I want the Jagdtiger regardless. Whenever people bring up balance, first I say that I am sure no matter what there is always some counter somewhere. I’m not researching deep into Allied and Soviet vehicles but I am sure there is always a counter to everything.
Second, planes are practically the best weapon against tanks. 
Frankly I want all vehicles from the war. From the lightest tanks and open topped self propelled guns to the heaviest tanks and solid casemated self propelled guns.
No. That’s a terrible attitude. Let people use whatever their preference is in the balanced BR. Let it rot is a stupid idea.
My honest opinion was the nashorn was a waste of a vehicle slot, they shouldn’t have included this. As a event item maybe? But definitely not TT. It sits in a weird spot where it doesn’t belong in any BR. Gun’s too powerful for BR III, and it has paper thin BR I armor that literally any AT weapon at BR I can punch cleanly through (excluding the event Tankenghewr 1918 rifle as it’s got BR 0 damage). There are so many better options for Germany that they should have included before this.
BR 1 armour
BR 5 gun
Obviously it needs to meet in the middle at BR 3. It’s literally simple maths.
Why is it a problem if the gun can take out heavy Russian tanks with ease?
It’s less about simple math and more about balance and placement, it’s going to be highly destructive in BR III. But literally anything can destroy it immediately, I’m not sure why someone would pick this tank over something else. I’m not saying people aren’t allowed at have free choice, I’m all for variety. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they say then nashorn has two mg34s mounted on the side? Historically speaking, you could hold between 24 to 40 rounds of shells, and 600 rounds of ammunition for the mg. Which historically speaking only had a single mg that was not mounted Just carried inside of the cab of the tank. Typically tank cruise used mg34s or mg42s depending on what they can get their hands on. So if I’m correct and thinking that they announced this tank with two machine guns, then there’s already another issue. They’re breaking historical accuracy.
Glass cannon sounds balanced to me…. I’m going to use it purely because it’s an interesting tank just like how I use the dicker max. Mainstream tanks like the panzer 4 are boring and if players actually gave TDs a chance they would cry less against Russian heavy tanks.
There’s also heaps of photos of the tank with 2 mounts for MGs so it’s not historicity inaccurate at all.
You guys want paper mache armor Nashorn down to BR3?
This clearly wouldn’t be fair for USSR with T-34-57, KV1, KV2, and Panzerfausts,
come on guys
I voted no, but only to say that a consistent framework for this is going to have to be figured out.
Everyone calling it a “glass cannon” is correct, but then if you do place it at BR3, how are we justifying its coexistence there with the Flakbus? Calling the Flakbus a naked cannon?
I think if the Nashorn is moved to BR3 on the basis that, yes, it’s the long 88 but without real armor, then the Flakbus must also be moved to BR2 on the basis that it’s the short 88 without any armor.
The closest thing to an overall framework I can think of is to classify tanks based on their anti-armor performance (basically, main gun), and then make adjustments for design restrictions/flaws.
Let’s say, a given gun in a “normal” (decently armored, turreted) tank is BR x. Then that same gun in a decently armored vehicle without a turret is BR x-1. Lastly, that same gun in a glass cannon/open vehicle is BR x-2.
A pertinent example using the long 88 would be: Tiger II at BR5; Jagdpanther at BR4; Nashorn at BR3.
Something more abstract, sticking with the German tree, would be roughly (the long 75 is better) equating the performance of the long 75 to the short 88, and doing something like: Panther (and Tiger) at BR4, then Jagdpanzer IV/70 at BR3, and thus Flakbus (no armor, short 88) at BR2.
Your concern is valid based on current stats. Statistically, this vehicle could’ve been placed at BR 4, yet the BR 4 meta is already saturated by Tiger and Panther tanks, leaving no viable niche for it. The long 88mm’s penetration targets can all be dealt with by the short 88mm and 75mm cannons.
Therefore, until BR 6 rolls out and certain BR 4 vehicles get bumped up to BR 5, keeping this tank at BR 3 is optimal; otherwise it will end up rarely used. It isn’t suited to fight alongside Tigers and Panthers any more than it would against T-34s. Compounding the issue is the cramped maps in Army mode, which negate long-range sniping potential. Most combat unfolds at close quarters typical of Panzer III and IV engagements, erasing its key advantage of long-range flat-trajectory fire. All things considered, BR 3 remains its best battle rating for now.
I want to test out its MGs first - whether or not these are any good, then I’ll judge the vehicle.
Nashorn is Okey where it is (BRIV (not weak-not super strong)) I like that not everything new needs to BIS as its used to be in others games. At the End BR IV plays BRIII-BRV.
I’d argue that Flakbus is actually way better than Nashorn and it is perfectly fine being on BR 3.
I’ll explain why. Flakbus actually reloads much faster than any other 88mm in the game(Roughly takes about only ~6 secs with 20% faster reload speed perk on the loaders), 360 degree rotating gun(horizontal traverse speed isn’t that great but still far better than those turretless ones), the armor on flakbus is so thin that it does not trigger fuse of AP shells with HE fillers when hit by one, ended up being deceptively hard to kill with AP shots. And let’s be honest, the “short” 88mm is still extremely good at killing every tank you’d meet on BR 3 +/-(The only exception would be Jumbo).
Now, let’s take a look at Nashorn. the gun is ofc would be very powerful if not an overkill on BR 3 but still it would reloads much slower than flakbus(I’m saying this because based on Darkflow actually didn’t make Ferdinand reloads much faster than other tanks with long 88mm despite it having 2 loaders unlike it does in WT, since Nashorn basically shares the same gun and also with 2 loaders i’m assuming that Nashorn wouldn’t get the better reload speed too when compared to say, Tiger 2 in Enlisted), The armor being thin but actually not thin enough(Since based on Panzer 4 chassis)so it would trigger fuse on APHE shells when hit by one, much higher chance to get killed by enemy tanks, it is also without turret.
So, Nashorn would gets better mobility and 2x MG over Flakbus with inferior survival rate against enemy tanks and that’s about it. I don’t think that Nashorn even got “better” gun(If Darkflow gives Nashorn WT aced crew reload speed then yea this would be an invalid argument)than flakbus, so considering all that, i think Nashorn belongs to BR 3 rather than BR 4. Also, Flakbus is premium meanwhile Nashorn being on TT. It would be a good tool for F2P players to counter heavy tanks that they would meet on BR 3 such as KV-1, Jumbo, IS-1 since they don’t have access to the flakbus.
Well one is a premium and the other is TT…. TT should always be slightly better than a premium and if the flak bus actually worked as intended it would also be an anti air vehicle too. If you think this thing belongs in BR 4 you are basically killing it on arrival and denying players a fighting chance against uptier games against heavy tanks like the jumbo and IS1. Use some actual logic and consider drawbacks of vehicles instead of hyper fixating on just the main gun.
Given the very enthusiastic answer rate to this poll (we’re already at 100 as of now, with the strong majority in favour)
I wonder why this hadn’t been forwarded yet.
The test server hasn’t actually been updated yet, so we somehow foresaw it way too early. We’ll likely have to wait until the test server has been live for some time.
Alternatively, this might delay the release of the Dicker Max. Honestly, its performance is more than good enough to drop into BR 2.
Have we?
If I recall, the ISU152 got lowered from 5 to 4, without much hesitation from staff, and this WAY before anyone could get their hands on it and test it…
I wonder what the difference is, here… I can’t seem to put my finger on it, so puzzling…
Eh.
Soviet bias + favoritism.
It’s obvious the devs are biased, can’t you see that?
The Ferdinand, with absurdly thick armor, was initially placed at rank IV, while Soviet tanks got dumped at rank V right off the bat. Their partiality speaks for itself. On the Russian forum, players are still campaigning hard to move Ferdinand down to BR 4. After our last failed campaign, we’re closing in on a hundred votes; standing at 82 votes now, split dead even 50/50.
The reason the Nashorn and ISU-152 sit at 4.7 and 5.7 BR in War Thunder boils down to massive maps. There’s ample room to hang back and snipe enemies from afar.
Back then, projectiles rarely got blocked by cover, and most obstacles could be penetrated by cannon rounds.
By contrast, a simple stone wall now withstands aerial bombs, and rubble piles are practically indestructible. The new smaller maps level the playing field, forcing all vehicles into close-quarters frontline combat against Panzer IVs within 100 meters. Long-range perks, big-map sniping spots and camouflage advantages are all gone. That’s why these vehicles only deserve BR3 on these maps, stripped of all their original War Thunder buffs.
In old WT large maps, you could get picked off by a distant Nashorn without spotting its position, and get ambushed again returning to the same spot. But with these compact new maps, you can hop into another tank or aircraft straight after dying to get revenge right away.
No grudge lasts overnight in Gaijin’s game; anyone killed twice by the same opponent will charge head-on to settle the score
Don’t put it that way; it’s purely down to poor administrative efficiency.