Does the German TC even have a MG-34? I don't recall seeing any mounted at the commander's cupola, excpet StuGs because they really needed it.

jeez you guys really have it against the panzer IV, cant you give it a little credit because shermans did get destroyed and they cant have all been destroyed by panthers and tigers. also there must be a reason the germans kept making them till march 1945 isnt there, i mean if they were that useless you'd think the germans would stop making them just like the panzer III was halted because it was redundant.

also i read some idiot on youtube say that shermans are an equivalent to the tiger I, me personally think thats ridiculus but what do you guys think?

The Sherman and the Mk-IV were essentially on a par. For most of the war (once it was fielded) the Sherman held a slight edge but I'd hardly consider the Mk-IV junk. Indeed the Mk-IV, T-34, and M-4 were all pretty close as far as that goes and which comes out best will often depend on the defintion of "best" and what factors are considered and what weights assigned.
Way to much difference to consider them equivalent. Nor did they fill equivalant places in their respective militaries.

thankyou Iwd at least someone doesnt think the panzer IV is a piece of junk and is on par with the sherman.

I am pretty hard pressed to remember when anyone said the Mark IV was innocuous, on this thread anyway. Mark IV was a decent tank, it just wasn't adequate for the German Army at the late war period to make up for their lack of numbers. The Germans, be it said, wanted to replace the Mark IV with the potent Mark V but production numbers never reached to their satisfaction. Which is not to say that the Mark IV wasn't a fearsome opponent... but it wasn't a tactical nightmare to kill like the Panther.

GTE, I suggest reading all seven pages of this thread and then commenting....

Late Model Mark 4's started having the AA MG 34 added in Normandy as German air protection basically disappeared..so tanks and the like began to have MG's added for local defence...so too you see more care taken for camouflage...for the same reasons.

The AA weapon was one of the co-ax weapons remounted on the coupla. The issue was 2 MG's per tank.

All US AFV mount either a .50 or .30 (mostly .50) machinegun for AA defense. Many US trucks and other vehicles also have either a .50 or .30 machinegun mounted for the same purpose. The British had mountings on their tanks for a BREN AA machinegun but this was rarely used. What all found out pretty quickly was that these light machineguns were of very marginal value for air defense. If anything they were far more a morale booster than a really effective means of defending a vehicle from air attack.
The US retained such guns on their tanks, and even added to them in many cases, because the crews found them to be highly effective weapons for ground fighing. A good tank crew would frequently use their .50 machinegun to perform reconnissance fire on likely enemy positions. Being out of the turret gave the crew better observation of results too. Also, the .50 was frequently dismounted and set up as a ground mount gun for defensive purposes when the AFV was halted for a period of time. The machinegun then formed a seperate security point to help protect the tank.
Another variant was crews mounting the .50 in place of the .30 coax machinegun. This was less common but done sometimes to give a tank more firepower but not having to use up main gun ammunition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

nah not the idlers, they different.

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

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

im sorry we got that topic a lonnnnnnnnng time ago.

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)

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

still crap, just looks pretty with its pictures.

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

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

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

__________________
News today, a man has fallen into a chocolate vat in the arnotts factory

In other news arnotts have anounced that there will be 50% more tim in your tim tams.
(p.s. only aussies will get this joke)