German War Files - Panzer IV Heavy Tank

[@stefanwosinsky1935]

I remember in 2013 i used to sit in my apartment bathroom with a doobie, ipad on my lap and enjoy all of these videos. Today i decided to get some weed and here i am. Gonna relive those days for a while

[@Scott-q3k]

I'm the same way A good strain of cannabis and a episode of rex's hanger or something else on history. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to go into a 7/11 store for a big gulp and buy a couple grams of some mexican gold or a strong indica. My favorite indica is DIESEL... RIGHT ON...😊

[@kushanblackrazor6614]

Arguably, reducing the tank divisions to 1 regiment and increasing their infantry component was a net benefit for the Panzer Corps. Massing armor was found to have had diminishing returns without sufficient infantry to support it. The real flaw was the bottle-necked / non-existent spare parts system for damaged tanks.

[@JayM409]

Quite true. The 7th Armd Div in North Africa had 3 brigades with Nine tank regiments. The 7th support group had less than a battalion of infantry and some guns. The 7th SP gp was often sent on independent missions, leaving the armour without any support at all. The Germans also discovered that their encirclement operations required more infantry than their divs had, resulting in many Soviet units escaping. German Panzer mechanics often got into fights over spare parts at the depots.

[@scottyfox6376]

Quite correct in my humble opinion. While Speer was producing panzers it was at the expense of spare parts supplied. To me it was a mistake, yes more actual complete panzers were produced but with little logistics to repair even small battle damages or from wear & tear of operations.

[@2vintage68]

Best film, editing and narration of German armor in action you will ever see.

[@Landrew0]

The most comprehensive documentary ever prepared about a particular model of tank.

[@lynnmcculloch-m4h]

Good video ❤❤❤❤❤

[@croma81]

4:56 Almost losing his foot

[@ert-wert]

My dad would kick your ass

[@HeneraLJum0ng]

@croma81 Very Good Observation Hans!😁😂🤪😅👍

[@AmphiStuG]

@@ert-wert What?

[@WildBillCox13]

My favorite documentary series on Wehrmacht equipment in World War 2. This episode makes worthwhile watching for a broad coverage of design philosophy, successive improvement, and ultimate usage, of the PzKw IV, a staple of the Pazerwaffe from mid '42--early '45.

[@rafalIL29]

I can tell why upgraded Panzer IV was mistaken for a Tiger by the Allied tankers.

[@WildBillCox13]

@@rafalIL29 I quite agree. From some aspects, especially at a distance and/or during foul weather, they'd be easy to conflate one for the other.

[@coachhannah2403]

@@rafalIL29 - PzKwII, PzKwIII, PzKwIV, and PzKwVI were all of a kind. silhouettes of them all were nearly identical, especially under battle conditions.

[@tdyduch13]

I do not understand how so little views. Informational and to the point. I stumbled upon this series " German War Files". I look forward to watching all the videos.

[@yereverluvinuncleber]

If I can't pick it up then it is heavy.

[@grammarnazi7428]

yereverluvinuncleber You. I like you.

[@johnyoung9379]

then you must be heavy

[@lund5869]

Lmao

[@Swess2908]

mate you cant pick up a pencil to save your life. its a heavy

[@Opa_der_Kranke]

*Walks Perfectly normal with Light Tank on back

[@johnroberts4755]

Why are the German war films of WWII so popular? Because deep down most people; men; admire the German efforts in the war, the efficiency, the ruthlessness, the enginuity, and above all, the courage of the German soldier to persist in the face of overwhelming odds. Regardless of all the politics involved, even vets like myself have always admired the German soldier (yes, even or especially the armed SS), their discipline, fortitude, and his willingness to continue a struggle he had little or nothing to do with but simply found himself in. Admit it or not, that is the truth.

[@stephenparr3318]

And don't forget the uniforms, accouterments, weapons (such as the MP-40, STG-44, MG-34, MG-42), Stalhelm(the WW2 German helmet is just bad ass looking) and military medals were just Uber fucking cool too.

[@powerslave6944]

I like the Germans too they are pound for pound the most potent hard hitting army at the time till the numerical superiority of the Allied far outnumbered them by 1943

[@blueznjazz123]

The Germans had an advantage during the 20s & 30s, because their military industrial complex had been completely dismantled as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Also, many of the established military 'old boys club' in place was eliminated. This made room for young, well-educated strategists to redesign the German military from the ground up, and they were able to include the lessons learned from WWI & the Spanish Civil War to develop better training, more strategically appropriate weapons, more tactics, better communications, and superior strategies for offensive & defensive warfare. On top of that, the German educational system was excellent, so the War Department had a large supply of very intelligent, creative, and dedicated men to train intensely. On the other hand, the Allied nations had return to democratic governments that were under great pressure to reduce military spending and downsize their military. Consequently, there was little money available for development & testing of new weapons, tactics, and so on...and many of the experienced generals etc had retired, so there was a lack of knowledgeable experienced leaders to ensure that the military was kept up to date. By the time 1939 rolled around, the British, Americans, French and most other Allied nations were woefully unprepared for fighting the sort of war that the Germans envisioned for Western Europe. A good example of this was when Christie invented and tested his new design for a track/suspension drive system for a tank, and discovered that it provided a good speed, a steady ride, and excellent durability when used over difficult terrain. Christie first offered the design to the American military, but - despite some very successful tests - the military did not adopt it for new tank designs. Christie then shopped his design around, and it caught the eye of the Russians, who were beginning to become an industrialized nation, and saw the design as one a Russian factory could realistically mass-produce. The Russians also recognized how Christie's design was ideally suited to the challenging conditions & difficult terrain that made up much of its land. So the Russians designed a few tanks using Christie's system, the BT-5 and BT-7, and eventually used it with the now iconic & decisive T34 tank. Arguably the best & most important tank of WWII owed much of its success to an American's design! So, the superiority of the German military in terms of tactics, organization, and overall strategies (but not in tanks, believe it or not) was very much a result of conditions of surrender laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the priority placed on education in German society.

[@edwardjj4224]

It's quite impressive how much they did as little they have how long they hold it's the very good training and discipline of the Germans soldiers l do strongly believe

[@garryphillips7204]

John Roberts come on the ss were murdering mongrells what sand hill you got your head stuck in

[@deanmurphy7307]

Erm...Isnt the Panzer IV a medium?

[@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl]

In 1940 it was heavy.

[@Satakarnak]

Charles van Dijk no it was not

[@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl]

Satakarnak in 1940 it was the heaviest tank the Germans had. It was an infantry support tank with its short 75mm gun. True heavy tanks were manufactured after 1942. The French Char B was with 45 tons the heaviest tank the allies had in 1940.

[@BigGayAl56]

Read the description. The poster of the video explains he knows it's a medium tank, but kept the original title that the video was originally published with.

[@deanmurphy7307]

Michael RedCrow Dafuq did I just read?

[@VasileIuga]

it was concept as a heavy tank in his time . Medium in late years

[@geesusdb]

i've updated the description of the video in order to light up the heavy/medium "controversy"

[@AdamMann3D]

Everyone arguing about thr title. Its a great show. Very few mistakes.

[@atanasijesimic4651]

documentary about pz iv tanks starts with kv1 tank rolling up the hill.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

+Atanasije Simic Which, in a weird way, actually makes perfect sense. KV-1s were the last thing many Pz. IV's saw back in 1941-42.

[@paolowolfart2847]

because the smoke from the kv1's explosion after being penetrated by a 75mm kwk 40l/48 blinded them?

[@dimitriwolfs9370]

Atanasije Simic well spotted comrad!

[@Panzer_Runner]

Soviet bias scheiße

[@jeepcherokee1226]

Atanasije Simic I like the uniforms

[@joedeegan3870]

A German WWII Tanker told me that the problem with the Panther was they kept improving it so by the end of the War " not one screw from one could be used to fix another".

[@nikomas1]

Assault guns are easier to make, and have a lower silhouette without the turret, they have several advantages compared to a turreted vehicle. The StuG's was one of Germanys best vehicles in WWII, and most likely the most cost effective ones.

[@SteveBrownRocks2023]

I’ll take a Stug anyday! 😎👍🏽

[@AmphiStuG]

This reply is StuG approved 👍

[@b1laxson]

Thanks. Watched bits of your channel over the years. These old shows come from a date of quality TV that isn't AFAIK broadcast anywhere else. You were one of my first youtube documentary channels I subscribed to.

[@MrRedsjack]

different countries have different tank categories and they changed with time. when it was designed in 1936 it was very heavy compared to any other tank in operation.

[@sleeperawake9818]

I've watched this series dozens of times, great film footage! This guys voice is calm and steady making it good for sleeping too!

[@tekis0]

What's a small tracked vehicle at 53:21? I've never seen it before!

[@atanasijesimic4651]

+tekis0 Panzerjäger Wanze i think.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

+tekis0 It's a Borgward IV remote controlled demolition device. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borgward_IV

[@johnivkovich8655]

@@ralphbernhard1757 dude.... you er kick ass!

[@williamkoppos7039]

THOUROGHLY enjoy this narrator's voice over. The style and mostly the fact He's NOT a computer! Also, it never occurred to me the Mark IV was the only tank produced from beginning to end. How 'bout that. Good show.

[@loganb7059]

I think the Panzer IV was originally called a heavy tank, as at the time of its original design, heavy tank design worldwide was driven by armament, as opposed to armor. Considering it had an infantry support 75mm gun, it makes sense. I'll have to look this up later

[@demongo2007]

Love the loud martial music playing over the narration so you can’t clearly hear what the guy is saying

[@paulalexander2928]

Most if not all the allied vehicles used by the Africa Korps were captured including armour small arms and artillery. As a Canadian its interesting to note that being a colony at the time as did Britain Upper and Lower Canada sold to both sides during the American Civil War some of the food gunpowder and clothes the North used was produced in Canada. Then there was the incident where a Confederate ship used the port of Halifax to escape and resupply as a Union flotilla waited in neutral waters outside the harbour but managed to slip out to sea. From news papers and letters of the time I have read there was a considerable amount of support for the south here.

[@thomaslinton1001]

The "Tulip Tree" has nothing to do with tulips. It's a poplar.

[@wudruffwildcard252]

Never seen a field maintenance done on a german tank before. Thx for that!

[@cantbanme792]

i bet it was a common sight in the 40s ;)

[@F-14DSuperTomcat]

The Panzer 4 was arguably the best german tank of WW2. StuGs and Panzer 4 was what killed most of the Sherman's and T34s

[@ioey5440]

Large production numbers? Since around 10 thousand Stug IIIs and around 9 thousand Panzer IVs were built.

[@Dth-str]

@BekGrou PRIMUS more than 10000+ stugs were built.

[@Vikingr91]

What technical marks did the Russians steal to combat the pz4? What are you talking about? 09:40

[@jeffchesser4024]

Panzer 4 is a medium tank. So is the Panther tank. In the German Army the size of the gun is the determining factor on what size that they are named

[@curryraisins172]

Air power was what made blitzkrieg, not the tank and Goering was the one who screwed up production of fighters and bombers. When the Germans lost supremacy of the air, it was all over. Remember the French had better tanks, but they were easily disposed of by the stuka dive bombers.

[@Dragon-Believer]

Germany was too small to defeat all it's enemies whatever it did. Pick anything Germany did not have enough. Soldiers, oil, trucks, planes, boats.. Germany is smaller than Texas. The invasion of Russia was not even possible. German logistics could only go about 500 kilometers into Russia.

[@rowancoggins9638]

Whilst i agree that the air element was super important and that Goering constantly messed things up, it was the combined arms issue that made the bliz so effective.

[@trashcandatnoobwut2246]

If Goering had accepted requests for a long-range bomber to be designed, the Luftwaffe could have smashed every port, airstrip and vital piece of infrastructure in Britain. Combine this with an encirclement of U-Boats and Britain would have been left with no choice other than to surrender without terms - due to a rapidly dwindling food supply for its civilian population. Goering was a great fighter pilot during WWI, but he lacked foresight as a military strategist.

[@marcfs3047]

Uhh pretty sure the French tAnks were not as good as the other nation’s tAnks

[@enscroggs]

53:21 This appears to be a Fahrschulepanzerwagen III (a training vehicle for tank drivers) being used on the front lines as an ammo carrier or other sort of auxiliary vehicle.

[@bg147]

I would think the Panzer IV with the long barreled gun was very inexpensive and easy to build versus the Panther and Tiger. Considering all factors, this would have been the tank to produce in giant numbers, in my view. The Panther seems to have been their best tank but it had reliability issues and was costly to produce. Also, I would have poured my resources into towed 88s, aircraft... and intelligent strategy.

[@blueznjazz123]

Prior to attacking Russia, the German's problem was a lack of tanks and inadequate tank design. After Kursk, the German's could have built all the StuG IIIs and StuG IVs and all the Panther & Tiger tanks they wanted, but by that point the war of attrition in Russia had taken its toll, and there was a profound lack of experienced well-trained Panzer crewman. There are many stories from the post-Normandy battles of Panzer units making terrible tactical blunders that resulted in more tanks & crews being lost than necessary - an indication that a lot of the best crews remaining on the Western Front had either been killed in France or had been sent to Russia to strengthen units there.

[@bg147]

Thanks. I never really knew that and thought it applied mostly to the Luftwaffe and inexperienced pilots. It does make sense it would also apply to the tankers. In that light, the emphasis on panzerfaust production was a good strategy to take considering it required little training. However, It is amazing how Albert Speer kept production rolling at huge levels despite the bombings. Lack of fuel and experience were the weaknesses.

[@blueznjazz123]

bg147 I agree that Speer worked miracles with Germany's industries, because even when Barbarossa began, the German armaments industry was not running anything near full tilt, unlike the Russian, British, Canadian, American, and Japanese industrial sectors, that pretty-well switched over to 100% military manufacturing when they declared war. In fact, IMHO, one of the the main reasons the Germans were defeated was due to the fact that on an industrial level, it didn't even get close to being fully mobilized for war until 1942 at the earliest.T he other 'big-picture' error that IMHO made Germany's defeat inevitable was that all of their training and equipment had been designed to fight a war with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Baltic nations. Examples of their short-sightedness, (largely because Hitler never discussed his intentions regarding the United Kingdom, Russia, the Mediterranean nations, and North Africa with his generals & designers prior to 1939) include the fact that Germany never designed and built a four-engine strategic bomber like Great Britain (several, culminating in the Lancaster) and the USA (B17 & B29) did, They had a fabulous plane, the Condor, which would have fit their needs wonderfully, and some designers considered the possibility, but in the end, the German air force never had the 'reach' & bomb capacity it needed to destroy strategically important industries in western & northern England, or take out the many Russian factories & troop training cenres that were rebuilt a long way back from the front lines. Furthermore, German fighters did not have a long range and drop tanks were not developed ahead of time, which was a significant weakness in the Battle of Britain. Also, their artillery was outranged by the guns of every allied nation, which was not an issue in western Europe, but came back to haunt them on the Eastern Front. Finally, their vehicles and guns were not designed with cruel Russian winters or sandy African environments in mind. (there are other examples). So, while it is interesting & fun to debate the turning point of WWII in the European theatre, and discuss guns, tanks, infantry weapons, the poor timing for the start of Barbarossa, etc etc etc, in retrospect it is clear that some of the fatal mistakes the Third Reich made happened long before the very first shots were fired at the beginning of September 1939.

[@bg147]

Great points. I think everyone was/is surprised when France was defeated with such speed. Actually, I think it imbued Hitler and others with a sense of invincibility which led to the nightmare in the East. I am wondering if the original war plans were more conservative than actual events which makes the planning look poor. Regardless, they were ill-equipped and should have known better. It is interesting that Hitler did not fully mobilize for war early on, I had read that before. The whole Battle of Britain thing is an interesting one. From a book I read, some German bombers hit populated areas by mistake... fog, etc. They were trying to hit an industrial target if I recall correctly. As you know, they had been focusing on RAF targets. Based on the author's findings, Hitler still held out hope for making peace with England and eventually focusing on the East. Plus, Hitler was opposed to bombing civilians at that point. He did not want civilians areas bombed. However, after the errant bombing, the RAF hit German civilian areas and well... the rest is history with Hitler switching from RAF command to London and ultimate defeat by the RAF. As you stated, the Luftwaffe was ill-equipped to fight that battle. There seemed to have been a number of unplanned events. The author was convinced that Hitler never intended to land troops in England, wanted to make peace, and turn on the Soviets. I don't know. It is impossible for me to imagine Churchill making peace. The civilian bombing put an end to that. I am just wondering if the many turn of events including having to bail out the Italians in North Africa and Greece resulted in a different war than planned. Off topic but I don't think most Americans truly understand what took place on the Eastern Front. The sheer magnitude of such a titanic battle is impossible to imagine. There has never been anything remotely like it. I have not seen a movie that does it justice... I wasn't there and wouldn't know, but movies on the topic seem lacking. Cross of Iron is ok, maybe Stalingrad, but American ones are not good.

[@alextheshooter]

blueznjazz123 I totally agree with most of your facts but i cant let you say germans got outranged....germans had by far the most ranged in terms of land units such as artillery and tanks. We didnt get outranged,,,just outgunned, we just didnt have the capabilities to keep up the ammonution and unit flow, to compete with the soviet union or the USA.

[@DonMeaker]

Yes, the stabilizer was made by Westinghouse, derived from the stabilizers that the Navy had used for years on battleships. They were tested to give 70% chance of hit at 500 meters over moderately rough terrain at 15 mph. Abrams and others used that capability to develop close range tactics to beat Panthers despite PzV's advantages in frontal armor and gun. As described in "The other side of Time" a memoir of 12th Armored division CCB surgeon.

[@williamzk9083]

The Germans used stabilizers on some Panzer III 3.7cm and 5.0cm L44 guns. These used big gyros (about 6 or 8 inches) to directly stabilize the gun but couldn't be scaled for bigger weapons. The American stabilizer used small gyros that had silverstat electrical contacts that deflected a hydraulic jet that operated piston valve to level the gun. The gun and sight were mechanically linked. For Panther V Ausf F and Tiger II a system was planed in which the optics were fully stabilized and the gun was hydraulically driven to follow. A circuit then used the angular velocity of the gun to fire the gun so that the projectile exited the barrel at just the right time. The overlapping long travel suspension of the Tiger and Panther was meant to allow them to fire on the move. You will note the majestic ride in motion pictures of the big tanks.

[@billyrock8305]

The Germans had the competitive advantage of skill, tactics and strategy over their enemies. Ultimately overcome by manufacturing capacity and enemy numbers. 🇩🇪

[@Dragon-Believer]

Not really. The German army was great but the Luftwaffe was average and the German navy was inferior. I think you are confusing Strategy and Tactics which is the same thing the Germans did. Their strategy was insane. Their tactics were excellent. They competently executed a hopeless war.

[@shaunmcclory8117]

Some things nowadays make me wonder if it would've been better if Germany had won!

[@devonmartinski6596]

Panzer III chassis were converted into tank destroyers.

[@utkarshchoudhary3870]

i absolutely loved all your videos they have so much deep details amazing work!!!

[@alangordon3283]

They’re not his videos 🙄

[@utkarshchoudhary3870]

still cant find any videos with this much information for the panzer 4 thanks sir for this great work!

[@IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA]

Personally instead of the tigers and panthers i would have created a tank based on the panzer 4 with Hull armor -Frontal armor of 40mm sloped at 72 degrees -lower front plate 60mm sloped at 60 degrees -30mm of side armor sloped at 45 degrees + 5mm armor skirts -20mm back armor sloped at 45degrees -16mm roof and hull armor Turret armor -Turret shaped like the tiger 2 henshell turret -sloped turret front 10 degrees from vertical with 90mm of frontal armor + 20mm gun manlet,same shape as panther G gun manlet -45mm of side armor -30mm back -16 roof armor - 5mm armo skirts around the turret Armament -L-70 75mm gun -7,98mm co axial and AA with a 12mm gunshield Mobility same engine perhaps a diesel version with the same HP wider tracks external fuel tanks behind the hull

[@vronz]

why not use the panther hull it has good sloped armor with modified turret of the tiger or tiger b plus a more powerful engine and suspension for the turret

[@IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA]

irsan pasaribu suspension problems,terrible reverse speed,heavy weight

[@romangavrilov930]

+Imanol fuentesito Sounds like me i write random papers of how i would rather make a tiger or something. liek serously why now slope pz. 4 and tiger? At least they had MUCH better fighting compartment.

[@vronz]

+Roman Gavrilov because that would made the production harder why did you think the german used box tanks

[@romangavrilov930]

+irsan pasaribu Yes but soviets made tanks for max production and were mainly slope designs. Not trying to start a fight here.

[@unitedbrony5907]

lul , " estimated 10 000 tanks but this was not the case , in fact there were actually twice that number " that plot twist

[@stcyr25]

The Wehrmacht was the best fighting force of it's day..The Panzer Mark lV was a good tank but, when fitted with the L75 high velocity cannon, became one of the best tanks in ww2. If the Germans had this tank in sufficient numbers during the early days of operation BarbaraRossa Stalin's red army would've been pushed towards Asiatic Russia.

[@JamesinAZ]

you could possibly be right! if I remember correctly, I think Guderian advocated for this, and lost. It's been a long time since I read his book. :)

[@JamesinAZ]

+James Lyons what I meant to allude to was Guderian wanted more IV.

[@rudyobg]

Stcyr Belange You are as stupid as you look. Starting wars againest countries with WW1 arms and still using horse mounted cav. like Poland and many other countries is no great feat. the RUSSIAN TANKS WERE FAR SUPERIOR TO GERMAN TANKS. SIMPLER TO LEARN HOW TO OPERATE. AND LESS MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS.

[@lund5869]

Rudy Obgartel the Stug assault guns alone accounted for 30,000 Russian tanks destroyed..Not including the other german tanks

[@hanfpeter3742]

Stcyr Belange dont call it panzer mark 4. its not the fourth version of a already existing tank, its the fourth newely developed tank that the wehrmacht adopted. mark would be Ausführung in german. or short:ausf.

[@bandwagon22]

These documentaries are exaggerating "appalling German armor losses". Germans lost only 326 AFV during Citadel while Red Army lost 1956, 6 times more. If taking whole Eastern Front of July-August 43 German losses were quite moderate 1 331 being equal of 11% of AFV production of that year. Besides losses concentrated on Pzkw III (367), Pzkw IV (345) and assault guns (303). Lost AFV were replaced by better new ones: German Army accepted into service 20 IIIs, 527 IVs, 322 Vs, 125 VIs and 572 assault guns. Another thing not to exaggerate those losses. In 1943 AFV production was only 7% of German munition production. So AFV losses in Eastern Front in July-August 43 were only 0.77% of German war production of that same year.

[@2serveand2protect]

VERY interesting documentary! BIG thanks for uploading - thumb up & straight into "my favourites"! :)

[@unphazed_]

On 0:08 the camera man probably got squashed, the only thing left is his arm holding the camera. They just trimmed the part where blood splattered everywhere

[@MasterBlobby]

54:31 never seen add-on armour like that before, looks almost factory. Cool pic

[@schattensand]

Was für eine gelungene, wertfreie Dokumentation. Kein Pathos, sehr objektiv. Gut gemacht.

[@DonMeaker]

For 1935 it passed as a heavy. In 1942 it was a medium. In 1945 it was one of the lighter tanks in the German inventory.

[@paullakowski2509]

In 1935 Pz-IV didn't exist in Panzerwaffe , but became an experimental model by 1936 . In-fact they did not have 100 until 1938/39. At that time they had 7 Panzer Brigades with 14 Panzer Regiments and 28 Panzer Battalions. Maybe 3-PzIV per battalion.but problems with Panzer III ; meant no more than 5 Pz-III/IV per battalion. So the bulk of these tanks were 68 Pz-II Panzer [20L55] panzer battalion.plus maybe 39 Panzer I [mg]

[@DonMeaker]

@@paullakowski2509 in January 1934, Germany wrote the specifications for the Gross-traktor. In 1935 it was being developed as a heavy tank.

[@kennyraicherter1264]

I have seen many of these docs but this series is the best

[@markhealy7876]

Hello Gentlemen, I made ALL of the films that are now marketed under the German War Files name. I say made because apart from the technical side of recording them I edited all of the film from well over 100 Wochenschau videos ( mid 90s) ( in some cases well over 300 edits to get 50mins) scripted them all * in the Die Deutschen Panzer series - original title) and wrote the blurb for the back of the vid covers. I also voiced over the Panther and the Tiger. Now I know the Panzer IV was a medium and not a heavy tank and when these were originally marketed by Chronos films it was described on the cover as a medium tank! Not my fault. Put that down to whomsoever bought the films from Chronos and now market them. For the gentleman who pointed out about the Stuka. Quite right but see the video ( CD?) on the Stuka from the 8 film Luftwaffe series I also did - as well as the U-Boat films (3 in series) and the Fallschirmjaeger ( 2 in series) and others. In all I did 29 for Chronos and while they paid me for making them they never paid me any of the royalties I was owed. Any questions - feel free to ask. About Kursk - read my big book 'Zitadelle; the German Offensive against the Kursk salient' published by The History Press. Mark Healy

[@ColJochen]

'Zitadelle; the German Offensive against the Kursk salient' Mark, that's an exemplary work! Superb! 5*

[@MrLimborace]

It's all fun and games till the brains of the guy beside you are all over your face and in your mouth and you are covered head-to-toe in his warm blood.

[@marknewman2187]

I think the Panzer 4 was overall probably the best tank of ww2 it served for the whole war (only tank to do so I believe) and due to continual improvements in armour and main gun it could still hold it`s own against allied tank in 1945 , German tanks were generally superior to allied models and if they did come up against an allied tank with bigger gun then their superior tactics usually prevailed , all being fitted with radios was a huge advantage n early days/years plus the addition of a command vehicle , but even a 6:1 kill ratio in their favour was not enough to overcome the industrial might of the Soviets and Yanks. Quantity overcame quality , same with troops.

[@Patton3003]

mark newman The Sherman tank was also produces during the entire period of WWII, on the Allied side then! always improved upon as the PzKw IV.

[@loganb7059]

Matilda II served for the whole war too

[@loganb7059]

And the Panzer II, the Panzer 38t, and the T-34 (production began in 1940)

[@packr72]

mark newman 6:1 Kill ratio????? Yeah good joke, no evidence at all of that M4 Sherman and T-34> Pz III and IV M26 Pershing> Panther IS-2> Tiger and Tiger II.

[@loganb7059]

Patton3003 Actually no. The Sherman entered service in 1942, and first saw combat in Tunisia.

[@tosek2]

May I use fragments of this video in my video?

[@djtrainspotter]

Fine documentary that. Lot of footage i've never seen.

[@SabraStiehl]

There's a few-second blurb at about 29 minutes where an artillery piece fires a high velocity round at a building instead of a high explosive round. The projectile just went through instead of exploding and bringing part of the building down.

[@TheGunrunn3r]

In 1936, this tank was actually a *Heavy*. Later on with tanks like the *PzK VI Tigers*, Russian *IS* ("Ио́сиф Ста́лин") models, *KV2*s, *Pershings*, and *Centurions*, what was "Heavy" became "Medium," what was "Medium" became "Light," and what was "Light" became obsolete. A little 2-pounder main gun was the shit in WWI, but the rapid advances in tech meant that engines could be built that could carry more armor than 2-ponders, 37mm's or even 45s could handle. Even the German IV's main gun was cupgraded from a 50mm to a 75mm. In comparison to today's Abrams, Leopard, T90, Merkava, etc, even the IS2 and Tiger II (Königstiger.. Translates to Bengal Tiger) are shopping carts.

[@Zamolxes77]

WRONG. Kv-1 and t-34 were designed/start being produced BEFORE the pz4. In fact the russkies visited a couple of tank plants back in '36 or so, when they were still buddies, and asked the germans if they have anything heavier. They were amazed when germans said no, knowing they already have the kv-1. Check out "Panzer Leader" book, written by Guderian after the war. In light of that, pz 4 was a medium from the start, considering the russian behemoths available at the start of the war. Yes, it was the HEAVIEST tank the germans had at the time, but you can't really claim it was a heavy tank. Furthermore, Guderian states pretty clearly, pz1 and 2 were meant as training vehicles only, to train and study how a panzer division would act. He himself never expected to go to war in those vehicles. But Hitler gambled and push ahead with his plans (1 year ahead of time), they had no choice but using what they had: pz1 and 2's. Pz 3 and 4's were meant to be the actual vehicles for war, incorporating the lessons learned from operating pz 1's and 2's : bigger gun, bigger turret, radio operator, to name a few. Even before 1939, there were already blueprints and development ideas regarding a heavy tank. Those plans were accelerated after 1941, clash with soviet monsters shook the germans. Eventually those plans crystallized in px 5 and 6, panther and Tiger. Again, I highly suggest Guderian's book, find the facts from horse's mouth.

[@IWDvideoz]

Well technically the Pershing is a medium tank

[@BVargas78]

Zamolxes77 Youre looking at the situation through historical hindsight. At the time Pz4 first came out the germans wouldnt even have been aware that the KV series existed. So it was initially designated a heavy tank by the germans.

[@tbr2109]

IWDvideoz By today's standards, yes, but along with the Sherman it was considered a heavy tank at the time.

[@TheGunrunn3r]

***** Actually, the Sherman was built with mobility, cost, and manufacture time as a focus. US battle doctrine at the time was that tanks were to be used as Infantry support, not to take on enemy tanks. The enemy's tanks were supposed to be dealt with by tank destroyers. Once the "think tank" boys woke up and found that the enemy was not complying with their doctrine, it was too late to develop a new tank, so the "variants" were produced. The only aspect (IMO) in which the Sherman (and variants) were superior to German PzIV and PzV's (Panthers) were that they could be produced much faster.

[@johnivkovich8655]

6:40 Wrong!!!!! At this point infantry supported by anti-tank guns was the best way to fight armored attacks. Armor supported by mobile infantry was the best way to exploit weak points and encircle troop concentrations.

[@ftffighter]

Does anybody know the name of the last Pz. IV commander mentioned in the video that knocked out an IS-2? His crew must have been one hell of a good team!

[@michaelbrogan7537]

Hell yeah! Taking out the Slayer of Beasts with a Panzer IV seems unbelievable!

[@froggleggers1805]

Excellent color footage of camouflage employed on PzIVh, quite rare to see this. at 38:35

[@stephenbesley3177]

Heavy in 1940 maybe. One can only imagine the reaction of the first tank crews to come up against the KV1

[@Bochi42]

The Soviets thought the Nazis were lying to them when they said the Pz IV was there heaviest tank so I don't think it was heavy back then either. It was an infantry support tank not a heavy breakthrough tank or anything. The armor was quite light in the early models especially. Personally I think it's silly to call it a heavy at all. That's not directed at you just the title. But it's hard to find good videos on this workhorse tank compared to the later war ones so I'm happy to have it available.

[@Agorante]

I'm re-reading Keegan's "The Price of Admiralty". There's a passage in there about a German battle-cruiser. It was hit in one of its turrets at Jutland by a British shell and a piece of it's armor plate flew a hundred feet into the air. The single piece of the turret weighed 70 tons - as much as a Tiger tank. Tanks are big scary things if you are out there on the battlefield with just your rifle. But by naval standards they are fragile things and easily destroyed.

[@michaelbrogan7537]

Agreed. Naval combat is a truly astounding thing. The sheer destructive power and lethality is staggering

[@heinwein421]

Show me how a Battlecruiser will take on with a Tank???? The Ship must wait until the Tank comes near the Coast it is, only my opinion, a little bit ridiculous... No?

[@enscroggs]

The P4 had three different 75mm guns over it's lifespan, the KwK 37 L/24, the KwK 40 L/43 and the KwK 40 L/48 in the final three models (H, I and J). The Kwk 37 was designed for infantry support and was a poor anti-tank weapon. The L/43 was a big improvement but still inferior to the KV1. The L/48 made the P4 generally equal to or better than the Allied tanks. They would have done better to skip the Tiger and have built more P4's and Panthers.

[@paulalexander2928]

Its interesting to note some of the vehicles used by Rommel are Chevy and Studebaker trucks and staff cars.

[@pweter351]

The Americans sold germany trucks right up to dec 41 Joe Kennedy was involved , part of being neutral means you have to supply both sides😆

[@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819]

Both sides in that campaign used captured trucks and other vehicles to carry men and supplies as they could not be supplied with enough of them from their own reserves.

[@corn1971]

It is amazing how slow Germany was to mobilize its industry for the war effort.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

They thought they had enough already to win by Dec. '41. OOooopps!!

[@thomaslinton1001]

True, but that would not solve the lack of oil. They had to dock the majority of the U-Boat force to have enough fuel to invade the USSR.

[@franzliszt4257]

Very true! Until 42 you could buy aluminum lasers at the store or bicycles! Can’t say why.

[@bobbrooks80]

You got a dislike for calling a Pz 4 a heavy tank.

[@brothercaptainwarhammer]

dude its a medium........not a heavy

[@zeonace101]

the title isn't wrong, the Pz IV was considered a heavy tank at the start of the war before the tiger was put into serves. in fact it's not uncommon to see the germans designate armor like this. a good example would be that the germans classified the KV-1 as a super heavy tank at the time.

[@brothercaptainwarhammer]

u fried up my mind....well ur true, just found about it when a read a book about tanks.......

[@kosepus100ny]

Cherno Alpha Its like panzer III when it was fisht made it was counted as a medium tank but over time it became an light tank when it was pushed aside and replaced with the panzer IV

[@brothercaptainwarhammer]

....................i dont need ur history lessons boy.........i got ma book about tanks through out history

[@MyOpinnion]

Cherno Alpha The best way to learn is multiple sources of information!

[@JackGordone]

Again, the narrator misuses the word "fortuitous" at about the 1 minute mark, the 2nd time he's done so in the (otherwise excellent) series.

[@robertclark1669]

I think this is my favorite MBT from any nation it could keep up with the ars race breakdowns were kept to a limit which I know isnt saying much for germany but really I love this tank

[@TheNickLavender]

@ 25:06 that dog seems to be getting a kick out of all the action plus the loud guns lol

[@zeonace101]

ok seems a lot of people don't know this so here we go. the video is not wrong about the Mk.IV being a heavy tank. 90% of you are going "WTF are you talking about".. at the start of of the war (pre Tiger) the Germans did in fact designate the Mk.IV as a heavy tank. In fact the Germans even designated the russian KV-1 as a super heavy tank at the time as well. It wasn't until the production of the Tiger that German tank designation changed. On a side note of early panzer unit structure, Heavy panzer companies did not consist of all Tigers. they had Mk.III to supplement the companies. most platoons being made up of a mix of Tigers and Mk.III but some battalions like the 501st and 503rd had been organized into Tiger only battalions and just in case you want to know where this info is coming from you should read Panzertruppen vol1, Panzers on the Eastern Front, and Order of Battle German Panzers in WW2.

[@beausabreur1759]

+Matchstick you are wrong.

[@zeonace101]

John Bowman you don't know much about history then... go pick up a book

[@arnoto9995]

+John Bowman you just say he's wrong, giving no argument against him, just that he isn't right?

[@thomaslinton1001]

Sd.Kfz. 161 (PzKpfw IV medium tank with 75 mm L/24 main gun) On 11 January 1934, the German army wrote the specifications for a "medium tractor", and issued them to a number of defense companies. To support the Panzer III . . .

[@SkullKing11841]

Bovignton Tank museum in Britain tested the S-Tank and found when attacking the enemy they preformed the same as a turreted tank. I don't think they took into account what would happen when attacking in a group, but assault guns would have there own tactics for it. The Stug 3 was very effective in the Italian campaign, Italy being very mountains and hard to traverse and the Germans being on the defensive suited the Stug. German War files did a documentary on Assault Guns of Germany. :)

Hitler;"This medium tank is now a heavy tank!"."That isolated city is now a fortress!" "You 20 men are a division!"

[@docholiday1476]

The Panzer IV was a medium tank not a heavy tank. It was a great workhorse of a tank. Reliable and steady. By the late 44/45 period it was moving into obsolescence. AT shells were more capable and the armor was just too light and had no slope to it. However the Germans improved the tank from 41 to 45 by upgunning it and adding armor and skirts. Skilled crews could still be effective.

[@danielsachajda1396]

Panzer IV is medium tank

[@user-eh6jk8dl9t]

He says it in the inscription

[@tonybaloney8401]

+Anton Andersson *description*

[@rexmasters1541]

Yes. They can still buy food.

[@woooster17]

How difficult is it for people to READ the description before posting (and trying to sound expert) that the Panzer IV is a medium Tank!!

[@BruceWayne_213]

Men i am so addicted in WWII.. i am so happy i found this video or it found me..

[@matthewwu6184]

For everyone saying its a medium, READ THE DESCRIPTION.

[@mgoggin65]

THE DESCRIPTION IS WRONG.

[@thomaslinton1001]

The description is incorrect. .

[@russelder9743]

good stuff---------love the history on this channel

[@badgamer8137]

The people who made this documentary calls it a heavy tank?

[@intrepidsponge8893]

.

[@degrelleholt6314]

+The Tank Geek Well, it was the heaviest tank the Germans had until the introduction of the Tiger.

[@mateorivera2323]

+Degrelle Holt it still classified as a medium

[@vyatskiy1973]

+Fight Me как вы различаете танки легкие, средние ,или тяжелые?

[@mateorivera2323]

Marwan Musa It was always a Medium tank. even guderian calls it medium all the way

[@redreaper-xe6so]

frontal armor varied by a few mm on almost all tanks due to inconsistencies with production, especially in Russia and Germany. Small gradual increases in steel thickness and improvements in metallurgy were expected as well.

[@matshagglund3550]

Modernized versions of Pzkw IV were much better and more reliable than T-34 ever was. Also M4 Sherman was better tank t than T-34, even the versio T-34/85. American and British tank experts saw lots of issues when testing T-34 in Scotland (1942).

[@Hunter12396]

+Mats Hagglund and yet they liked it and planned to put a 17pdr in a T-34 must've really been terrible for them to be interested in that...

[@drivewaynats3696]

+Mats Hagglund you came out of left field with those crazy arse comments

[@sandert8901]

Probably because it was cheap to produce and well it had quite good armor.

[@drivewaynats3696]

so the latter models of the panzer 4 didn't get stuck in the mud like the early ones did??

[@Hunter12396]

gman gm yes, they had Ostketten sometimes

[@kaijudirector5336]

Anyone know the name of the music track at 26:40?

[@thomaslinton1001]

All armies, even the Italians, followed the accepted wisdom learned in war that the ratio of tanks to mobile infantry needed to be adjusted towards more infantry. Rommel first asked for more infantry after the initial African battles - not more tanks. Repetition of myths adds nothing! Initial encounters with early T34s resulted in massacre of the T34s. They were junk, with especially poor visibility, rate of fire, and reliability. The T34 was MUCH improved as the War went on.

[@johnivkovich8655]

You sir; know your history and tactics!

[@jerrysnider1950]

The panzer 4 was a medium tank

[@thespectre5403]

read the description

[@AhornSyrup]

who ever made the documentary didn't check the tank classification eh?

[@EnSayne987]

The Panzer III was a medium tank and I agree with that classification, but if you didn't know that and you saw that thing you'd swear it's a light tank, especially the first model with the cute 37mm gun. Same goes for the Panzer IV. It might have started as a heavy tank, but look at the thing and you would call it a medium. Even the German command realized that soon enough.

[@AhornSyrup]

Daniel Sinks You know, if you watch this series' video, one for the Panther, they say Panther is medium, and this heavy... which makes absolutely no sense at all, why aren't they calling Panthers heavy tank? I mean, its much bigger than Pz. IV. Also, this video is the only video that calls Pz. IV a heavy tank.

[@EnSayne987]

DennisLego I watched the Panther video a while back, and they call it a medium because by the time the Panther was built, German designers realized that the Panzer IV wasn't a heavy by any means and re-classified it. If the Panther would have exited before then (which would have been impossible because it was made to counter the T-34), it would have been a heavy as well.

[@AhornSyrup]

Daniel Sinks but the question, how can you be so sure that it was originally a heavy tank? Can't find the info that Pz. IV was classified as heavy tank.

[@EnSayne987]

DennisLego I'm just going off the video and my own judgement. Think about it, the video mentioned that the Panzer IV was meant as support for the Panzer III, which is entirely true. It also mentioned that it was the heaviest tank they had at the time, also true. Whether or not German command called it a heavy I can't confirm, but it would certainly make sense if you look at it from the right angle.

[@ChaosTicket]

The howitzer is a low-velocity arcing gun firing mainly explosive shells. Any weapon can become indirect fire, especially as before ww1 many technologies came out to allow multi-kilometer measurements and out-of-sight weapons. You want to know the difference between the 75mm howitzer and 75mm cannons used on the german vehicles? about 70mm in penetration and 400meters per second. the different between the L/56 88mm and L/71 88mm is 70mm penetration and 200meters per second.

[@markgraham4732]

Good footage of the Waffen SS fighting at Kharkov. Excellent SS victory.

[@ert-wert]

My dad would kick your ass

[@coryfice1881]

Cringe.

[@arturwojciechowicz3124]

Bitte, geben Sie die deutsche Version an.

[@romangavrilov930]

A child in Africa could of eaten that tank.

[@supercal1969]

+Roman Gavrilov Please, don't ve irevererent with the legendary tank that invded Europe, almost USSR and almost North Africa.

[@joesnow7216]

+Roman Gavrilov Wrong. The Panzer IV was one of the most advanced tanks of it's time. It was the Panzer IV that forced the Russians to invent the T-34 and the Americans to make the Sherman.

[@whopperjrDEagle]

Joe Snow the t-34 and shermans were both built before both countries went to war

[@ryanhenderson8594]

+Nick N. (Halokittens) Yep, too bad Germany's better tanks like the Tiger and the Panther chewed through the Shermans' armour like it was a god damned cookie XD

[@coraline7866]

+Ryan Henderson We only saw the Tigers once, it involved FLATBED rr cars

[@thomaslinton1001]

The General Staff wish was to concentrate on Moscow. Whether that was wise or not, the late-Summer concentration on the center was greeted with "finally!" NOT a lack of understanding.

[@mihonishizumi9052]

Beautiful

[@Razutine2k]

yep, this is the german war file intel that happened in world war II about the Panzer IV, and also about from the anime "Girls und Panzer" completely different, mostly students from other schools during their classes, they were studying about it and facts about world war II, I think. That's why I wasn't just watching the anime, also I were reading manga, the first manga I read its Girls und Panzer: Saga of Pravda and up next another Girls und panzer mangas "Phase ERIKA"

[@rng_lord1276]

Before the Tiger, etc came out the Pz. IV was considered a heavy tank because it was heavier than most tanks in 1939-40. Later it was re-designated a medium.

[@mikeliu3262]

Heavy tank? Compared to what? Pz iis? Toy cars?

[@palemalesa]

It was a medium infantry tank meant to act as a mobile gun platform to support infantry attacks and NOT engage in tank to tank battles. Hence the short barreled 75mm assault gun.

[@eveajah21]

the best medium tank in tier 5 before nerf

[@slartybartfarst55]

Yep! I just had to have one, but doing well with it is hard work!

[@Vogelwurst89]

What Nerf? Playing the Pz. IV on a regular basis and it's performing incredible with the 10,5cm Gun and HE Ammo (although not historical correct)

[@jamesclapam7050]

Just one more question for all and a point to make. Wha all the talk of tanks when in 1944 the Germans employed SP guns much more than tanks in the role of a tank. The Hetzer was the main "tank" and the Tigers, Panthers, and Mark & Panzer IVs were relatively rare. Germany even used halftracks in armored roles nearing the end. Thoughts?? Be nice..

[@adssuck5177]

the hetzer wasn't a main battle tank, and the panzer IV was much more common than a self propelled gun and the hetzer in 1944

[@jamesclapam7050]

ads suck No it was not. The Hetzer was readily available in late 1943 and almost 4000 had been built. OF the Panzer IV made sivce the mid 1930s, just under 10,000. SP guns were much cheaper and could be produce much quicker. in 1944 Germany had very very actual tanks left. Most armor fielded by Germany were SP guns and support vehicles.

[@jamesclapam7050]

ads suck Lets look at German SP guns all of which carried AP rounds Marder Jagdpanzer Hetzer Jagdpanzer IV Nashorn Jagdpanzer Panzerjäger Jagdpanzer Sturmgeschütz Brummbär Sturmgeschütz IV Sturmtiger Elefant

[@FORGQTTEN]

james clapam Sir you are also wrong. The main german armoured vehicle during 42-45 slowly became the Stug III. The hetzer was operational in 44 and the stug in 1940, over 10 000 stugs were produced and only 2800 hetzers produced.

[@CantateDomino373]

Incorrect. The Panzer IV was more numerous than a Hetzer SP. That is like saying every Allied platoon would encounter a Tiger tank. That is not true, as Tigers were very rare for German armored companies, and were mainly in elite divisions or were scattered around the Eastern/Western fronts.

[@shrap8]

TLDW; Weather saved the Soviets.

[@DrHavoc1]

weather in russia is so unpredictable... Who would have thought that winter in russia is cold :O

[@juanluisargemimartin84]

wrong, in the operation Typhoon versus Moscow, the divisions panzer are exhausted days before the storms of snow, out of supply and remplacements

[@xxdomoxxkunxx]

juan luis argemi martin but the winter sure as hell didnt help longestics

[@EnSayne987]

Domo Von Imperium It didn't help, but it didn't save anyone either.

[@xxdomoxxkunxx]

Never said it saved the russians, It was a serious blow to both factions, but the axis got a worse brunt due to russia's equipment being literally engineered to survive it

[@MegaRaven100]

The German Panzer IV was considered 'heavy support' as it was not designed as a main battle tank at the beginning but as an infantry support tank. It like the Stg IIIb was armed with the short barrelled 75mm which was low velocity and thus much better at HE than AT. It was the Panzer III that was Germays main battle tank up to 1941. It was meeting the T 34 that made the German realize that A; Pz III was outdated B; that the Stg III and Pz IV would become antitankers with 75mm long ATG

[@vanscoyoc]

They should encircled these cities like they did Leningrad and moved on. Japan should have helped with Siberia and relied on captured Soviet Oil before ever attacking the U.S.

[@Joe45-91]

agreed, the Sherman, being a medium tank, did its job well. I would say its biggest draw-back would be its height. Big silhouette, big target. Unlike the Sturmgeschütz III (an excellent tank killer)

[@limmyk4943]

it's a Medium tank XD

[@Panzer_Runner]

XDDDDDDDD

[@newjones1754]

I first believed the video was mistaking the Panzer 4 for the Panzer 6 (tiger) Because of the title that said Heavy tanks. Then I believed it was about the Panzer 5 (panther) even though it's a medium tank some debat it's closer to a heavy tank. It took me a few moments to understand what tank it was about. Change the title it's confussing as hell.