Upcoming tier 5 German TD – Sfl.IVc

Hello everyone,

you might have seen the earlier supertest leak regarding the upcoming tier 5 tank destroyer, the Sfl.IVc. In game it will look like this.


Does it look retarded to you? Of course it does. There’s no point in creating such a huge box and putting a cannon in front. Huge silhouette would guarantee discovery. So, how come Germans built such a vehicle?

Well, you see, in real life it looked like this:


As you can see, the sides and the rear superstructure would be removed, when the vehicle was prepped to fire.

Originally, this vehicle was envisaged by Krupp as a heavy Panzerjäger with an 88mm K cannon in 1941. It was based on a special heavily modified Panzer IV suspension, called Sonderfahrgestell (“special chassis”). Both the L/56 and L/71 were historically considered for this vehicle. In 1942, 3 prototypes were made, but at that point it was considered obsolete and in 1944, there was a program to convert these vehicles into heavy AA tanks, using FlaK cannons (that’s what we will have in game). The picture shows the ingame configuration with the FlaK 41 L/74.


Crew: 8 (ingame 6)
Weight: 26 tons
Engine: Maybach HL90 (unknown hp, in game it has 360hp. which would give it 13,8hp/t)
Maximum speed: 35km/h
Gun: 88mm FlaK 37/Flak 41 (expect less power than the L/56 and L/71 due to obsolete/AA ammunition)
Traverse: In real life, it had 360 degrees traverse, but in the ingame configuration it will be limited.
Elevation: -3/+85

Hull: 50/20/20mm
Superstructure: 50/10/10mm

177 thoughts on “Upcoming tier 5 German TD – Sfl.IVc

  1. So there we have big-as-fuck silhouette just because WG decided it’s supposed to be like that..?

    • Don’t worry, they will probably rework Lorry arty so the gun shield will be closed and the barrel will move only within it, so it will be pointing up all the time and you will be like a huge mortar.

      You know, WG decided that we will have vehicles packed in their transit position.
      Then, when all this insults to history will be corrected to look like this, they will continue to fix guns of M26, GWs, JGs and every tank in their support, so for example in M26, you will have your gun pointing in back and you will have to turn the hull to aim; it will be like S tank without the suspension :) who needs to aim vertically anyway :)

      • i think skirts are part of balancing.think jgpanther gun at tier 5 with small siluette – it would be OP

        • That gun shield is huge and it will be paper for tier 5 guns and camo factor could be crappy without the tank looking crappy

          • That’s the problem with WoT’s damage model on tanks like this: shots to the gun shield do hull damage. If the shield was down, a shot to the same spot would be a miss. There’s nothing there but open air – well, air and meat – but hanging up a piece of sheet metal suddenly makes the tank explode.

            • There is nowhere said it couldn’t be some spaced armour with no hitbox behind it and possibly only some crew.

              So what would it mean in game? Hitting upper part aka “the shield” would result in 0 damage crits and a chance of crew/gun being hit.

              It’s only guessing on my part but perfectly reasonable and very much doable as far as game’s damage model goes.

            • As far as I can tell WG won’t do something like this because it will “confuse the players”. Then again, the majority of players are still confused by gravity so I guess they are right…

  2. Armor piercing FLAK shells penetrated loss armor, but also had a larger HE filler.
    Thus, this gun should do more damage and penetrate somewhere inbetween long and short 88.

  3. It would have been nicer if we would have the option use it closed or open. That way we would have 2 ways of using the vehicle and each mode would have pluses and minuses. It would be a very unique vehicle.

  4. This vehicle was originally revealed back in last summer, in conjunction with the introduction of tier X meds/TDs; WoT sites were updated with “concept” tech trees, but they were removed because it was likely that they would change somehow- and they did, as witnessed by the WT Tiger being replaced by a WT Pz IV at tier IX.

  5. I wonder if those huge side and rear doors count as spaced armour with smaller 0 armour hit boxes behind them. Would make sense since there isn’t actually that much behind them, but then again Wargaming.

    • Most AP shells still have some kind of HE filler, so doing damage with hits to the panel is still somewhat legit. Mostly arbitrary, though, and APCR is just a hunk of metal as far as I’m aware (thus leading “only” to crew fatalities).

    • The whole plate could be folded down on a hing and act as a fighting platform for the crew so they could move with the gun as it rotated around the pivot. All of the plates can fold down. When folded up they protect the crew from splinters, small arms and small rounds from aircraft.

      • And this is backwards in WoT. If the screens are down, the crew is invulnerable and even damaging the hull becomes problematic. If the screen are up, then the crew can be butchered by any tier 2 that wanders by (causing the tank to explode in the process).

        • Them’s the breaks when you can’t model the crew for funky age-limits reasons. Ofc even with the platform down there’s presumably be some ammunition on the deck…

  6. OOOOh what a great bit target. Six crew – looks like there may be eight in practice as for the tractor and towed gun arrangement. Even so expect a blistering rate of fire.

  7. I love that tank and wanted it since I discovered it in Spielbergers book “Spezial Fahrzeuge des deutschen Heers” :D

  8. It’s a shame they can’t implement a system where you could toggle the state of the armored panels around the gun. In one form, you could have them up, offering extra armor protection, but limited gun traverse. And in another state, you could lower the panels, offer zero protection, but a 360 degree firing arc. Oh well…that feature is probably stored in the same vault as the E-10 and its hydraulic suspension. :P

      • If WG can implement working multiple turrets they can institute a system where armored screens go up and down.

        I’m still not sure that this isn’t an elaborate joke WG is playing on the gamers who think everything German is good.

    • if such system is implemented, expect artyfags to cry about it and wanting an equivalent element that give a small boost in aiming and rate of fire.

      Nah i would be fine if the side panels are counted as spaced armor with the crew behind it, it’s not like the hull is big enough or that this tank is slow.

    • I agree that WG should really remove the sides and allow the gun to have a full 360 degree traverse. I mean the 10 mm of armor on the sides won’t save you at tier V while a 360 degree turret traverse on a tier V TD is so far only available on the US TDs.

  9. It’s not functionally accurate and therefore not historically accurate that this thing would have fired a shot (yes shots at planes rather than tanks) with the sides up…. unless this changes no one will use this for anything other than a path to the tier 6 new TD which i’m guessing will be based on the Pv4b arty.

    • IDK, seems perfectly capable of firing forwards even with the platform folded – though presumably some caution would be required to avoid breech inna face – and could probably have functioned as an ersatz assault gun in a pinch as the screen oughta been thick enough to resist small arms.

  10. AP – 194mm@100m

    Subcaliber – 237mm@100m

    The L/74 stats. Expect 194mm pen for standard AP and 237 for APCR.

        • Soviet Data ain’t reliable. Soviet Datasheets included wrong, slower rollrates for the P-47D to make it look inferior.
          All you can is trusting penetration tests of the actual country of origin, therefore in this case, Nazi Germany.

          • Problem is that not only are their criteria for penetration different, but AFAIK the weapon manufacturers liked to massage the results by providing specially selected batches of high-quality ammo for the tests. Almighty bottom line and all that. (If that was official policy rather than opportunistic capitalist skullduggery then it can only be concluded the Germans were being kinda fucking stupid.) Sort of like using match-grade ammo for smallarm accuracy tests.

            For their part the Soviets were AFAIK mainly interested in what exactly their enemy’s weapons could actually do, ie. how much steel they should put onto their future tanks, and obviously had to use whatever captured munitions were available for actual live-fire testing.

            • 1. Part:
              Mainly you chose for tests samples of a known quality. And especially in war times you are right, the real quality doesnt often match those test samples.

              2. Part (which made me wrote this comment as an engineer from an ex- communist state)
              1. Dont you think the western allies and the germans were also interested in this for their development?
              2. Do you really think that test results, which were put down on paper under a regime driven by… lets say not always objective ideals and personal interests of some of its leaders, will lead to a more objective point of view, than those test results “made” under other regimes (with the same issues) or “capitalist” private firms?

              Sorry kid wake up!

            • GJ missing the point. Which was that the German weapon manufacturers had a very obvious vested interest in kneading the results if they could – they wanted to sell more shit like any good manufacturer. Whether this was any good for the war effort is unlikely to have been even a distant second concern, and it wouldn’t have been the first time when good old greed led the industrialists to roundly disregard the wishes of the regime.
              Not really seeing what stake the Soviets would’ve had in skewing internal-use comparative technical studies between their weapons and those used by the enemy they were locked in a fight to the death with; you do that shit to figure out what works and doesn’t and how you should design your stuff in response, and monkeying around with the results would probably have volunteered you for a game of “arrest gulag” on grounds of rank sabotage at best once it turned out they didn’t deliver.

              Plus whatever the air arm did, from what I’ve read of the Soviet comparative tests with Lend-Lease tanks and their weapons those seem to have been both thorought and fair enough – and wholly in accordance with the Democracies’ own experiences with the same stuff (eg. fuck the 2-pounder, but the 6-pounder was satisfactory).

            • kellomies wtf?

              You still did not get is and you logic is also flawed. It doesnt matter if the “producers” of something are working under a capitalist or communist system. They all want to produce somthing and get money, resources whatever…so they will always try to shine.
              And especially in a state founded business like railways, television or armed forces…there is no real difference between those systems.
              So no there is no reason to believe the soviert number more than others. What you always need are the basic assumptions for those tests done by each country. And you cant mix them together.

              P.S: And you are also here mixing producers and the state administration. (another logic flaw)

          • It doesn’t matter who is more reliable Soviet Penetration tests are the only ones that matter since that is what WG is going to use. If Soviet Pen says 150 and German says 250 then the gun will get 150 pen.

  11. I’m more interested in those two blurred out tanks in the carousel…
    And it will be a pleasure to shoot this thing to shreds xD

  12. Uhm, if the superstructure would be folded away like in pic 2, would the vehicle be able to move at all?

    Then there are so called hull options which will be introduced…you could remove the superstructure from that at the cost of having much less HP. Of course, a fully rotational turret would require some balancing, but still…

    About the 88mm L/74 penetration…while I do not know any penetration values, it could use regular PzGr39 (AP) and PzGr40 (APCR) ammunition. Some soviet penetration tables (that WG uses) also suggested that a 88mm shell fired from the L/71 on the Ferdinand only had 167 penetration. Earlier 88mm shells (before the 88mm KwK 36 on the Tiger was fielded?) had less penetration too for that matter.

    Granted, about 160mm+ penetration is more than sufficient at tier 5.

    Now it looks like a tier 5 Churchill GC or ARL V39. I am not sure who likes these two…

    And somebody is going to make a schoolbus skin out of that…

    • About my first question, its because this vehicle was actually an anti-air artillery as far as im concerned and they usually could either move or fire, but not both at the same time. (Not just being unable to hit anything when moving, ist about being flat out unable to move until you fold the structure back)

      Maybe those crews In RL did that simply because firing while moving wont hit anything, especially planes that are quite far away..

      Darn it, an edit option would be very nice…does it exist?

      • The whole plate could be folded down on a hing and act as a fighting platform for the crew so they could move with the gun as it rotated around the pivot. All of the plates can fold down. When folded up they protect the crew from splinters, small arms and small rounds from aircraft.
        When moving the sides ARE folded up and when arriving at their location the sides, like the AA versions (early flak panzers) just drop down into a flat fighting surface at the pull of a pin. Nothing complicated. It’s putting the sides back up that is a chore.

      • I don’t see what exactly would physically keep the vehicle from moving with the platform down, main problem would seem to be the obviously increased width (only relevant in obstructed terrain) and a certain if minor risk of men and/or equipement falling off…

          • I wouldn’t try driving around a city (outside the main thoroughfares anyway) with them down, but not really seeing the problem on a typical country road with nothing but the usual drainage ditches beside it. :/

            You’ll want to keep this thing the fuck away from the Normandy bocage though.

  13. why are you fools complaining it is just like the mobelwagen.
    it had no problems, except fat people complaining about it all day

  14. Hopefully they’ll never introduce the Möbelwagen, that thing wouldn’t have any gun depression.

  15. Barrel is too short for L/74. And it shows a tier 7 gun icon in the picture, so it should be L/56. L/74 is also historical but I doubt it’s OP for tier 5 TD.

    • Ok, I saw other pictures now, it do has L/74 as top gun. 8.8 is boring, can’t wait for 8.9 PT to see the data. :p

  16. >So, how come Germans built such a vehicle?
    The builders of the Maus and designers of other crap like E-100 would never surprise me, it looks retarded because the people who made it were retarded nazis, it’s simple.

    • Not everyone can be drunk idiots
      Germans build leopards one of best looking modern tanks
      Look at russian prot. tanks they look worse then some germans prot.

      • By the time they designed the Leo they hadn’t been ruled by raving lunatics for like fifteen years. Plus I’m guessing the French Connection helped somewhat.

        • Soviet tanks were the most beatifull machines in the WW2-Cold War era (Nowadays MBTs look pretty much the same).

          The american and french were kind of weird, but they have their charm.

          Leo also looks good, but it’s a bit boring (Not saying it was bad)

      • mohammed was a fucking incestious pedophile …there…i said it. now come for me and get my head brown guy… inshallah.

        • I know where the pedophile thing comes from (people apparently don’t know what “political marriages” are…), but “incestuous” is new.

  17. I’m no expert on tanks, but the pictures of it look like the sides are hinged in place rather than removable. The “sides down” mode looks like it would be used as a fixed position. Seeing as it’s an AA gun, it would be deployed defensively behind the front line and not need to be very mobile.

    My interpretation of the the “sides up” model is that this is how the tank would be encountered while traveling, where the 20mm armor would only serve to protect the crew from small arms fire. Without time to deploy properly, the tank (or is it an SPG?) could stay relatively mobile and perform a limited role as ground support.

    I expect a slow tank, long aim time, and possibly a derp/HE gun. At least the alpha will be an improvement over other German tier V’s. I also get the feeling the Sturmtiger and Brummbar could branch off from here as a TD/SPG hybrid line.

  18. It’s promising for a sniper tank….Maybe with camo net+skill and behind several bushes Ltraktor won’t spot it from 500 meters.

  19. They should introduce these kind of vehicles with the possibility to get into full firing position (unlimber time included) so they really can be used as effectively on maps where static defense is possible for TDs.
    I hate how these vehicles are misportrayed and crippled in their possibilities – it was already strange with the GW Panther but now with these broad swivel platforms they just offer good turkey shooting.

    WG really should consider more mobile and flexible platforms if they want to have these tanks to be real alternatives and enjoyable to play. addtionally it would add game depth with a new feature.

    However as they didn’t manage to get E10 working this is probably a dead end thought.

    • You do realise such a “static mode” would basically be begging to get raep’d by any arty that might be present? All the more so as if they see you in that mode they’ll know for a fact you’ll sit there for at least a while longer without moving, whether visibility is maintained or not…

      Moreover it’s not like these are like the Autocannone Lancia da 90/53, whose gun couldn’t be used before the truck’s six stabiliser jacks had been deployed.

      • The static mode on the E-10 reduced it to like 1 meter of height. Good luck being seen. Sadly WG dont want to include such stuff.

    • You realize that this is a secondary mode? Having the possibitiy to chose between deploeyed and undeployed state means that you need some time to set up and reverse to be able to move again.
      So in deployed status you gain 300°-360° traverse a lower or less visible silhouette and stability (+ on aiming possible) for the trade of being highly vulnerable if uncovered.
      There is always a price for advantages!

      However there are maps where such a feature might come in handy and if future plans involve larger maps this might be even more interesting.

      I wouldn’t say this SPG should be limited having to unlimber to be able to shoot but it would add to the variety of the tanks.

      I will probably get it even though such a feature will never get into the game but it just looks awkward and feels wrong being aware of how capable this weapon concept might be from the historical theme of the game as well as the new gameplay possiblities.
      I know that arcade kids can’t imagine such a vulnerable asset to be used with success but I’d definately give it a try!!

      • adding to the last post….

        I’d be even glad to trade armor for the possibility to have the platform panels being in “combat-position” the whole time. Like artillery and some light TDs this vehicle would be highly vulnerable but a thread if being used visely from secure positions. And if it was just for the sake of getting something really new and more unique to the german tree.

  20. When a TOG and an Object 261 love each other very much…

    …this is the bastard lovechild. Fugly. Very, very fugly…will grind it for the Nashorn and SE but I can’t see me keeping it when the StuG III is so damn nice. A StuG IV with 88mm would have been, while not historical, much more appealing IMHO.

  21. From 1955 US doc.
    AP @30° 100m-199mm
    HVAP @30° 100m-237mm

  22. What are you? You are just one hell of ugly motherfucker. -Scwartz says that to predator that thing fits for it too.

  23. So what is the latest news on the other TDs?

    Nashorn at tier 6?
    ??? at tier 7? Something Panther based perhaps, like Gerät 5-12 or 5-1213 (Panther chassis carrying 12.8cm Kanone 43, which would be basically the Ferdinand top gun)
    12.8cm Sf L/61 (aka Sturer Emil) at tier 8? (VK3001H based TD with 12.8cm Gerät 40 converted to anti-tank gun)
    StuG E-100 at tier 10?

    • Tier 4 is Marder 3
      Tier 5 is this thing
      Tier 6 is Nashorn
      Tier 7 is the Sturer Emil.
      Tier 8 is unknown
      Tier 9 is the WT ausf PzIV
      Tier 10 is unknown.

      Perhaps after the next tactical leak we will learn more.

      • “Waffenträger Panther” (both Krupp and Rheinmetall versions) was only designed to mount the 12.8cm K43 at most, which would be weaker than the 12.8cm FlaK 40-based anti-tank gun mounted on the Sturer Emil.

        “Waffenträger E-100″ was never planned since those kinds of vehicles were designed around hulls they could spare. Even the PzKpfw IV-based waffenträger hadn’t been produced yet by the end of the war. The last waffenträger hulls used before the war ended was PzKpfw 38(t)/(d). Both the PzKpfw IV and Panther-based waffenträger vehicles were in the design stages at the end of the war. A tank hull which hadn’t even been fully completed yet obviously wasn’t up for conversion to a waffenträger vehicle in the foreseeable future.

  24. I imagine somewhere, in the darkest corners of Minsk HQ, a tank modeller is laughing his ass off.

  25. This is just stupid. Model it without the sides, and give it a 360 degree turret mechanic. ffs….

  26. Elevation: -3/+85

    Drive up the hill on Ice road and you can fire at the bridge behind you with that elevation.

  27. This looks a nice TD, but…

    Rather than WG do something properly, they have really bodged the introduction of this tank. To implement this properly, WG should have made the sides lift up when moving and drop down when stationary.

    This is literally one of the most retarded models in the game. It’s like a fucking billboard lorry:


    • …and this would be different from the execution of the GW Panther how exactly? Nor do for example assorted US SPGs lower their recoil spades.

      • Difference is GW panther doesn’t have to go on the frontline all boxed up, so that’s not a factor. If they would just remove the walls and let it with limited traverse it would be much better. Also, the fact that the spades aren’t lowered has absolutely no effect on gameplay, despite the fact that they would be cool if they actually did lower when you were in sattelite mode or something like that…

        • The GW Panther was no less intented to have its platform down when the gun was in action; that it’s an artillery piece as opposed to a flak vehicle makes no difference in that regard, and big AA pieces like this weren’t as such expected to be anywhere near the frontline either by what I know of it.
          Again, the difference?

          • We are talking about how they are implemented in the game, right?
            Are the gw panther as well as the US arties used unhistorically? Yes.
            Does that influence how they play in the game? In the case of the gw panther, yes, a little, but it has a very wide arc of fire and it’s not that much of a bother really (it has 90 degrees horizontal traverse IIRC).

            Now we have this thing, which will be much closer to the frontline and as such it’s more probable for it to actually take enemy fire. So, you are playing in something with the profile of a box. So they made it big AND vulnerable, when they could have just made it just vulnerable. It will probably be compensated by a greater RoF but it will still be an annoying tank. Again, I’m talking about the options they had to implement it in the game, that’s where it matters. They could just make it without the massive platforms up and still give it limited traverse, and that would be better imho…

            • *shrug* The alternative is basically to have the gun crew as invisible critical hitboxes in the thin air behind the gun. I think you can ‘see’ the problem.

            • Look at the hitboxes of the alecto and you will find that there are invisible people modelled. And I found this out because my commander kept dying despite the fact that I was never hit…

            • Those have at least SOME kind of indicator where the people probably are, in the form of some kind of gunshield or sidewall or whatever. This would basically be the gun and then a whole lot of empty rear deck.

              I daresay it’d come across as pretty fucking stupid.

            • It’s sort of the same story with the alecto, except there it’s even worse, it’s the equivalent of people sitting on top of a hetzer,outside of it. This would have a gun, and from the pictures you can see a small shield, so you can only assume people are right on the other side of the shield.

              What I’m trying to say is, if they just removed the shields it would be a much more pleasant tank, and it has precedents, tanks like the alecto that have their crew basically completely outside of their tanks, and a rather similar story for the renault 57ue… But they chose to make a box and this is what I’m talking about, it’s completely unnecessary, and unhistorical at the same time.

            • I recommend taking a closer look at the Alecto, in the garage or Tank Viewer according to preference. Seems pretty obvious and intuitive where the crew is located what with those seats and all.
              Same thing with most such things really, it’s only the few “open deck” SPGs (mostly loe to middle tier Soviets) where intuitive visual cues are lacking – but then those have little more than safety rails around the “gun deck” anyway. The SU-14-1 kinda reminds me of the old Sveaborg coastal batteries actually, or some kind of railway artillery setup…

            • I wrote a big post and I hit back so I don’t have the patience to rewrite again the whole thing. But the gist of it was, why does it matter where the crew is when in game they act like spaced armor with 0 armor (that’s how I remember, could be wrong)?

  28. You know I wonder if they’ll give it an option to remove those armor plates to allow it to traverse 360 degrees; the main drawbacks would be even greater vulnerability to HE shells, decreased HP and possibly a slow traverse speed on the gun.

  29. I think they have the sides up mostly because the open top code is more broken than a bag of glass under the treads of a Maus. I think everyone has had magic disappearing shells that get eaten by a round going into the open part of a tank. With those paper thin sides, It will have the survivablity of an open topped vehicle with the better code of armor pen.

    • Aye, I think I will start saving my pennies for their take on tanking. I imagine that they will already be looking at the things the WoT community moan about and, if possible, address those in their game.