German Glass Cannon, the Nashorn | Cursed by Design

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.

Social links:

Sources:

Things I use:
You can check out more stuff I use on my Amazon Store:

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!

Some music provided by Epidemic Sound.
License music for your videos without fear of copyright claims

#wot #worldoftanks #tanks #history #ww2

[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").

[_Lobster_]

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

[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!

[ichbins]

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

[Ulani]

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.

[wso]

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

[petesheppard]

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.

[admiraltiberius]

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

[chris_hisss]

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

[allistairmitchell]

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.

[cameronmichael]

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

[THX]

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.

[captainroyy]

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

[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.

[aurorajones]

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.

[frederikdemoor]

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

[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.

[DewpeeSnewBa]

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

[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’.

[bruceschlickbernd]

Yup, glass cannon. Stand 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.