Marder II

[MG42Maniac]

I personally do not like to use tanks where in one shot to the front your gone. Thanks to some dodgy coding only a few tanks and tanks hit by the King Tiger die in one shot to the front, although latly its taken me 2 shots with the KT to kill a firefly a range to the front

[the_unborn]

I can't wait to use tank destroyers in-game

Yesterday I was playing Breakthrough and was using my beloved Stug. I managed to survive two rounds without being killed or even hit by a single shell or rocket. And there were some skilled pilots hunting our tanks down. I was hidden somewhere and just sniping tanks that came near (or far ). I spent most of the time in the commander cupola searching and observing the battlefield. It was really fun. I also saw some serious teamplay on allied side - well, i didnt see a tank for a long time, then a whole collumn (2 ff and 3 cromwells) passed me by and...they didnt know what hit them.

[Nagato]

Personally i rather want to see the Nashorn in the game as any other tank hunter,because i think this was able to knock the T-34 from 3km,and i read somewhere that one Nashorn Destroyed a IS2 from 4,5km

[Nagato]

Oh sh*t
not i think,i know...

[the_unborn]

Yeah, Nashorn is a beast, it carries long barelled 88, similar to one on King Tiger

[MelanchOli]

Originally Posted by Nagato

Personally i rather want to see the Nashorn in the game as any other tank hunter,because i think this was able to knock the T-34 from 3km,and i read somewhere that one Nashorn Destroyed a IS2 from 4,5km

Well, that IS2 killed was just some very lucky hit - as were considered all hits beyond a range of 2,500 meters. Sure, it gives great credit to the 8,8 Pak 43 used in the Nashorn, but still...

And about those 3km...no argument either, I think. FH maps are much to small usually to make use of that combat range. Most tank combats are led at 350 meters distance, at maximum. Usually tank combat is CQ anyway.

And although you'd probably be able to kill anything with the first hit, that game is played by two: even the T34-76 would kill your Nashorn with a single hit. Using a T34-85 shell to kill that Nashorn would almost be a waste of ammo, not to talk about an IS2's shell.

Production numbers of the Nashorn are close to some 500, according to www.achtungpanzer.com. Whereas 1,000 Marders were built of the III H series alone; some 3,500 Marders were built or converted altogether.

The Marder series is a totally different thing than the Nashorn. The Marder came up by a time when the Germans had no effective weapon to fight the T34. It was needed. There were no Tigers or Panthers in 1941 - not even a Panzer 4 F2 until late that year, IIRC. The Germans had to fight the T34 with tanks like the Panzer 3 H (J series production had started in March, 1941) and the Panzer 4D. In other words, you'd have underarmored (ca. 40 mm max) tanks with short-barrelled 7,5 mm guns resp. underarmored tanks (max 50 mm straight) with a rather long-barrelled, but rather small caliber (50mm) gun against the T34. Which was the best tank of its time overall - and way superior to anything the Germans had when "Operation Barbarossa" started.

By the time the Nashorn appeared, the Panther and Tiger were already in mass production or nearly so. In other words, the Nashorn is just a vehicle to get the 88 PaK 43 mobile. It was a nice extra, so to speak. The Marder, however, is a vehicle needed to fight the most dangerous enemies and was usually vital to the troops, AFAIK.

Or put yet another way: the Marder is necessary for maps til 1942, the Nashorn isn't necessary at all, I think.

EDIT: If we aren't getting the Panzer 3 any time soon, there should be a Marder even more so. It would add quite a bit of balance to the 1941 / early 1942 maps. Anyone like fighting the Mathilda II in a Panzer 2? Or going against a Crusader III in a Panzer 4D? No? Well, here you are...