Quote:
Originally Posted by moutan1
hi JagdtigerI
what is the difference between Marder and Nashorn?
same protection,therefor the difference is the effective range of the gun
Nashorn's gun was one of the most effective anti-tank guns deployed during the war. Its tungsten carbide–cored sub-calibre round, Pzgr. 40/43, was capable of penetrating 190 mm of rolled steel armour at a 30° angle of impact at a distance of 1,000 m. The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
The Hornisse/Nashorn made its debut during the Battle of Kursk, where they performed well. The ability to engage the enemy at long distances negated the disadvantages of light armour and a high profile and revealed the weapon was suited to the open, flat landscape of much of Russia. Like all German vehicles armed with PaK 43 or KwK 43, Nashorn could punch a hole in the front plating of any Allied armoured vehicle. The Nashorn was one of few German vehicles to destroy an American M26 Pershing heavy tank and to destroy a IS2 +4000m (ww2 record) ,88 mm is the best.
While the Marder series were much more effective than the towed antitank guns they replaced.
|
A total of 494 Nashorns were completed. At their peak about 140 Marder IIIs were being produced a month. From 1942 on the easily produced and converted Marders were filling the gaps in the German's armored units. The PaK 40 was in no means an inadequate weapon, it was potent enough to take out most any tank at normal combat range. The Nashorn had 10-30mm or armor, the Marder III had 50mm. Not much better but, stronger than most German tank's side armor. So essentially it comes down to their impact on the war, the Nashorn is a viable option, but I think the Marder deserves the spot for length of service and usefulness to the Germans