Pz IV had a dedicated hatch for each crewman.
@@josephwalukonis9934 They normally used the turret hatches, but Pz IIIs driver and radio op. could get out thru the transmission and brake service hatches in the front hull in an emergency. The side hatches were deleted to simplify production because the crews didn't use them. The proliferation of hatches and other openings in early panzers is a typical example of their over engineering things.
It's probably the other way around in the J version. In the J version they FIRST decided to abandon electrical turret traverse due to copper shortages. As a consequence they had hollow spaces which they used for extra fuel tanks. The extra fuel tanks were not really needed because they had massive fuel shortages by that time.
Let me clear up a misconception, the Pz IV J had manual or engine driven turret traverse. When the engine was on, you had power traverse, on all Pz IV. However the J lost the auxiliary power unit that would provide electric power traverse with the engine switched off. Instead a larger petrol tank was fitted. Also most J used mesh and not plates as hull Schürzen. This protected from infantry shaped charge weapons, but not from anti tank rifles.
Often wondered why they added extra fuel capacity when fuel was in known short supply. Extra ammunition would have been more useful. I wonder if the additional space was inaccessible to the crews negating such an option.
You give this tank the credit it deserves. At the beginning of the war, it had some revolutionary features; a radio with a dedicated operator, a crew of five which meant that the workload among the crew was so well devided that the tank as a whole could operate very fast during a fight, a turret ring that allowed for the installment of a gun large enough to keep the tank relevant during the war. The same thing could be said of the Pantzer III, except that it was too small for the installment of a heavy gun. However, when it comes to head to head fights with other tanks, in my opinion the Pantzer IV was a very good tank but never the best tank during the war. My favourite? the King tiger, although this tank never had a chance to mature and become reliable.
The King Tiger didn't have enough presence in the war. Only a couple of hundreds was ever produced. On the other hand, the Tiger I, was produced in thousands, and it became the most feared tank for allied tankers.
@@Nakraal Hi, Wikipedia says: 1.347 Tiger 1 tanks produced. And 492 Tiger 2 tanks produced. So both were too few to make a real difference. And both were equally feared by the Allies, I guess. Now I am certainly not saying that the Tiger 2 was the best tank of the war. But I think it had the potential to become the best if the Germans would have had the time and the means to improve it (more reliable, more powerful engine, better steel for armour, tungsten for grenades, factories that were not destroyed, enough spare parts that could be transported to the front lines, enough fuel...).
@@retepeyahaled2961 Indeed. I was wrong. I was sure it was like 2.5K + produced. Yes the numerical difference isn't that much to justify the title in itself, but in my opinion the Tiger made a bigger impression than the Koenigstiger. It was operational in all fronts since late 1942, when the KT was in the late war - which also means it was fighting when the Wehrmacht was still in the offensive. It fought in all fronts. To be frank I mostly know the KT in the Hungarian coup of Budapest. Just an opinion ofc.
The skirt armor often applied around the turret in the later versions also helped it to look a bit more like a Tiger, and thus made it scarier to face. But I'm not sure if this was good or bad from the crew's perspective!
@@ironwolfF1 Yeah, I've heard that (about the anti-tank rifles) and believe what all you guys say. I know the skirt armor helped. But what I meant to say is that I wondered if it was good to look like a Tiger.
The Panzer IV was the draught horse and the basis of the German tank forces throughout the war. Due to its large number of units, versatility and flexibility, it was the best tank of the Wehrmacht. When it comes to the best equipment and pure combat power, the Panther was the best German tank. It combined all the positive characteristics of the other tank models and is therefore also called the first modern tank in the Second World War.
Panther was a step backwards in some regards. More difficult to maintain/repair being one example. It took some work to make the Panther reliable but by the end of the war, it was a great product.
The fact that they kept producing them shows it was an effective vehicle. Mark 4s and Tigers could engage at a 3/4 view (skewed to one side). This would make the flat armor sloped at 45 degrees horizontally.
I haven't seen anyone mention this Angled armour stops being angled in circumstances like; Going down a hill, or any terrain reduces angled armour's abilities to deflect. Especially if the anti tank fire is coming from a raised position
Absolutely fact. Read “Panzer Gunner” by Bruno Friesen, he served as a gunner in Mark 4s and later the Jagdpanzer 4. Excellent biography with lots of detailed info on how they fought their tanks. He goes into great detail about angling the Mark 4.
I don’t think why the reason they kept producing it was that it was an effective vehicle. Panzer IVs are notorious for being quite expensive and underwhelming in capabilities such as speed and reliability, along with worse armour compared to the M4 Sherman. I think the only reason why they kept producing them was because they didn’t have anything else to make until the Panther was made.
@@robertoroberto9798 They had many projects to improve the Panzer 4, like implementing torsion bar suspension, or giving it a sloped frontal armor. The problem was those projects would require them to retool entire productions lines for that, and they needed the panzers yesterday, not tomorrow. So it was never implemented.
In my opinion the panzer IV is one of the bleu prints on how tanks should be build . as it had adaptability could room to upgrade and enhance its capabilities . Also the capability in making different versions and machines , from tank destroyer to mobile artilery to airdefence tanks etc . even spaced armour was added to the tank primitive forms but still . All things that where caried over in to the leopard 1 after the war and leopard 2 . highly adaptable and even fought in the 6 day war in 1967 and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Quite amazing for a tank designed in 1936 and still in action 40 years later .
@@scottgalbraith7461 You miss the point , the tank was build with upgrades in mind the panther used the same caliber gun as the panzer IV . they point is that the tank was versatile . and had plenty of room to upgrade . Tigers not so much they where what you see is what you get.
@@marcusfranconium3392 I think they put an L71 on it that made it capable anti- armor, but by then the Soviets were already developing the JS and ISUs, which were meant to counter anything the Germans had or would have.
It has been said in some books about WW2 tanks that Germany might have been better off producing more Panzer IVs as opposed to using scarce resources on Tiger production.
To my mind, there is no “ best tank of the war” but there is the best tank for Germany in the war, the best tank for Russia, the best tank for the USA ect ect because each country had different parameters that they needed their tank to for fill. Early in the war Germany was on the offensive but at the end of the was they were on the defensive. Therefore basically two different design parameters are needed.
A great point. The US had a heavy tank design, the M6. However, fewer could be transported in a Liberty ship sending it overseas. US designers also had to take into account the size of any tank for transport on rail to the port.
No..with airpower and mass artillery. The western allies had killing enemy tanks without risking your own tanks down pretty good by 1943, and even the Russians figured it out. Name a great American/British vs German tank battle? Tanks were for spearheads after defensive lines had been broken and infantry support. The battle of the bulge the Germans got stopped and destroyed mostly by arty and planes. Name a major tank battle since ww2 that the side that controls the air, lost?
Methinks, if you unwittingly pick a fight with practically the entire world, you’ll reap an insurmountable deluge Current US foreign policy unavailable for comment..
I would say the Panzer battles with the M4 for the title of "best tank of the war." Both have a good balance regarding mobility, protection and firepower and combine it with serviceability and firepower. Later German models like the Tiger and Panther -- though better protected with more lethal firepower -- were mechanically unreliable and not designed for easy maintenance as were the Panzer III and Panzer IV. It has always surprised me how the Germans lost ground rather than gained ground in the areas of maintenance and reliability with their newer tanks. Perhaps this occurred because the Tigers and Panthers were introduced during wartime when there would've been pressure to introduce these weapons ASAP rather than allowing them more development time which might worked some of the bugs out of these designs.
After watching this I feel that if the Germans could have taken the extra step of redesigning the chassis to have slopping armor given this tanks dependability, they would have had a winner that would have been easier to mass produce at less cost and materiel than the bigger tanks to come.
@@kaineuhauser9353 it did work but the conversion took too long and shifting the factory production slowed output. Just when they were ordered to max out production numbers.
I do think the Panzer UV was a great tank. It was the perfect size and had the best armament for its type of tank. It was great for supporting infantry, which was the main purpose of a tank. It was the lead vehicle in the Blitzkrieg.
Very underrated tank It’s not as sexy as a Tiger or Panther but was one of the most resilient armored platforms. The Panzer III as most know was supposed to be the main anti-tank tank while the Panzer IV’s primary role was infantry support with it’s short barreled 75 The Panzer III quickly became outgunned and out armored. Ironically the Panzer IV’s platform turned out to be an good baseline that was easily improved upon, upgraded and retrofitted. It was more reliable overall than even the later model Mark V & VI Panzers It’s gun and armor were improved enough that it still have decent survivability and kill capability until the end of the war. The Panzer IV was still expensive, complicate and too precision grounded, if you will, in its production T-34’s were great tanks but tolerances were loose and craftsmanship wasn’t a hallmark of it during production Like most German products, the Panzer were made with great care, strict tolerances, and were overly complicated and expensive. Precision was aimed for, but when production times and material concerns mattered, this hindered tank production. For all the excellence in German engineering they never settled for a “good enough” design, lightened up on tolerances ir understood the benefits of interchangeable part and simpler designs and solutions. A Panzer IV Is a beautifully crafted machine while T-34s could be rather crudely put together-this never really affected the lethality of it on the battlefield. You could argue it was less comfortable, didn’t have as good optics, and lacked the radios German tanked enjoyed that helped them tactically and technically, but while not as nice the T-34 was on par or better.
@@chrishooge3442 Very true This is why the Germans started the E series tanks toward the end of the war. It was supposed to be a family of various sized tanks that shared parts which would make production easier & faster. The Germans couldn’t back off from their engineering excellence with the Panthers & Tigers which were expensive & complicated. They would have been better off with building tanks “just good enough” to make it less complex & expensive. Of course, Russia also enjoyed a huge manpower advantage too & the excellence of the Wehrmacht’s soldiers proved to give them an edge technically & tactically.
@Ž Š yes on both but it gets complicated largely based on gun and ammo, until the long-barreled 75 the T34 had the edge. The reality is they are pretty evenly matched even once you get to the later T34s. The Panzer IV was simply a better tank to operate in, the T34s were awful, small, cramped, and not efficient, but when you outnumber the enemy 10 to one or more you can lose a few.
@Ž Š crew layout, ammo storage, commanders view when closed up, and very poor communication both in the tank and to other tanks. The T34 was really a poor design from an operational view, and that is not compensated for by armor, mobility, or gun size.
I think the Sherman M4A3E8 or Easy 8 was the best tank of the war. It had armour that was adequate. It had a gun that was slightly less powerful but more accurate and with better ergonomics than the Firefly. It had wet ammunition storage to reduce fires. But mostly it had thousands of other Shermans around it in an organization (US Army) that understood combined arms warfare.
Their ( like in other country in the world) knowledge in arms warfare was completely shattered in 01/09/1939 when the German Army introduced the concept of "Blitzkrieg" with doctrines that changed conventional the Battlefield Forever. The German doctrine of Infantry to support Armor prove to be right one,while the brittish in 1945 were still using Armor to support infantry despite almost 6 years of seing the practical results of 2 completely different "ideas"(doctrines). Like the brittish the American forces all guns blazing Attitude was proven a very stupid one,what they lacked in "ingenuity" was supported by their overwhelming numbers in man and material,nothing else.
@@jpmtlhead39 Although really, all the belligerents in the world had their armor theorists, it's just that Germany was the only country where they had the power to implement their ideas (and even with the Germans, the original panzer divisions were too tank-heavy, so they're weren't doing things perfectly right). Other theorists (DeGaulle, Liddell-Hart, and Tukhachevsky) were not in influential roles, and in one case (Tukhachevsky) *dead* by the war's start. Interestingly enough, the French have been usually criticized for spreading their armor out among infantry divisions instead of concentrating them in armored divisisons, but by the en of WWII everyone was back to reinforcing infantry divisions with armor support (from Stugs to TDs to SUs) as the best way to stiffen infantry divisions against armored attack. As David Glantz notes, a key weakness of German infantry divisions by 1944 s that they had too-few Pak40 guns, and even fewer SPG units to support infantry, while the rest of their anti-tank component consisted of barely useful 37 mm and 50 mm AT guns that struggled to penetrate even the side armor of a T-34.
@@stewartmillen7708 by mid's 1944 German infantry divisions were relying more in AT Weapons like the Panzerfaust than the Spg or Pak 40 Specialy on the eastern front. They realize that didin't have enough "big guns" to face the Overwhelming allied Armor,so they Start to produce and rush millions of Panzerfaust to the front. With the Stug's the Panzerfaust proved to be a very good powerfull AT Weapon.
@@jpmtlhead39 - Um, no. Bewegenskrieg was not a new idea. Germany always planned for fast, maneuver campaigns against unprepared enemies, and WWII was no exception. It worked, until the enemy figured out defense in depth. After 1942, Germany never succeeded attacking a prepared enemy, while the Allies did quite well against German defenses when there was room to maneuver.
From a stratetig standpoint the IV probably was the best on the german side, easy to manufacture, reliable, easy to operate, good punch against most opponents (tank on tank engagements were rarer than you might think), easy in maintenance and durable and plenty of well trained and experienced crew to operate them ... especially the maintenance part of operating tanks is greatly undervalued, most modern amour is specifically designed to be easy to maintain for a very good reason. Also on the note of sloped armour: it has its benefits for sure, but also serious drawbacks, mainly the loss of interior volume and maintainability as well as sharper angled connection between the plates (like the upper front/lower front on a t-34), which are huge weakpoints if not welded especially well. A lesson the sovjets learned with early t-34 models the hard way. The germans understood sloped armour, but considered it not worth the drawbacks ... and in the decades after ww2 almost every new tank followed the german design of Panther/Tiger2 to only have significant slopes on the front, but dropped having sloped armour all around. A tanks value most often is not in the numbers like penetration power, speed or armour protection alone ... factors like manufacture, maintenance, usability, how much training crews need to operate the vehicle efficiently (enough), spare part situation, doctrine, supply situation and much more is also part of the equation of what makes a tank "good" ... good is a relative term, it is a purpose built killing machine after all and it is best to never be in a situation where you have to use them
Great video. The Panzer 4 was an outstanding tank. Durable, dependable, and a tank killer. I didn't know the Germans had resorted to a manual turret traverse late in the war. As you mentioned, it was a definite minus in the heat of battle. gb
For the first couple of years, it was mediocre. French 25mm and 32mm AT guns could penetrate it and the Pzw III. It wasn't until the Mark Special F2 version appeared that it perform against Char Bs and Matildas.
The IV could’ve become the “German Sherman” if there were enough raw materials to increase production to 15K, possibly 20K. However, the development of a heavy tank, the Tiger I, was a must.
@@PT-rg2vo The Panther is the best tank of the war. Years ahead of its time in concept and design. It almost fills every role the PZ IV did in a better fashion.
I have a detailed plastic model with 303. It has 8 track rollers. Panzer 1V model G with skirting and long barrel. Only one photo of this tank with crew shows up on Internet?
The Panzer IV has long been my favorite German WW2 tank. That being said, it was definitely not the best medium tank of the war, but it was very good. I believe the honor of best medium tank goes to the British modification of the Sherman, i.e. the Firefly. It had the advantages of ease/speed of production, combined with relatively easy/cost-effective maintenance, and it's gun was powerful enough that it had numerous witnessed kills of Tigers at distance.
The problem with Firefly though was too much gun for too little turret and the accuracy of the sabot ammo was dubious at best with the sabot rounds at greater than 300m.
The Churchill Crocodile was. Turret, MGs, FLAMETHROWER. Designed to overrun fortified infantry positions, it's the tank that allowed the breakthrough from the Beaches to Paris.
To answer your question, I think the best medium tank overall was the Sherman. It was well armored and could fill many roles. It was a very different tank, but US and German doctrine were very different. The fact that it was still seeing combat into the 70s with Israel is testament to how solid the design was StuG III, the armored vehicle which was built in the greatest numbers in Germany, was on a Panzer III chasis. The StuG IV only had 1000 or so built. Saying the Sturmgeshuetz was built on a Panzer IV chasis is a bit misleading
I’m not a tank expert but always thought that the panther Mk 2 was the best tank. I served in the army for 35 years and was always terrified of being around tanks. I was once on a tank range where tanks were doing a live firing demonstration. During a lull in the firing I was next to a Challenger tank drinking a cup of tea. Unexpectedly to me the tank carried out a test fire and fired. I had no ear protection on and the the tank firing unexpectedly caused me to collapse on the floor with piercing pain in my ears. I am certain to this day, I lost some of my hearing due to this incident.
Apologies, As I said I’m not a tank expert but I was referring to the Panther tank which was to counter the T34. But did not know that the MK2 Panther didn’t go into production. I always thought that the Panther when it came out had problems so they developed the MK2….but I guess that I was mistaken. Anyway thanks for the correction.
@@rockyrowlands3652 you might be talking the different models. There was the prototype model and than the Ausf D. was the first production model. then the Ausf. A and then the Ausf G. Each model making improvements on the design or simplifying the design to increase production speed.. There was a Panther II in the works but was never produced.
Bro, i dont think there is a panther mk 2, germany does not use mk to designate their designs, they use numbers, letters and special designations Closest i could think of a panther mk 2 is probably the panther II that never went to production
I wish their was a video assessing the doctrines, strategies, command, and tactics of armored units in the various armies. Obviously, it is not just the tool the makes it effective. How they were used is more important, IMO.
at 7.00...German engineers knew about sloped armor. They chose crew space and ergonomics in favor of the heavy slope armor(panzer 4 had sloped armor) seen on the T-34. The heavily sloped armor on the T-34 didnt do anything but make the tank a death trap. It was way to cramped and hard to escape. The armor didnt protect it either as battle reports show that the germans took them out day one, even with 20mm guns that shouldnt even scratch it on paper, but it did. So yea, lots of repeated myths regarding these tanks.
The IV was the best tank the Germans had, it's fire power was adequate. It's mechanical reliability was good, and it ease of mantinance and repair made it the most useful tank they had. They say 1 tiger used up as much resources and labor as 3 Pz VIs, they would have done better with the IV than the VI.
For the first couple of years of the war, it was mediocre. French 25mm and 32mm AT guns could penetrate it and the Pzw III. It wasn't until the Mark Special F2 version appeared that it perform against Char Bs and Matildas.
With tanks it is all about finding the sweet spot. Thick armour but not so heavy that it uses too much fuel and gets bogged down. Too much weight also means that moving parts wear much sooner. The Tiger’s 88mm gun was impressive but it required a heavy vehicle. The Panzer IV’s 75mm gun was a better compromise. In short, the IV came close to that sweet spot.
Panzers IV was very well designed ergonomically. Troops were familiar with them and understood the maintenance routines and fighting practices. Logistically, support was well established. The fact that designers in 1944 intended to upgrade Panzer IV G/H even further, clearly means it was not obsolete by the end of the war. According to Hillary Doyle, there were plans to give it sloped and thicker frontal armour in a minor hull redesign. In addition to upgraded engine, gun, new suspension and wide tracks. Only war time shortages meant that the resources were diverted to the newer problem child Panther. Had these improvements been completed earlier in the war, perhaps things would have turned out differently with regards to needing both Panther and Tiger II. As for the best tank of the war. That has to be Centurion, which was only deployed at the very very end of the conflict. But it was designed during the war as a response to heavier enemy tanks, to include the T34. Centurion was such a giant leap forward that it rewrote all the books and stands a very good chance of being the best, most influential tank of all time.
😂😂.the centurion did not shoot a shell in the war ,come after conflict finnished .Based on your best tank logic, I could add the ST 3 as well as the winner that saw no action at all. British, as usual,tried to accommodate what they did not accomplish at all :They never produced a descent tank during the entire war ,the commet was the closest they could do and again too little too late to do any important impression. Most British victories and armor advances were made using the American made M4 s many variants were the most numerous tanks used by all British and Commonwealth forces . Get a grip on reality facts .
@@erwinsell184 The Centurion was the first of the modern MBTs. It caused a revolution in all subsequent designs. It was created as a consequence of lessons learned during WWII. From the nation who invented the tank in the first place. BTW, much of the American WWII tank designs were in response to requested specification of orders, placed with US companies. Particularly the joint projects M3 and M4.
We shall never know but I think that had the US built the Pershing M26 in 42 or early 43 in massive numbers it would have been the top tank just like the Mustang plane with a US frame and RR engine produced again in massive numbers. Quality yes but quantity!!
The Panzer IV had a wide turret, but lacked headroom, and the loader's position was cramped compared to its peers. Moreover, compared to the Sherman and the T-34, it as the least upgradable by far.
With the longer 7.5cm rifle, it was very cramped inside, still very effective in combat. Maintenance was a nightmare for the poor saps that did the recovery, having to, in certain cases remove mayor components in order to reach drivetrain assemblies; but that was a very common problem across the board to all nations involved in the war, with some stellar exceptions
It probably wasnt the best, but the most reliable, versatile and upgradeable Tank from WW2. Over 14 years of improvements and upgrades it was still a competitve enemy to be recon with
I think that the Sherman was the best in its role as an attack tank. The Sherman had the highest crew survivability, best ergonomics and crew vision and its 75 mm gun could achieve the highest rate of canon fire. The secondary machine guns were excellent and the tank was not that slow. It could be very easily repaired and maintained making it logistically excellent. The second best tank was in my opinion, the Tiger, because you really didn’t need a lot of them to make a big impact, just look at Prokarovka.
Sherman was the best in terms of reliability but I wouldn't want to be in one. Lots were destroyed in France and even in Russia under lend lease. Not sure what your source is on survivability when hit since they had a rep of brewing up.
@@zirconsalazar7459 The notoriety of the Sherman to be flammable only applied to British Sherman’s because they tended to pack their Sherman’s with as much ammunition as possible, especially with the firefly. This didn’t apply to American ones, especially later models since they had wet ammunition storage.
I wonder what would have changed if they'd just made only Panzer 4's throughout the war instead of spending resources on all the other tanks. Germany sometimes appeared to have ADD when it came to their military equipment.
I don't know if it was the best tank of the war, but it definitely is vastly underrated in all these tank videos, with barely a mention in most. It also did not get credit for a LOT of its kills, because allies were especially eager to attribute a loss to the Tiger, which it resembled, but which was present in numbers WAY to small to have been in all the places it was claimed to be. Correction? I think the Stug, or Sturmgeshutzen (sp?) was based on the Panzer 3 chassis, not the 4. I could be wrong.
Very nice video, with some small corrections indicated in the comments. Regarding the never ending discussion of which was the better tank of the war, in thing in two aspects: first, we could not, for the sake of precision, put together medium and heavy tanks, as their roles are different in the battlefield and, of course, if mishandled even the heaviest could be knocked out by mediuns, and, second, the cost and production time required is also different. Looking at the mediun tanks, perhaps the best of all were the Russian T34/85 first, and the british Sherman Firefly a close second. By sheer performance, the late PzKpFw IV would be the third in this rank. But as you've pointed out, it was a workhorse, a basic weapon, and this aspect and the proportional numbers in each army put it second, after the more powerful T34/85. By no way I think it could be superior to this adversary, quite the opposite. Anyway, to the end its optics, fire control and radio seems to be better than those of the late marks T34s. But the basic vehicle was markedly inferior at the war end, while still capable of fighting off its adversaries. Kind regards to the video maker and the commenters.
Question, why are all of the pictures and the video reversed?. And it wasn't the electrical system that was removed, it was the auxiliary motor for the turret transverse!.
the reality is different: the 1940 Panzer IV have nothing common with the post 1942 Panzer IV, close all was deeply improved...The 1940 Panzer IV was weakly armed and with unefficient armor
Pz-IV Armor was adequate all round armor on the hull , until 1942 .At this point the front hull had an 80mm driver plate 10o while the Turret remained at 50mm vertical front plates. The VK-1602 K LEOPARD design [pz II/III scale] on the other hand had hexagonal shaped turret walls are least 50mm thick at 25o vertical and 50o horizontal and [compounded angle from front POV = 54o] about 94mm vs 85mm gun.
I personally think it was the Sherman. Due to the slope, it's frontal armor was equivalent to a tiger. As a former tanker, I know how important crew comfort is, and Sherman was made for the crew. The early cannon was focused on infantry, but once the m4a3e8 came out, it was superior to t34 and panther. Hard hitting, good armor, could fire accurately on the move, fast, and easy to work on.
Hmm, the Sherman's armor wasn't as good as the Tigers (and you should see threads where I'm flamed by Tiger fans because I criticize spotty German armor quality). It is true that the softer hardness Sherman armor wouldn't crack and shatter like glass like German steel sometimes did, especially if hit multiple times, but it would resist penetration less (one of the reasons the Americans overestimated a bit the effectiveness of their guns against German armor was they used the same soft armor in gun testing too). I take it you're talking about the Easy 8 Sherman? (The earlier Shermans had thinner armor). 63.5 mm on the upper hull, angled at 47 degrees, up to 108 mm on the transmission housing, with some rounding, and up to 89 mm on the mantlet (maybe some of that overlaying the 63.mm turret armor) with only a little rounding? Most of that surface save the transmission housing with be effectively like 90-100 mm after taking into account that most enemy rounds will overmatch the armor. For instance I calculate about 102 mm effective armor for the upper hull against 75 mm rounds and about 90 mm against 88 mm rounds. Not terrible, not but better than the Tiger's armor (120 mm effective lower hull, ~105-110 on the small upper hull, 120 mm on the gun mantlet with 150 mm near the vision ports and 200 mm near the gun).
@@a.t6066 Yes, I know I was, just replying to the poster. You could reverse the reasoning and phrase it this way though...the Tiger I was almost twice as heavy as either a Sherman "Easy 8" 76 mm or a T-34/85, but did not posses twice the armor protection. All that extra weight only gave an effective frontal armor protection of 110-120 mm on most of its frontal surfaces, save for the thick parts on the mantlet near the gun and near the vision port. Compare that c. 90-108 mm for the Sherman, 100 mm- 135 mm for the T-34/85* , based on resistance to a 75 mm round (it would fall some for the Sherman and more so for the T-34/85 if calculated vs an 88 mm round due to the additional overmatching). So what? 20-25 % extra frontal armor protection for twice the weight? That doesn't sound like a bargain. * - 135 mm is something like the T-34/85 ''s turret armor (90 mm high hardness cast) calculated at an impact at the 'average' angle; of course being rounded the actual angle can vary from 0 degrees upwards to 90. The estimate for that mean angle I've read for the T-34/85 is something like 40 degrees. The advantage of rounded surfaces is that while yes, there's always a chance for a near-orthogonal hit, in most cases the impact will hit at a significant angle. Rounded surfaces, especially circles or ellipses like the T-34/85, are "bouncy". In the T-34/85 the weak point actually had become the hull armor, which by 1944 was being badly overmatched. There was a project (T-34/85M) to up the hull armor to 65, or 75 mm, which looked very promising, yet the Soviets did not pursue it as they were unsatisfied with its resistance to the Panther's Kwk42 gun and the King Tiger's Kwk43 gun. This was a mistake, I feel because those guns were still relatively rare, and the most common gun the T-34/85 would ever face was the Pak40, and upping the hull armor to even 65 mm would have made a big difference against the Pak40 and all the German AFV that carried it. It was a rare example of the Russians making the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
I agree that the H version that had 3700 made were at a sweet spot concerning reliability, speed and armor and with the long barrel 75mm high Velocity Gun it had what it needed against the tanks it faced in theatre. Spare tank treads also acted as "extra armor". Fast enough and lighter than the Sherman (Sherman like a Mark 4.25 or the T-34 (which I see as like a Mark 4.50 with the 76.2 mm Gun and the 85 mm Gun like a "Mark 4.75" as a Panzer 5 was designed to outperform the T-34, which it did when RUNNING PROPERLY but there were reliability issues. So on that basis the Mark 4 Panzer was a more reliable TANK and more efficient regarding COST and USE of RESOURCES to build it.
I think the United States had the most cost effective tank production line. However I think the Sherman was a bit of a crappy design. It was easy to spot, though it was one of the most reliable tanks. In terms of design German models were better, but also they had obviously very stupid designs too.
I believe the PZKW IV to be the best medium tank during WWII. Able to quickly transport to where needed, able to press the offense and exploit breakthroughs with an ample riding base for Panzer grenadiers to dismount and engage almost immediately. Defensively it possessed the ability to quickly move through various terrain to add cannon support to beleaguered infantry as well as place armored small arms steel wall protection. It could, when it had to engage the Soviet T34, the best tank of the war when need be.
I haven't seen anyone mention this Angled armour stops being angled in circumstances like; Going down a hill, or any terrain reduces angled armour's abilities to deflect. Especially if the anti tank fire is coming from a raised position
Yeah taking advantage of the terrain and the infrastructure is definitely a tactic that's not mentioned much but I think is a very big part of deploying tanks in combat situations especially against other tanks . German manuals mentioned turning the Tiger 1 a bit left or right and this presents an angled surface instead of the vertical front plate making the armor more effective. Or in the Six Day war Isreali's were able to take advantage of the lower depression angles of the English tank guns they were using which enabled them to use sand dunes as cover
@@stewartmillen7708 true that too either way angles must be kept in mind when deploying in combat it's tough being the brains especially when one little slip can result in death by extreme heat 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
@@SuperErikRoss Yeah, but it many cases in tanks you don't get a choice or chance of how to angle your tank. The way that AT defenses are designed, count yourself lucky if you just manage to have your *front armor* facing the enemy when the first shells start flying your way. To be able to angle your tank horizontally to fire correctly means you have to know where all your opponents are on the battlefield, which is rarely the case. Starting out with well-angled armor means that some of your job is done for you by default (and I realize this only applies to WWII and early Cold War combat).
the pz4 was in every theatre that Germany fought and proved supreme as any enemy it fought with it's longer 75 gun. Yes the small tracks were it's biggest failure; they should have been doubled. After encounters with first T34's the hull should have been redesigned with sloped armour! To me the Skoda Werks should have made HETZERS earlier! the little t38 was redesigned to be a lighter mk4. PZ 1-3 construction plants should have been converted to 4 --6 right away after France. Germany had a problem with over engineering and no close to action repair centers. The recovered tanks all came back to production plants that really didn't have the space or time for repairs. Germany had another war plan failure - lack of oil. they should have made the oil fields a super priority to capture in 1941.
What I would like to know is….. Would a torsion bar suspension system have been an improvement over the leaf sprung suspension system in this tank. The leaf sprung system was not up to the task of supporting the 80mm frontal armour and the long barrelled 75mm gun - it caused the tank to sway and it was nick named Guerderian’s duck as a result. Or would a longer length have solved this issue.
The VK 30.01H was basically an up-armored Pz.IV with torsion bars. Torsion bars are better than leaf springs, but are expensive and difficult to remove. It wasn't worth the effort to put it in the Pz.IV. The design of the Pz.IV as a tank was obsolete by 1943 standards, but it's chassis was still useful as a tank hunter and a gun carrier. The Germans decided to design a new, much better tank from scratch - the Panther - without interrupting Pz.IV production. It was the right decision.
You are correct!. But!, It ponders the question that if the manufactures just would have put heavier leaf springs could that solve the problem?. And designed a upper hull with angled plates (like the jagdpanzer IV)?
@@joebfnl1079 what you're proposing was the Panzer III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell, which had 3 bigger leaf spring bogies per side and the sloped front glacis of the Jagdpz IV. It was a missed opportunity. It would have enabled a smoother transition from parallel production lines of both Pz IV and Jagdpz IV hulls to a single production line of Jagdpz IV, finally phasing out the Pz IV, which already was very unsafe to fight in by 1945.
Torsion bar suspensions are very difficult to service in the field. That was a big problem with Panther tanks on the eastern front, if they broke down and could be recovered they had to be sent back to repair facilities to do major service-logistically very challenging. And a lot of them did break down early on.
It all comes down to the question that if you had to be in a tank, would you rather be in a Panzer mkIV, a Sherman or a T34 (accepting all their good and bad points)?
Is there a reason why the entire video is mirrored? I could understand individual clips being mirrored by accident but every single frame - including the profile-view drawings - is mirrored ...
It honestly was the best tank. It had better armor than a Sherman, a better gun than the T34-41, and reliability that could be counted on in all theaters of the war from scorching deserts to subzero Russian winters.
In 1977 I worked with a " survivor" of a PANZERKAMPFWAGON IV. He had a crooked spine and walked side to side. He was a driver but don't know if his career was ended by the Soviets or Allied tanks. He was just a teenager in 1945.
In comparing the Panzer IV with its archrival T-34.....I have seen a famous tanker review a T-34 tank... While he praized its very efficient sloped armor as well as its simplicity and the tougher suspension that gave it far more durability in battle unlike the overengineered german designs that were too complex and broke down most of the time..... He also was nonetheless appaled by the T-34's total unfriendliness for its own crew, actually saying "They completely forgot this tank should also have a crew inside... So they didn't quite bother designing actual place for them to sit inside😅 " The interior of the T-34 was very cramped, all the crew were squeezed together, if an ennemy shell would eventually penetrate its armor it would most likely kill all its crew at once... Unlike german designs or better the american Sherman that had far more place inside and had escape hatches far easier to use..... And in case of a fire, the T-34's front hatches were so tight as it was almost impossible to get out through them at all, for sure not in time to get out alive... And the driver had a tough time, the tank was very hard and exhausting to drive, demanding a lot of brute force .... So, while the T-34 was signifficantly more performant regarding its sloped armor efficiency and overall durability and reliability, as well as being far cheaper and easier to produce in huge numbers ( features that overall did prove overwhelming against the ennemy and won the war bringing its well deserved fame and glory)...... from the crew's point of view the Panzer IV was far better.... Far easier to use and far more survivable ... While harder to be maintained nonetheless
Honestly I think the Sherman was the best tank of the war, the Sherman could be used for different things like mine clearing, enemy defense clearing, anti tank if they put the 76mm cannon on it, and many other things, it had sloped armor, and it had the highest crew survival rate, although the Sherman did not have thick armor it was able to go faster, and they were produced in large numbers. While the panzer only had 1 role like all the tanks for Germany did, the armor was not sloped, but the panzer was way better than both the tiger tanks, both the tanks had a 75mm cannon, Sherman was able to go a bit faster and the panzer had better optics than the Sherman. So I'll say they were both good just the Sherman had more roles than the panzer and there were way more Shermans tanks produced than the panzer. The panzer had stronger armor than the Sherman.
The IV chassis hardly changed during the war, but the bodies were developed through the WWII. it was easy to maintain as opposed to the later "heavier" tanks that were a technological nightmare
Crew compliment! Amazing but it was the only true advantage the IV ever really enjoyed over its competitors. Run of the mill speed, range nothing to write home about, off road mobility barely adequate, less than average armor, but 5 men properly placed and equipped meant all the difference.
@@manilajohn0182 doesn’t change the fact that the first nomenclature of the long 75 was the F2. Nor does it change the fact that before the order, the F2 had a single chamber bell muzzle brake while the G had a “standard” full round two chambered muzzle brake which If I’m not mistaken was the same muzzle brake incorporated on the stug III G.
@@mrpaws7496 Oh, you're right without doubt- and I do believe that you're correct that the G had a two- baffle muzzle brake while the F2 had only one. I was only pointing out that the two vehicles are essentially one and the same, and that the differences between the two are minimal.
Good clip. Question is: if Tigers and Panthers was to expensive how Germans should design tank to replace Mark 4? Maybe they should create mark 4 next generation? Add slope armor, make it a little bigger with better gun? Create own version of Sherman Firefly or T-44? Sorry for my English :)
@@jacobjonm0511 That is the point why Panzer 4 is still better, u just produce more tanks that are still dangerous to enemy, reliable as a ak-47 on battlefield and that’s th way Usa and Ussr won the war, just producing T-34 and M4.
@@slq-16-i-rt31 Nah, US and USSR won the war because they could just produce more rather than explocity because of T-34 or Sberman. Germans had to produce heavy tanks as they didn't have any answer for Russian KVs and IS tanks. Tiger I kicked tremndeous asses and was a successful tank
@@jacobjonm0511 Bruh, kv was not a thing after 1942. And there were 250 is-1, is-2 came only at 1944 and was an assault tank, not AT. And both of them was not something invincible, 75 kwk/pak 40/42, 8.8, was more than enough to deal with them. 8.8 L/71 and 1.28 were extreme overpower. Most of soviet and us tank park consisted of shermans and -34s, so if enemy has super heavy strong tank u just bomb them, u don’t send weaker tanks to deal with. That’s why kingtiger/ferdinand/jagdtiger/jagdpanther were mostly useless waste of resources. And if again speak about proportions, there were 5500 panthers vs 8500 panzer 4, which is not even 1 to 2. But in proportion panther had much less effectiveness rate, nevertheless it was most powerful medium tank. And the reason simple, battlefield is not a tanks vs tanks, you need to keep balance and diverse your resources to win. It’s not a big deal to lose 3 panzer 4 if they got 3-5 T-34. But it’s really big deal to lose kingtiger, even if it had streak of 7-8 tanks.
@@slq-16-i-rt31 late panthers were the best tanks. They were almost as cheap as panzer iv and could take on both heavy and light tanks. Panzer iv reached its limitations by the end of the war.
German war production was continued to be plagued by multiple designs, rather than relaying on improvements in the manufacturer of the PZKW Mark 4 model.
could have still used the Panther alongside the Panzer IVs, similar to how the Allies used the 76mm Sherman/Firefly with the standard 75mm Sherman. Despite its early drawbacks, the Panther was better than the Tiger in terms of logistics, given that the Allies didn't hamper more of the German's ability to produce and transport to the front. However, the Germans could have gone with the VK 30.01/2 line by Daimler-Benz, similar to the T-34 design with the Panther's 7.5 cm (3.0 in) KwK 42 L/70 gun
Both the Panther and Pz IV had 80 mm frontal armor, and a 75mm gun, but the Panther was heavier by 20 tons and far more prone to malfunctions or bursting into engine fires just from moving. The Panther was also 8 times more expensive to make ( 6600 built). Later versions of Panther got 100mm armor. Pz IV had 25 tons and 8500 built.
The best panzer was the Panzer VI Panther with sloped armour, larger tracks and a formidable 7,5 cm KwK 42 L/70. Don’t confuse F and G versions : - the Ausführung F1 was armed with the short 7,5 cm KwK L/24 ; - the Ausf. F2 was equipped with the long 7,5 cm KwK L/43 with a round muzzle brake ; - the Ausf. G received the better long 7,5 cm KwK L/48 with a square muzzle brake. The H and J models had the same gun.
With the Pak 40 75 mm long gun,it was enough to take any allied tank 1000 meters away. Afterall the Pak 40 75 mm AT gun was the most Successfull AT gun of the war. So,this gun on the Panzer IV was a perfect match. If the german high command had decided to increase production on this much cheaper machine than the Panther and Tiger,combined with the Stug III capabilities,they probably would have made a crucial diference on the outcome of many major Battles. Not enough to win the war,but who knows what could have managed to do if put on service in larger numbers. Like in Normady,the Germans didint need the Panther or the Tiger to engage any allied tanks,the Panzer IV along with the Stug III were capable to deal with any allied armour without a problem at 1000 meters,and the allied tanks were not able to do that. Instead of wasting Panthers and Tigers in Normady,and put them on the eastern front where they were much needed,with a Battlefield proper for their long range devastating guns..
very true. losing the air war was what really caused the germans to lose though, i think. had they won the battle of britain.....then d-day would have been impossible; and the royal navy would have been hamstrung, if not sunk by german air power. at the same time....the eastern front would have been much different with german air superiority;and....the convoys probably couldnt have made it to resupply the ruskies.
Panzer IVs were NOT cheaper than the Panther. Also, the long 75mm were not effective on Allied tanks at 1000m, Shermans had an armour thickness from the front of about 80mm and with angle, which is more than enough to protect against shells at that distance. The reason why the Germans never had Panthers or Tigers in Normandy was because they didn’t expect the Allies to attack there, and there were barely any of those tanks to begin with as most were sent to the Eastern Front.
I also forgot to mention that the French hedgerows made it almost impossible to engage enemies past 500-700m. Most battles or skirmishes during WWII weren’t Tank Vs. Tank like what the movies show, but more of Infantry Vs. Tank, so having a longer Anti-Tank cannon might have been a disadvantage due to the lower amount of HE filler able to be used in a shell.
@@robertoroberto9798 thats in Normandy. On the East its only planes after planes and some low rolling hills. The perfect geography for tanks and AT guns with long barrels,where they coul hit an Russian tank at 3 kms and more. It happen many Times. And dont forget that the Pak 40 75mm was the most Successfull AT gun of the war. On the Eastern front they alone destroyed thousands upon thousands of Russian Armor.
@@robertoroberto9798 the Panzer IV was cheaper than the Panther . And the 75mm Pak 40 could penetrate 97 mm of frontal armour at 1000 Meters,more than enough to Deal with any allied tank in the west. At 500 Meters it could penetrate 120 mm of steel. The high velocity of that 75 mm gun was Devastating.
Sherman, undoubtedly. Built & shipped in factories an Ocean away & still held their own against all comers. It also had the best crew survivability rates of any of the "tanks" in discussion as being the best of the war.
The Panzer IV was easily a better all-round tank than the panther or the tigers. My favourite WW2 tank, in fact; and if I were serving in one, I would have REALLY appreciated that escape hatch right next to my position.
Diesel was dedicated to the kriegmarine which had priority on it. U boot for exemple, can only run on diesel engines. (sorry if my english is approximate)
Huge part of gasoline Germans used was synthetic from coal. Their resource of oil was so poor that creator of diesel tank could be highly misunderstood.
I think the 1st long barrel version was the F.2. With a globe shaped mussel break. The next version with long barrel was the G. with the more familiar mussel break. Next was H. with an even longer barrel Then came the J. with war material saving measures
Surely best tank of WWII must go to the T34. So many innovative features including sloping armour, Christie suspension, reliable diesel engine, wide tracks giving great terrain capability and easy to mass produce.
There were only 20 pershing in Europe in January 1945, the war was basically over, plus it was a heavy tank, of course it's going to out class the panzer IV medium tank, the t34/85 only really outclassed with the gun, same with m4 firefly
@Gogi 20,000 T-34s destroyed just by one weapon? Over a third of production? Almost certainly not. (Hint: never rely on just German kill claims; everyone overclaimed, but the Germans especially so).
German tanks were sexier but the Sherman has to be considered the best. It’s the only tank to fight in every single theater of war from southeast Asia to the Eastern Front. It was more reliable than anything Germany built and even it’s “under powered” 75mm gun could knock out a Panzer IV no problem. Yes, Shermans struggled against the Tigers and Panthers. So did the T-34s and people still mention the T-34s among the best. The 76mm Sherman could knock out anything built in decent numbers but a Tiger II through the front armor and was much more user friendly to the crew than the Firefly with the 17 pounder which barely fit.
What do you think about the panzer 4, do you think it was the best medium tank of the war? If not which tank do you think was?
Welcome back! If you are new here make sure to hit subscribe to expand your knowledge on Military History and join the growing Premier History Community!
No, it wasnot the best tank at all,but it had the best crews!!
@@michaelpielorz9283....Yes, in its category:, only because the 7,5/L48 cannon, and the best level of crews.
@@michaelpielorz9283 Ano ,byl poruchový,malý dojezd a vysoká spotřeba.Nejlepší tank byl ten, co vyhrál válku.Na to,že Německo vyrábělo svoje stroje doma,kde se neválčilo a pracovala pro ně celá Západní Evropa,kterou porazili za pár týdnů,měli slabou produkci.Rusové měli těžší podmínky a přesto už u Stalingradu Němce zastavili a v podstatě začal konec 3.říše.Kdyby spojenci nečekali 2 roky,jak dopadne boj mezi Němci a Sověty,mohla válka skončit dříve.V podstatě nepočítali,že Rus Německo porazí a doufali,že si kořist s Němci podělí.Ale jak poznali,že Rus vítězí,rychle chtěli urvat kousek Evropy,ale příprava jim trvala dlouhé 2.roky.
M4 >
Sloped armor doesn't matter. Panzer IV was the best mass produced tank of WW2. It was a modular design revolution tank with chassis supporting the STUG and Jagdpanzer.
I always admired Panzer IV for remaining as a formidable opponent until the war’s end despite being such an old design.It may not be as glamorous as big cats but it was always there when need.A reliable workhorse!
As Patton said about the Sherman "An excellent weapon of war"
it had a great gun, well the later versions did anyway. it was arguably better than the tigers 88.
The ME/BF109 did the same for Germany in the air, Start to finish.
That country smaller than Texas also came damned close to taking over the world.
It should also be mentioned that the Pzkw IV was used by Syria in major quantities in the 6-day war in 1967 and the Yom Kippur war in 1973.
Think about it. A country smaller than Texas was fighting two of the largest countries in the world. No way could Germany produce enough tanks to hold them both back. It’s astonishing they did as well as they did.
Few things Germans are good at.
Engineering and work
Making cars
War
Three; include the British EMPIRE;which in 1939 controlled 25% of the World's population,land mass and resources.That" Britian alone" is a bunch of crap.
It wasn't just Germany. It was Germany plus pretty much all of Eastern Europe. It only became Germany on their own from mid 1944 onwards.
They literally subjugated and recruited divisions from the entirety of Europe mate, a whole continent, they used European industry and man power, not just German
@@dark7element where did you get that nonsense from
Greatest advantage of Panzer IV vs. Panthers and Tigers: it was easy to be repaired. In case of a wheel or chain damage, a little bit welding and replacing the wheel, that's all. The Panther however, was a real nightmare for maintenance units. Any damage on the wheel, and you must remove the whole track and fix it after the replacement again.
Yup... the interleaved wheels were good in theory from an engineering stand point. But, bad in practice. They should have stuck w/ the VI as medium and Tiger I as heavy. Period.
But the crews appreciated the comfortable ride the Panther gave them.
Thanks but I can read wikipedia articles myself, i dont need anyone to do that for me, although the added pictures are nice. However, you have basically no arguments. A topic like this needa hours of examination, not some clickbait noob farming like felton
The PZ 4 was smaller than the US Sherman and Soviet T 34. 25ish tons to 38 and 31 or so. Going toe to toe with much larger enemies and holding it's own is pretty good results.
Not really much smaller at all. it was comparable in most respects to the T-34 and the M4 Medium. It would have been heavier, with increased armour all round but by the time of the F2 and G models the suspension simply could not take any significant weight increases.
well the pz4 is such an old tank that some how lasted all the way until the end of the war, absolute beast ill give it credit@@freddieclark
@@Einzeilhandery Don't get me wrong, the Panzer IV was indeed the workhorse of the German army, but do not forget that even Germany intended to replace the panzer IV and its replacement was already on the drawing boards in 1939 (the VK 20). They were aware that the basic design at 26 tons was already at its weight limit. The Panzer IV did not last until the end of the war because of its technical superiority but because they did not have its replacement on and in 1941-2.
@@freddieclark The Pz 4 started out at 18 tons and went to 25 tons, the T-34 was 26 tons and went to 34 or so tons, the M4 Sherman was 33 - 42 tons so yes the Pz 4 was considerably smaller.
@@richjageman3976 The early production Panzer IV's were lighter yes, but by 1941 that was no longer the case. by the time of the Ausf E in early 1941, weight was already up to 23 tons. The point here, of course, Is that the tank by now was reaching the limits of its suspension capabilities. however its armour, gun size and turret were of similar size to those of its adversaries, so, no, it was not considerably smaller in a tactical sense.
I think the versatility, fuel efficiency, weight (crossing bridges), cost to build, ease of maintenance, etc. made it a very good machine. Some of the H's were used over a decade later by other countries.
In high school I worked for a man (Fred Tetzneir) for 2 years who was a tank commander under Rommel in North Africa. His assistant (Herb Bernhard) was an American captured in battle of the bulge. Heard some crazy stories!
pls some stories
How was the American from the Ardennes forest in the Battle of the Bulge but in North Africa, Battle of the Bulge (1944) and I believe the campaign of Africa was in 1941-1943 or something and wouldn't the American be a POW.
@@karmine2054 Most likely an assistant at whatever shop that the guy mentioned he worked for
Stalin had over 50,000 T-34 tanks produced during WW2. The U.S. produced the same number of Sherman tanks. While not the best tanks of this War, combined with overwhelming Air Superiority, Artillery Superiority and Fuel Superiority, these German tanks were like Elephants being bitten and clawed to death by thousands of ants.
Stalin once remarked, “Quantity has a quality all its own”.
Tell is the historíes pleaseeeeeee😢
Panzer IV, T34 and Sherman were in the sweet spot class for WW2. Light enough to go anywhere, yet powerful enough with upgrades to defeat all but heavy tanks. Fast to manufacture. The three tanks have their pros and cons, none really excelling over the other two, more about the skill of the crews operating them.
@@matrick5155 i mean i fully agree that it was total bullshit and far from reliable, while only good thing it had is that not everywhere you could find a tank supporting infantry so with it's numbers it could fight in battles against infantry with no enemy tanks which would be basicly main advantage of it, but i don't realy like idea of trusting one video while i do agree with it
@@striuk4259 you're correct, however lazerpigs's video kinda proves the myth of the T-34 wrong. it was good on paper, not so much in reality, like most of russia's military tech
@@matrick5155 The problem, that Lazerpig did not address, was to produce the tank up to paper specs would have meant far fewer reaching battle. Removing the numerical superiority would remove much of the value of having the T34 in the first place.
@@matrick5155 LazerPig doesnt know anything about tanks lmao
@@quan-uo5ws Knew enough to recognize t34's qualities.
Yes, as the designers considered how the crew would escape when the tank was hit and gave each one their own escape hatch
That is the scariest part of the Pz III. When the hatches on the sides between the tracks were eliminated, the driver and radio operator had to use the turret. Did the Pz III have usable escape hatches in the floor. At least the Pz IV had a dedicated hatch for each crewman.
@@josephwalukonis9934 They normally used the turret hatches, but Pz IIIs driver and radio op. could get out thru the transmission and brake service hatches in the front hull in an emergency.
The side hatches were deleted to simplify production because the crews didn't use them. The proliferation of hatches and other openings in early panzers is a typical example of their over engineering things.
It's probably the other way around in the J version. In the J version they FIRST decided to abandon electrical turret traverse due to copper shortages. As a consequence they had hollow spaces which they used for extra fuel tanks. The extra fuel tanks were not really needed because they had massive fuel shortages by that time.
Let me clear up a misconception, the Pz IV J had manual or engine driven turret traverse. When the engine was on, you had power traverse, on all Pz IV. However the J lost the auxiliary power unit that would provide electric power traverse with the engine switched off. Instead a larger petrol tank was fitted. Also most J used mesh and not plates as hull Schürzen. This protected from infantry shaped charge weapons, but not from anti tank rifles.
Often wondered why they added extra fuel capacity when fuel was in known short supply. Extra ammunition would have been more useful. I wonder if the additional space was inaccessible to the crews negating such an option.
@@Tconcept , probably because they lost air superiority and would need to offload the tanks from the trains further away.
You give this tank the credit it deserves. At the beginning of the war, it had some revolutionary features; a radio with a dedicated operator, a crew of five which meant that the workload among the crew was so well devided that the tank as a whole could operate very fast during a fight, a turret ring that allowed for the installment of a gun large enough to keep the tank relevant during the war. The same thing could be said of the Pantzer III, except that it was too small for the installment of a heavy gun. However, when it comes to head to head fights with other tanks, in my opinion the Pantzer IV was a very good tank but never the best tank during the war. My favourite? the King tiger, although this tank never had a chance to mature and become reliable.
The King Tiger didn't have enough presence in the war. Only a couple of hundreds was ever produced. On the other hand, the Tiger I, was produced in thousands, and it became the most feared tank for allied tankers.
@@Nakraal Hi, Wikipedia says: 1.347 Tiger 1 tanks produced. And 492 Tiger 2 tanks produced. So both were too few to make a real difference. And both were equally feared by the Allies, I guess. Now I am certainly not saying that the Tiger 2 was the best tank of the war. But I think it had the potential to become the best if the Germans would have had the time and the means to improve it (more reliable, more powerful engine, better steel for armour, tungsten for grenades, factories that were not destroyed, enough spare parts that could be transported to the front lines, enough fuel...).
@@retepeyahaled2961 Indeed. I was wrong. I was sure it was like 2.5K + produced. Yes the numerical difference isn't that much to justify the title in itself, but in my opinion the Tiger made a bigger impression than the Koenigstiger. It was operational in all fronts since late 1942, when the KT was in the late war - which also means it was fighting when the Wehrmacht was still in the offensive. It fought in all fronts. To be frank I mostly know the KT in the Hungarian coup of Budapest. Just an opinion ofc.
The problem is that tank on tank duels were very rare
The skirt armor often applied around the turret in the later versions also helped it to look a bit more like a Tiger, and thus made it scarier to face. But I'm not sure if this was good or bad from the crew's perspective!
..yes, but there was a large exit side door...
yea the first spaced armor models helped with lower caliber protection.
@@snoopstp4189 Yup...the Soviet's affection for the 14.5mm AT Weapons (mainly the PTRS-41) made the skirting a _must have._
@@ironwolfF1 Yeah, I've heard that (about the anti-tank rifles) and believe what all you guys say. I know the skirt armor helped. But what I meant to say is that I wondered if it was good to look like a Tiger.
@@polarvortex3294 Well... Scare the enemy, for example.
I'm a personal fan of the H model with skirting on the sides and the turret.
The Panzer IV was the draught horse and the basis of the German tank forces throughout the war. Due to its large number of units, versatility and flexibility, it was the best tank of the Wehrmacht. When it comes to the best equipment and pure combat power, the Panther was the best German tank. It combined all the positive characteristics of the other tank models and is therefore also called the first modern tank in the Second World War.
+1
Panther was a step backwards in some regards. More difficult to maintain/repair being one example. It took some work to make the Panther reliable but by the end of the war, it was a great product.
It could have been a great tank had the germans had intact industries and more time to iron out the bugs.@@RustyShackleford
I fell in love with the ausführung H
love the skirts and the long 7.5 cannon
Love the Panzer IV J model
The fact that they kept producing them shows it was an effective vehicle. Mark 4s and Tigers could engage at a 3/4 view (skewed to one side). This would make the flat armor sloped at 45 degrees horizontally.
I haven't seen anyone mention this
Angled armour stops being angled in circumstances like;
Going down a hill, or any terrain reduces angled armour's abilities to deflect.
Especially if the anti tank fire is coming from a raised position
Yep, German news reels from the Eastern war often show Panzers firing over their front corners for the reason you state.
Absolutely fact. Read “Panzer Gunner” by Bruno Friesen, he served as a gunner in Mark 4s and later the Jagdpanzer 4. Excellent biography with lots of detailed info on how they fought their tanks. He goes into great detail about angling the Mark 4.
I don’t think why the reason they kept producing it was that it was an effective vehicle. Panzer IVs are notorious for being quite expensive and underwhelming in capabilities such as speed and reliability, along with worse armour compared to the M4 Sherman. I think the only reason why they kept producing them was because they didn’t have anything else to make until the Panther was made.
@@robertoroberto9798 They had many projects to improve the Panzer 4, like implementing torsion bar suspension, or giving it a sloped frontal armor.
The problem was those projects would require them to retool entire productions lines for that, and they needed the panzers yesterday, not tomorrow. So it was never implemented.
In my opinion the panzer IV is one of the bleu prints on how tanks should be build . as it had adaptability could room to upgrade and enhance its capabilities . Also the capability in making different versions and machines , from tank destroyer to mobile artilery to airdefence tanks etc . even spaced armour was added to the tank primitive forms but still . All things that where caried over in to the leopard 1 after the war and leopard 2 . highly adaptable and even fought in the 6 day war in 1967 and the 1973 Yom Kippur War,
Quite amazing for a tank designed in 1936 and still in action 40 years later .
absolutely correct !!!
Turret ring was to small to upgun to the 88.
@@scottgalbraith7461 You miss the point , the tank was build with upgrades in mind the panther used the same caliber gun as the panzer IV . they point is that the tank was versatile . and had plenty of room to upgrade . Tigers not so much they where what you see is what you get.
@@marcusfranconium3392 I think they put an L71 on it that made it capable anti- armor, but by then the Soviets were already developing the JS and ISUs, which were meant to counter anything the Germans had or would have.
@@scottgalbraith7461 from what ive heard that 7.5 was just as good if not better as anti-tank gun as the 88.
It has been said in some books about WW2 tanks that Germany might have been better off producing more Panzer IVs as opposed to using scarce resources on Tiger production.
To my mind, there is no “ best tank of the war” but there is the best tank for Germany in the war, the best tank for Russia, the best tank for the USA ect ect because each country had different parameters that they needed their tank to for fill. Early in the war Germany was on the offensive but at the end of the was they were on the defensive. Therefore basically two different design parameters are needed.
A great point. The US had a heavy tank design, the M6. However, fewer could be transported in a Liberty ship sending it overseas. US designers also had to take into account the size of any tank for transport on rail to the port.
Yes, which makes you wonder why the Germans wasted their time building the Tiger Ausf B, which was not a defensive weapon.
This is the first time I have heard someone suggest that the Firefly was the best tank of the war...
me too
All tanks have pros and cons. In the case of the Germans it was all about a numbers game. The Americans and Russians overwhelmed them with armor.
No
It's literally reverse, but the German strength over quantity doomed them
No..with airpower and mass artillery. The western allies had killing enemy tanks without risking your own tanks down pretty good by 1943, and even the Russians figured it out. Name a great American/British vs German tank battle? Tanks were for spearheads after defensive lines had been broken and infantry support. The battle of the bulge the Germans got stopped and destroyed mostly by arty and planes. Name a major tank battle since ww2 that the side that controls the air, lost?
@@theodoresmith5272
Der Deutsche Vorstoß wurde durch Treibstoffmangel gestoppt !
Methinks, if you unwittingly pick a fight with practically the entire world, you’ll reap an insurmountable deluge
Current US foreign policy unavailable for comment..
Excellent video
I would say the Panzer battles with the M4 for the title of "best tank of the war." Both have a good balance regarding mobility, protection and firepower and combine it with serviceability and firepower. Later German models like the Tiger and Panther -- though better protected with more lethal firepower -- were mechanically unreliable and not designed for easy maintenance as were the Panzer III and Panzer IV. It has always surprised me how the Germans lost ground rather than gained ground in the areas of maintenance and reliability with their newer tanks. Perhaps this occurred because the Tigers and Panthers were introduced during wartime when there would've been pressure to introduce these weapons ASAP rather than allowing them more development time which might worked some of the bugs out of these designs.
It would be better if there is information about how much did it cost and how fast or easy it is to produce compared with other types of tank.
After watching this I feel that if the Germans could have taken the extra step of redesigning the chassis to have slopping armor given this tanks dependability, they would have had a winner that would have been easier to mass produce at less cost and materiel than the bigger tanks to come.
They tried. Didn't work
The problem when they wanted to try that is that the suspension was already maxed out.
@@kaineuhauser9353 it did work but the conversion took too long and shifting the factory production slowed output. Just when they were ordered to max out production numbers.
I do think the Panzer UV was a great tank. It was the perfect size and had the best armament for its type of tank. It was great for supporting infantry, which was the main purpose of a tank. It was the lead vehicle in the Blitzkrieg.
By other videos admission, the Stug 3 was the best overall use of armor and bang for the buck/mark🏋🏼
Very underrated tank It’s not as sexy as a Tiger or Panther but was one of the most resilient armored platforms. The Panzer III as most know was supposed to be the main anti-tank tank while the Panzer IV’s primary role was infantry support with it’s short barreled 75 The Panzer III quickly became outgunned and out armored. Ironically the Panzer IV’s platform turned out to be an good baseline that was easily improved upon, upgraded and retrofitted. It was more reliable overall than even the later model Mark V & VI Panzers It’s gun and armor were improved enough that it still have decent survivability and kill capability until the end of the war.
The Panzer IV was still expensive, complicate and too precision grounded, if you will, in its production T-34’s were great tanks but tolerances were loose and craftsmanship wasn’t a hallmark of it during production Like most German products, the Panzer were made with great care, strict tolerances, and were overly complicated and expensive. Precision was aimed for, but when production times and material concerns mattered, this hindered tank production. For all the excellence in German engineering they never settled for a “good enough” design, lightened up on tolerances ir understood the benefits of interchangeable part and simpler designs and solutions. A Panzer IV Is a beautifully crafted machine while T-34s could be rather crudely put together-this never really affected the lethality of it on the battlefield. You could argue it was less comfortable, didn’t have as good optics, and lacked the radios German tanked enjoyed that helped them tactically and technically, but while not as nice the T-34 was on par or better.
And quantity has a quality all it's own. -Joseph Stalin
@@chrishooge3442 Very true This is why the Germans started the E series tanks toward the end of the war. It was supposed to be a family of various sized tanks that shared parts which would make production easier & faster. The Germans couldn’t back off from their engineering excellence with the Panthers & Tigers which were expensive & complicated. They would have been better off with building tanks “just good enough” to make it less complex & expensive. Of course, Russia also enjoyed a huge manpower advantage too & the excellence of the Wehrmacht’s soldiers proved to give them an edge technically & tactically.
The t-34 is way overrated
@Ž Š yes on both but it gets complicated largely based on gun and ammo, until the long-barreled 75 the T34 had the edge. The reality is they are pretty evenly matched even once you get to the later T34s. The Panzer IV was simply a better tank to operate in, the T34s were awful, small, cramped, and not efficient, but when you outnumber the enemy 10 to one or more you can lose a few.
@Ž Š crew layout, ammo storage, commanders view when closed up, and very poor communication both in the tank and to other tanks. The T34 was really a poor design from an operational view, and that is not compensated for by armor, mobility, or gun size.
Great video, very informative / stands out compared to most other similar videos out there!
I think the Sherman M4A3E8 or Easy 8 was the best tank of the war. It had armour that was adequate. It had a gun that was slightly less powerful but more accurate and with better ergonomics than the Firefly. It had wet ammunition storage to reduce fires. But mostly it had thousands of other Shermans around it in an organization (US Army) that understood combined arms warfare.
I would say T-34/85 was the best medium, but the Easy 8 was good and not that far behind.
Their ( like in other country in the world) knowledge in arms warfare was completely shattered in 01/09/1939 when the German Army introduced the concept of "Blitzkrieg" with doctrines that changed conventional the Battlefield Forever.
The German doctrine of Infantry to support Armor prove to be right one,while the brittish in 1945 were still using Armor to support infantry despite almost 6 years of seing the practical results of 2 completely different "ideas"(doctrines).
Like the brittish the American forces all guns blazing Attitude was proven a very stupid one,what they lacked in "ingenuity" was supported by their overwhelming numbers in man and material,nothing else.
@@jpmtlhead39 Although really, all the belligerents in the world had their armor theorists, it's just that Germany was the only country where they had the power to implement their ideas (and even with the Germans, the original panzer divisions were too tank-heavy, so they're weren't doing things perfectly right). Other theorists (DeGaulle, Liddell-Hart, and Tukhachevsky) were not in influential roles, and in one case (Tukhachevsky) *dead* by the war's start.
Interestingly enough, the French have been usually criticized for spreading their armor out among infantry divisions instead of concentrating them in armored divisisons, but by the en of WWII everyone was back to reinforcing infantry divisions with armor support (from Stugs to TDs to SUs) as the best way to stiffen infantry divisions against armored attack. As David Glantz notes, a key weakness of German infantry divisions by 1944 s that they had too-few Pak40 guns, and even fewer SPG units to support infantry, while the rest of their anti-tank component consisted of barely useful 37 mm and 50 mm AT guns that struggled to penetrate even the side armor of a T-34.
@@stewartmillen7708 by mid's 1944 German infantry divisions were relying more in AT Weapons like the Panzerfaust than the Spg or Pak 40 Specialy on the eastern front.
They realize that didin't have enough "big guns" to face the Overwhelming allied Armor,so they Start to produce and rush millions of Panzerfaust to the front.
With the Stug's the Panzerfaust proved to be a very good powerfull AT Weapon.
@@jpmtlhead39 - Um, no. Bewegenskrieg was not a new idea. Germany always planned for fast, maneuver campaigns against unprepared enemies, and WWII was no exception. It worked, until the enemy figured out defense in depth. After 1942, Germany never succeeded attacking a prepared enemy, while the Allies did quite well against German defenses when there was room to maneuver.
From a stratetig standpoint the IV probably was the best on the german side, easy to manufacture, reliable, easy to operate, good punch against most opponents (tank on tank engagements were rarer than you might think), easy in maintenance and durable and plenty of well trained and experienced crew to operate them ... especially the maintenance part of operating tanks is greatly undervalued, most modern amour is specifically designed to be easy to maintain for a very good reason.
Also on the note of sloped armour: it has its benefits for sure, but also serious drawbacks, mainly the loss of interior volume and maintainability as well as sharper angled connection between the plates (like the upper front/lower front on a t-34), which are huge weakpoints if not welded especially well. A lesson the sovjets learned with early t-34 models the hard way. The germans understood sloped armour, but considered it not worth the drawbacks ... and in the decades after ww2 almost every new tank followed the german design of Panther/Tiger2 to only have significant slopes on the front, but dropped having sloped armour all around.
A tanks value most often is not in the numbers like penetration power, speed or armour protection alone ... factors like manufacture, maintenance, usability, how much training crews need to operate the vehicle efficiently (enough), spare part situation, doctrine, supply situation and much more is also part of the equation of what makes a tank "good" ... good is a relative term, it is a purpose built killing machine after all and it is best to never be in a situation where you have to use them
There's just something about a tiger 1 for me. Possibly the jagdpanther
Great video. The Panzer 4 was an outstanding tank. Durable, dependable, and a tank killer. I didn't know the Germans had resorted to a manual turret traverse late in the war. As you mentioned, it was a definite minus in the heat of battle. gb
For the first couple of years, it was mediocre. French 25mm and 32mm AT guns could penetrate it and the Pzw III. It wasn't until the Mark Special F2 version appeared that it perform against Char Bs and Matildas.
My favorite tank next to the sturmgeschutz series
The IV could’ve become the “German Sherman” if there were enough raw materials to increase production to 15K, possibly 20K.
However, the development of a heavy tank, the Tiger I,
was a must.
Only 1300 tigers were made on 2 year production run, they weren't that many. In same time span over 6000 panthers.
The IV was way better than a Sherman though
@@chaddabad Depends on the Versions of these Vehicles!
@@chaddabad Gun yes, rest never in a milion years. Never was never will be.
@@PT-rg2vo The Panther is the best tank of the war. Years ahead of its time in concept and design. It almost fills every role the PZ IV did in a better fashion.
I have a detailed plastic model with 303.
It has 8 track rollers.
Panzer 1V model G with skirting and long barrel.
Only one photo of this tank with crew shows up on Internet?
The Panzer IV has long been my favorite German WW2 tank. That being said, it was definitely not the best medium tank of the war, but it was very good. I believe the honor of best medium tank goes to the British modification of the Sherman, i.e. the Firefly. It had the advantages of ease/speed of production, combined with relatively easy/cost-effective maintenance, and it's gun was powerful enough that it had numerous witnessed kills of Tigers at distance.
The problem with Firefly though was too much gun for too little turret and the accuracy of the sabot ammo was dubious at best with the sabot rounds at greater than 300m.
The Churchill Crocodile was. Turret, MGs, FLAMETHROWER. Designed to overrun fortified infantry positions, it's the tank that allowed the breakthrough from the Beaches to Paris.
The best tank is the one you have at the time you need it
To answer your question, I think the best medium tank overall was the Sherman. It was well armored and could fill many roles. It was a very different tank, but US and German doctrine were very different. The fact that it was still seeing combat into the 70s with Israel is testament to how solid the design was
StuG III, the armored vehicle which was built in the greatest numbers in Germany, was on a Panzer III chasis. The StuG IV only had 1000 or so built. Saying the Sturmgeshuetz was built on a Panzer IV chasis is a bit misleading
I’m not a tank expert but always thought that the panther Mk 2 was the best tank. I served in the army for 35 years and was always terrified of being around tanks. I was once on a tank range where tanks were doing a live firing demonstration. During a lull in the firing I was next to a Challenger tank drinking a cup of tea. Unexpectedly to me the tank carried out a test fire and fired. I had no ear protection on and the the tank firing unexpectedly caused me to collapse on the floor with piercing pain in my ears. I am certain to this day, I lost some of my hearing due to this incident.
Panther II? Unless there’s a vehicle I don’t know about, the Panther II never went into production.
He might be talking about the Leopard 2
Apologies, As I said I’m not a tank expert but I was referring to the Panther tank which was to counter the T34. But did not know that the MK2 Panther didn’t go into production. I always thought that the Panther when it came out had problems so they developed the MK2….but I guess that I was mistaken. Anyway thanks for the correction.
@@rockyrowlands3652 you might be talking the different models. There was the prototype model and than the Ausf D. was the first production model. then the Ausf. A and then the Ausf G. Each model making improvements on the design or simplifying the design to increase production speed.. There was a Panther II in the works but was never produced.
Bro, i dont think there is a panther mk 2, germany does not use mk to designate their designs, they use numbers, letters and special designations
Closest i could think of a panther mk 2 is probably the panther II that never went to production
I wish their was a video assessing the doctrines, strategies, command, and tactics of armored units in the various armies.
Obviously, it is not just the tool the makes it effective.
How they were used is more important, IMO.
The technology of the Panzer V (Panther) combined with the reliability of the Panzer IV would have been the best Tank of WWII !
at 7.00...German engineers knew about sloped armor. They chose crew space and ergonomics in favor of the heavy slope armor(panzer 4 had sloped armor) seen on the T-34. The heavily sloped armor on the T-34 didnt do anything but make the tank a death trap. It was way to cramped and hard to escape. The armor didnt protect it either as battle reports show that the germans took them out day one, even with 20mm guns that shouldnt even scratch it on paper, but it did. So yea, lots of repeated myths regarding these tanks.
Good video!
Thanks Jane glad you enjoyed it!
I have say there are some very excellent engineering comments and debate here in the following comments. Great attention to detail.
The IV was the best tank the Germans had, it's fire power was adequate. It's mechanical reliability was good, and it ease of mantinance and repair made it the most useful tank they had. They say 1 tiger used up as much resources and labor as 3 Pz VIs, they would have done better with the IV than the VI.
For the first couple of years of the war, it was mediocre. French 25mm and 32mm AT guns could penetrate it and the Pzw III. It wasn't until the Mark Special F2 version appeared that it perform against Char Bs and Matildas.
With tanks it is all about finding the sweet spot. Thick armour but not so heavy that it uses too much fuel and gets bogged down. Too much weight also means that moving parts wear much sooner. The Tiger’s 88mm gun was impressive but it required a heavy vehicle. The Panzer IV’s 75mm gun was a better compromise. In short, the IV came close to that sweet spot.
Panzers IV was very well designed ergonomically. Troops were familiar with them and understood the maintenance routines and fighting practices. Logistically, support was well established. The fact that designers in 1944 intended to upgrade Panzer IV G/H even further, clearly means it was not obsolete by the end of the war. According to Hillary Doyle, there were plans to give it sloped and thicker frontal armour in a minor hull redesign. In addition to upgraded engine, gun, new suspension and wide tracks. Only war time shortages meant that the resources were diverted to the newer problem child Panther. Had these improvements been completed earlier in the war, perhaps things would have turned out differently with regards to needing both Panther and Tiger II.
As for the best tank of the war. That has to be Centurion, which was only deployed at the very very end of the conflict. But it was designed during the war as a response to heavier enemy tanks, to include the T34. Centurion was such a giant leap forward that it rewrote all the books and stands a very good chance of being the best, most influential tank of all time.
😂😂.the centurion did not shoot a shell in the war ,come after conflict finnished .Based on your best tank logic, I could add the ST 3 as well as the winner that saw no action at all.
British, as usual,tried to accommodate what they did not accomplish at all :They never produced a descent tank during the entire war ,the commet was the closest they could do and again too little too late to do any important impression.
Most British victories and armor advances were made using the American made M4 s many variants were the most numerous tanks used by all British and Commonwealth forces .
Get a grip on reality facts .
@@erwinsell184 The Centurion was the first of the modern MBTs. It caused a revolution in all subsequent designs. It was created as a consequence of lessons learned during WWII. From the nation who invented the tank in the first place.
BTW, much of the American WWII tank designs were in response to requested specification of orders, placed with US companies. Particularly the joint projects M3 and M4.
@@erwinsell184 Never saw action in WW2;doesn't count.
We shall never know but I think that had the US built the Pershing M26 in 42 or early 43 in massive numbers it would have been the top tank just like the Mustang plane with a US frame and RR engine produced again in massive numbers. Quality yes but quantity!!
The Panzer IV had a wide turret, but lacked headroom, and the loader's position was cramped compared to its peers. Moreover, compared to the Sherman and the T-34, it as the least upgradable by far.
Agree, well made, adaptable and ergonomic (as far as a WW2 tank can be)
With the longer 7.5cm rifle, it was very cramped inside, still very effective in combat. Maintenance was a nightmare for the poor saps that did the recovery, having to, in certain cases remove mayor components in order to reach drivetrain assemblies; but that was a very common problem across the board to all nations involved in the war, with some stellar exceptions
It probably wasnt the best, but the most reliable, versatile and upgradeable Tank from WW2. Over 14 years of improvements and upgrades it was still a competitve enemy to be recon with
It was not even close to being the most reliable
@@josh05683 excuse me which one are you bitching about.
I think that the Sherman was the best in its role as an attack tank. The Sherman had the highest crew survivability, best ergonomics and crew vision and its 75 mm gun could achieve the highest rate of canon fire. The secondary machine guns were excellent and the tank was not that slow. It could be very easily repaired and maintained making it logistically excellent. The second best tank was in my opinion, the Tiger, because you really didn’t need a lot of them to make a big impact, just look at Prokarovka.
Sherman was the best in terms of reliability but I wouldn't want to be in one. Lots were destroyed in France and even in Russia under lend lease. Not sure what your source is on survivability when hit since they had a rep of brewing up.
@@zirconsalazar7459 The notoriety of the Sherman to be flammable only applied to British Sherman’s because they tended to pack their Sherman’s with as much ammunition as possible, especially with the firefly. This didn’t apply to American ones, especially later models since they had wet ammunition storage.
@@uraigroves7898 British ones did because we put to much ammo in them
@@zirconsalazar7459 Exactly, the USA crew call Shermans "The Dead Box" to visibility from long range target, best the german got, LONG RANGE Hit/rate.
@@zirconsalazar7459 They might have had high flammability, but they were survivable because of spring loaded hatches.
I wonder what would have changed if they'd just made only Panzer 4's throughout the war instead of spending resources on all the other tanks. Germany sometimes appeared to have ADD when it came to their military equipment.
I don't know if it was the best tank of the war, but it definitely is vastly underrated in all these tank videos, with barely a mention in most. It also did not get credit for a LOT of its kills, because allies were especially eager to attribute a loss to the Tiger, which it resembled, but which was present in numbers WAY to small to have been in all the places it was claimed to be.
Correction? I think the Stug, or Sturmgeshutzen (sp?) was based on the Panzer 3 chassis, not the 4. I could be wrong.
There was a STuG IV.
Near the very end of the war the mk 3 chassis was phased out, and the mark 4 chassis was used for the stug manufacture.
Very nice video, with some small corrections indicated in the comments. Regarding the never ending discussion of which was the better tank of the war, in thing in two aspects: first, we could not, for the sake of precision, put together medium and heavy tanks, as their roles are different in the battlefield and, of course, if mishandled even the heaviest could be knocked out by mediuns, and, second, the cost and production time required is also different. Looking at the mediun tanks, perhaps the best of all were the Russian T34/85 first, and the british Sherman Firefly a close second. By sheer performance, the late PzKpFw IV would be the third in this rank. But as you've pointed out, it was a workhorse, a basic weapon, and this aspect and the proportional numbers in each army put it second, after the more powerful T34/85. By no way I think it could be superior to this adversary, quite the opposite. Anyway, to the end its optics, fire control and radio seems to be better than those of the late marks T34s. But the basic vehicle was markedly inferior at the war end, while still capable of fighting off its adversaries. Kind regards to the video maker and the commenters.
Nice video
Thanks for the support JE53SEN!
Question, why are all of the pictures and the video reversed?. And it wasn't the electrical system that was removed, it was the auxiliary motor for the turret transverse!.
It was a highly rated at the time and was produced for the whole war. It was up there.
the reality is different: the 1940 Panzer IV have nothing common with the post 1942 Panzer IV, close all was deeply improved...The 1940 Panzer IV was weakly armed and with unefficient armor
@@leneanderthalien Pz-IV C/D where purpose built for infantry support and got armored by Barbarossa and up-gunned the following year.
Pz-IV Armor was adequate all round armor on the hull , until 1942 .At this point the front hull had an 80mm driver plate 10o while the Turret remained at 50mm vertical front plates. The VK-1602 K LEOPARD design [pz II/III scale] on the other hand had hexagonal shaped turret walls are least 50mm thick at 25o vertical and 50o horizontal and [compounded angle from front POV = 54o] about 94mm vs 85mm gun.
I personally think it was the Sherman. Due to the slope, it's frontal armor was equivalent to a tiger. As a former tanker, I know how important crew comfort is, and Sherman was made for the crew. The early cannon was focused on infantry, but once the m4a3e8 came out, it was superior to t34 and panther. Hard hitting, good armor, could fire accurately on the move, fast, and easy to work on.
Hmm, the Sherman's armor wasn't as good as the Tigers (and you should see threads where I'm flamed by Tiger fans because I criticize spotty German armor quality). It is true that the softer hardness Sherman armor wouldn't crack and shatter like glass like German steel sometimes did, especially if hit multiple times, but it would resist penetration less (one of the reasons the Americans overestimated a bit the effectiveness of their guns against German armor was they used the same soft armor in gun testing too).
I take it you're talking about the Easy 8 Sherman? (The earlier Shermans had thinner armor). 63.5 mm on the upper hull, angled at 47 degrees, up to 108 mm on the transmission housing, with some rounding, and up to 89 mm on the mantlet (maybe some of that overlaying the 63.mm turret armor) with only a little rounding? Most of that surface save the transmission housing with be effectively like 90-100 mm after taking into account that most enemy rounds will overmatch the armor. For instance I calculate about 102 mm effective armor for the upper hull against 75 mm rounds and about 90 mm against 88 mm rounds.
Not terrible, not but better than the Tiger's armor (120 mm effective lower hull, ~105-110 on the small upper hull, 120 mm on the gun mantlet with 150 mm near the vision ports and 200 mm near the gun).
@@stewartmillen7708 well you are talking about a medium tank compared to a heavy tanks...
@@a.t6066 Yes, I know I was, just replying to the poster.
You could reverse the reasoning and phrase it this way though...the Tiger I was almost twice as heavy as either a Sherman "Easy 8" 76 mm or a T-34/85, but did not posses twice the armor protection. All that extra weight only gave an effective frontal armor protection of 110-120 mm on most of its frontal surfaces, save for the thick parts on the mantlet near the gun and near the vision port. Compare that c. 90-108 mm for the Sherman, 100 mm- 135 mm for the T-34/85* , based on resistance to a 75 mm round (it would fall some for the Sherman and more so for the T-34/85 if calculated vs an 88 mm round due to the additional overmatching).
So what? 20-25 % extra frontal armor protection for twice the weight? That doesn't sound like a bargain.
* - 135 mm is something like the T-34/85 ''s turret armor (90 mm high hardness cast) calculated at an impact at the 'average' angle; of course being rounded the actual angle can vary from 0 degrees upwards to 90. The estimate for that mean angle I've read for the T-34/85 is something like 40 degrees. The advantage of rounded surfaces is that while yes, there's always a chance for a near-orthogonal hit, in most cases the impact will hit at a significant angle. Rounded surfaces, especially circles or ellipses like the T-34/85, are "bouncy". In the T-34/85 the weak point actually had become the hull armor, which by 1944 was being badly overmatched. There was a project (T-34/85M) to up the hull armor to 65, or 75 mm, which looked very promising, yet the Soviets did not pursue it as they were unsatisfied with its resistance to the Panther's Kwk42 gun and the King Tiger's Kwk43 gun. This was a mistake, I feel because those guns were still relatively rare, and the most common gun the T-34/85 would ever face was the Pak40, and upping the hull armor to even 65 mm would have made a big difference against the Pak40 and all the German AFV that carried it. It was a rare example of the Russians making the perfect the enemy of the good enough.
I agree that the H version that had 3700 made were at a sweet spot concerning reliability, speed and armor and with the long barrel 75mm high Velocity Gun it had what it needed against the tanks it faced in theatre. Spare tank treads also acted as "extra armor". Fast enough and lighter than the Sherman (Sherman like a Mark 4.25 or the T-34 (which I see as like a Mark 4.50 with the 76.2 mm Gun and the 85 mm Gun like a "Mark 4.75" as a Panzer 5 was designed to outperform the T-34, which it did when RUNNING PROPERLY but there were reliability issues. So on that basis the Mark 4 Panzer was a more reliable TANK and more efficient regarding COST and USE of RESOURCES to build it.
Research by the German army proved that "Spare Tank Treads" used as additional Armour actually did more harm than if it had been left off.
The Sherman/ 75mm with it's production rate made it #1 . But of course I'm american. ✌️🇺🇲
tactics win battles. Logistics win wars
True that but logistics don't hurt the battlefield 👍
I think the United States had the most cost effective tank production line. However I think the Sherman was a bit of a crappy design. It was easy to spot, though it was one of the most reliable tanks. In terms of design German models were better, but also they had obviously very stupid designs too.
I believe the PZKW IV to be the best medium tank during WWII. Able to quickly transport to where needed, able to press the offense and exploit breakthroughs with an ample riding base for Panzer grenadiers to dismount and engage almost immediately. Defensively it possessed the ability to quickly move through various terrain to add cannon support to beleaguered infantry as well as place armored small arms steel wall protection. It could, when it had to engage the Soviet T34, the best tank of the war when need be.
Eh, it wasn’t that fast.
T-34 was not the best either
One of the best looking tanks ever!!
A box on top of another box is your choice? 🌚
@@friedyzostas9998 why is that a crime?
@@petesy03 It's not a crime, just a low set standard.
@@friedyzostas9998 well that’s your personal opinion and that means zero to me
Always been my favorite tank the Mark 4 H
I haven't seen anyone mention this
Angled armour stops being angled in circumstances like;
Going down a hill, or any terrain reduces angled armour's abilities to deflect.
Especially if the anti tank fire is coming from a raised position
Yeah taking advantage of the terrain and the infrastructure is definitely a tactic that's not mentioned much but I think is a very big part of deploying tanks in combat situations especially against other tanks . German manuals mentioned turning the Tiger 1 a bit left or right and this presents an angled surface instead of the vertical front plate making the armor more effective. Or in the Six Day war Isreali's were able to take advantage of the lower depression angles of the English tank guns they were using which enabled them to use sand dunes as cover
I’ve read that Tiger crews were trained to put their tank at 45 degrees to the enemy so that shots would strike the front and side plates at an angle.
Yes, but angled armor is angled as most of the time, while non-angled is non-angled most of the time.
@@stewartmillen7708 true that too either way angles must be kept in mind when deploying in combat it's tough being the brains especially when one little slip can result in death by extreme heat 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
@@SuperErikRoss Yeah, but it many cases in tanks you don't get a choice or chance of how to angle your tank. The way that AT defenses are designed, count yourself lucky if you just manage to have your *front armor* facing the enemy when the first shells start flying your way. To be able to angle your tank horizontally to fire correctly means you have to know where all your opponents are on the battlefield, which is rarely the case.
Starting out with well-angled armor means that some of your job is done for you by default (and I realize this only applies to WWII and early Cold War combat).
the pz4 was in every theatre that Germany fought and proved supreme as any enemy it fought with it's longer 75 gun. Yes the small tracks were it's biggest failure; they should have been doubled. After encounters with first T34's the hull should have been redesigned with sloped armour! To me the Skoda Werks should have made HETZERS earlier! the little t38 was redesigned to be a lighter mk4. PZ 1-3 construction plants should have been converted to 4 --6 right away after France. Germany had a problem with over engineering and no close to action repair centers. The recovered tanks all came back to production plants that really didn't have the space or time for repairs. Germany had another war plan failure - lack of oil. they should have made the oil fields a super priority to capture in 1941.
What I would like to know is….. Would a torsion bar suspension system have been an improvement over the leaf sprung suspension system in this tank. The leaf sprung system was not up to the task of supporting the 80mm frontal armour and the long barrelled 75mm gun - it caused the tank to sway and it was nick named Guerderian’s duck as a result. Or would a longer length have solved this issue.
The VK 30.01H was basically an up-armored Pz.IV with torsion bars.
Torsion bars are better than leaf springs, but are expensive and difficult to remove. It wasn't worth the effort to put it in the Pz.IV.
The design of the Pz.IV as a tank was obsolete by 1943 standards, but it's chassis was still useful as a tank hunter and a gun carrier.
The Germans decided to design a new, much better tank from scratch - the Panther - without interrupting Pz.IV production. It was the right decision.
You are correct!. But!, It ponders the question that if the manufactures just would have put heavier leaf springs could that solve the problem?. And designed a upper hull with angled plates (like the jagdpanzer IV)?
@@joebfnl1079 what you're proposing was the Panzer III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell, which had 3 bigger leaf spring bogies per side and the sloped front glacis of the Jagdpz IV. It was a missed opportunity. It would have enabled a smoother transition from parallel production lines of both Pz IV and Jagdpz IV hulls to a single production line of Jagdpz IV, finally phasing out the Pz IV, which already was very unsafe to fight in by 1945.
Torsion bar suspensions are very difficult to service in the field. That was a big problem with Panther tanks on the eastern front, if they broke down and could be recovered they had to be sent back to repair facilities to do major service-logistically very challenging. And a lot of them did break down early on.
It all comes down to the question that if you had to be in a tank, would you rather be in a Panzer mkIV, a Sherman or a T34 (accepting all their good and bad points)?
Is there a reason why the entire video is mirrored? I could understand individual clips being mirrored by accident but every single frame - including the profile-view drawings - is mirrored ...
May be for copyright avoidance reasons. Very common on UA-cam videos I have found!
It honestly was the best tank. It had better armor than a Sherman, a better gun than the T34-41, and reliability that could be counted on in all theaters of the war from scorching deserts to subzero Russian winters.
No it wasn’t, it’s reliability was not even close to being better than the Sherman
@@josh05683 Combat records show a different story. Nice try.
@@jebbroham1776 eh Id like to see these “combat records”
In 1977 I worked with a " survivor" of a PANZERKAMPFWAGON IV. He had a crooked spine and walked side to side. He was a driver but don't know if his career was ended by the Soviets or Allied tanks. He was just a teenager in 1945.
In comparing the Panzer IV with its archrival T-34.....I have seen a famous tanker review a T-34 tank... While he praized its very efficient sloped armor as well as its simplicity and the tougher suspension that gave it far more durability in battle unlike the overengineered german designs that were too complex and broke down most of the time..... He also was nonetheless appaled by the T-34's total unfriendliness for its own crew, actually saying "They completely forgot this tank should also have a crew inside... So they didn't quite bother designing actual place for them to sit inside😅 "
The interior of the T-34 was very cramped, all the crew were squeezed together, if an ennemy shell would eventually penetrate its armor it would most likely kill all its crew at once... Unlike german designs or better the american Sherman that had far more place inside and had escape hatches far easier to use.....
And in case of a fire, the T-34's front hatches were so tight as it was almost impossible to get out through them at all, for sure not in time to get out alive...
And the driver had a tough time, the tank was very hard and exhausting to drive, demanding a lot of brute force ....
So, while the T-34 was signifficantly more performant regarding its sloped armor efficiency and overall durability and reliability, as well as being far cheaper and easier to produce in huge numbers ( features that overall did prove overwhelming against the ennemy and won the war bringing its well deserved fame and glory)...... from the crew's point of view the Panzer IV was far better.... Far easier to use and far more survivable ... While harder to be maintained nonetheless
Honestly I think the Sherman was the best tank of the war, the Sherman could be used for different things like mine clearing, enemy defense clearing, anti tank if they put the 76mm cannon on it, and many other things, it had sloped armor, and it had the highest crew survival rate, although the Sherman did not have thick armor it was able to go faster, and they were produced in large numbers. While the panzer only had 1 role like all the tanks for Germany did, the armor was not sloped, but the panzer was way better than both the tiger tanks, both the tanks had a 75mm cannon, Sherman was able to go a bit faster and the panzer had better optics than the Sherman. So I'll say they were both good just the Sherman had more roles than the panzer and there were way more Shermans tanks produced than the panzer. The panzer had stronger armor than the Sherman.
The IV chassis hardly changed during the war, but the bodies were developed through the WWII.
it was easy to maintain as opposed to the later "heavier" tanks that were a technological nightmare
Not a tank, but an AFV nonetheless... I like the StuG III series.
Totally agree tremendous peace of kit
Crew compliment!
Amazing but it was the only true advantage the IV ever really enjoyed over its competitors.
Run of the mill speed, range nothing to write home about, off road mobility barely adequate, less than average armor, but 5 men properly placed and equipped meant all the difference.
The panzer IV F2 was actually the first long 75 mm version of the tank, not the G.
The F2 was redesignated as the G by a Fuhrer order in June of 1942.
@@manilajohn0182 doesn’t change the fact that the first nomenclature of the long 75 was the F2. Nor does it change the fact that before the order, the F2 had a single chamber bell muzzle brake while the G had a “standard” full round two chambered muzzle brake which If I’m not mistaken was the same muzzle brake incorporated on the stug III G.
@@mrpaws7496 Oh, you're right without doubt- and I do believe that you're correct that the G had a two- baffle muzzle brake while the F2 had only one. I was only pointing out that the two vehicles are essentially one and the same, and that the differences between the two are minimal.
Good clip. Question is: if Tigers and Panthers was to expensive how Germans should design tank to replace Mark 4? Maybe they should create mark 4 next generation? Add slope armor, make it a little bigger with better gun? Create own version of Sherman Firefly or T-44? Sorry for my English :)
People often forget that this little guy and stug 3 did most of the job and did it quite done well, comparing to their big cat brothers.
yes but they were 8 Panzr IV built for every Tiger 1 tank. So you should expect to see more kill from Panzer IV.
@@jacobjonm0511 That is the point why Panzer 4 is still better, u just produce more tanks that are still dangerous to enemy, reliable as a ak-47 on battlefield and that’s th way Usa and Ussr won the war, just producing T-34 and M4.
@@slq-16-i-rt31 Nah, US and USSR won the war because they could just produce more rather than explocity because of T-34 or Sberman.
Germans had to produce heavy tanks as they didn't have any answer for Russian KVs and IS tanks. Tiger I kicked tremndeous asses and was a successful tank
@@jacobjonm0511 Bruh, kv was not a thing after 1942. And there were 250 is-1, is-2 came only at 1944 and was an assault tank, not AT. And both of them was not something invincible, 75 kwk/pak 40/42, 8.8, was more than enough to deal with them. 8.8 L/71 and 1.28 were extreme overpower. Most of soviet and us tank park consisted of shermans and -34s, so if enemy has super heavy strong tank u just bomb them, u don’t send weaker tanks to deal with. That’s why kingtiger/ferdinand/jagdtiger/jagdpanther were mostly useless waste of resources. And if again speak about proportions, there were 5500 panthers vs 8500 panzer 4, which is not even 1 to 2. But in proportion panther had much less effectiveness rate, nevertheless it was most powerful medium tank. And the reason simple, battlefield is not a tanks vs tanks, you need to keep balance and diverse your resources to win. It’s not a big deal to lose 3 panzer 4 if they got 3-5 T-34. But it’s really big deal to lose kingtiger, even if it had streak of 7-8 tanks.
@@slq-16-i-rt31 late panthers were the best tanks. They were almost as cheap as panzer iv and could take on both heavy and light tanks. Panzer iv reached its limitations by the end of the war.
German war production was continued to be plagued by multiple designs, rather than relaying on improvements in the manufacturer of the PZKW Mark 4 model.
Germany would have been much better off to have only produced Panzer IV's and not used valuable resources on the larger Panthers and Tigers.
could have still used the Panther alongside the Panzer IVs, similar to how the Allies used the 76mm Sherman/Firefly with the standard 75mm Sherman.
Despite its early drawbacks, the Panther was better than the Tiger in terms of logistics, given that the Allies didn't hamper more of the German's ability to produce and transport to the front. However, the Germans could have gone with the VK 30.01/2 line by Daimler-Benz, similar to the T-34 design with the Panther's 7.5 cm (3.0 in) KwK 42 L/70 gun
Germany would have been better off focusing on making Panthers due to how expensive the Panzer IV was.
Both the Panther and Pz IV had 80 mm frontal armor, and a 75mm gun, but the Panther was heavier by 20 tons and far more prone to malfunctions or bursting into engine fires just from moving. The Panther was also 8 times more expensive to make ( 6600 built). Later versions of Panther got 100mm armor. Pz IV had 25 tons and 8500 built.
The best tank of WWII was obviously the M4 Sherman.
I am dug in on this hill, and ready to die on it. FIGHT ME!!
May I join you in your fight?
@@nickellison2785 The more the merrier!
I want to join this as well!
@@robertoroberto9798 All true believers are welcome on this hill!
The best panzer was the Panzer VI Panther with sloped armour, larger tracks and a formidable 7,5 cm KwK 42 L/70.
Don’t confuse F and G versions :
- the Ausführung F1 was armed with the short 7,5 cm KwK L/24 ;
- the Ausf. F2 was equipped with the long 7,5 cm KwK L/43 with a round muzzle brake ;
- the Ausf. G received the better long 7,5 cm KwK L/48 with a square muzzle brake. The H and J models had the same gun.
With the Pak 40 75 mm long gun,it was enough to take any allied tank 1000 meters away.
Afterall the Pak 40 75 mm AT gun was the most Successfull AT gun of the war.
So,this gun on the Panzer IV was a perfect match.
If the german high command had decided to increase production on this much cheaper machine than the Panther and Tiger,combined with the Stug III capabilities,they probably would have made a crucial diference on the outcome of many major Battles.
Not enough to win the war,but who knows what could have managed to do if put on service in larger numbers.
Like in Normady,the Germans didint need the Panther or the Tiger to engage any allied tanks,the Panzer IV along with the Stug III were capable to deal with any allied armour without a problem at 1000 meters,and the allied tanks were not able to do that.
Instead of wasting Panthers and Tigers in Normady,and put them on the eastern front where they were much needed,with a Battlefield proper for their long range devastating guns..
very true. losing the air war was what really caused the germans to lose though, i think. had they won the battle of britain.....then d-day would have been impossible; and the royal navy would have been hamstrung, if not sunk by german air power. at the same time....the eastern front would have been much different with german air superiority;and....the convoys probably couldnt have made it to resupply the ruskies.
Panzer IVs were NOT cheaper than the Panther. Also, the long 75mm were not effective on Allied tanks at 1000m, Shermans had an armour thickness from the front of about 80mm and with angle, which is more than enough to protect against shells at that distance. The reason why the Germans never had Panthers or Tigers in Normandy was because they didn’t expect the Allies to attack there, and there were barely any of those tanks to begin with as most were sent to the Eastern Front.
I also forgot to mention that the French hedgerows made it almost impossible to engage enemies past 500-700m. Most battles or skirmishes during WWII weren’t Tank Vs. Tank like what the movies show, but more of Infantry Vs. Tank, so having a longer Anti-Tank cannon might have been a disadvantage due to the lower amount of HE filler able to be used in a shell.
@@robertoroberto9798 thats in Normandy.
On the East its only planes after planes and some low rolling hills.
The perfect geography for tanks and AT guns with long barrels,where they coul hit an Russian tank at 3 kms and more.
It happen many Times.
And dont forget that the Pak 40 75mm was the most Successfull AT gun of the war.
On the Eastern front they alone destroyed thousands upon thousands of Russian Armor.
@@robertoroberto9798 the Panzer IV was cheaper than the Panther .
And the 75mm Pak 40 could penetrate 97 mm of frontal armour at 1000 Meters,more than enough to Deal with any allied tank in the west.
At 500 Meters it could penetrate 120 mm of steel.
The high velocity of that 75 mm gun was Devastating.
Sherman, undoubtedly. Built & shipped in factories an Ocean away & still held their own against all comers. It also had the best crew survivability rates of any of the "tanks" in discussion as being the best of the war.
The Panzer IV was easily a better all-round tank than the panther or the tigers. My favourite WW2 tank, in fact; and if I were serving in one, I would have REALLY appreciated that escape hatch right next to my position.
Best looking for sure. Always been my favorite but all factors considered it always gets beat for ''best'' tank.
I was always wondering why German tanks such as this Panzer IV never used a Diesel engine?
It was a lot easier finding gasoline than diesel back then,you could fill up from any “ gas station “ when you’re on a “ road trip”
Diesel was dedicated to the kriegmarine which had priority on it. U boot for exemple, can only run on diesel engines. (sorry if my english is approximate)
Huge part of gasoline Germans used was synthetic from coal. Their resource of oil was so poor that creator of diesel tank could be highly misunderstood.
A lot of people feel the tiger was the best looking but the early 43 panzer iv variant with the stug 90 barrel was most appealing to me.
Balanced, later model had a good gun, mechanically reliable…
They were one of the least reliable German tanks during the WW2
I think the 1st long barrel version was the F.2.
With a globe shaped mussel break.
The next version with long barrel was the G. with the more familiar mussel break.
Next was H. with an even longer barrel
Then came the J. with war material saving measures
Surely best tank of WWII must go to the T34. So many innovative features including sloping armour, Christie suspension, reliable diesel engine, wide tracks giving great terrain capability and easy to mass produce.
It wasn’t reliable, sloped armor was not innovative at all, and the armor shattered frequently allowing it to be consistently destroyed by panzer IIIs
Pz IV - H, looks realy capeble and upgradeble......allso, nice looking👍
good tank in early to mid war , by late war it was out classed by T-34/85 and US Pershing tanks
Actually by the 1944 Sherman 76s too.
There were only 20 pershing in Europe in January 1945, the war was basically over, plus it was a heavy tank, of course it's going to out class the panzer IV medium tank, the t34/85 only really outclassed with the gun, same with m4 firefly
@Gogi 20,000 T-34s destroyed just by one weapon? Over a third of production? Almost certainly not.
(Hint: never rely on just German kill claims; everyone overclaimed, but the Germans especially so).
@@ipfreely679 M4 Shermans outclassed the Panzer IV in everything other than height, and by everything I do mean it.
German tanks were sexier but the Sherman has to be considered the best. It’s the only tank to fight in every single theater of war from southeast Asia to the Eastern Front. It was more reliable than anything Germany built and even it’s “under powered” 75mm gun could knock out a Panzer IV no problem. Yes, Shermans struggled against the Tigers and Panthers. So did the T-34s and people still mention the T-34s among the best. The 76mm Sherman could knock out anything built in decent numbers but a Tiger II through the front armor and was much more user friendly to the crew than the Firefly with the 17 pounder which barely fit.
Stug Life enters the chat...
BUT its NOT a TANK!!!