Usually I don't care about which was the best or the worst tank.

This historian appears in documentaries about the Second the World War and I came across his five bottom tanks during the war and the best tanks during the war.

Do you agree with him? I find quite odd to see the Panzer IV in both of his lists. The Panzer IV was a rather decent tank during the war. It was in production during the entire war. Maybe it had been better for the Germans to develop it further than rather spending resources on heavier tanks, which were quite complicated to maintain in the field.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Vn95uESv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-O_y2QGJ9w

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Usually I don't care about which was the best or the worst tank.

This historian appears in documentaries about the Second the World War and I came across his five bottom tanks during the war and the best tanks during the war.

Do you agree with him? I find quite odd to see the Panzer IV in both of his lists. The Panzer IV was a rather decent tank during the war. It was in production during the entire war. Maybe it had been better for the Germans to develop it further than rather spending resources on heavier tanks, which were quite complicated to maintain in the field.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Vn95uESv0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-O_y2QGJ9w

The Panzer IV would not have made my list in either category, it was an adequate tank and the addition of the 75mm gun made sure it stayed adequate but it was never a disaster nor was it ever great.
By 1942 it's design was outdated and it's only real advantage was the low cost to manufacture.
My opinion has always been that once the T-34 hit the scene the Pz-III and Pz-IV were history and the Pz-V was the only option with the remaining Pz-IIIs and IVs transitioning to StuG-IIIs and Jadgpanzer-IVs which could be made even cheaper with no loss of effectiveness.

Much has been made of Guderians thoughts about focusing on the Pz-IV but mass producing an outdated tank in my opinion would done nothing for Germany's position especially since they had the Panther that just needed the bugs ironed out.

I think the Panzer IV was a pretty decent tank, it wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well and it had potential to be developed further with additional armor and a better 75mm gun instead of developing heavier and heavier tanks, which were very complicated to maintain in the field.

The Germans had and still have a tendency to over engineer their stuff. They are still doing it with their cars, maybe not the Vauxhall/Opel. My first car was an Opel, and I had a lot of problems with it. I am quite biased against Opel/Vauxhall after my experience with the Opel.

I know as much about tanks as my German Shepherd. However, in my opinion (for what its worth), it seems to me that it was a bad idea that the Germans, British and Americans fitted petrol/gasoline engines in their tanks, while Soviet T34 designers fitted with a 500 H.P. V12 diesel engine, a far more sensible idea.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I think the Panzer IV was a pretty decent tank, it wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well and it had potential to be developed further with additional armor and a better 75mm gun instead of developing heavier and heavier tanks, which were very complicated to maintain in the field.

The Germans had and still have a tendency to over engineer their stuff. They are still doing it with their cars, maybe not the Vauxhall/Opel. My first car was an Opel, and I had a lot of problems with it. I am quite biased against Opel/Vauxhall after my experience with the Opel.

If I remember correctly the Churchill tank was built by Vauxhall Motors in Luton Bedfordshire

Originally Posted by BritinBritain

Soviet T34 designers fitted with a 500 H.P. V12 diesel engine, a far more sensible idea.

Interestingly enough it was designed as an aircraft engine.

Originally Posted by George

Interestingly enough it was designed as an aircraft engine.

From what I have read/heard, quite a few tank engines were derived from aero engines, one of the most famous in British tanks was the Merlin known as the Rolls-Royce Meteor

Originally Posted by BritinBritain

From what I have read/heard, quite a few tank engines were derived from aero engines, one of the most famous in British tanks was the Merlin known as the Rolls-Royce Meteor

of course the Merlin was a petrol engine. Diesel aircraft engines still seems a bit odd.

Originally Posted by George

of course the Merlin was a petrol engine. Diesel aircraft engines still seems a bit odd.

The Junkers Jumo 205 aircraft engine was the most famous of a series of aircraft diesel engines that were the first, and for more than half a century, the only successful aviation diesel powerplants. The Jumo 204 first entered service in 1932. Later engines of this type comprised the experimental Jumo 206 and Jumo 208, with the Jumo 207 produced in some quantity for the Junkers Ju 86P and -R high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, and the 46-meter wingspan, six-engined Blohm & Voss BV 222 Wiking flying boat. All three of these variants differed in stroke and bore and supercharging arrangements. In all, more than 900 of these engines were produced, in the 1930s and through most of World War II.

A diesel Engine in my opinion is an excellent choice for certain types of aeroplane, higher torque at lower RPM, longer range for a given fuel load, diesel having high flash point then petrol, hence lower risk of fire, diesel engines usually run cooler to petrol engines. The main problem I can see is the higher weight of diesel engines compared to a similar size and power petrol engine.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I think the Panzer IV was a pretty decent tank, it wasn't perfect, but it worked pretty well and it had potential to be developed further with additional armor and a better 75mm gun instead of developing heavier and heavier tanks, which were very complicated to maintain in the field.

The Germans had and still have a tendency to over engineer their stuff. They are still doing it with their cars, maybe not the Vauxhall/Opel. My first car was an Opel, and I had a lot of problems with it. I am quite biased against Opel/Vauxhall after my experience with the Opel.

There is no doubt that the Panzer-IV was a decent tank but look at what it was up against from 1943 onwards.

From Kursk onwards the Germans were in retreat, they really didn't need a lot of offensive armour, switching Pz-IV production to the Jadgpanzer would have allowed them to produce an effective fighting vehicle for less than the cost of the Pz-IV in both cash and materials thus allowing them to focus on ironing out the Panther problems with a view to rebuilding its offensive capability around the Panther.

As for the idea that the just continually upgrading the Pz-IV was an option I dont think it was, the Pz-IV was designed pre-war and by 1942-43 the T-34 had pretty much made it obsolete, the Panther was designed in 1942 using all the knowledge they had gained from the T-34, it was the next generation and logical successor to the Pz-I-VI line.

Lets also not forget that the Tiger Mk1 was effectively the "further development" a Pz-IV just up armoured/gunned and while it was a beast to deal with, it was also too heavy for most bridges, too wide to be transported easily, it consumed resources, cost a fortune and was prone to breakdowns due to its power to weight ratio.