Panzer Mark IV: The Workhorse?

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#1

I know we all love the super gigundus panzers that drew so much resources and were often unreliable, and unwieldy, in actual sustained combat conditions. So how about the real German workhorse of WWII, the Panzer MkIV? Was this not the one of the most effective combat tanks of all World War Two? and was it not the mainstay of Wehrmacht armored formations?

The Panzer MkIV proved itself to be a very adaptable platform capable of numerous upgrades that kept the tank effective against even its betters, such as the ubiquotous Soviet T-34, and it was certainly more than a match for the Sherman.


Croat armored corp members stand in front of the “long-barreled 75mm gun” version.

But alas, even with “applique armor,” and various enhancements, the Panzer was not able to stave off defeat for the Axis Powers:

Some more pretty panzer pics from Aberdeen Proving Grounds I believe: :slight_smile:

http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/US_Army_Ordnance_Museum_Panzer_IV_tank.aspx

Cheers:

#2

Well, answering to your question , dont think so.

The pz III was the workhorse between 1939-41, in those years the Panzer IV had the task to support the infantry with his short 75mm gun.

The best years of the Pz IV were 1942-43 but by 1944 were completely shadowed by the Panther and other more capable gun plataforms like the Sturmanzersand Panzerjagers.

#3

Panzer IV ausf E, 1941, note the mounting for AA MG 34, relatively rare in this early stage of the war.

#4

Pz III is truly rarely mentioned, considering how many of them were produced before/during WWII.

Any pictures of Tauchpanzer III?

_

#5

I got some. but probably we need to open another topic.

The Pz III outnumbered the Pz IV in the battlefield until july 1943. The pz III was manufactued until August 1943.

#6

Panzerknacker posted a nice one side view of an Panzer IV with Schmalturm and Thoma Schürzen - here:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3292&page=14

Anyone got further informations about those Thoma Schürzen? :smiley:

#7

The thoma screen was introduced in late 1944 because it was more easy to manufacture that the rolled 5mm plates and less prone to get loose in the rough terrain. it was efficient against the bazooka and PIAT but completely useless against the russian 14,5mm antitank rifles, the plate schurzen at list help to deflect the energy of those shots a bit.

Panzer IV Ausf J

#8

Another ausf. J with the mesh wire screen, note the “ambush” cammo pattern.

#9

Panzer IV ausf F2 and G battling in Tunisia

http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C06D06000000&inf=675400&outf=823920&funktion=play250k

#10

The Panzer IV is not the Tiger, the denomination of the Tiger is Panzer VI ausf H

Is interesting to know that many allied tankers did the same mistake :mrgreen:

#11

Wasn’t there a ‘condition’ in the Normandy campaign called ‘Tiger Fever’. Where most German tanks that were spotted be the Allies were assumed to be Tigers?

Really I can see how easy that would be. If someone was to catch just a glance of a Mk IV on the other side of the hedge row, I can see how it could be mistaken for a Tiger. Especially if I was excited and scared.

#12

It was.

And not only the “occidental” allies, after Kursk radio Moscow announced that the russian defences destroyed 230 “tigers”… actually only 32 Panzer VI were lost :rolleyes:

#13

I think it was the real workhorse of the Panzers too. Even in 1945 its gun could defeat any Allied Tank (except maybe the JS-3 and as it saw no action doesnt count).

Of course the REAL workhorse of the German Army was the Stug.

#14

In my opinion it was the Panzer III, at list until the battle of Kursk.

#15

Panzer IV with long gun effectivenes:

An extract from of a combat report in Eastern front:

'At ranges up to 1,200 metres, the T-34 is cleanly penetrated at every angle that it is hit by the Pzgr.39 fired from the 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43. No experience is available on the KW-I with reinforced armour.
Engagements were aggravated by the frequent occurrence of shell casings failing to eject from
the gun. Usually they could be cleared only by knocking the shell casing back out from the front with cleaning rods. This greatly restricted the firepower.
'The T-34 that was far superior to the German Panzers until the beginning of the spring of 1942 is now inferior to the German long 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 and 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43 tank guns.

After the Russians received heavy losses in several battles by attacking German Panzer forces with the T-34, they withdrew or employed the Russian tank types KW-I and KW-I with
reinforced armour instead. Because these heavy tanks were never or seldom led as a unit, their destruction was usually ensured.’

(Osprey New Vanguard 039 Pz IV ausf G ,H & J)

#16

The panzer IV was no doubt the workhorse of the Wehrmacht during WWII for the simple reason that it served for the entire war. It had a great gun and was very adaptable and took place in every battle in every theater the Germans were involved in.

#17

Development of the long gun Panzer IV:

When development of the Pz.Kpfw.IV began in October 1935, theGerman army considered mounting a long 7.5 cm gun in a medium tank. They knew that the French had planned to produce 1,000 tanks
with 40 mm-thick armour by the end of 1935, so German plan intended to install the 7.5 cm Kanone L/24 in the Begleitwagen (B.W).
Firing a 7.5 cm Panzergranate (armour-piercing shell) with a muzzle velocity of 430 m/s, it was calculated that 43 mm of armour plate at 30 degrees could be cleanly penetrated at a range of 700 Meters, therefore this short gun seemed adequate to penetrate the newest French tanks.

Pz IV engaging enemy with the L24 short barrelled gun.

[/LEFT]

  1. Kw.K. = tank gun and L/24, L/43 or L748 = the barrel length
    divided by calibre, i.e. 3,233 mm divided by 75 mm = L/43.

However, German army intelligence estimated that the armour on the heaviest French tanks, Char 2C, 3C, and D, was much thicker than 40 mm, and engineers calculated that the muzzle velocity of the 7.5 cm
Kanone would have to be increased to 650 m/s in order to penetrate these heavy French tanks. They thought that the tank would have to be completely redesigned in order to mount such a powerful gun. It was estimated that this new tank would weigh at least 30 tons with armour only 20 mm thick (which wasn’t even proof against 2 cm Pzgr.).

This conceptual design was not pursued, since the general in command of the army had recently spoken out against such a heavy tank.
During the invasion of France in 1940, the 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/24 proved effective in penetrating the armour of the Renault, Hotchkiss and Somua tanks, but failed against the French Char Bl bis and the British Matilda tanks.

Then, during December 1940 and January 1941, a single battalion of 50 Matildas enabled a weaker British force to defeat the Italian army at Sidi Barrani, Bardia and Tobruk. The Germans now became concerned about their ability to penetrate the 78 mm armour ofthe Matildas.

On 19 February 1941, on Hitler’s orders, the long 5 cm Kanone was immediately mounted in a Pz.Kpfw.III and a Pz.Kpfw.IV to give these tanks a much stronger armour-penetrating ability.

In early March 1941 Krupp began to design a 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 with interior dimensions that matched the Rheinmetall 5 cm Pak 38 L/60. A 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 was mounted in the turret of the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.D Fgst.Nr.80668 (chassis number) for a demonstration for Hitler’s birthday on 20 April 1941. Plans to produce 80 Pz.Kpfw.IV with 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 at the Nibelungenwerk from August 1941 were subsequently cancelled.
In March 1941 Krupp began to consider other high-performance guns for the Pz.Kpfw.IV.

Krupp had already designed a 7.5 cm Kanone L/40 for uparming the Sturmgeschutz (mobile assault gun used for infantry support), which could penetrate 70 mm of armour at 30 degrees at a range of 400 metres.

To prevent tank guns from being damaged bystriking obstacles, the Waffenamt had specified that the gun length was not to extend beyond the forward edge of the tank. Therefore this gun had to be shortened from 3,023 mm to 2,470 mm (equal to L/33. i.e. 33 calibre lengths), which reduced the penetrating ability of a normal 6.8 kg APCBC-HE (armour-piercing shell capped with ballistic cap and high explosive filler) to 59 mm of armour at 30 degrees at a
range of 400 metres. A Triebspiegelgeschoss HK discarding sabot round with tungsten carbide core) was also to be developed that could penetrate 86 mm of armour at 30 degrees at a range of 400 metres. One 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/34.5 was completed by December 1941. and in April 1942 Krupp decided to mount this gun in Turm Nr. 80979 (Ausf.E)
(turret number) on Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F Fgst.Nr. 82091.

( to be continued)

#18

Development of the long gun Panzer IV (II):

Meanwhile, Germany had invaded Russia on 22 J u n e 1941 and soon
encountered the heavy 75-105-mm thick armour on the KV-1, and the
well-sloped 45 mm-thick armour on the T-34 tanks. A special
Panzerkommission was sent to Russia in November 1941 to acquire a
first-hand impression of the problems encountered by the front line
troops when tackling the heavy Russian tanks.

The Panzerkommission advised improving available tank types by installing a new gun able to penetrate Russian tank armour at a range beyond the retaliatory capabilities of the Russian tank gun.
Under no circumstances would production interruptions be allowed in the current series of tanks.
They understood that substantial improvements in the armour and suspension could not be initiated immediately. However, it was decided that the troops would accept this if the requirement for a new gun wasfulfilled.

On 18 November 1941, Wa Pruf 4 ordered development of a new gun for the Pz.Kpfw.IV with the same capabilities as the Rheinmetall 7.3 cm Pak 44 L/46 (later renamed Pak 40). Originallv known as the 7.3 cm
Kw.K.44, the gun was developed jointly by Krupp in cooperation with Reinhmetall
Rheinmetall dealt with the interior ballistics and Krupp was responsible for the design.

When firing a normal 6.8 kg APCBC-HE-Tracer shell, it was to be capable of penetrating 80 mm of armour plate at 30 degrees at a range of 1,000 metres.
The recoil length of the 7.5 cm Pak 40 (900 mm) was too long fora Pz.Kpfw.IV turret, and at 969 mm the complete round was also too long. The new gun had to be designed with a shorter recoil and shorter
rounds. The unaltered rifled gun tube (2,470.5 mm long) was retained from the 7.5 cm Pak 44 L/46, but a shorter loading chamber was added with a larger diameter, resulting in the 7.5 cm Kw.K.44 L/43.
Shorter, thicker shell casings made loading the gun in the restricted confines of aclosed turret far easier, and also allowed a greater number of rounds to be stowed in ammunition bins inside the tank.

Plans had been made to complete the first 30 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43 in
March, followed by 70 in April and 90 in May 1942. In actual fact, 18 were completed in March, 104 in April, and 56 in May 1942. Initially, a singlechamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake with two large side ports was fitted, which provided about 49 per cent of the braking ability of the recoil system.

Adolf Hitler have a closer look of a brand new Panzer IV ausf G ( also called F2) april 1942.

Sources:

Panzerkampfwagen IV, Walther J Spielberg.

Osprey N.V 39 Panzerkamfwagen IV ausf G,H & J, 1942-45

www.quarry-nildram.uk

#19

Check out that muzzle brake!

#20

i guess, german should concentrate on Pz IV, instead of wasting times, resources and efforts to new and more sophisticated but expensive heavier armour, they lost their momentum by putting so much effort on those expensive phanters, tigers etc.