German Glass Cannon, the Nashorn | Cursed by Design

Play World of Tanks for FREE and use code COMBAT to get a bonus pack for new and returning players: tanks.ly/3spGEeV
Cone Fumo: www.makeship.com/products/con...
Join us today as we look at the glass cannon that was the German Nashorn. Originally known as the Hornisse the Nashorn featured an 8.8cm anti-tank gun capable of defeating any Allied tank. How did this tank destroyer fair in combat? Stay tuned as we discuss the story of this interesting vehicle.
Buy military themed brick sets from COBI and more at WarBricksUSA with code coneofarc5 to save 5%: warbricks.com?ref=1727
Social links:
My Website: www.coneofarc.com/
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / coneofarc
Instagram: / coneofarc
Twitter: / coneofarc
TikTok: / coneofarc
Merch: teespring.com/stores/coneofar...
Merch(Amazon): www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc
Sources:
Panzer Tracts 7-3: amzn.to/4b5oUqP
Panzer Tracts 10-1: amzn.to/3StoGlT
Pershing by R.P. Hunnicutt: amzn.to/3HvX4pX
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/na...
warspot.ru/11021-protivotanko...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/na...
warspot.ru/11163-su-100-po-ch...
cmvmag2.keypublishing.com/201...
www.keymilitary.com/article/r...
Nashorn Restoration Facebook page: / nashorn.sd.kfz.164.res...
Australian Hummel: • WW2 German Wehrmacht "...
Nashorn Model shown in video: amzn.to/48P4TDh
Hummel Model shown in video: amzn.to/4b2jkpb
Things I use:
Camera: amzn.to/2OppVnR
Editing software: Sony Vegas 17 amzn.to/3kOwtIu
PC Hardware: www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc...
Recording Equipment: www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc...
You can check out more stuff I use on my Amazon Store:
www.amazon.com/shop/coneofarc
Provided links are affiliate links which allow me to earn from qualifying purchases
Want to send me something?
ConeOfArc
PO Box 305
Thompson, CT 06277
Or support the channel using Crypto:
BTC- bc1qjs2fqh6zupnwzjhyd9kjvqfld728sqnea4r67s
ETH- 0x5547e17113640c162Ded5B664155227058060C54
Thanks to my ConelyFans:
Patata Wuena
ThatHusk
ccc973
Skoshi
Steven G
Maho
j3llefly
Pervitin
Blue Knight
Jan Ram. Dodge2727
Ivan
Ivan Velazquez
Limmy K
Paul Walsh
O D
Sukoshi Tiger
Yuk-Luen Man
Flying Pachyderm
pompomchan
Braňo Kohút
Become one today and get a Cone badge next to all your comments as well as other spicy perks!
/ @coneofarc
Some music provided by Epidemic Sound.
License music for your videos without fear of copyright claims
www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
#wot #worldoftanks #tanks #history #ww2

[@ConeOfArc]

Play World of Tanks for FREE and use code COMBAT to get a bonus pack for new and returning players: tanks.ly/3spGEeV #wot #worldoftanks #tanks

[@tigerbesteverything]

3:00 what td is that? looks like a marder to me but i'm not sure.

[@AndrewMitchell123]

​​@@tigerbesteverything3:00 its a Marder variant, 3:01 its PanzerJager I, 3:05 its Sturer Emil

[@GerardMenvussa]

That link doesn't even work? :/

[@tigerbesteverything]

@@AndrewMitchell123 i know both of the other but wasn't sure for the first one.

[@AndrewMitchell123]

@@tigerbesteverything oh, you mean you didnt know the PanzerJager I? thats fair, it was built in 41 right after they realize 37 mm isnt gonna cut it and because they didnt rly had any better guns to use, they used 47mm anti tank gun made in the protectorate... it was only built in limited numbers a few months after start of Barbarossa... pretty sure most ppl are aware of it only thx to games like wot or wt lol

[@_Lobster_]

Bro went straight into the World of Tanks sponsorship after showing War Thunder LOL

[@pierluigiadreani2159]

Bills don't care about feelings

[@InvictusCoaching]

Whatever pays the bills my man

[@MrPlusses]

He sells plush toys to adults. He knows his business. No shame in playing the game, money wise.

[@Xyt_EliteMajor]

Warthunder players are going to riot LOL

[@galbert117]

SHHHHHHH

[@FolgoreCZ]

Czech here. After the war, our army used BOTH Nashorns and Hummels. 12 was probably a standard number of vehicles for a unit at the time, apparently, we got 18 Nashorns and 17 Hummels, but repaired only 12 of both. The Nashorns were designated as "88 mm ShPTK vz.43N" ("Samohybný Protitankový Kanón" - "Self propelled Anti-Tank Cannon") and the Hummels had their guns re-bored to Soviet 152mm and were designated as "152 mm ShH vz.18/47" ("Samohybná Houfnice" "Self propelled Howitzer").

[@musketeer5023]

You are right so I'll just add that there were originally only 12 Nashorns and 17 Hummels. All Nashorns were repairable and 15 Hummels as well but it was decided to repair only 12 of them and use the rest for spare parts. They were in active service only for short time from 1950 to 1954 after that they were canibalized for spare parts for the Panzer IV tanks and then scrapped. One Nashorn or Hummel, the source is not clear which one, was given to the Military Technical Academy in Brno and was later scrapped as well.

[@georgecristiancripcia4819]

@@musketeer5023 Romania also received from the soviets a hummel without the brech block for the gun.It was officialy in service,but not operational.It was scrapped with other germans vehicles in thd 1950

[@helohel5915]

So that's where ShPTK goes from. Cool

[@michaelharder3055]

It would not surprise me if 6 Hummels were designated a Battery and 3 of them a Half-battery like in Denmark and something similar for the Nashorns. We usually made barrages of 3 full batteries so 18 pieces of artillery firing on a relatively small area. Great video btw.

[@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378]

​@@musketeer5023 German tank destroyers are easily to repair.

[@ichbins8588]

wouldn't call the Nashorn as "Cursed by Design", because it it's intended role it was designed for, it performed very well

[@jakobquick6875]

No doubt😂 Excellent tank destroyer as part of artillery far away…not “cursed”…more like “blessed by turn around” 😅 Cones views must be dropping….new, better, not cursed…Ferdinand (highest k/d ratio for years) included… Next, the Stugs, i bet😅

[@russianbiasgold6607]

@@jakobquick6875nah Ferdinand and most big heavy German vehicle were indeed cursed by design also sturer emil has a better k/d than ferdi

[@jakobquick6875]

@@russianbiasgold6607 there was 3 Sturer Emil…so 80 Ferdinand’s to 3 Sturers comparisons is useless… They were junk…both designs…I’m not doubting tht or promoting Porsche… But they succeeded, not “cursed” design…maybe by 42/43…but they rocked….didnt suck balls and were not “cursed” Used wrongly, of course, they r zee Nazis/ Germans… There’s a difference, no Shiite Thts why I said..”Cone will claim The STUGS were cursed after he keeps losing subscribers.” Thts all… Used to live for Cones vids, but he’s wrong, upon my own religious research on most he posts

[@jakobquick6875]

@@russianbiasgold6607 sturers we’re deployed/ fought where? Citadel (Kursk) and Italy for Ferdinand/ Elephant… No comparison…nuff said… “German great new, junk old” is nothing to learn about

[@satanhell_lord]

Thanks for the shoutout to the Australian tank museum, those guys do some amazing work putting tanks back together and sometimes even in running condition!

[@diadromes8000]

absolutely love those guys, their channel is amazing getting to see a tank pieced together with all the why's and how's

[@wso4272]

Imagine being a Pershing crew, turn the corner and there's the nashorn waiting for you. Couldnt be me

[@brucefelger4015]

Only confirmed kill of a Pershing was from a Nashorn

[@AHBdV]

@@brucefelger4015 Also only 20 Pershings prototypes were actually deployed in combat before the war ended... So there wasn't much chance to kill them.

[@michaelharder3055]

That's a brown pants moment if ever there was one. Kind of terrifying actually.

[@Theanimeisforme]

​@@brucefelger4015there was another which was a tiger 1 shooting the pershing thru the gun port in the turret.

[@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378]

​@@brucefelger4015 Also Pershing destroyed Panther at Cologne cathedral.

[@Ulani101]

The Nashorn, in my opinion, is an excellent example of an ambush predator. Long range gun and thin armour make it necessary to strike from ambush, from long range, and change position to avoid return fire if detected. And it was good at it.

[@MrWolfstar8]

The thing was so big it couldn’t avoid being detected once it was moving.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"Long range gun and thin armour make it necessary to strike from ambush, from long range, and change position to avoid return fire if detected." That's a sniper, not ambusher...

[@MonkeyJedi99]

It seems to me, that it was more cursed by deployment than by design. Rather how WW1 battlecruisers were DESIGNED to be cruiser hunters and killers, but admirals saw the word "battle", stopped reading right then, and deployed them as fast battleships against other battleships.

[@jasskeeper8152]

​@@MrWolfstar8not very fast either

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@MonkeyJedi99 The design probably SHOULD have been a bit better about providing at least enough armor to stop small arms fire completely and lighter guns from the front, but yes, poor deployment probably hurt it more than that would have helped.

[@admiraltiberius1989]

The Nashorn is one of my favorites, so glad to see this video.

[@petesheppard1709]

If employed as an SP anti-tank gun, shoot and displace rather than stand and fight, it was pretty good. Sadly, too many commanders see tracks and gun and think TANK that can resist counterfire.

[@chris_hisss]

Perhaps underrated aspect of your videos is that you actually have on the screen what you are talking about. Nice work

[@allistairmitchell5747]

I visited Kubinka Tank Museum and the retired ex-Soviet tanker Major expressed his opinion (through the interpreter) that the Nashorn/Hornet was the most fearsome enemy tank and most destructive. Obviously within limits as we have learned. Good job on the video.

[@THX11458]

I think that it should be noted that although the Nashorn/Hornisse suffered from mechanical failure early on, records show that overall it ended up becoming one of the most reliable German AFV's during WW2. This can be seen in their operational status reports from August 1943 until March of 1945 of schwere Panzerjager Abteilungs 88, 93, 519, 525, 664, 655 with an average percent of operational Nashorn/Hornisse at 83.4%. This actually compares better than the Marder-38T series with an average of 78.8% or it's well known reliable parent tank the Panzer-38T at 79.6%. It was much higher than the Panzer-IV ( 64.72%), Panther (60.87%), Tiger (56.90%) or Jagdpanther (53.00%). Furthermore, it was nearly twice as reliable as the King Tiger at 42.78% and Ferdinand/Elefant at 38.00% - that is, if we use average operational vehicles at any given time as a metric. Also, I would push back on the claim that the Nashorn had unusually high combat losses. After some analysis of German tank loss/strength data, I've actually discovered that the Nashorn only incurred a slightly above average combat loss rate of 17.77% monthly from July 1943 until the end of the war as compared to other German AFV (Jentz, "Panzer Tracts No.7-3: Panzerjaeger (7.5cm Pak40/4 to 8.8cm Waffentraeger)," Panzer Tracts, 2006). By comparison the Pzkpfw-IV Ausf.G,H,J (7.5cm L/48) had a monthly loss rate of 16.92% on average from January 1943 until the end of the war// the Panther a 15.43% monthly combat loss average from July 1943 until January 1945// and the Tiger a 15.95% monthly combat loss average from January 1943 until January 1945 (Jentz, "Panzer Truppen 2: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943-45," Schiffer Military History, 1996). Furthermore, it displayed a lower monthly combat loss rate than the Pz-38(t) in 1941 (22.34%) or the overall German tank loss rate on the East Front (19.83%) from January 1942 until March of 1943 (Jentz, "Panzer Truppen 1: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943-45," Schiffer Military History, 1996). So I'd argue that, considering it's light armor protection, the Nashorn fared quite well in combat.

[@alexhubble]

You know, you had me at Operational Availability...

[@lewcrowley3710]

But panzer IV and nashorn did not face the same combat types. So, while some of your points are taken, other factors play in.

[@THX11458]

@@lewcrowley3710 Combat types? Do you mean combat roles? or do you mean enemies?

[@alexhubble]

@@lewcrowley3710 @THX11458 Operational Availability, I think indicates reliability of mechanics over all. It will include repair time from combat damage but this is a smaller part of it. The combat loss rate is a bit higher. I would say that the Mk IV would have faced tougher fighting, but with better armour. But at that stage of the war, you would need combat losses way more than 2% higher to withdraw the best anti-tank gun in the war. For the Brits, the Typhoon tail carried on falling off. But they'd fixed it enough, you'll likely get shot down first, get out there!

[@lewcrowley3710]

@@THX11458 Combat types meaning Offensive, or Defensive primarily. The same with StuG vs Panzer IV.

[@SabinStargem]

There is a documentary about the Hummel, consisting of about 1 hour of archival war footage. It is part of a series called 'The German War Files: Panzers'. While a dry documentary, I personally like the absence of talking heads or CGI. The overall focus of the series is things like logistics, manufacturing issues, weather impacts, and so on.

[@captainroyy21]

remember seeing this beauty drive around, about 2 years ago in the Netherlands, such an amazing sight.

[@janhaanstra2245]

Where was that?

[@captainroyy21]

@@janhaanstra2245 Militracks event (happens in May) located at the Overloon War Museum.

[@cameronmichael4670]

I think the Nashorn was very good as a very specific role. A lot of its failures came as a result of poor usage. However, designing such an inflexible vehicle is probably not the best idea

[@ConeOfArc]

I should have brought that out more in the video as part of my reasoning. It was a fairly inflexible design which also was overly heavy for the chassis it was built on. Sure it was effective when used properly but that by itself does not make it a good design overall.

[@frederikdemoor8172]

the nashorn in the Netherlands is fully operational now, i made a drive @ militaria show in Overloon, Arhnem

[@user-pi4wj7bm4z]

I enjoyed the historical information on the Nakhon.I found the video provided a different perspective, other than what I already have.Keep up the great research 😊. Thanks.Greg.

[@kansascityshuffle8526]

The hornet is a far better name.

[@Vespuchian]

For whatever reason I think the Hornisse/Hummel just looks 'right' for a TD/SPG chassis, although more the howitzer than the 88. A shame the armour couldn't be upgraded to something like 20mm without overloading the engine.

[@kirgan1000]

In what scenario will 20 mm make a huge different, compare to 10mm.

[@egoalter1276]

10mm will be penetrated by 8mm steel core at 100m. It is not proof against rifle fire. 20mm might withstand .50cal AP at 200m, and conwidering the prevalence of DShK/M2, that is also very significant. Ideally there is a distinct capabilizy gap between armoured and unarmoured vehicles, vith the letter being impervious to the much more ubiquitous small arms fire, but 10mm of armour leavs the vehicle voulnerable to shell fragments, or the enterprising machinegunner.

[@dallas8692]

The vehicle is a long range anti-tank gun with the ability to change its deployment to alternative firing positions prepared in advance. If you need more armour, you are doing it wrong. A more reliable engine arrangement would have been extremely useful. Although the Nashorn is a seriously cool vehicle, the Germans may have been better served if all the Nashorns were made as Hummels. Anyone else with some perspective on this?

[@dallas8692]

@@egoalter1276 None of which should have been anywhere near the vehicle, were you using it correctly.

[@egoalter1276]

@@dallas8692 I disagree. You cant guaruantee an infantry patrol cant sneak up on an AT position with WW2 era nightvision equipment. You cant prevent it from being strafed by a fighter. You cant prevent artillery blanketing the area. Armour against light weapons is not a priority, but at that point why not just have a PaK with a halftrack tractor.

[@ARROW-nd8ui]

Still waiting for a vid on the polish tanks in wot

[@awkwarddoggo05]

Me too. They’re really cool.

[@T29Heavy]

Yeah, and also those chinese tanks like the TDs, heavies, and lights as you can barely find any information on these, such as the WZ-113

[@ja_exe]

​@@awkwarddoggo05 They are really fake. Even real designs (4TP, 7TP, 10TP, 14TP and 25TP) have some fake elements (cannon's, turret's and engine's choice's)

[@awkwarddoggo05]

@@ja_exe Never said they’re real.

[@ARROW-nd8ui]

@ja_exe The polish heavy’s aren’t fake they only existed on blueprints for example the 60tp Levandoskego is named after the designer

[@aurorajones8481]

This unit is in CoH. It has a roll to play. Its best kept near the back of the front line protected by other units because as you say it is a glass cannon. I like keeping it peaking out using a structure as shield allowing the unit to reverse if needed to be shielded by the building it was tucked in between because it does have a wicked jab. Just watch it.

[@aurorajones8481]

Both units are in CoH. The Hummel is a great shoot and scoot artilery piece.

[@kingdarboja7903]

It is also in COH3, unfortunately at the time being singleplayer only. Hope it gets added into multiplayer via battlegroups.

[@rsfaeges5298]

I've seen other videos recently discussing MIS-use of tank-hunters like Nashorn: sending them forward instead of staying back in ambush & breaking up kompanies into "penny packets" [anyone say that anymore?], both of which are BIG nonos according to The Book -- which you quoted from. So, was Nashorn & similar weapons ”cursed by design” or cursed by dumkopf commanders of units they were attached to or sent to support?

[@DewpeeSnewBa11]

You'd think the engine would have a better time functioning with this thing considering how it's only protected by reinforced paper and SHOULD weigh less because of that, but nope, it's Germany in 1942 so of course they had to mess the engine up somehow

[@ConeOfArc]

I assume the majority of the weight came from the gun

[@DewpeeSnewBa11]

@@ConeOfArc I guess that does make sense considering the size and the ammunition load but I'm still baffled by how they almost always swap between upgrading either their armour or firepower and then neglect mobility for a lot of their designs

[@ConeOfArc]

@user-bu9fh3vt2m is that why they lost?

[@ConeOfArc]

@user-bu9fh3vt2m doesn't seem like I'm the one coping

[@gsamov]

*writes nearly double the amount of comments as the person he's argueing with* "Just cope harder sir"

[@bruceschlickbernd8475]

Yup, glass cannon. Stand waaaaaaay back, get under cover with good sight lines, and don’t let anything get into range. It’s not a cursed design at all - but it is a very limited design. You have to be disciplined in its use. And it would sure help not to have planes queueing up for attacks runs.

[@Wasssh]

That war thunder intro was really cool! well done. (the sound effects were a little loud, though)

[@NotTheBomb]

Playing World of Tanks, and War Thunder, I always thought the Nashorn was a great idea. A cheap way to get a heavy gun into the fight. It is one of the many reasons I love watching these videos. To change, or learn a new opinion, of something I ‘know’.

[@johanstahl1497]

I remember playing this in ps1 panzer front. There's Ernst mission as well in that game.

[@ElHombreGato]

Great Video. I actually love glass cannons for some reason. I always play one in RPG's or any other game that allows it. I also love hearing about less known about vehicles like this. Thanks for all your hard work and excellent videos! I LOVE your content so much!!!

[@Gentle_Ghost_Hunter]

That thing at 3:21 (not the focus part but the one left of it) looks like the WT Auf E100s gun/Turret Assembly

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Love the video. You gotta do a Cursed by Design video on the TOG ll.

[@kiowafourty964]

Mark Felton did a great video about the “Pershing” being knocked out by a “Nashorn” and how rare the occurrence was.

[@Kwodlibet]

Haven't played WoT in years but back in the day German TD line was one of my favourite. Nashorn's gun had a fantastic performance. Only a tier 6 vehicle, but if played smart, it was an absolute menace even for tier 8 enemies.

[@user-sj8if1ry9m-IRAN]

I was waiting for the video since yesterday. thanks a lot❤❤❤

[@Idiot_in_an_Abrams]

Hey coneofarc, thank you for making this video! The nashorn is my favorite afv and it really doesn’t get enough love. It is very nice to see a full length dive into this vehicle. Thanks again, have a great one. Ps: could you feature the su-122-54 at some point? :)

[@MantaF4U-1D]

"Honey Wake Up, ConeOfArc Posted A Video"

[@horusfalcon]

Very well covered, including all those krazy name changes. Thanks!

[@RaeSyngKane]

I have a couple of possible topics for you: An overview on German programs for converting enemy vehicles. How nations made the best of their tankettes or carriers. The Lorraine 37L, 38L, and 39L French APC/carrier/Tank destroyer/things

[@TheCell-vx3pk]

The mention of the Hummel, that had to be pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle reminds me of the one of the two Panthers in the 'Technik Museum Sinsheim'. It was blown up my it's crew in Ukraine in 1944, and instead of putting it together fully, they placed the hull pieces like they have been, in a cleaned, but original condition. You can clearly see which part took the biggest damage, where each piece of armour cracked, and what was unrecoverable, as it was just gone. A truly interesting thing.

[@scotsbillhicks]

I watched the tank talks video about the Pak43. The Nashorn addresses all the obvious questions that arise when you see an anti-tank gun that weighs much it could only get in and out of action with a heavy mover; itself a very significant asset on the battlefield.

[@kimjanek646]

Both Nashorn and Ferdinand were kinda half measure’s, made out of necessity. They needed to do something with the Porsche Tiger hulls and they also needed some vehicles that would be able to carry a PaK 43. Of course the Jagdpanther also had its share of problems.

[@dallas8692]

Didn't they represent brilliant adaptions of otherwise unutilized and rejected resources? Many German vehicles were horrendously unreliable as they exceeded the limits of the engineering available with the rediculously short development timeframes many of these vehicles had, and, of course, there was no capacity to mass produce them. Imagine if the Germans had the resources of the U.S. at the time... we may be speaking German now. Fortunately for the world as it exists, they did not.

[@inductivegrunt94]

Desperation breed ingenuity. That's how most German TDs came to be. The Nashorn is an amazing ambush hunter and is a tank I like a lot.

[@rebelgaming1.5.14]

I find it interesting how many of their best designs came out of desperation or sheer luck. The Germans didn't have a set formula and kinda just threw things at the wall to see what stuck just like everyone else. It just so happens their tank destroyers proved to be the true ingenious designs of their war machine. From the StuG III G to the Jagdpanther, each Tank Destroyer developed in between built upon and improved that original concept to create what could possibly be the best casemate heavy tank destroyer ever built. For being introduced in 44 the Jagdpanther proved deadly, racking up an impressive kill ratio for its short service time. The design strangely also resolved some of the issues the Panther itself had. I think true perfection for casemate TDs came with the Hetzer though. Low profile, well armed, and easy to produce. A true successor to the StuG if there ever was one.

[@inductivegrunt94]

@@rebelgaming1.5.14 Hetzers gonna Hetz. The Jagdpanzer 38t is a legendary TD alongside its StuG counterpart.

[@MrDwarfpitcher]

​@@rebelgaming1.5.14nah the Hetzer is bad compared to the Stug. Specifically the Stug 3 F series. The Hetzer had very poor balance of weight. Much too much up to the front. It also had bad visibility compared to the Stug 3 F Other than that, very comparable but I do believe the Hetzer was a little cheaper tool build due to the Panzer 3 hull being more complex. That said. The Jagdpanther heavy tank destroyer is just a beauty. Sadly too different in role than a Stug 3 or Hetzer

[@konk8429]

bro got sponsored by WoT and used warthunder footage for the video

[@paulfrantizek102]

This gives the Nashorn a bad rap. The 88 L71 was arguably the most potent anti-tank gun of the war and the Nashorn was the most practical way to get it into action quickly (as a static gun it was even more vulnerable).

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

I think that title actually belongs to the 12,8-cm-PaK 44 and it’s KwK and PjK brethren.

[@paulfrantizek102]

@@RichelieuUnlimited I'd argue that wasn't a practical option, just the Germans indulging in their obsession with gigantism. 128mm was really designed as a fixed location Flak gun (think flak towers) and was too massive for meaningful tactical mobility (especially late in the war when heavy movers like the big halftracks were at a premium). Even now anti-tank guns are only approaching that size.

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

@@paulfrantizek102 There‘s simulations on how poorly a 12,8cm round fares against an IS-3 even at relatively close ranges. That wasn’t an unreasonable heavily armored target to expect going forward in 44, so the development and introduction was to an extent logical, as the PaK 43 would be totally insufficient to deal with such threats.

[@paulfrantizek102]

@@RichelieuUnlimited Disagree for the reasons I've already stated but see no reason to get busy with this. Believe as you will.

[@dallas8692]

I don't think the Germans ever faced an IS-3... The PaK 43 was a pretty decent solution, especially when mobile. The Allies didn't win the war based on the head to head potency of individual weapons.

[@kinderblutsaufenderreptiloide]

One of my favorite tank hunters!

[@robertsolomielke5134]

TY. Nashorn is a sniper of AT work, with superior optics. Glass cannon' works too, TY for an accurate review. Best of the open topped designs, SPG's 88mm IMO.

[@Gurtanic_1912]

We need a video from you of the researchtree to the sturmtiger. Its in the console version but i dont know if its in the normal Version too❤

[@edgar_balderas]

I love the Nashorn in WoT. Its fast firing 88 makes short work out of most tanks at tier 6.

[@molovichstorch6398]

The thing is more of a mobile anti-tank gun with the same amount of protection. As such, it has to be use like its static counterpart in ambush to avoid discovery. Which means the purpose of its mobility was to bring it from concealed position from concealed position, not to engage its target in the open. Taking that into account, the major defect was its height that went against easy camouflage. In my opinion, this vehicle was best used among infantry troops which it could easily follow on the move and get to prepared position to ambush its targets and repeal attacks. It was not really a tank hunter but a defense vehicle.

[@Sean-ot4zq]

I believe the vehicle might have been more useful if it had come out about 6 months earlier. The concept is good but the Nashorn is not as good as it's later counter part the Jagpanther. Most German armored vehicles while not bad did usually suffer from under powered engines, weak suspension or something else along those lines. That being said most countries armored vehicles suffered the same problems during this period.

[@tomaspabon2484]

I love that Cone named every tank class in wot and then added the good old "and more". No cone thats it, thats why you gotta leave one out for that to work

[@ConeOfArc]

I didn't mention the wheeled vehicles ingame which is what I was referring to when I said "and more"

[@roxywolfdragon1767]

Fun fact the nashorn in the Netherlands was disabled at a tank show in 2022 when I broke down on parade then collided with a tree while being towed back to the museum to be repaired. I believe I has not been repaired tho. But I was at the show for one of the days and God a good look at the damage. And it's fair to say tanks don't do good against trees

[@sargonsblackgrandfather2072]

My fav vehicle in War Thunder. That gun one shots almost everything especially at long range. Pretty quick, agile, very fast reload rate. Setup for ambush in a good hiding spot you’re basically a tank sniper. The armour is weird too, it’s so thin sometimes shells just go straight through without detonating or hitting anyone as there’s lots of empty space, I’ve had tanks shoot me at close range only to see their shell go straight through without exploding and then panic as they realise I get the next two shots at least before they can reload with my doom cannon 😂

[@randomexcessmemories4452]

Interesting tidbit about the Syrian Hummels: some were equipped with Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm aircraft machine guns as anti-air defense weapons. Similar mounts were used on Syrian StuG II Gs.

[@watcherzero5256]

10mm would be just below NATO STANAG 4569 Level 2 which is usually 12mm of steel armour and is considered sufficient to resist an 155mm artillery shell exploding 80m away or 7.62×39mm (AK-47) at a distance of 30m. But would exceed Level 1 which is 155mm artillery shell at a distance of 100m and standard NATO rifle calibres at a distance of 30m.

[@pauld6967]

You mentioned the similar Wespe but did not mention that it translates as the 'wasp'. Thus, it fits in with the naming scheme alongside the brother vehicles: bumblebee and hornet.

[@PanzerHistorian]

for some reason, when i think of the Nashorn, i think of unicorn’s 😅 ….

[@LastGoatKnight]

They were unicorns, pretty rare, though not beating the Ferdinand/Elefant

[@dominuslogik484]

@@LastGoatKnight 494 of them being built isn't exactly rare for an AT vehicle in regards to the German army during WW2 to be honest. plenty of German divisions had a handful of them available.

[@Myomer104]

Fun fact: It's sometimes theorized that unicorns came about due to Europeans hearing third+ hand accounts of rhinos.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@Myomer104 wouldn't be surprised if it was asian rhinos they were told about from traders. the only weird thing is that they would think of it like a horse with one horn rather than a cow with one horn lol.

[@nicholaswoof88]

The good old panzer IV chassis. Reliable and versatile on variants..

[@inserttext2412]

Thanks for the great video. Have you ever considered doing a video on the armed and armored sleds used by Russia?

[@MrPlusses]

Favorite Tier 6 tank for me in WOTBlitz. Very situational but on the right map and unspotted it's a treat.

[@night_knightC2]

You would like it in the PC WoT then, because the bigger maps and camo/ spotting is much more exaggerated. You could go unnoticed the whole match

[@MrPlusses]

@@night_knightC2 Played WOT PC 2011-14. War Thunder 2013-14 Switched to Blitz in 2014. Being able to play anywhere was the big reason. That and WOT and WT had too much housekeeping involved.

[@asdnetwork4268]

I like the Nashorn. It's like a sniper. Pretty maneuverable with long range. Not meant to get close but more of a skirmish or ambush role.

[@gr8990]

This was an excellent vehicle, if used according to doctrine. It made kills beyond 3000m relatively routinely. If you want that gun with armour, you'll need a Jagdpanther and that vehicle is a lot bigger, heavier, more expensive and maintenance intensive.

[@marcocuenca1]

So many German Vehicles, so little time! I appreciate the detail of the presenttation, great research!

[@Riceball01]

Just as an FYI, it's not entirely correct to say tanks of the Wehrmacht because Wehrmacht was not the name of the Garman Army during WWII, It was called the Heer and it, along with the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine made up the Wehrmacht, or armed forces. I know that it's being a bit pedantic, but I feel that it's good to try to get rid of the misunderstanding about what the Wehrmacht was.

[@Mishn0]

Hair splitting. The Heer was part of the Wehrmacht, so , if it's a tank of the Heer, it's also a tank of the Wehrmacht.

[@dominuslogik484]

to be fair though these tanks/AFVs/assault guns etc. were not all exclusively used by the army with there being naval infantry brigades and luftwaffe groups that utilized them as well so you can pretty accurately lump the tanks under Wehrmacht.

[@LadislavHruska]

Czechoslovak army used Nashorns. Between 1948-1950 12 available machines were under repair. They received name 88 mm ShPTK vz.43N, soon shortened to SD-88. By 1955 they were all written off and used for spare parts, one as training machine. In 1959/60 some hulks were used as rocket artillery targets.

[@christophmiltner6983]

Fun Fact: The 3.7cm KwK 36 (Which was the standard cannon of the Panzer III), and it's equivalent as a moveable anti-tank gun was jokingly called by the Germans"Panzer Anklopf Kanone" ~ meaning: Knocking on Tanks cannon, since it couldn't penetrate well.

[@davedavidson4203]

How did the nashorn compare to being towed? It seems like an improvement except for the gun sights getting messed up in transit.

[@theromanorder]

Please do a video on evaluation of tank veiw ports/parascopes And mabey some evaluation of tank doctrine videos

[@ConeOfArc]

Doctrine is something a channel like military history visualized or the chieftain cover. I'm more focused on the designing aspect of the vehicles and their usage in combat

[@theromanorder]

@@ConeOfArc ok, im happy you finally found my comment though... Would you be able to do the veiw ports? Armor, wepons, amo and engine's have all been done.

[@ConeOfArc]

@@theromanorder I may cover viewports. I do have a video I'm working on regarding one particular example but no clue when I'll be done

[@theromanorder]

@@ConeOfArc thank you, Hope you're production gose well, now all i need to do is rember to stop asking you for doctrine

[@markwilliams2620]

​@@theromanorder You could also remember to pay him for doing the work. I have never read a post like yours, across dozens of channels, where the requestor started the request with, "How much will it cost to....".

[@Snowlep337]

I love how I got a Warthunder add on a Warthunder video that was sponsored by World of Tanks

[@ConeOfArc]

This isn't a war thunder video

[@Snowlep337]

@@ConeOfArc The first bit was wathunder so it had war thunder in it at least.

[@mbryson2899]

Nashorn _and_ Elefant? I was aware of the change but never connected them. Apparently moustache man knew his pachyderms when he saw them.

[@mathieugariepy2948]

Great video!

[@michaelangelo7511]

Great narration and vid. 👍🏻🇺🇸

[@AchseBerlinTokio]

I am so happy that it is really a "NAS horn" and not a "nash horn" as usually spelled wrong by the anglikanians and yankianians

[@gregfrith5058]

Is it just me, or does the gun on the Nashorn in the Romanian photo (13:52) look like that of the Hummel's? Shorter barrel with no muzzle break, and has the cylindrical recoil piece on top. Possible mistaken identity, or am I just seeing things incorrectly? -- Just curious! Great video, btw!!

[@hideshisface1886]

Nashorn is just one more example of German tendency to overcomplicate things. When you first look at it, it might look like a logical extension of early war Panzerjagers and Marder vehicls - utilising obsolete hulls by removing the turret and slapping a bigger gun in a light superstructure with minimal changes to the hull. But considering that Nashorn is Frankensteined from Panzer III and IV elements means it had to utilise logistics from production lines of both tanks. One might also argue that long 88, while potent, was also sort of an overkill considering that Tiger's shorter 88 was still effective, and so was Panzer IV's 75mm guns. And when Panther appeared, its 75mm was also amazing.

[@davidaustin5622]

A high skill ceiling, the best strategy was to invest points in mobility, and at level eight it could upgrade to homing shells.

[@loganhecker5450]

If im not mistaken, isn't the Dicker Max also built on the panzer 4 chassis and was the other opposing design other than the nashorn?

[@matthewdecker4397]

It would be cool to see a video of a comparison between the two

[@Absaalookemensch]

Properly employed, they could dominate the battlefield. Like the Marder III, it was a glass cannon, but had a deadly punch.

[@LiamVanHamburg]

I saw one Driving in the Netherlands at overloon

[@maotisjan]

I was just getting ready to go to sleep when I saw this video and was like"Not missing this, no way"

[@gossicraft]

The Nashorn in the Netherlands is always stored and shown at the Tank Museum in Overloon and is in working condition. There is a KZbin channel showing this Nashorn restoration. If you want any information about dutch sources let me know and I can help translate and research.

[@joew.7529]

Hey bro, German here. Love your videos, found a little mistake in your translation: Minute 11:03 it is supposed to say "Panzerfahrgestell (thats two L's) IV"

[@hitechinc.7875]

WoT is the sponsor but footage found on WarThunder

[@Dan_TheCatman]

Still thinking about those Knives this man promoted

[@ConeOfArc]

Still use them, haven't really had any complaints

[@drydogg]

Murphy's Laws of Combat: Friendly Fire isn't.

[@TheFirstVonGunther]

@ConeofArc have you read the Hans Helmut Kirst series about Gunner Asch?

[@leestewart72]

No more of a "glass cannon" than a towed gun. In fact, it's lack of setup time/breakdown for towing, and basic protection for the crew makes it far superior.

[@PakBallandSami]

when a nashorn tank faces a kv-2 tank: on way, let's just give up lol

[@kevincocking8561]

love this dam series very well done

[@CobraDBlade]

Maybe we need a "Blursed for Battle" series for vehicles that were really pretty effective but were made equal by their own shortcomings.

[@Demospammer9987]

Wespe, Hornisse, Hummel... were most of Germany's tank destroyers named after stinging insects? Also, awesome video! Looking forward to the next one.

[@dominuslogik484]

the Wespe and Hummel were not tank destroyers they were self propelled howitzers for indirect artillery fire.

[@Demospammer9987]

@@dominuslogik484 true, but they could be used as tank destroyers in a purely hypothetical sense

[@dominuslogik484]

@@Demospammer9987 The Wespe could have been used as a tank destroyer with the AP shells they made for the 105mm but the 150mm gun on the Hummel never had any AP shells created for it. the biggest problem is that both the wespe and hummel had very low velocity guns so they would be absolutely atrocious at direct fire against anything in the 1-2km range with it taking up to 4 seconds for the projectile to reach a target 2km away so if you shot and the target moved it could be several meters from the point of aim. that and most of those vehicles lacked the ability to aim the cannon for direct fire with only sights gauged for indirect fire.

[@lievendelameillieure3121]

just assembling a nashorn 1/35 model :D

[@explorer1968]

It was more efficient as a support vehicle firing from a long distance rather than a tank destroyer in ambushes in short distances.

[@zgoodt]

I can't remember who said or called it this, but the Nashorn was called "A sniper tank" ; I can see why.

[@MrFluidwill]

I'm sure I've seen a photo of a Nashorn dug right in with just the gun showing? Don't think I saw it in the vid? Apologies if it was.

[@ry7hym]

Cromwell Berlin is a good tank so that's a pretty nice rewards for using your promo code. sadly I already have an account

[@ideallogic]

Is there a series or episode on all the Waffenträger projects like the Heuschrecke 10 ?

[@ConeOfArc]

I have an older episode talking about them

[@ideallogic]

@@ConeOfArc I guess it's scrolling time then... but thx for responding so quickly.

[@baginatora]

As far as I remember, it was the Nasshorn’s record kill shot of 5km that stood unbeaten for 50+ years.

[@DimBeam1]

2:14 start

[@calebnorstrom6143]

Concept makes sense. It uses readily available parts, weapons, ammunition and would require no or very little retooling for manufacturing. Same with the various Marder tanks. Just a way to streemline getting a tried and true field gun onto a platform that can be entered into service quickly. During wartime, rolling out new production for concept and prototype tanks isnt ideal. To a large degree you need simplicity, ease of manufacturing and commonality in platform and parts. Every nation did and does this. I dont feel it was a cursed by design but, more of a necessity tank for the germans at the time. This is similar for the PZ 1 & 2. Knowing full well the tank they desiered was the PZ3 and PZ4. Time was not on their side and opportunities where dwindling with it. They were already playing catch up from the start of the war and making something like this out of necessity isn't far from the norm and makes logistical sense.

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

You'd think they'd have named the Nashorn the Dicker Max. I think you can tell why.