Sigurdur Gunnarsson
Iceland
Seltjarnarnes
flag msg tools
I guess the IVd has its uses in the game, but in my experience it often tends to be outperformed by the PzII because the PzII has blue firepower and uses less APs to shoot.The IVd has slightly better armour but only as good as the Pz38 though. I thought the PzIV was supposed to be better than those earlier tanks, although mostly limited to infantry support.
I wonder if the IVd is getting a slight shaft with its stats in the game?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russell InGA
United States
Johns Creek
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ISOisNo1 wrote:
I guess the IVd has its uses in the game, but in my experience it often tends to be outperformed by the PzII because the PzII has blue firepower and uses less APs to shoot.The IVd has slightly better armour but only as good as the Pz38 though. I thought the PzIV was supposed to be better than those earlier tanks, although mostly limited to infantry support.
I wonder if the IVd is getting a slight shaft with its stats in the game?


I don't know the game specifically but as you describe it, it sounds about right. The IV series were intended as infantry support tanks. The 75mm short barrel gun should be fairly effective against soft targets.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Nesbitt
Canada
Ajax
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Haven't played this game yet (grr..), but keep in mind that the earliest PzIV version was intended as a close support infantry tank. It's main gun was rather low velocity, and certainly less rate of fire than a PzI or PzII (which featured machine guns and cannons respectively).

The real advantage of the PzIV in the earliest models was the ability to get closer to the action without fear of being knocked out by infantry hand-held weapons, in particular the anti-tank rifle, which in the earliest years of the war, was still a threat at the closest distances (distances at which a close support tank would need to enter in order to be effective).

Later in the war you get that PzIV with the longer 75mm gun... and that's when it becomes an effective all-around tank, and not just an assault platform.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sigurdur Gunnarsson
Iceland
Seltjarnarnes
flag msg tools
But the PzIVd in the game has only 1 point better armour than the PzII and the same armour as the Pz38. I would have thought the IVd would have been a bit more capable, but I´m probably wrong...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ISOisNo1 wrote:
But the PzIVd in the game has only 1 point better armour than the PzII and the same armour as the Pz38. I would have thought the IVd would have been a bit more capable, but I´m probably wrong...
Not at first. It was progressively upgraded, but when it first appeared, it's purpose was simply to accompany infantry with a (relatively) big gun. It was only later that the need for a tank-killing tank (the Pz III's job at first) led to it being upgraded in all aspects.

And the Pz 38(t) was a damn good design for it's time, surprisingly so - which is why Germany continued to manufacture it - and it's therefore unfair to compare decent, but quite ordinary, tanks to it...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
uwe eickert
United States
Fremont
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, surprisingly, the PzIVd only had 34-44mm front armor vs 33-44mm for the PzII and 50-58mm for the Pz38t.

All were somewhat effective defensively against the AT rifles, which could not penetrate much over 32 mm. The 45mm AT gun was effective against both tanks though with a short range penetration of over 55mm! Remember, that these tanks were incredible for their time before 1941. The PzI only had 17-19mm of front armor!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Carlton
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The early Panzer IV's were pretty crap to be honest. They probably should have some kind of blue firepower in this game though - they did have an AP and an early shaped charge HEAT round. Whether these were available on the Eastern front in any quantity is another matter.

The Pz38t on the other hand is a pretty handy little beast. It had a better 37mm gun than the German Panzer IIIe and they did end up turning it into the brilliant Hetzer tank-destroyer later in the war.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Lockett
England
flag msg tools
The Panzer IVd had 30mm front armour and 20mm side armour. By the time of Russia the superstructure front had an extra spaced plate bolted in front but the hull and turret were still just the 3cm plate. The early 38t had 25mm front armour and 15mm side armour. Later versions had an extra 25mm rivetted to the front and 15mm rivetted to the sides of the hull. All faces of both tamks were very vulnerable to Russian AT rifles. Shurzen were designed to protect against AT Rifles, not bazookas, for this reason.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Lindholm
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
The Pz4 was a support tank, and in that role it had an advantage, and an important one at that, that the lighter Pz2/Pz38 lacked in that it had a reasonably powerful high-explosive shell. For the use against soft targets and of course anti-tank weapons. A greater range than an MG and a very much more efficient roundthan the 2-3.7cm against soft targets like MGs and AT guns, considered by the Panzerwaffe to be the main targets for the support tanks.

A large HE shell has the benefit of producing a significant amount of shrapnel over a large area, together with a blast effect depending upon the amount of explosives in the shell. A nice feature if one wants to destroy/suppress dug in weapons as well as exposed infantry in that a near miss can be quite effective as well.
The 2cm and 3.7cm guns if the lighter tanks need, of course, to hit the target closer than is necessary with a large HE shell. And with superquick/contact fuses a practical airburst effect can be achieved when firing into tree branches, With timed fuses, correctly timed of course ;-), the same airburst effect can be achieved against units not dug in in a treeline.

Later in the war this role was shouldered by the Pz3 Ausf.N, armed with the same 75mm L/24 gun and used for a period of time as close support for the Tiger battalions and for a longer period by the PAnzergrenadiere in the same role, that is knocking out heavier weapons.
And enemy infantry of course, if lacking more dangerous targets.

For the Pz4 to be crap, I disagree. It was a valuable infantry support vehicle, together with the StuG3 AusfB-D, without which the infantry AND OTHER TANKS would have had a much harder time attacking in the presence of enemy AT weapons due to the mlacking good HE rounds.

This isn't reflected in the game,unfortunately, since AT guns, according to the rules, are to be combated with armour piercing ammo and not HE from the frontal aspect. House rules can of course be used to rectify that somewhat ahistorical aspect, imho.

Regarding the presence of a HEAT round in 1941, I have no numbers for its availability although the StuG units, armed with the same gun, made good use of it fighting off T-34s on at least two occassions. The KPzGr 38(rot) was in quite widespread use though, and even considering it's less than impressive penetration (about 45mm at pointblank range if I remember correctly) it could combat the T-26 and BT tanks reasonably effectively.

Oh yes, the Pz4 fired smoke. A nice feature when one is attacking ;-)
And not possible with the 2cm and 3.7cm guns of the lighter Panzers.

And to answe rthe original question, in my opinion the Pz4 should be more efficient than the Pz2/3/38(t) in combating soft targets.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
General Electric wrote:
This isn't reflected in the game,unfortunately, since AT guns, according to the rules, are to be combated with armour piercing ammo and not HE from the frontal aspect. House rules can of course be used to rectify that somewhat ahistorical aspect, imho.

The rules say what....?
I'm currently waiting on delivery of my copy of this, and I see a house rule ready to be employed from the very first game!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Lindholm
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
Prodromoi wrote:
General Electric wrote:
This isn't reflected in the game,unfortunately, since AT guns, according to the rules, are to be combated with armour piercing ammo and not HE from the frontal aspect. House rules can of course be used to rectify that somewhat ahistorical aspect, imho.

The rules say what....?
I'm currently waiting on delivery of my copy of this, and I see a house rule ready to be employed from the very first game!



Basically what I wrote, ATGs to be combated from their frontal aspect with AP(armour piercing,blue) firepower. Combated from their flank aspect with HE, but it still kind of nullifies the importance of the Heavy Companies (Pz4) and Assault guns, i.e. those with the short 75mmL/24 gun.
As well as any infantry guns one would pull up in order to give direct fire support for an advance. Trucks are to be combated with AP as well, but that is an easy enough rule to change to HE/small arms (red firepower) instead. One might consider allowing both red and blue FP to combat trucks, but we have settled for half the red FP of any unit fighting a truck since they are easier to knock out with small arms/HE than with AP shot (since you actually have to HIT the ruddy thing ;-) )
Small arms do give an area effect akin to HE in this respect.
And trucks are fragile things >:-D

But I do agree with the first writer´s thoughts about the Pz2 being preferable to the Pz4short when using the rules. Which was not the case irl, naturally. A large HE shell is exactly that. And very useful in 1941, especially with the high trajectories of the guns, permitting them to lob shells over advancing tanks/infantry to quite respectable ranges, that is beyond the ranges of the Pz2/3/38(t).

Just my two cents.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
General Electric wrote:
Prodromoi wrote:
The rules say what....?



Basically what I wrote, ATGs to be combated ...

I think you may have misunderstood my remark since it's essentially a colloquial interpretation expressing disbelief or astonishment, not literally asking for explanation.

But thank you anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kristian Lindholm
Sweden
flag msg tools
mb
Prodromoi wrote:
General Electric wrote:
Prodromoi wrote:
The rules say what....?



Basically what I wrote, ATGs to be combated ...

I think you may have misunderstood my remark since it's essentially a colloquial interpretation expressing disbelief or astonishment, not literally asking for explanation.

But thank you anyway.


That I did, my apologies. But if I hadn't, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to write all those more or less meaningful things about the wonderful art of killing cardboard tokens ;-)
And, of course, continue to defend the existence of the Pz4.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Sure sounds like the IVD is badly underrated compared to the II. Although the IV was mounting a 'lower velocity' short 75mm gun, it still outpenetrated the 20mm gun on the II by a wide margin. Plus the 20mm HE round was pretty ineffective compared to the 75mm HE. In terms of armour, both were upgraded. However comparable versions would have 30-35mm front armour and 14.5mm elsewhere for the II vs. 50mm front and 20-30mm 'elsewhere' for the IV. The II was shortly afterwards relegated to a recon role, whereas the IV remained a main battle tank for Germany through to the end. As others have noted the Czech tank was considerably better than the II and the III was the 'designated' tank fighting tank for Germany at the time (the IV being considered a 'support' tank until the longer 75mm gun was mounted - although the roles had already started to change in the wake of the performance in France).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.