Give me more Panzers, Speer! | Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausführung H

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

This video was brought to you by MyHeritage. Discover your family history today by following this link: bit.ly/TankEncyclopedia

[@BHuang92]

The epitome of the Panzer IV.

[@jackmoorehead2036]

Just seeing their proud production numbers makes one wonder how they ever thought they could win the war. 360 Mk IV, in a month? That's a days production of M 4s and T 34s.

[@Joshua_N-A]

If their supply routes and airspace were heavily guarded, the factories would've been able to churn out 100 tanks a week. Sabotages also a concern when using slave labour from occupied territories.

[@cosmoray9750]

Color Revolutions and the CIA in Hong Kong kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZnIfaxvpbNqaZI

[@SMGJohn]

@@Joshua_N-A Doubtful, Germany was a Capitalist economy, the companies were actively sabotaging each other just to get the contract and sweet government cash. Germany never really had any centralising control over the productions. Not to mention H**lers egomania about having heavily armoured tanks did not help at all when majority of tank losses in WW2 were from heavy artillery, no amount of armour would help you against being hit by a 122mm HE shell.

[@RichardSaurus]

My believe is that if in the Spring of 1942, Hitler orders that the Panzerwaffe be solely equipped moving forward with long-barreled Stug 3s and 4s, AND he hands over overall operational control of the war to Kesselring or von Bock, you see a German victory on all fronts

[@akula9713]

For tanks, you need skilled crews, and most of all fuel. More PzkwIV’s or Panthers? End result would be the same.

[@amogus948]

Considering that Germany always had a huge amount of tanks rotting in warehouses due to a lack of spare parts and mechanichs, an increase in tank production would have not helped that much

[@jayfelsberg1931]

3:48 - love the model

[@w0lfgm]

*F2, the same one tat Brithish designated Mar IV Special.... ith had a KWK 40 L/43. Pz IVG has more armor and differnt shape muzzle brake.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

F2 was a very short-lived designation. From July 1942 to the end of the war, that tank was regarded as the Ausf.G

[@w0lfgm]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT anyway it was the 1st model with longer 75 mm gum. Only later models of Pz IV G had even longer KWK 40 L/48 gun.

[@alhemicaribastovani9029]

Love the video !

[@leonasmith6180]

Thank you, nicely done and informative. Leona

[@christophervanoster]

Ah come on Tank Encyclopedia you’re killing me here. I cant wait for more videos on the panzer 3 models. We’ve gotten everything for the Germans even the 1s and 2s pleeeeeeeeease

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Hmmmm

[@davidh25952]

Yes they should have upgraded all 4's to H standard while developing the sloped armour version, improving the engine and up gunning to the L70 version of the 75mm. A completely new tank but lighter and maybe less complicated than the Panther and Tiger series.

[@George_M_]

I've seen an ex-Syrian Ausf H and theyre surprisingly small. Felt way less excessive than the hulking Panther. Feels half the mass.

[@jasonz7788]

Awesome thanks

[@justjoking5841]

The Sloped Panzer 4 is cursed but kinda nice looking.

[@KorianHUN]

Why is it cursed? Looks pretty normal.

[@banananoodles]

​@@KorianHUN I think they mean it looks wrong because the PZ. 4 is very boxy so seeing weird designs with non boxy elements on it look cursed

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

@@justjoking5841 ya mark 4 fine looking machine. Best sideview

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

@@justjoking5841 It just looks right. Lots of ugly tanks made, fkn croc and matilda....she was as ugly as sin.

[@R3TR0J4N]

they're efin OP in Warthunder, i also love its looks

[@chalion8399]

Panzer IV-H was my main vehicle when it was tier 3.It was fantastic in all aspects. After they reduced it to tier 2, I switched to the Sturer Emil and Panzer IV 70 (A), for sniping instead.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Mehr Heer her Herr Speer

[@alfredbernasek6761]

HERRVORAGENDES ZEITDOKUMENT🎉

[@davidk6269]

The impact of this vehicle on the battlefield deserves a lot of recognition. It wasn't as "sexy" as the Tiger and Panther, but it was the backbone of the German panzers during the late period of the war.

[@蔡林翰-v2m]

說什麼呢，他也是最德國的裝甲

[@Ihavpickle]

I think you're sexy

[@AHappyCub]

It was definitely NOT the backbone, production numbers is too low for that, the ACTUAL backbone is the Panzer 3 iirc

[@蔡林翰-v2m]

@@AHappyCub 不，三號中期就停產改突擊炮了 應該說三號四號、黑豹、虎式，都是德軍主力

[@alangordon3283]

@@AHappyCubyou’re confused.

[@RichardSaurus]

15:15 A Pz 4 serving alongside a T-34 ✊

[@TheYeti308]

Good Job @ TE ; Proper Pronunciation Is Key To Learning . TY . !

[@Blitz98K]

As for the gun tanks in production,it is a given that the panzer 4 was the work horse, the Panther was more problematic,and costly, however, neither could have made much difference to the outcome of the war.

[@Red72618]

They could bring back the very basic of suspension system in the A chasis mounting the coil spring with larger wheels to cope up the weight ratio.

[@keithplymale2374]

Tiger IE, Panzer IV G and StuG IIIG would have been the correct trio to keep in production not that it would have changed anything but the cost to end the war on both sides since the fuel campaign meant they did not have the fuel for the tanks they had left by the end.

[@erwinsetyo1061]

At this point, the Sd.Kfz. 161 Panzerkampfwagen IV was already at the limit.

[@maxo.9928]

*Slopped armor would like to know your location*

[@Ras_al_Gore]

@@maxo.9928did you even watch the video?

[@billballbuster7186]

The PzIV was a good tank, well capable of taking out the Sherman at long range. But the Panther was the better tank and really was the last sensible word in German tank design. Many PzIV were reworked as SPGs mounting heavier guns.

[@ironwoodnf]

No panzer 4 redesign ever had more than an improved L/70 75mm. The jadpanzer 4 mounted an improved 75 and the stug 4 the L/48. But I am not aware of any that mounted a larger gun.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@ironwoodnf The Jagdpanzers usually mounted the 7.5cm KwK.42 L/70 of the Panther, over 2,000 were built. A much more powerful weapon than the original KwK.40. There was also the Panzer III Stug mounting the 7.5cm KwK.40 of the PzIV with over 10,000 built.

[@koenvangeleuken6544]

i get the impression the AusfH was more or less the equivalent of the sherman, comparable in firepower and armour.

[@300guy]

Awwe the side view looks like an M4 and a Pzkf 4 had a 👶!

[@manoelalmeidajunior6203]

Would sloped armor only be viable if there was time to reformulate the design and postpone the start of production until - say - the autumn of 1943?

[@chalion8399]

The main reason I see with the way the flat armor was used is it was easier to make and gave more room to take stress off the crews. To make the Panzer IV have sloped armor would either added tons of weight to an already over burdened vehicle, or reduce in the internal spaces, so limiting the amount of ammo, room for crew, and new difficulties producing it. Remember, there's no internal framework(chassis) to mount to, so all the armor plates held the vehicle together. I'd suggest watching the STUG III rebuild that the Australian Armor and Tank Museum is doing. You would see EVERYTHING was mounted to the hull and armor. (AUSARMOR)

[@manoelalmeidajunior6203]

@@chalion8399 tks!

[@Ras_al_Gore]

Easier to just make Panthers

[@chalion8399]

@@Ras_al_Gore That's what happened yes.

[@manoelalmeidajunior6203]

@@Ras_al_Gore Well, if there had been time (something Germany didn't have in 1943), it wouldn't have been a bad idea to have 3 platforms: Medium (IV-H with sloped armor), heavy (Panther) and super heavy (Tiger)

[@leighrate]

They should have developed a bigger nastier version of the Stug. Made it a bit wider for better gun traverse, with a more powerful gun and significantly more armour on the front. Not having to manufacture turrets simplifies production, and gains you significant weight saving that can be employed elsewhere on the vehicle.

[@Vrooto]

That's really easy to say but not actually produce. Because making a tank isn't just words you've gotta figure out everything and then comes in the production and cost even if you were able to design it it would probably not be put in production as the factories would've been put in producing proven designs or have been bombed And the better StuG is called the Jagdpanther

[@Ras_al_Gore]

So the Jagdpanther

[@THX11458]

They did. The Jagdpanzer-IV was originally created as an improved up-armored replacement for the Sturmgeschütz series. Initially known as the "Sturmgeschütz neuer Art" it only became re-designated a Jagdpanzer under Guderian's orders who felt it better served as a tank destroyer under the Panzerwaffe rather than a Sturmgeschütz under the artillery branch. Later the Jagdpanzer-IV was itself upgraded with the more powerful 7.5cm Pak42 L/70 main armament and renamed the Panzer-IV/70(V), but its role remained the same.

[@samisaarinen8498]

finland had 15 j models between 44 and 59 in use

[@1joshjosh1]

I once bought an apple and a stick of deodorant at a grocery store that was managed by a guy who had a neighbor with only one leg whose grandfather drove a PZ IV in the last world war.

[@manoskagiaftakis8084]

And also Grusonwerk manufactured Panzer 4.

[@christopherwebber3804]

No mention of the Pz IV J?

[@rubberwoody]

in a video about the H?

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

The J already has its own video.

[@slobodanmitic1354]

As always, german exagaration with kill/loss ratios and numbers is insane...

[@JohnJacksonFreeze]

I believe that Germany could have prolonged the war if they didn't waste resources on wunderwaffe and other projects. If they focused production on Panzer IVs and Panthers that would've given them a little bit more time. But as some people have been saying in the comments, Germany still would've lost regardless.

[@Grimshak81]

The Panzer IV costed about 95% to produce compared to a Panther. Wouldn’t have been feasible to produce a worse tank just to save 5% of Reichsmark.

[@StephenBaird-cp1fc]

More and better panzer iv

[@Blitz98K]

opopinion only,panzer 4 was by the end of the war out classed by all extant allied and soviet tanks. the centurion and m26 the comet thopinione t 54 ect. so, the post war designs negated all its capabilitys.

[@Blitz98K]

opinion,editing is throwed off

[@M65V19]

That's why, folks, you should never skip legs day. Jokes aside, it is consequences of cancellation of improved chassis for Pz4 program in 1940

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Build only stugs, mark4 and panthers. No heavy tanks. Use resources to upgrade these 3 as war progresses.

[@waltrautengels816]

Without fuel and without expierenced tank crews it simply doesn't matter which tank you have or you don't build. The Russians produced until 1949 50'000 Units of the T34. The Americans made during WWII about 32'000 Sherman-Tanks. So, we're talking about what exactly here?

[@cybernetic_crocodile8462]

Germans should have focused on fully transistioning to Panther. It was just more capable and perpectivistic design. Panzer IV was already at its limits and as you said, bigger changes in it were deemed infeasible.

[@Wien1938]

The problem was they didn't have the time to switch over fully. It was not until Feb 1944 that the Panther was declared fully fit for service ("front ripe") by Guderien as Inspector General of Panzer Forces. Given the losses of 1943, taking the risk of retooling the factories (and steel foundaries for the armour plate and guns) would have taken 40% of tank production offline just when new tanks were needed more than ever. Too much of a risk at that point.

[@Vrooto]

It was already too late in the war and the transmission breaks down quite frequently.

[@jurassicturtle3666]

They did actually eventually produce more Panthers than Panzer IVs. The intent was there. It's just not easy to transition your production like that under the amount of limitations and difficulties the Germans were dealing with. Even then, their AFV production still increased every year of the war, despite the relentless air bombardment.

[@joebronxer1204]

The sound is toooo low. Commercial tooo long.

[@SMGJohn]

Germany failed to wage modern war in WW2, and modern war had already begun in 1840s, its all about having more guns, more artillery, more ships yet the Germans failed to recognise history, you cannot wage wars if you cannot rebuild your entire army in one month, something the US and Soviets were actively doing, their production numbers were ridicules, the Soviet alone were building a 160k planes through the war, and then the US were building 320k planes during the war, how many were Germany building? Oh only 120k, less than what the UK were doing. This alone is why the Axis could never win, even if they were only against the Soviet Union.

[@Kalashnikov413]

No, it'll never be THAT simple, AT ALL

[@SMGJohn]

@@Kalashnikov413 No to your no.

[@sneakycactus8815]

extra panthers or tiger tanks wouldn't have helped at all with dwindling fuel supplies. if anything, it would've made the problem worse. germany lost before the war even began. "more this, less that" is just fantasy.

[@janwitts2688]

It wasn't a third machine gun.. if mounted it was the coaxial one repositioned ..

[@issacfoster1113]

Panzer 4s are basically sitting ducks in the Close range fighting on the Western front especially on the Buldge. So no having more Panzer IVs wouldn't not help the Germans at all.

[@vladimirpapak4154]

Yes panzer 4 mal 1000 ist besser als Tiger mal 100

[@Kalashnikov413]

Actually neither were better

[@gorbalsboy]

Its great that the mighty germans really were rubbish when it come right down to it , especially that character Rummel's

[@baronvonbeedy7987]

The Germans should never had started Barbarosa until they had armed the majority of their Pz IVs with 75L43 or 75L48 guns. The Tiger should have been developed, but in very small numbers reflective of the waste of material that it was and its operational limitations. More good tanks, means more good barrels. The Panther. Design it to replace the Pz IV, but only after its bugs are ironed out. Tiger II ....don't even start. Additionally, the Pz IV could have had a front angled plate attached like skirtzen to increase its combat life one last time.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

They didn't even have the L/60 on the Panzer III for Barbarossa.

[@filipzrilic596]

Funny thing... In second part of video when talking about fronts where pz IV H fought... When talking about east/Soviet front it is always repoeted how many soviet tanks and anti tank guns were lost. But, when talking Italy, northen France its always mentioned how many pz IV H Germans lost fighting Allies. No Allied losses vs pz IVs... no, not hipocritical at all.... Just plain stupid, non proffesional and political

[@ericvantassell6809]

Pay someone to pronounce german words for you