Nashorn, max effective range...

[wodasini88]

I've recently come across a few accounts of nashorns taking out russian tanks over 4,000 meters away. For one how true are these stories and second what allowed the nashorn to do this(besides the L71 cannon) while I haven't heard of other german tanks with the L71 accomplishing this feat.

[Mattias]

Well, it could happen so it probably did considering the number chances. 4000 meters is a "long" shot though, 1500-2000 meters being a more effective range.

The 88L71 vehicle that would have the best chance achieving a kill at those ranges would the be the late production JgPz V's that mounted the 10x WZF 1/4 gun sight.

Perhaps the Jagdpanthers didn't get lucky or it's just that we haven't heard of it. If it happened you'll probably find it one of the unit histories.

M.

[SwedishPSK]

I read somewhere of a Nashorn knocking out a russian JS-II at a range of 4800m.. being one of the longest distances during the easternfront war a tank being knocked out on..

Also heard somewhere that the Nashorn was the only german tank during the war knocking out an american Pershing.. also at a distance..

anyone else knowing anything about these stories?

SWE

[Mattias]

Achtung Panzer mentions the same stories..

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz2.htm

M.

[SwedishPSK]

I correct myself... the Pershing was knocked out at a distance of 250m... not very far.

SWE

[Redwolf]

The Nashorns got top crews, the rangefinders from the true AA units and defensive positions with premeasured distances.

I have a nice book by a 75mm PaK and he was very impressed by the Nashorns he saw.

[Aunty Jack]

Hornisse/Nashorns were not the only vehicles capable of such long range shots as this passage relates:

"During the battle north of Orel, Russia, in 1943 a Russian tank column marched far out of reach of conventional German anti-tank on a northerly course towards Karatschew. The tanks were barely visible at a distance of more than three miles and the Germans seemed unable to interfere with this troop movement which was threatening their exposed flank.

Then, at this critical moment, a company of German self-propelled anti-tank equipment, using a vehicle called "Ferdinand" was called up to intervene. Fire was opened against the Russian vehicles despite the distance and soon eight of them were destroyed."

p.141, Spielberger, W.J., 'Panzerjager Tiger(P) Elefant', in Crow, D., Armoured Fighting Vehicles of the World, Vol.5, German AFVs of World War II, Profile Publications, Windsor, 1973.

[jgdpzr]

This is pure speculation on my behalf, but I would bet one of the reasons why Nashorns, and possibly Ferdinands, had more documented long-range kills had to do with the time period and locations they were being utilized. For example, at the point in the war when those were the main long range German firepower, the engagements were frequently being fought on the wide open steppes in the east. Contrast this with the other vehicles sporting the L71 (the King Tiger and the Jagdpanther) and WHEN and WHERE they saw combat. Both vehicles were introduced much later, and both saw significant action in the West, more so than the earlier two vehicles. In the West, and in the areas they served in the East, the ranges may have not been as great as they were earlier in the war. In sum, I think it was a case of these later vehicles not being put in as many situations where they could exhibit this kind of range. Once again, though, that is just my best guess.

[Redwolf]

jgdpzt, good points about timeframe.

I think an additional factor is that both Russians and British were sometimes moving in LOS of German positions, at a distance they thought would be safe, in 1943. But weapons like the at the time new L71 88, obviously intensive training, and employment of things like Flak rangefinders (which was never done by Allied forces AFAIK), pushed those ranges, faster that the word would spread amoung the opponents.

The Panzerjaeger book I name above has one of these accounts, too.

[Andreas]

Is that a male or a female Rhino?

According to this website, there is quite a difference in their ranging.

Also, according to this website, a Hippo can beat a Rhino any day, when it comes to effective range:

An amusing aspect of hippo behaviour is "muck-spreading". During defaecation, the hippo wags

its short tail vigorously, which has the effect of spreading the dung over a wide area. This behaviour occurs both in the water and on land, where it is usually a bush that is liberally sprayed. The function is not clear. It does not appear to involve territorial marking as hippos are not territorial on land, but it may help to guide the animals back to water after their feeding sessions. The possibility that dunging has a social significance is considered in Chapter 4.

So there.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Is that a male or a female Rhino?

According to this website, there is quite a difference in their ranging.

Also, according to this website, a Hippo can beat a Rhino any day, when it comes to effective range:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />An amusing aspect of hippo behaviour is "muck-spreading". During defaecation, the hippo wags

its short tail vigorously, which has the effect of spreading the dung over a wide area. This behaviour occurs both in the water and on land, where it is usually a bush that is liberally sprayed. The function is not clear. It does not appear to involve territorial marking as hippos are not territorial on land, but it may help to guide the animals back to water after their feeding sessions. The possibility that dunging has a social significance is considered in Chapter 4.

So there.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.

Michael

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.

Michael

No, he's been out drinking, or so an informant tells me. It is obvious that alcohol has an interesting effect upon this lad.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.

Michael

No, he's been out drinking, or so an informant tells me. It is obvious that alcohol has an interesting effect upon this lad. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.

Michael

The problem is, no one has actually presented a volume that does discuss the employment of the BREN tripod - just its issuance, a totally different matter, BUT I DIGRESS....

[Brian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Andreas is in rebellion. Or has gone round the bend after reading one too many volumes on the employment of the BREN tripod in NW Europe 1939-45. Take your pick.

Michael

No, he's been out drinking, or so an informant tells me. It is obvious that alcohol has an interesting effect upon this lad. </font>

[Jarmo]

"During the battle north of Orel, Russia, in 1943 a Russian tank column marched far out of reach of conventional German anti-tank on a northerly course towards Karatschew. The tanks were barely visible at a distance of more than three miles and the Germans seemed unable to interfere with this troop movement which was threatening their exposed flank.

Then, at this critical moment, a company of German self-propelled anti-tank equipment, using a vehicle called "Ferdinand" was called up to intervene. Fire was opened against the Russian vehicles despite the distance and soon eight of them were destroyed."

I can see how that could happen.

88 can certainly be effective at long ranges, the problem

is hitting something. A few things are in favour of the german

side here. Beside the excellent optics that would help

in ranging the fire.

The first is the obvious advantage of a flank shot.

More easily destructive and providing a bigger target.

But more than that:

A company of Ferdinards is how many tanks? About a dozen?

"Soon" is how long a time? A few minutes? Maybe five?

How many shots can a dozen Ferdinards put out in five minutes?

Maybe a few hundred? Gives a roughly 1 out of 40 hit chance.

I'm probably over- or underestimating, Could just as well

be 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100..

A column is a bigger target than a single tank.

If you have the ranging right, it doesn't necessarily

matter if you don't lead by the right amount, there's another

tank before and after the one you aimed, so the shot is

still likely to hit something, not every time but maybe one

out of five or something?

[ April 21, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[K_Tiger]

Jarmo:

Did you think they shoot at those ranges with rapid fire?? I do not...first they hade mostly not the maximum ammo, so they need to hit with what they have...i think they hit what they targeted and not to belive in luck or in god...

Also the "Collumn"-effect is a myth..may it happens sometimes and was a benefit...but not the rule...they didnt have the luxury to sit hours on one place for goofi-shooting at defenceless targets..especialy the vulnerable Nashorns...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

A column is a bigger target than a single tank.

Not unless their silhouettes overlap. And the column commander would have to be looney to permit that to happen (which, given the time and circumstances is admittedly not impossible). Otherwise, I generally agree with the line of your argument.

Michael