HISTORY
The Nashorn was a German self-propelled artillery unit of the tank destroyer class. As field anti-tank artillery grew in caliber and weight, artillerymen lost the ability to quickly move it across the battlefield on their own. In parallel with the development of a new, more powerful gun to replace the Flak 41, in 1942 Rheinmetall-Borsig began developing a mounting for it on a tank chassis, thereby solving the problem of transporting the gun in combat. Ultimately, Krupp introduced the 88 mm Pak 43 gun in 1943, and Rheinmetall-Borsig introduced the Geschützwagen III/IV chassis, which combined elements of the Pz.Kpfw. III and Pz.Kpfw. IV medium tanks and allowed for the installation of such a gun. In February, serial production of the new Nashorn self-propelled guns began at the Alkett plant, where it continued until February 1944, after which it was transferred to the Czech company Werk Teplitz-Schönau, which produced the self-propelled guns until March 1945. A total of 494 Nashorn self-propelled guns were built.
The vehicle received its baptism of fire in the summer of 1943 during Operation Citadel and was used by German anti-tank units until the very end of the war. In combat, the Nashorn proved to be a rather controversial vehicle: on the one hand, it possessed a very powerful and accurate gun, capable of easily destroying any Allied armored vehicle. On the other, the self-propelled gun proved very vulnerable due to weak armor protection, an open cabin, and its impressive size, all compounded by chassis issues and frequent breakdowns. Only two Nashorn self-propelled guns remain today: one is on display at Patriot Park in Russia, and the other is stored at the Anniston Depot in the United States and is not accessible to the public.
SPECIFICATIONS
Type: Tank Destroyer
Crew: 5
Weight: about 24 tons
Length: 8.44 m
Width: 2.95 m
Height: 2.65 m
Armor: 10–30 mm
Main Gun: 88 mm Pak 43/1 L/71
Machine gun: 1-2 × 7.92 mm MG34 or MG42
Ammunition: 40 rounds
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM (300 hp)
Speed: up to 40 km/h
(Same topic, but on the Russian forum)
I HOPE YOU WILL APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT THIS SUGGESTION!
Could be an option for BR 4. I don’t see it at BR3 because of the Tiger II’s gun, but at the same time this kind of open TD are usually not good in Enlisted.
As a quick comment : the second picture is a Hummel SPG with 15cm gun and not a Nashorn. Notice the absence of muzzle break at the barrel’s end.
SU-100 got some armor though. And I don’t think it should be at BR5 anyway, I don’t even know how many I have seen in game, If I have seen any at all.
Any BR3 (or even many BR2) tanks would be able to Kill the Nashorn with a single HE Shell… Even .50 cal and other HMG would turn the Nashorn into a wreck.
Anyway, it’s not like I would play this one at all even though it was at BR4.
I doubt it.
Even considering all that, it shouldn’t be on BR3.
This is because the very high penetration power is very strong.
Therefore, I think it will be possible down to 4.
I think you’re not aware of how unlikely it is to see a tank destroyer in matches and why people don’t use them, the gun power doesn’t justify its BR in the slightest.
I know why anyone don’t use it.
However, the power of the main gun is a natural condition for justifying BR.
It’s rather strange why you don’t justify it.
Anyway, I don’t use it because it doesn’t have the right BR or performance like Marder 3.
Or not having OP performance like Ho-Ri.
These two tanks are either uniquely correct in BR, or too OP case.
What is certain is that this tank should never be same or below BR3.
Oh by the way, Marder 3 is being used as a Joker pick for BR2 (to take on KV-1), and Ho-Ri is the most OP tank out of all tanks. (It’s only BR6 THING)
Unfortunately devs balance tanks based on cannon which why Chi-Nu II was put in BR4.
So I wouldn’t expect Nashorn to be put lower then BR4 even though realistically it would fit in BR3.
Because the same thing would happen to it as with the SIG 15. While I rarely saw it in BR2 games before, now it doesn’t even appear in BR3 games.
Many people are badly accustomed to seeing a large gun, and that’s enough to make them think about putting it in a BR where it would be useless, and because of this, I no longer see tank destroyers like I used to. Even if the Nashorn were a BR1 tank destroyer without HE capability, no one would use it either. The HO-RI improves its survivability due to its high armor, very good mobility, and devastating HE, making it ideal to justify its BR. However, I have destroyed several with 50kg bombs.
It’s a matter of perspective, at the end of the day the player base doesn’t really know how to use tank destroyers.
Honestly, that tank is also Joker Pick.
I honestly think it was problematic to be in BR2.
In the case of Ho-Ri… because of the synergy of too high front armor and too strong main guns, it’s performance enough to move to BR6 rather than BR5.
It’s the only tank that’s more OP than KTH.
Of course, the reason why this tank came out is because the problem is that there is not a tank to give to BR5 except for this.
The reason Ho-Ri should be in BR6 is because for infantry and tanks it’s kind of big to have invincible armor that can’t destroy this from the front.
Plus firing at a fast reload speed with an incredibly powerful main gun…
Honestly I don’t think there’s any reason why they should in BR4.
It’s not that high of penetration, and Chi-Nu is currently unable to penetrate even Sherman, who is the same BR3, from the front.
That’s why I want Chi-Nu 2 and Chi-To to be lowered to BR3.
They didn’t even have enough penetration to be in the real BR4.
To be in BR4, you need to have a penetration over 170mm or armor are incredibly good, but both tanks are not eligible for either condition.
