I hate PzIVs

[BletchleyGeek]

I must admit I am not so much of an armour grog - that is, I can't recite from memory technical specs - but my impression is that Mark IV is clearly outclassed by all Allied armour. It has a very hot gun - designed to take out the 1941 and 1942 T-34 - but it has serious problems with its armour (which shouldn't be surprising, as the the Pz IV chassis remained overally the same since 1939 to 1945, with several 'hacks' thrown in to improve survivability as years went by). Note that the match up for the Mk IV F2 and later models is against the early T-34 models: a tank notorious for how poorly its crews could spot and its, relatively speaking, crude optics and ranging implements.

That the virtual parity of the post 1942 MkIV models and the T-34 doesn't carry over to match ups with Western Allies armour in 1943 and 1944, doesn't strike me as particularly weird - I don't take CMx1 to be a ground truth at all. After all, the kind of Allied tank designs one finds in 1943-44 CMx2 battlefields were actually considered good enough to match or to outperform both the German Mk III and Mk IV (which were the 'main' battle tanks of Germany in late 1942 and early 1943). Unfortunately for the Allies, the German design cycle managed to put on the table more advanced armour - like the Panther - by late 1943 and early 1944, which clearly outclassed Shermans and Cromwells. Shermans and Cromwells have great mobility - like the T-34, sport reasonably accurate and powerful guns - like the T-34, and also have good spotting and targetting capabilities - unlike the T-34.

I have commanded Mk IV's in four Scenarios of the Month so far: CW First Clash (against Barre), Clearing the Niscemi Highway (against Toblakai), In For A Pound (against Tester) and Meeting Engagement at Les Charne (against Tumatauenga). And I have faced Mk IV's in Bon Giorno Tomahawks (against Cyrano) and Monty's Butchers (against Patrykd) All these battles are quite recent and done - entirely or mostly - with the latest CMBN 2.12 and CMFI 1.12 patches. Below are my notes on four of these engagements (I didn't have any Shermans or Cromwells to oppose patrykd, unfortunately ):

• CW First Clash - In this game my plan was to use the PzIVs from hull down positions to cover my light armour as it advanced towards the big VP area on the Allied side of the map, keeping them behind a reverse slope - out of sight - until I made contact with Allied armour. That happened soon enough - my Lynxes got raped by Barre's own overwatching armour, Cromwells, if I recall correctly. I then ordered the PzIV's I had in reserve to advance to hull-down positions and engage the Cromwells. Three Pz IV's were engaging 2 (?) Cromwells, and as I usually do, I staggered the Pz IVs maneuver with 10 seconds pauses (that is, the first one moves right away, the second one 10 secs later, the third one 30 secs later). The result was that I lost 2 Pz IV's and Barre 1 Cromwell. The Cromwells spotted the PzIVs as they were settling on their hull-down positions, and killed two of them right away with frontal turret hits (the third Pz IV managed to get a couple shots on a Cromwell, which I guess was 'distracted'). Later on the game, I got two more Pz IVs killed, both by frontal turret hits, as they were moving into hull-down positions.
  
  
• Clearing the Niscemi Highway - Similar story to First Clash. One Pz IV got killed by a frontal turret hit, when engaging from a hull-down position - and by the flank - a very nicely keyholed Sherman (the accompanying PzIIIM killed the Sherman shortly afterwards). I lost two Pz IV's to RPG hits on the turret (two side RPG hits had no effect). The rest of my Pz IV's losses there were because I did something quite boneheaded.
  
  
• In For A Pound - Early in the game, a Pz IV I had on hull-down overwatching the deployment of my AT guns got killed - without spotting the killer - by a frontal turret hit. Interestingly, all my Pz IV's losses were due to frontal turret hits. I could observe that the early Sherman 75mm guns have a hard time killing outright PzIV's with frontal hull penetrations at ranges over 300 meters (I mean 'hard' as in the chances being something like 25 or 33%, penetrations usually resulted in the crew bailing out and , occasionally, crew casualties). One of my Pz IVs bailed out a great total of 4 times, until the tank was finally destroyed with the fifth penetration (on the turret). All first hit kills were hits to the frontal turret.
  
  
• Meeting Engagement at Les Charne - Totally different game to the above. Here I could use the bocage to mask my Pz IVs effectively. The bocage also granted hull-down like benefits while somehow 'protecting' those fragile Pz IV turrets. And more importantly, I could maneuver around the Allied armour, getting flank shots, thanks to the masking provided by the bocage. Here my 2 of my Pz IV losses were 'mobility' kills - 1 PzIV engine broke down moving cross country and another Pz IV threw a track - and the third one because I did something really retarded.
  
  
• Bon Giorno Tomahawks - Here I totally owned Cyrano's PzIVs, in frontal engagements. In two cases, the Pz IV's were on hull-down positions in a higher elevation, and I got two kills with two direct hits on the turret. Both of these kills were achieved at ranges over 500 meters. I got two other kills at extremely close range - less than 50 meters. In both cases, the Sherman spotted first, and sent the PzIV to the Scrapyard in the Sky with frontal penetrations.
  

I do indeed see a pattern here (I have had basically seen all Mk IVs models in the CMx2 games, G, H, J) in very different conditions, and ranges. The factors that have remained the same when suffering with my Mk IVs have been kills by direct hits on the turret while hull-down, and a substantial difficulty to maneuver against opponents flanks along covered routes.

I wonder about others' observations - or my opponents, as they could see what I couldn't