HHR Panzer IV Ausf. G

[Comassion]

Panzer IV Ausf. G - 1942
30 Pts
Spd 3
Def 5 / 3
AI: 7 / 7 / 6
AV: 15 / 13 / 11
Extended Range 10


As usual, history first. Do we want to come up with a special ability that models the Schurzen (skirts) on the model, or do we like the stats and want to move on to cost?

[jiminy_fatal]

SA GLANCING BLOW - Once Per game 2 hits on this unit may be reduced to 1 hit resulting in disruption instead of damage.

[Comassion]

That's practically the same thing as hulking mass...

[666]

increase rear armor value

[EricM 2404]

Schurzin
This unit always rolls for cover against close assaults

panzerIV gets cover even though not normally alowed against close assault
Even in the open

not game braking but I think this is what i would do

[Ming]

I actually like Daniel Phelps' Schurzen SA on his set of 'realism' cards. Basically, infantry attacks against the tank receive a -1 on the roll.

The Schurzen was most effective against infantry anti tank weapons.

[PatrickWR]

I agree, Danyel Phelps offered the best rendition of a Schurzen SA by giving close assaulting infantry a -1 penalty on their attack roll. This is all historical skirting was good for...it blew apart along with the rest of the tank when fired upon with AT rounds.

Costwise, I think we discussed dropping the Panzer IV G to 26 points, which I think is reasonable.

[Bobsalt]

I actually like Daniel Phelps' Schurzen SA on his set of 'realism' cards. Basically, infantry attacks against the tank receive a -1 on the roll.

The Schurzen was most effective against infantry anti tank weapons.

I haven't seen this, but it sounds good for most infantry that wouldn't have had specialized anti-tank weapons (other than grenades). The question I have is what to do about bazookas, which I'm assuming would still have gone through the schurzen - or is this exactly what the schurzen stopped? I was under the impression that they were more to protect the tracks against grenades and lower-velocity weapons.

[PatrickWR]

Schurzen's purpose was to make infantry AT weapons (mainly Bazookas, PIATs and Panzerfausts) detonate prematurely, thereby greatly reducing its armor-piercing ability. Basically AT weapons blow apart the schurzen, rather than the actual armor of the tank.

[Domhnall101]

Schurzen's purpose was to make infantry AT weapons (mainly Bazookas, PIATs and Panzerfausts) detonate prematurely, thereby greatly reducing its armor-piercing ability. Basically AT weapons blow apart the schurzen, rather than the actual armor of the tank.
this sounds right to me and the -1 is a good modifier

[Comassion]

How's this:

Schurzen: Non-Artillery Soldiers that attack this unit recieve -1 on their attack roll.

[666]

good and simple. Just decrease the cost and it is done:)

[Danyel Phelps]

The armored panels that are so crudely welded to the side of the beloved German mark four series were actually designed only to stop Soviet anti-tank rifles, which while outdated, were being used with some effect to damage components of the vehicle. An annoying problem dealt with through a simple solution.

The effect of the panels against hollow charge weaponry was merely an afterthought, and there are some* in this particular field of study that think the premature detonation of hollow-charge munitions actually aided in penetration by allowing the beam to solidify before making contact with the armor. Using the same argument, the same people will state that practices such as sandbagging a tank served only to harm more than help.

Without a doubt, though, the best type of external armor modification comes in the form of reactive armor. Items such as tracks, cinderblocks, logs, and welded/bolted additional plates made excellent deterrents to damage by displacing the energy of an incoming round. Such measures were often one-time wonders, though, even with the greatest of care in their application.



*I am not one of these people.

[PatrickWR]

Sounds like the proposed SA is still appropriate for the 7-10 minute timeframe for our games. Agree?

[Bobsalt]

It has the beauty of both modeling reality by making the use of the smaller anti-tank weapons less effective while keeping things simple. I'll commit myself to voting for this unless someone comes up with something authoritative as to why this proposed change is wrong.

[Ming]

As long as Mr. Phelps does not mind that we are basically stealing his invention.

[Comassion]

I think he'd have raised an objection instead of helping us with all kinds of neat information if that were the case. I can't imagine anyone would particularly mind having their version of a rule adopted for use.

It seems the HHRC agrees on the SA, so let's apply it and cost the unit.

26 points was the proposed cost for the tank on a different thread. Thoughts?

[Danyel Phelps]

As long as Mr. Phelps does not mind that we are basically stealing his invention.
Go ahead. I rather like what's being done here.

[Vulturedoodle]

How's this:

Schurzen: Non-Artillery Soldiers that attack this unit recieve -1 on their attack roll.
Simple, even elegant.

--SEF

[Bobsalt]

As long as Mr. Phelps does not mind that we are basically stealing his invention.

Nah, he won't mind us stealing from him - remember: he's the nicest guy in the world...

(Sorry danyel, couldn't resist....) :D

[PatrickWR]

I think he'd have raised an objection instead of helping us with all kinds of neat information if that were the case. I can't imagine anyone would particularly mind having their version of a rule adopted for use.

It seems the HHRC agrees on the SA, so let's apply it and cost the unit.

26 points was the proposed cost for the tank on a different thread. Thoughts?

Let's go with 26 points so long as we decide to examine the Rhino's cost in light of this.

[Comassion]

We can do the Rhino next, sure.

[Joisey]

I agree, Danyel Phelps offered the best rendition of a Schurzen SA by giving close assaulting infantry a -1 penalty on their attack roll. This is all historical skirting was good for...it blew apart along with the rest of the tank when fired upon with AT rounds.

Costwise, I think we discussed dropping the Panzer IV G to 26 points, which I think is reasonable.
Ah Hell! Its the holidays and I don't have time to go through this whole thread! Don't youze Guyz ever take a break???;)

I vote for Pat's proposal. This is what I want to do with the Pzr IV. I'm not looking to make the armor skirts a super powerful SA or anything like that. The game has too many of those already which is why we are doing this project in the first place. This proposal has an enduring and endearing quality to it: It is a modest proposal, in the spirit of what the game is intended to be.

[Comassion]

That's a wrap. Here's HHR's official Panzer IV:

Panzer IV Ausf. G - 1942
26 Pts
Spd 3
Def 5 / 3
AI: 7 / 7 / 6
AV: 15 / 13 / 11
Extended Range 10
Schurzen: Non-Artillery Soldiers that attack this unit recieve -1 on each attack die.

[fifleche]

Okay, I know the debate is officially over, but I would like to chime in! :)

(Working in a FLGS during the holydays = no time to keep up with the posts :o )

I tried posting this on the HHR Sherman thread, but the discussion almost flared up instantly about the "Flammability" of the Sherman, or lack thereof, without anyone giving any tought to my point, so I'll re-post it here, from the HHR Sherman thread:

Panzers get +2 AV over Shermans at all ranges, which is especially powerful at long range (11 dice vs 9 dice on 5 defense). To balance in a standard 100-point game, I still think a 4 Sherman vs. 3 Panzer ratio is fair. So, the Sherman shouldn't be over 25 points and the Panzer shouldn't be under 26.Do not forget that the Sherman is 33% faster than the PzIV. With the map configurations we have, the PzIV's MAY get an extended range attack, but the Shermans WILL get to them quick.

Also, I personally consider it a HUGE difference between 7 & 9 dices against infantry, while at 13 vs 15 dices vs armor, the difference is negligeable, especially since the quicker Shermans will quickly close the range and the maps are cluttered with cover...

I don't get to vote, but my opinion is this: the PzIV has a bad combination: 3 rear defense with a relatively slow speed of 3... Those german MBT may be successfully engaged & destroyed by light tanks! Try taking 6 stuarts VS 3 PzIV's and see what I mean... Thus PzIV should cost the same as the Sherman.

Also, the members of the HHRC should think about this: we are comparing apples to pears; the PzIV's main job was to battle the enemy's tanks, while the M4's was an infantry-support vehicle. In US doctrine it was the TD's job to tackle enemy tanks... The M4 is ALMOST as good at engaging enemy armor, but is 33% quicker and A LOT better at engaging infantry than the PzIV... This should be considered when comparing the two. IMHO, the M4 and the PzIV should cost about the same. Yes, the Panzer is better in a narrow role, but versatility should be paid for.

[Danyel Phelps]

Well, unfortunatly, that was Germany's problem. The Sherman was roughly comparable to their standard battle tanks, and allot more of them could be fielded.

[fifleche]

Well, unfortunatly, that was Germany's problem...and thus the HHRC's problem too, because, from what I understand, they (we) are trying to model AND price the units to something that is near their historic value. As for modeling, I quite agree to what we see here between the PzIV and the Sherman (tho I still think that pre-"Easy Eight" shermans should be LESS manueverable than the Panther...). It is the pricing I dissagree with. Something you see in EVERY build (granted, not the parabomb :rolleyes: ) is just too versatile/underpriced, depending on how you look at it.

And, unless I am COMPLETELY off, the HHR decided that point costs should model "combat effectiveness", and not things such as numbers built, ease of maintenance, availability of ammo/repairs/fuel etc. If these are modeled in the points pricing, then I agree that I'm off. But I maintain that, IMHO, both pieces have a roughly equal value all in all, and thus should be almost identically priced.

[PatrickWR]

I think the Panzer IV is alright. It's up to the German player to play smart; that is, make use of Extended Range where possible, give ground in order to set up shots, hit hard with tough infantry, etc.

Danyel, a question for you: do any of the current German tanks have any solid infantry support abilities? Y'know, HE shells, lots of machineguns. I'd really like to see a German tank with a 9/9/7 vs. infantry, like the Sherman, if it made a historical appearance.

[Danyel Phelps]

Deleted: I made a f**** up.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I am a little late, but: I think the first Pz IV with Schürzen was the H version. I might err!

And another consideration: the point values should NOT contain economic capabilities of the countries, only the cost of production/play balance. 100 points must be worth 100 points on each side. If you add economic reality you must make scenarios where one side has less points than the other (this could include factors like size of the standing army, transport ways,....)

2cents

[Bobsalt]

I am a little late, but: I think the first Pz IV with Schürzen was the H version. I might err!

And another consideration: the point values should NOT contain economic capabilities of the countries, only the cost of production/play balance. 100 points must be worth 100 points on each side. If you add economic reality you must make scenarios where one side has less points than the other (this could include factors like size of the standing army, transport ways,....)

2cents

I may be off too, but I believe the Pz IVH was the first tank with Schurzen also. As I'm not an expert on armor, I'll defer to those who know more.

As to anti-infantry stats, didn't the Pz IVD have 2 MG's?

[Danyel Phelps]

Most of the Anti-Infantry power would come out of High-Explosive shells, not the machine guns.

[Andras]

Ausf G series introduced Shurzen, applique armor (to 80mm front), and the long gun that were all standardized in the H series.