pz iv suspension
Artikel Terkait pz iv suspension
6 traits that make a great handling car
the better.Well-tuned suspensionIt’s no use having a great chassis only to have a poorly-tuned suspension
How to use the new off-road driving features in 2020 Toyota Hilux - Superflex suspension, Auto LSD, new A-TRC
on a straight road.Superflex suspensionThe other chassis upgrade is the new and improved leaf spring suspension
2020 BMW 320i vs 2020 Mercedes-Benz C200 - which is the ride and handling champ?
Even in the BMW 320i without M Sport Suspension, the ride is on the busy side.Although it isn’t
What is Airmatic suspension on the Mercedes-Benz C300?
already been to the showroom, and one of the features highlighted by the salesperson was the Airmatic suspension
Ratings - Honda CR-V's performance and ride comfort, high marks for engine performance
metres.Suspension of the Honda CR-V 1.5 TC-PThe ride is on the softer side as expected from an SUV and the suspension
What do the labels on your car’s windows mean?
multi-layered windshield, “III” for multi-layered windshield with special treatment, and “IV
Wooden you want a wooden Ford Ranger Raptor for your tough needs?
The doors, the hood, and the tailgate can be opened and even the suspension works!
BMW 330i vs Mercedes-Benz C300, you might be surprised what a RM 300k car doesn't have
BMW is on top their suspension game, balancing comfort and handling superbly.
Carmakers don't know how to tune suspension properly nowadays
A cars ride and handling are chiefly determined by two things, wheel size and also suspension tuning.
Pros and Cons: 2020 Toyota Vios GR-S – Superb suspension, lackluster powertrain
The Toyota Vios GR-S adds a few goodies like a reprogrammed CVT with 10 virtual ratios, sports-tuned suspension
Is torsion beam suspension in the 2019 Mazda 3 a step backwards?
types of suspensions used in a car.At first, we learnt that torsion beam sits at the bottom of the suspension
More details emerge of the 2021 Toyota Vios GR Sport - 10-speed CVT, sports suspension!
on what the spicy Vios will have: CVT with 10 virtual ratios Stabiliser bars as standard GR Sports suspension
Price drop for 2020 Mercedes-Benz C300, no more Airmatic, RM 2k less
Mercedes-Benz Malaysia has dropped Airmatic Suspension from the 2020 Mercedes-Benz C300 AMG Line.
Ratings Comparison: Proton X70 vs Honda CR-V vs Mazda CX-5 - Ride comfort
comparison of ride comfort between the Proton X70, Honda CR-V, and Mazda CX-5.All three cars have the same suspension
SUV vs Sedan - Which is more comfortable?
It’s just the law of physics.If the suspension is stiffened up to compensate the motion, ride quality
In Brief: 2019 Lexus RX 300 - Who needs air suspension?
Fernando Alonso samples new 2020 Toyota Hilux facelift
soon-to-be launched new 2020 Hilux will get a more powerful 2.8-litre turbodiesel as well as revised suspension
2020 Mercedes-Benz C300 AMG Line drops Airmatic suspension
Specifically, the Airmatic Suspension has been replaced by Sports Suspension, like the one in the C200
Stricter drunk driving Bill passed; License suspension up to 10 years
Pros and Cons: Love the 2020 Proton X50's comfortable suspension, hate the seats
The suspension soaks up bumps very nicely, smoothens out pockmarked roads quite well and generally serves
Review Post pz iv suspension
Suspension wise, the bogies from the Turán were dropped entirely and resembled the Pz IVs suspension instead, using smaller bogies, getting rid of that support roller at the front and the drivetrain was stolen right from the Pz IV with the transmission as well. https://t.co/wYzajnYhQi
Hornisse mixes final drive, sprocket, transmission... from Pz III & engine, suspension, roadwheels... from Pz IV https://t.co/rSNz7bBT8D
#OTD in 1935 the contract for the B.W. II Kp tank was signed. Unlike the B.W. I Kp, this tank used a torsion bar suspension. This project soured Krupp on torsion bars, which is why the company continued to favor leaf springs on the Pz IV. #tanks #History https://t.co/4nHNNhzkgK https://t.co/73C4QI6pfu
All tanks out of their boxes. Had to elevate the Tiger II and the Panther off the surface, since they use torsion bar suspension. PZ IV is perfectly positioned in the lower area too. https://t.co/EB6iOXTt89
I recently dreamt of a PZ.IV with a Panther's suspension. #Tanks
@IsekeaidRYukari Pz. IV suspension has 8 road wheels per side, does that count?
@MikeSaul11 @Medical_Int @WWIIpix Also had Pzkpfw III idler. More like a Pzkpfw III suspension with Pz IV road wheels. The exhaust set up and driver's compartment changed during production so there are early and late models.
@MilHiVisualized This might be too specific of a question and so not appealing to a wide audience but... Which track suspension system was the best? I heard there were different ones, torsion bar, etc. Were the Sherman's suspension better than the Pz IV? Leopard 2's vs Tigers'
@RealNatives All T-34 variants were heavier than a Pz.Kpfw.IV and lighter than the Panther. The weight had nothing to do with how much German tanks weighed, rather how much the engine and suspension could support.
@rgpoulussen 2 PZ IV's and what looks like 2 guys standing in front of a cart on the far right? Also looks like the suspension on the rear IV has collapsed?
Review Q&A pz iv suspension
As a historian, what WWII inaccuracies do you constantly hear people citing as facts that make you roll your eyes due to their ignorance?
I never roll my eyes, it’s rude. German Tanks used diesel fuel, US petrol. That’s why Shermans burned. American tanks used American invented Christie suspension. In fact, only the T-34 used it, and only because they didn’t have time to re-tool for the “M” variant, which would have been torsion bar, which is still used today. The tendency to refer to “a” Sherman tank, or “a” Pz IV. You see it in Quora questions. “Which would win “a” Sherman or “a” XXXXX. The fact is , there were 11 combat versions of Shermans. The same is true of most German tanks. The same is true of aircraft. “Which is better, a ___________or a ___________?” Same issue. (The red circle highlights the the fact that Hurricanes and Spitfires ,could, out turn a Bf-109 at altitude) The Spitfire and Bf-109 of 1940 are very different airplanes than those of 1944. And more than the mistakes that people make, because “ignorance” is not a crime. Not knowing describes most of us about one topic or another. But people who get their knowledge from mythumentaries on the Histrionics Channel, when their function is to sell ad space, and try to cram a 576 page book, on a topic like Sherman Tanks, into a 30 minute Mythumentary, should know that they are getting knowledge that is easy to get, I.e “common knowledge”, and reinforces people’s beliefs, already embedded inn people’s heads (,Everyone KNOWS German’s used diesel), makes people feel good “see, ,I ,knew that!!”. Controversy, telling people they are wrong, is bad for business. It’s the insistence of being correct despite evidence to the contrary. That is stupidity, not ignorance. ,If ,people even think for themselves, and do some research. But I already ,know ,the answer,. ,It said the same thing on the “I want to be spoon fed channel.” Want to know about Sherman tanks? This used to be a niche area of study, but heaven help me, the wargamer demand has brought the price for R.P. Hunnicutt books from $600-$800 each down to something anyone can afford. A dime a page. Interested in Bismarck? ,Bismarck Books,. (I’m researching why the Bismarck’s forward fire control radar failed. The explanations I have thus read are bull dung. I taught Radar in the Navy). There ,is, a source for knowledge that doesn’t require Wi+Fi, or a big box that plugs into the wall, They are called ,books. ,Military Books
Was the Panzer IV (F2 or H) a good tank against the Sherman M4A1 and T 34-85?
Yes, armorwise, all three tanks could be defeated by one of the others all within fighting range. If you compare the guns alone the 76 mm M1 gun on M4 Sherman ( the long barrels gun) and the 75 mm KWK 40 L48 was very evenly matched with a slight egde to the KWK 40. Only when the 76 mm M1 recieved HVAP M93 ammunition - very late in the war and very scarce. It did have superior penetration power. Both guns were known as very accurate. the 85 mm D5T lagged slightly behind the two other in penetration power, but had a better High Explosive round with better payload. 75 mm KWK had a better HE round than the 76 mm M1. The PZ IV had a better gun sight by quite some. The M4 had a roof mounted auxiliary gun sight and a vertically stabilised gun, meaning the gunner could lay on a target from behind a slope just showing turrets top and then very quickly service the target once the gun cleared the slope. Mobilitywise PZ IV began to show its age, as added armor on the front made it nose heavy and it was clear it had reached the end of its upgrade potential. M4 had improved its flotation a lot with the E8 suspension HVSS and wider tracks. Still the T-34/85 had the edge here in lower profile and point of gravity and larger roadwheels. Fightability aka sufficient room and outside view is tied between M4 and PZ IV. Both had good layout, was fairly roomy and could be vacated very quickly. T-34s were infamous for its cramped interior, tiresome handling and unreliability and the survivability for the crew. But there were so many T-34s and M4s showing up and not enough PZ IV to counter them. Rest is history.
Why were German WWII tank engines so bad?
The engines were fair to good (late-war examples had production issues, due to using slave labour and lack of alloying elements, but the designs were at least decent and usually good). The Panther had a specific issue that wasn’t with its engine but the installation: a watertight engine compartment, specified to ford rivers (since the Panther had become too heavy for many bridges) meant fuel and oil collected in the engine bay, leading to annoyingly frequent fires; the engine was good, it was the enclosure that was the problem. The automotive problems of German tanks were usually in the transmission and to an extent the suspension, where tanks had gained large amounts of weight (either in design, as with the Panther, or in service such as the Pz IV or derivatives like the Jagdpanzer IV). The Panther in particular had been design-engineered to be about the weight of a T-34 or Sherman, and its transmission sized to suit: but when it was uparmoured to be 25% heavier, the transmission - designed to be sufficient for the lower weight - was seriously overloaded. As a result, top gear was only usuable on flat roads in excellent conditions, and An oft-overlooked virtue of the M4 Sherman was the beautiful skew-cut gears of its gearbox and final drives, drawing on the experience and tooling of the US automotive and railway industry: light yet able to cope with extra weight, highly reliable, easy for the driver to operate, easy to repair or replace, and leaving the Panther needing new final drives before a Sherman needed its first oil change.
Do you agree with the statement that the Sherman Tank would have been a great tank in 1941 but was poor by 1943 and virtually obsolete by 1944-45? If not, why?
No, I do not agree. The M4 Sherman was one of the best tanks made in the war, proving to be reliable and effective on the battlefield, as well as easily transportable. This made the M4 Sherman to be one of the most upgraded tanks in the war, as well as one of the only two tanks models to have served on all fronts (East, West, North Africa and SE Asia/Pacific). 1941 Production of the M4 Sherman has just begun in October of that year. It was a good tank at the time of its debut. The tank have decent armor, putting it on par with the T-34 and noticeably better than the Pz IV. The engine is a radial aircraft engine (Continental R975), providing good power and reliability at the trade off of low low-end torque. The crew ergonomics were excellent compared to other tanks, with easily escapable hatches near each crew member. The only downside is the low velocity 75mm, but understandable due to US tank doctrine at the time. Early version of M4 Sherman, mounting 75mm gun and casted hull 1943 One of the most famous Sherman variants came out that year: the Sherman Firefly, mounting the fearsome 17-pounder. Although the crew ergonomics was worsened, the upgraded gun prepared the British to face the tougher German tanks once they landed after D-day, and reminded the Americans to also up-gun their Shermans to prepare for the final push towards Germany. The mobility remained good with the radial/multibank engines providing good power, as well as being very reliable. It was at this time the Shermans came up against the Japanese. The Sherman was practically the Tiger I of the Pacific, since the Japanese tanks have weak guns and lack strong AT weaponry. The 75mm was more than sufficient in dealing with Japanese tanks, and very effective in the role of infantry support. The armor also proved its worth against the Japanese. The easy transportability of the tank also meant it was easily shipped to the Pacific islands. Sherman Firefly 1944–1945 Numerous upgrades were implemented to the Sherman during the last two years of the war. Most notable is of course the long 76mm. This gave the M4 Sherman a much better chance against heavier tanks the Germans have, putting it on par with the 85mm on the T-34 and long 75mm on the Pz IV. There’s also variants with a 105mm howitzer, acting as dedicated infantry support tanks. The HVSS suspension was also added, giving the tank a much smoother ride, increased reliability, and easier to do maintenance on. The Ford GAA V8 was also started to be used, providing even more power with better low-end torque. Wet ammo racks were also introduced, reducing the risk of a ammunition detonation if penetrated. A special variant of the Sherman was also introduced: the M4A3E2, or “Sherman Jumbo”. By adding an extra inch of armor up front, it made the tank have more armor than the Tiger I, and similar to the Panther (if not better). Originally mounting the 75mm, some where upgraded in the frontlines to the 76mm, making it one of the deadliest tanks the US had at the time. Sherman Jumbo (you can spot the noticeably thicker front hull armor) up front, with 76mm gun. Two 76mm Shermans behind it. Crew ergonomics were kept up to standard with the larger turret, same with the reliability. This once again put it as one of the best tanks of the war, on par with the T-34/85 and Pz IV H, even the Panther. There’s also numerous special variants for different purposes. There’s one with a flamethrower, ones with a Duplex drive, ones with rocket tubes mounted on top, the mine-clearing “Hobart’s funnies”, countless engineering and recovery vehicles, self-propelled artillery, and a couple of tank destroyers mounting more effective AT guns. Post war The M4 Sherman’s service was far from over after WWII. It served in Korea and numerous countries afterwards as well. I think the post war truly shows the versatility and reliability of the Sherman. Yes, you can argue that the countries that use them just doesn’t have the ability to buy newer tanks. But the fact remains that these Shermans still served despite being decades obsolete, and remained competitive with the numerous upgrades. For example, some have fitted the turret from AMX-13s to M4 Shermans, the Israelis mounted a 105mm onto theirs, Even those that didn’t receive upgraded guns still were used in the frontlines in numerous conflicts after WWII. Sherman with a FL-10 turret from the AMX-13 Israeli M50/M51, with a 105mm gun Conclusion The M4 Sherman is truly one of the best tanks of the war, serving with distinction in the war it was meant to fight in, and many more afterwards, when it’s already too old to fight. It’s the perfect blend of armor, mobility, and firepower, as well as small nuances such as reliability, armor quality, crew ergonomics, transportability etc. The Sherman may be somewhat lacking in firepower early on, it was upgraded later on and could easily compete with late-war tanks. It only became obsolete with the introduction of the Main Battle Tanks. And even then, it refused to be reduced to a museum piece, and fight on whatever conflict it sees itself in. Hoped this helped :) M4 Sherman - Wikipedia M4 Sherman variants - Wikipedia Post–World War II Sherman tanks - Wikipedia M4 Sherman (Medium Tank, M4) Medium Tank Tracked Combat Vehicle - United States All images from Google
If a Panzer IV can penetrate a T-34, why was there a need for better tanks like Tiger and Panthers to be made?
It’s not about penetration. It is about that Pz. IV had reached its limits by ausf. H in 1943. Despite the flat 80mm thick frontal armor, the T-34’s sloped 45mm armor was much more effective. Also T-34 had a much better engine and top speed, while Maybach 120TRM was a weak 300hp petrol (compared to the T-34’s diesel 500hp) that would light up should it be hit. So, Panzer IV was poorly protected and quite slow. Its narrow tracks and primitive leaf spring suspension were prone to getting bogged down in the Russian ,rasputitsa ,and gave the crews a shaky ride. Ausf. J ditched the turret drive and used hand cranks instead, it also mounted the Panzer III transmission SSG 77.
What was the best tank of Germany in WW2 in terms of reliability, armor, and firepower?
Sticking to the question, the PzKW VI Tiger was probably the best combination of reliability, firepower and protection. German tanks didn’t really do well at firepower until mid-1942 when the first PzKW IVs with the 43-calibre (later 48-calibre) 75mm appeared; nor were they particularly well armoured at that point. The PzKW IV was a competent, solid, medium tank (and did do well on reliability) but it was rarely leading the pack for firepower or protection. (The last models ended up with the front hull thickened up to 80mm, but this had unwelcome effects on the suspension and running gear, as well as their mobility - still, not a bad showing given the longevity of the chassis; the PzKW IV Ausf A first appeared in 1937!). The PzKW V Panther started as a sensible concept (build a 30-ton medium tank to take on T-34s) that suffered, badly, from high-level meddling. The decision to greatly increase the frontal armour added a lot of weight, which had an effect on everything from cross-country mobility to bridging to reliability. The overburdened transmission (trying to drive a 48-ton tank with a gearbox designed for two-thirds of that) was a frequent point of failure, and the sealed engine compartment meant to enable deep wading (since Panthers were too heavy for many bridges) was so prone to fires in the accumulated grease, oil and gasoline that drivers had to stall the engine rather than shut it down, to reduce the risk of self-immolation. Worse, while the Panther had excellent firepower and impressive frontal armour, its side protection was weak; a serious problem in closer country like northwest Europe. It made a good tank destroyer on open steppe, but fared poorly elsewhere. The Tiger I, while suffering from a degree of excessive adulation, was undoubtedly very well armed with a 56-calibre 88mm gun, and well defended with around four inches of front armour and thick side protection too. Originally designed as a heavy breakthrough tank, in 1943 it was extremely effective in that role and it remained a dangerous opponent even when pushed on to the defensive and as Allied anti-tank firepower caught up with it. While Tigers were slow and expensive to produce, they were very well engineered (that cost, did bring some benefit) and unlike the Panther or the later Pz IVs, the vehicle had been designed from the outset as a 55-ton heavy tank; so it avoided the transmission issues of the Panther, and the suspension problems of the last, heavily-uparmoured Pz IVs.
What is the worst tank in World War II?
The T-28,Little brother of T-35 and have 6 crews inside. Designed to complement T-35 heavy tank. Even though it wasn't the worst tank ever,it was still outclassed by other tanks during WW2 During Operation Barbarossa,many of them was abandonded because of mechanical breakdowns It has six crews. Not flexible (Comparable to early Pz IV but Pz IVs can be upgraded) Outdated suspension and layout.
Why didn't the Germans use Panzer IV's in the Ardennes offensive of Dec. 1944, instead of the "thirsty", lumbering Tigers? What difference would that have made?
The germans didn’t have the luxury of choice of what to deploy. The Ardennes offensive was Hitlers last blow on the west front. They threw everything in it but the kitchen sink with the objective to split the allied forces in an isolated northern British sector and the southern American sector by hammering through Bastogne and cross the river Meuse and reach the coast. The hope was to break up the unity of the allied British and American forces and force the allied to the negotiation table and settle a peace treaty. Actually the PZ VI Ausf. B KönigsTiger was used in its intended role as a breakthrough tank, a role it seldom was allowed in the stages of the war. But everything was utilised. There were Panthers and STUG III and PZ IV present too. Actually a number of Panthers were modified to look a bit like an M10 tank destroyer and used by spearhead forces dressed up as American troops with a lot of captured American gear to sow confusion in the rather thinly spread American front in the area. Why do you consider the King Tiger to be slow and lumbering? It could actually do 41,5 km/h on roads and continue with sustained speed at 38 km/h on road. Off road the speed was between 12 and 24 km/h In comparison the fastest M4A3E8 Sherman with the Ford GAA V8 engine could do 48 km/h but the slowest of the M4 variants was the M4A4 with Chrysler A57 multi bank engine with only 32 km/h on road and 40 km/h in bursts. Considering the KingTiger was more than twice the weight of the M4, it wasn’t excactly a slouch. The PZ IV wasn’t any faster and the Tigers probably had better mobility off road because of the very wide tracks and Schachtellaufwerk on torsion bar Suspension. But the Tigere were gas guzzlers par excellence But in fact the behemoth was surprisingly mobile..
If I had a Panzer IV and a T-34 facing each other 1 mile apart who would win?
Which model of the Panzer IV? Which model of the T-34? There’s has been a total of 10 varaints of the Pz IV and 3 main variants of the T-34, with numerous sub-models with each variant. The Pz IV can be separated into 3 main catagories: those with the short-barrelled 75mm (Kwk 37), those with the long-barrelled 75mm (Kwk 40 L/43), and those with the longer-barrelled 75mm (Kwk 40 L/48). The first catogory are the early-war models, spanning from the A model to the F1. The second catogory are mid-war models, including the F2 and G model. The third catogory are late-War models, including the H and J models. The T-34 can also be categorised into 3 main variants: T-34/76 (armed with a 76mm gun), T-34/57 (armed with a 57mm gun), and the T-34/85 (armed with a 85mm gun). So essentially we have 9 potential battles, with each tank having 3 major variants (discounting any tank destroyer varaints). For simplicity’s sake, I'll match the tanks according to their respective time periods. Let’s take the “best” tank from each catogory: Pz IV: F1, G, and H T-34: /76 Model 1943, /57 Model 1943, /85 Model 1945 (The T-34 have a modernised varaints called the T-34/85M in 1969, but I’m not including it since it’s from the future) We’ll also make a couple of assumptions: Flat open ground, no cover, no undulations No mechanical failures and fuel shortages Both tanks crewed by equally skilled crews Have access to any ammunition available to them in their service time I also assumed both tanks will be moving since no tank commander is stupid enough to just sit in the open and get shot. So, here we go: Pz IV F1 vs T-34/76 Model 1943,: The best round for the short 75mm is a HEAT round capable of penetrating 115mm of armour at any range. This is more than enough to go through the angled 45mm-thick front plate of the T-34. Although, standard AP rounds will struggle to penetrate the T-34’s upper plate even at close range, unless shooting at its sides and rear. However, since this is a low-velocity gun, it makes landing shots at range difficult. On the other hand, most rounds on the T-34 can reliably penetrate the Pz IV, sometimes at excess of 1000m. So it really comes down to who can land the first shot, since both tanks have guns and rounds that can kill with one shot. Other thing to note is that the commander doubles as the loader on then T-34, which may affect his ability to command the tank. The Pz IV have a dedicated commander, reliving him from double duty. Also, the crew ergonomics of early T-34s are very poor. In addition to the commander also being the loader, the interior of the tank is very cramped (the turret wasn’t designed for such a big gun + Christie Suspension/sloped armor taking up space), poor visibility for all the crew, cruder optics compared to the Germans, leading to poor crew efficiency. Yes, if the crew is skilled and well-coordinated they can still do a lot of damage, but the T-34 is just not a user friendly tank, at least not compared to the Pz IV. The Pz IV also comes equipped with smoke discharges, which may come in handy in a matchup like this. Side note, the Pz IV have 50mm of frontal hull and turret armour. The T-34 have 45mm of angled frontal hull armour and ~60 mm of frontal turret armour. The Pz IV have a 300hp engine, weighs 22 tons, and a hp-weight ratio of 13.6 hp/ton. The T-34 have a 500hp engine, weighs around 26–27 tons, and a hp-weight ratio of 18.5 hp/ton. Plus the T-34 uses the Christie suspension (Pz IV uses torsion bar suspension), this gives the T-34 a mobility advantage. Conclusion: A rather even match, depends on who lands the first shot, which can go either way. The T-34 does have a slight advantage since it uses a more reliable gun and have better mobility. But the Pz IV is more user-friendly. Pz IV G vs T-34/57, ,Model 1943 The long-barrelled 75mm have APCR rounds that can penetrate the T-34 at +1000m range. The APCBC rounds will have to get a bit closer to penetrate the turret, but will still penetrate the hull at similar ranges. The 57mm on then T-34 also have APCR shells that can penetrate the Pz IV at +1000m. The APCBC will struggle a bit at those ranges, but became equally deadly at ~700m. A turret shot however will kill at +1000m, no matter the round. The Pz IV now have 80mm of frontal hull armour, but retains the 50mm of frontal turret armour. The T-34/57 have the same armour thickness as the T-34/76, since the former is the latter with a different gun. Same 300hp engine for the Pz IV, but slightly heavier with the bigger gun (23.5 tons), so it will be slightly slower than the F1 model. The T-34/57 still have similar weight as the /76 variant, so the T-34 will have better mobility. The commander is still doing double duty by the way, since it’s just a T-34/76 with a modified turret to fit the 57mm gun. The crew ergonomics and efficiency is still poor compared to the Pz IV, making it much harder to get the most out of the tank. Conclusion: Close match yet again. Will be dependent on who lands the first shot. Both tanks have equally deadly guns, but the T-34 retains its mobility advantage, same for the Pz IV being more user-friendly. Pz IV H vs T-34/85 Model 1945 The long(er) 75mm on the Pz IV penetrates very slightly more armour, so it can be treated as the same gun. The 85mm on the T-34 however, is a different story. I could only find stats for the older D-5T rather than the ZIS-S-53 gun for the Model 1945 version, but let’s assume it’s a bit higher then ZIS as it’s is an improved version of the D-5T. But the results are pretty similar to the previous match. Both guns are deadly at 1000m+ ranges, no matter the type of shell used. The H model retains the armour of the G model, with added side-skirts (not that it helped a lot). The T-34/85 have the same hull armour, but have thicker turret armour (new turret for the 85mm gun), which is 90mm thick at the front. The curved shape ,could, potentially bounce some shells, but the flat part in the middle is still rather weak. The Pz IV still uses the 300 hp engine, but now weighs 25 tons, and a hp-weight ratio of 12 hp/ton. The T-34 have (again) the 500 hp engine, and weighs 32 tons with the new gun, so a 15.6 hp/ton ratio. The T-34 now have a 3-man crew (since it got a bigger turret), with a separate commander. The crew ergonomics were also improved significantly, such as a cupola for the commander, a turret basket and just more space inside the tank in general. Conclusion: The closest match yet (IMO). Both tanks have equally deadly guns. It will come down to who lands the first shot. Overall conclusion: Both are very evenly matched tanks. Both can kill each other in typical engagement distances, so it comes down to who lands the first shot and judgement calls from the commander. The only clear advantage throughout the matchup is the better mobility of the T-34, and the user-friendly nature of the Pz IV (until the T-34/85 came around, which both are similar in terms of crew ergonomics). With this in mind, the T-34 can maneuver around the battlefield much easier and quicker, as well as having angled armor that can potentially bounce shots if the shell hits it at a weird angle. but the Pz IV can find the T-34 much faster and start shooting sooner, as well as potentially at a higher rate of fire than the T-34. The T-34/85 and the Pz IV H is, like I mentioned before, the closest match. Many of the crew problems were fixed thanks to the bigger turret, putting it on equal footing in terms of crew efficiency with the Pz IV. For those who think the T-34’s armor can bounce the Pz IV’s shots: yes I do recognize that the sloped armor on the T-34 double its thickness. But like I said, the shells and the sheer power of the 75mm on the Pz IV makes it somewhat irrelevant at typical engagement ranges. I have listed my references below and you can check out the 75mm’s penetration yourself. Yes it’s from Wiki, not the most reliable of sources, but its the best I can do. It’s only really if the shell hits the armor at a weird angle/ way beyond typical engagement ranges that the armor actually matters. Hoped this helped :) EDIT 1: Deleted comment on poor optics and turret traverse, thank you to ,Katya Aleksandra Hodgson EDIT 2: Added comment on crew ergonomics, and change my conclusions accordingly. Might as well list out all my sources: Panzer IV - Wikipedia 7.5 cm KwK 40 - Wikipedia 7.5 cm KwK 37 - Wikipedia T-34 - Wikipedia T-34 variants - Wikipedia 76 mm tank gun M1940 F-34 - Wikipedia 85 mm air defense gun M1939 (52-K) - Wikipedia 57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) - Wikipedia
Why did the Germans not adopt the sloped amour version of the Panzer 4?
As far as I am aware, there was some thought put into the idea, but the closest it came to reality was the Jagdpanzer IV. Jagdpanzer IV - Wikipedia If you imagine that without a hull mounted gun, making the hull a few inches lower, and a Pz IV turret on top then you’ve have a pretty good idea of what the Germans were proposing. There used to be an period illustration on the Achtung Panzer website, but that seems to be disappeared from the internet now. Unsurprisingly, World of Tanks has modelled it more or less - notice that the turret has remained the same. This, coupled with the fact, that they couldn’t make the armour a lot thicker without overloading the chassis, meant that the anticipated improvement in protection would be rather modest. The reason the idea was never pursued is the same as the reason the Pz IV was never fitted with torsion bar suspension, despite that also being seriously investigated. The loss of production whilst the factories retooled wasn’t considered worth it - especially considering the Panther was in the pipeline and promised to be a much superior vehicle. Further, it was not nearly as simple a redesign as it at first might seem. The Jagdpanzer IV was built on a new production line as a replacement for the StuG III, and as such the fact that the forward hull was significantly remodelled did not matter. However, converting the existing Pz IV production lines to incorporate the same changes would have required the lines to be halted for a significant period (a least several months) whilst they retooled at a time when Germany needed all the tanks they could produce. If that looks like an overcomplicated way of redesigning the hull, it is important to understand that the “simpler” solutions come with problems of their own. Whilst it might be relatively easy to mount a sloped superstructure (meaning everything above the fenders) on the hull that fitted into the slab sided superstructure’s foot print, that would critically compromise the interior space of the crew compartment making the vehicle impossible to operate. Trying to keep the crew compartment the same size by “flattening out” the step in the hull front and providing a single glacis plate as seen in the model below would eliminate the maintenance hatches for the transmission, making it impossible to service. Making provisions for removing the transmission through the hull roof as seen on the Panther and depicted on the model below would require a complete redesign of the driver compartment and transmission mountings - and it would still be much harder to service than the historical Jagdpanzer IV design solution. Incidentally, that’s a really cool model but it kind of illustrates the problem perfectly. The vehicle has been almost completely rebuilt from the turret ring forwards, in which case you are effectively building a 60% all new hull which still uses the Pz IVs (by now badly overloaded) leaf spring suspension and 300 hp engine. Fixing those problems means further redesigning the vehicle until it’s a 99% new design that still doesn’t offer any advantages over the forthcoming Panther. TL,DR: The Germans didn’t see the point in doing the significant redesign work required to turn the Pz IV into direct competitor to the T34 and M4 when is was “good enough” already, they couldn’t afford to stop the line in order to make the changes and they had something entirely new in the works to replace it that promised to be much better.
Beranda