Talk:Nashorn

For how long is this claim about knocking IS-2 out at 4.6 km going to be there. It is unsourced whatsoever. the site Achtung Panzer does not put any reference for the claim either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Armor

Any data on how thick the armor was? Ctifumdope 01:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hull front (nose): 30mm (1.2in) at 78 degrees slope Hull front (driver's plate): 30mm (1.2in) at 35 degrees slope Hull sides: 20mm (0.8in) at 90 degrees slope Hull rear: 20mm (0.8in) at 80 degrees slope Superstructure front: 10mm (0.4in) at 60 degrees slope Superstructure sides: 10mm (0.4in) at 74 degrees slope Superstructure rear: 10mm (0.4in) at 80 degrees slope Superstructure roof: none

I got all this from "German Tanks of World War II" by Drs. S. Hart and R. Hart, ISBN 0-76071-581-5 MToje 18:38, 23 January 2006 (CST)

Main gun

Why do some people think that the initial production vehicles were armed with the Pak 43 and not Pak 43/1? The weapon called just 'Pak 43' was a towed antitank gun, whereas the weapon's vehicle mounted versions had an additional number after a slash, e.g. Pak 43/1 (Nashorn) or Pak 43/3 (Jagdpanther).

LV

Because it's a minor issue - given that the distinction between the gun in the PaK43 and 43/1 is minimal compared to the diffreence between a Pak 43 and a FLaK 37. GraemeLeggett 12:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Name?

The German article specifies its name (Sd.Kfz. 164), but this one doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adûnâi (talk • contribs) 10:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Rhino before Hornet

This is a general impression, and I suspect it is one of those bothersome anecdotal issues that are very difficult to actually chase down...

The ways I have read the derivation of this vehicle's names—as an aside, I agree we should give its Wehrmacht Vehicle Number as part of it's ID—are: (1) As given; that it started out as Nashorn, and then Hitler complained that the names of German armoured fighting vehicles were too tame, so it was changed to Hornisse;

(2) the same, but Hitler disliked "bug names" and preferred big, powerful mammals, so first Hornisse, then Nashorn.

The reason I think this matters here, is because encyclopaedia ought to be a place the generally-curious can stop and learn. This is the kind of issue that will provoke a debate, and it would be nice if one day, maybe, Wikipedia could be the kind of place one could settle an argument without raising a new one.

To me, this is much more important than highly-suspect "penetration values" or "accuracy tables"; those exist in their dozens—maybe hundreds by now—and are easily referenced. One does not crack an encyclopaedia to argue penetration values. That's what actual technical volumes are for.

Just my thought. Does anyone know any documentary references? Not a popular book, but something that cites the original documents, so they can be found and checked. One can't very well write the Bundesarchiv and ask for "everything on the Nashorn vs Hornisse controversy". Even knowing when the change occurred—month and year—would give us some help.

Ranya (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Tracks

Is this supposed to mean something to the average reader?

 Tracks: 61/400/120 kg 

Maybe this is some kind of standard mode of portraying information on tracked vehicles, like saying a steam locomotive is a 2-6-4 in Whyte notation, or maybe it is part of a standard Wikipedia format for articles on tracked vehicles, but it means nothing at all to me without some kind of context or a link to an explanation. Is it number of links per side, total track weight and ?, or ground pressure per axle, per ? and per side? I have no clue. I can't even guess.

64.223.106.178 (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Type number of the tracks used. --Denniss (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Combat Record:

> On 6 March 1945, a US Army M26 Pershing heavy tank was knocked out by a Nashorn in the town of Niehl near Cologne, at a close range of under 300 yd (270 m).

Mark Felton is notoriously unreliable and doesn't provide good sources for his information or videos. Jpf123 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

AFAIR that was a Tiger I which was then also lost as it backed up over rubble an could not free itself so was given up. --Denniss (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

References