I heard somewhere, those who got Ferdninad in the battle of Kursk. If they had been on a StuG before and had a cleanup they knew where to use the Ferdninad, stay back in the attack and use the range of the gun. But the newbies didn't know how to use Ferdninad, relied too much on the armour protection, they advanced forward because they thought they were unstoppable. If you don't use the tools you have properly, nothing will work.
It’s bad is because it can only do well in a very specific situation that happens very rarely. In every other situation than long range combat on flat surfaces where the enemy is coming to you, there’s vehicles that are cheaper, more reliable and most importantly does the job better. The jagdpanther for example is better in almost every way. JP4 does the same job almost as well at a much lower cost and is far more versatile. And having multiple vehicles that can work together is much better than a single vehicle.
Correct. I think it was Hilary Doyle who looked at the after-combat reports where the STUG crews performed well but the crews who were used to normal panzers didn't use the Ferdinand effectively.
It is not that, Ferdinand were used for Breakthrough alongside Panthers and Tigers. Germans were attackers in Kursk and Red Army was in cover and camo in defense in Ferdinand sector so it is extremely unlikely they could do Stug tactic. The Soviet regularly counter attack but that was on the flank of German assault not the main breakthrough
@@EstellammaSSThe Ferdinand were built because the Porsche Tiger chassis already existed. They designed it to put those chassis to use. The Ferdinand was never meant to be a mass product it was only a reutilisation of already existing equipment and resources. And it did very well when utilised to its best capabilities. It was a mobile, well protected Pak43, not a break through tank!
Every German vehicle is thought of as being great - because it's so big and strong that it breaks down mechanically under its own greatness. But really, if you use a tank destroyer as an offensive weapon, you've already done goofed
I like how German high command said the Ferdinand was too complicated and went the other route with the Tiger.... and it still ended up being a complex mechanical nightmare.
The Tiger was complex, possibly too complex but it wasn't a mechanical nightmare. Even in the deteriorating war and supply situation, Germany dealt quite well with the Tigers and got a good combat value out of them on return, especially in the East where by far most of them were deployed.
The Tiger 1 came out first...and the Ferdinand hull is essentially what was supposed to the the Porsche version of the Tiger 1. Porsche didn't get the Tiger 1 contract but had built almost 100 hulls which would eventually be used for the Ferdinand project.
The Tiger's overall operational average rate was 65%-70% West and East fronts. Not much different to the supposedly much more reliable Panzer IV which was 68%-71%. The Tiger I especially was not as unreliable as the modern myth claims. Definitely more reliable than the Pershing and KV.
Honestly this is the first ive heard any praise at all for the Ferdinand/elephant. Ive heard good things about the armor, but apart from that all i knew about it is fire, electric transmission, more fire and fear of slight inclines
The Ferdinand was a great tank IF used by it's intended role. Ferdinands were defensive/support long range tank, and had a very strict and heavy maintenance that they needed to follow. Once they were used wrongly and they maintenance skippd, it showed it's bad side. In Italy they were forced to drive thru complicate mountain terrain, pushing the engines and drivetrin to the limit, making it worse. When these tanks were used propperly, they were beasts. The Pak 43/2 was the strongest 8,8 in service.
True, but I think they were a little too late for their true worth to shine. Soviet and Allied air power was creeping in and if anything at all, the Ferdinand was just a slow lumbering target in the best case scenario. Had they had them in 1940, then they would have been perfect, but having them so late in the war with advancements in Soviet and Allied tech and also the encroaching air power closing in, the Ferdinand didn't have a lot of time on the clock to begin with.
Both excellent comments and I couldn't agree more. It's not that they were bad, so oftenly characterized and failures. As pointed out, when used in their intended role, they performed well. Like the Tigers, when used properly, they were formidable. As the tides changed for Germany and they were pressed into roles for which they were never intended, then they failed. The lack of spare parts didn't help things either. As the video correctly pointed out, when you have something this massive, your enemy is going to concentrate all of their firepower or resources on taking it out. The Tiger and Tiger B ran into similar problems. That being said, Germany didn't have the resources to mass produce tanks the way the US did with the Sherman, so they relied on quality over quantity. Remember, the more tanks the more resources to keep them going which Germany just couldn't afford. The tide had turned and they there throwing anything and everything into the mix to try and change that tide. Even if it meant misusing their armor, such as the Tiger and Ferdinand/Elefant. And side note, the Porsche Tiger was not crap. Their main problem was engine overheating and the copper needed for the electric motors was needed for other projects. Read the actual reports for the Henschel and Porsche Tigers when tested, and the Porsche was mechanically better, especially with its electric transmission.
The Porsche Tiger is an example of a concept being far ahead of the technology of the time. It was famously terrible, constantly breaking down and catching fire and now it's a concept that's in most modern hybrid cars and is even featured in the recent Abrams X next generation concept tank
Most wrong. That sort of powerplant was already in use in civilian buses for a few years already. Porsche didn't bring any sort of inovation to the Werhmarcht, he just bet on an already existing technology and hoped that it worked with a heavier load.
Electric and Hybrid cars, trucks and trams were in use in both North America and Europe for literally decades prior to Porsche’s proposal to put it in a tank.
12:33 "anti-magnetic mine paint" Invented by Germany to prevent magnetic mines from sticking to the metal of the vehicles. Ironically, the only country to really use magnetic mines was also Germany.
Ferdinand was highly successful in the defensive fighting after Kursk, particularly the River Dnieper bend battles of autumn 1943. Ferdinand losses were few and far between and they took out a high toll of enemy armour. Many continued fighting through 1944 after being revamped into Elefants. A few even made it back to the Berlin fighting in 1945.
Only one company of the 653. Schwere Panzerjägerabteilung was sent to Italy, the other three ( Stab, 2nd and 3rd) remained on the Eastern front in 1944-45. The last two Elefants took part in the Battle for Berlin and and were captured at the end. Is the story at 9:00 confirmed from both both sides? The Soviets basically called everything German with a turret "Tiger", and everything without "Ferdinand". Depending on sources, only 6-13 Tigers were total losses during the Kursk operation.
In defence and ambush, it was great. Using it in offence different matter. There also was the aspect who was using it. When handed to stug operators it did well, to tankers not so. Regarding waste, the hulls existed, so using it did not waste anything.
"Single greatest tank desroyer of WW2" said nobody. The StuGIII was by far the most successful and therefore the best TD in WW2. The Jagdpanther is considered to be the overall best TD construction but was deployed in relatively small numbers. Both the Ferdinand and the Jagdtiger were impressive indeed but a waste of resouces.
The Stug was only the most successful because they were built in the largest numbers. The Ferdinand had a far higher kill ratio and crew survivability rate. The resources for 90 Ferdinands were miniscule. Germany wasted far more than that on other projects. What was the point in building the Tirpitz when it basically hid in Norwegian fjords for most of the war?
I've never heard anyone say the Ferdinand was a good vehicle. Edit: I've heard more praise directed at the Jadgtiger than the Ferdinand, and we know how that worked out...
@@wanderschlosser1857 it probably was a positive K/D, but I think that's more a credit to the gun than the vehicle as a whole. It's also hard to deny that front armor worked too, but the logistics and maintenance side of it is really what made it a failure. It also probably would have been better with a traditional powerplant as well.
@dlblaster Ferdinand wasn't a failure. Kursk was merely a brief two week part of its combat career. It was highly successful for the rest of 1943 and 1944.
Anti-magnetic mine paste is a concrete like substance that is smeared on the tanks mainly straight surface up to about 2 metres from the ground. The composition is such that a magnetic mine cannot get a hold on the tank. The Germans used it quite extensively for about a year and a half ( june '43 til december '44 ) until they realized they were the only ones using magnetic mines. They had it in theyre infantry anti tank weapon systems, like the Panzerfaust and the 6 headed stielgranate.
@@jonathanlindtner2616 Basically yes. They probably thought, "we can't be the only one using such an effective weapon?" Forgetting that it was equally as dangerous for the poor infantry guy using it. Mind you, some enemies used captured ones, but not often.
Ferdi's has two main problems. Mechanical Drive Challenges and lack of Machine Guns. The main Ferdi's where not attack vehicles, but defense bunkers that could be deployed. In static defense they did well, but in offense they failed. It is a simple scenario where generals used the wrong weapon system the wrong way.
German Tank Destroyers: Let’s put as much armor as possible, frame be damned. American Tank Destroyers: Lets take as much armor off as possible, crew be damned. Surprisingly the American approach worked better when your enemies hand cranked turrets could keep up with M18s speed that was 3-4 times faster than a typical WW2 tank.
German tanks had power-driven turret traverse motors. The hand-cranked notion is a myth; they had manual backups but the primary system was electrical.
Everyone thinks US tank destroyers zipped around the battlefield like race cars thanks to World of Tanks, but that's not how they were fought in reality. In fact, the M18 didn't have provisions for firing on the move at all so the idea that the enemy wasn't able to keep track of them as they zoomed about the battlefield popping panzers like lightbulbs is a complete myth. The reality was that they used their great speed to get to a good position in the enemies line of advance and then ambushed them - and if need be they could also use their speed to bug disengage if things got too hot.
Your comment is typically clueless, you must be American. Remember US units only faced second rate German units as they viewed US units as far inferior to other allies. Eg they viewed 10 US equivalent to 1 Russian. German tanks had good suspension and could theoretically fire on the move versus US tanks bouncing around. German tank destroyers were knocking out US tanks at 2 to 3 KM, one famous encounter 3 Sherman’s knocked a=out at over 3km by a Jaagdtiger. Sp your comment is miles off. Please learn a bit of history and stop watching US media for your news as its mostly wrong.
You missed out the biggest flaws: economics and weight. It was far too expensive to be useful and far too heavy to be effective. A vehicle isn't much use if it can't go over most bridges.
I don't agree with your point on the price of the Ferdinand as this Veichle was a one time expense using existing hulls that the germans had no better use for. With this background they were quite economic when you consider the number of soviet tanks they destroyed.
In theory, it was a good idea and a brilliant concept BUT, not for muddy, hilly terrain of the Russian Steppe. But, by mid 1943, the German's had no choice. They had to get a game changer on the battle field that could knock out russian tanks at distances greater than the tiger or panther medium tanks. And by Kursk, they simply did not have enough tanks to support the offensive and had to throw in the Ferdinand as an offensive weapon as well (northern front)>
@AvtarSinghHistory The Ferdinand performed extremely well in the anti tank role during the defensive fighting of late 1943 and through 1944. Losses were few and far between. Some made it back to the Berlin fighting even.
The reason there were no more references to the Ferdinand in Italy is that the upgraded Vehicles were renamed Elefant - somehow this was not mentioned in this Video, and pictures of Ferdinands and Elefants were shown... 😅 And Guderian... you are absolutely right, he is an unreliable source, as the things he wrote down after the War were aimed to make himself look good (as if he was the one single handedly invented Tank Tactics), put blame for failures on others - and he did not like Tank Destroyers (StuGs, Ferdi) at all, as he thought of those Vehicles taking away precious resources from Panzers (Tanks). Interesting Video, though.
The 100 leftover hulls were put to use, the idea was for long range killing in Russia..not for contact with infantry or Italian roads..with more time it could of been perfected. Both Germany and USA have howitzers built on this concept.
The Ferdinand are like many of the German armored vehicles, individually they are absolutely amazing feats of engineering and technology being far superior to the Allied armor that was good enough to the job on an individual vehicle level. However unlike the Allied armor they did not translate well to strategic & logistical levels and required technology that was ahead of its time and not effective use of resources in war time
if you took a screw from one sherman and it put in another it would fit. With tigers, this was rarely ever the case. I hardly think its good engineering, its just putting a lot of steel on tracks.
@dfjab Mass Production and Assembly Lines were a huge key to our armor and aircraft force capabilities. All the stories we usually hear are the war ones. Look at some of the feats and marvels of engineering and production on the civilian side.
All German Armour is amazing...............when used for Bltizkrieg. They weren't designed for prolonged engagements requiring logistical support as the idea was an area would be conquered and become the new depot/ workshop, with no immediate rush to repair downed vehicles.
Thank you for sharing this Simon. This is the first that I have learned about the Ferdinand. I've heard these same criticisms directed at all WWII German tanks, worse comments re the Sherman tank, and nothing but praise for the Soviet tanks. Is this correct or was it just the Ferdinand? I think that your conclusion was excellent.
tbf that engine design was REALLY ahead of its time - it wasnt a new concept, it was used in buses etc but never in a heavy vehicle. Well guess what, the Abrams X concept basically uses the same principle - but this time it works of course
I have read in 'Time of Trumpets, that 5 Ferdinands somehow got to the sporthen flank during the Batrle of the Ardenne (bulge). They took a position on a hill in sloppy weather and muddy conditions. American Sherman's churgned up the slope to take the hill, ans, the Ferdinands sloughtered them. You needed a heaver calibre naval gun to knock them out frontally.
I think the Ferdinand was just used wrong. They wanted it to be an offensive weapon to counter the T-34s because Germany had no answer to them in the early stages, so they through 88s on anything that could hold them. Had they been used more defensively, I think they would have done much better. Rather than driving through minefields and being ambushed, they could be on the other side of that equation. Germany should have found ways to better mass produce the Panzer IV rather than try and create the Tiger, Tiger 2 or Maus. The Panther was a great tank and considering the vehicle compared to the Panzer IV, they could produce them faster.
The "build more Panzer IVs" claim is misleading. Yes, more tanks would be good..however the German had limited manpower and fuel. Thus making 'better' tanks was a valid plan. Note, "valid" =/= successful
@@Mugdorna I agree about them needing better tanks versus more tanks, but the resources they used on the Panther could produce multiple Panzer IVs. The problem was that they never got rid of the old vehicles to upgrade them. Crews that were running PZ IIIs in France, were still running PZ IIIs in Russia and that tank was useless in tank on tank battles before war even broke out. Heck, even the PZ I was running around in Russia. When Germany started operation Barbarossa, they entered Russia with over 3400 tanks. If they would have had the most upgraded PZ IVs or Panthers from the start, I doubt the T-34 would have been as feared as it was and the Soviets might have had much higher tank losses. Again all speculation.
They would have still been magnets for artillery fire and their ridiculously slow speed would have made them easy targets. Their already high K:D would likely have been higher, but the issue with breakdowns and even being able to get anywhere is still an issue. They just went to extremes. More armor and better guns were nice and all and necessary, but the engines and transmissions and all that needed to be much better and really couldn't be. They were really between a rock and hard place. Either make mobile bunkers that would breakdown constantly or be slow AF, or have more effective tanks that they were running out of manpower to crew. It does need to be said that the crews are more valuable than the tank itself in most cases.
Suprised that the war wide contribution of the panzer 3 didn't get a nod at the end. A real workhorse alongside the panzer 4. The chassis also being used long after it had aged as a tank.
Not so. The renaming was separate from any hardware modifications. This story has been repeated in a gazillion books but it is a myth. It was coincidence that the renaming and the refit just happens around the same time.
@@executivedirector7467 - You may be right about that, but I have read it, and seen the ‘experts’ repeat it on numerous occasions. If what you say is correct, are they all wrong, and how did this coincidence come about? It is interesting to say the least. I certainly would like to know the facts. Thanks for the info man. Cheers!
@@garylawless3608 Read your sources in the order they were published. The old ones repeat the myths; the newer ones will have more accurate information. Rely on the sources that use primary sources such as Jentz or Doyle. it's no longer even a point of contention. It's well-accepted.
Your great content aside, it's a breath of fresh air how you gave a light lesson on how to critically think about sources of information and take note of possible biases from the source. Critical thinking has become a thing of the past in the US. Thanks for all of your content
The suspension system, road wheels and tracks. Make more sense and are less prone to being clogged up with dirt and mud. It makes you wonder why the design wasn't more widely used on the other Panther and Tiger variants.
The problems encountered were the reason why it was not selected for the Tiger. It then became an adhoc vehicle. Crews had very little training prior to deployment. It was supposed to be a stand off weapon. The main gun could kill a T-34 at 3 Km away. Despite all the reliability issues, infantry was supposed to accompany it, but it out ran them. I think Porsche was an American Agent, the Ferdinand used a mile of copper wire per vehicle. At a time when Germany could not get enough copper.
Used properly, in its intended role of long-range tank smashing, properly supported, and supplied with recovery vehicles, Ferdinand was excellent. Italy was probably the worst place bar the Normandy bocage to operate a Ferdinand. I read the book written by a veteran of the 653rd, and he had high praise. There are suggestions that the other unit, being converted from towed guns, simply wasn't ready for enoyment at Kursk.
People always point to Kursk as this unthinkable failure for the new German tanks but they fail to understand the sheer amount of preparation, depth and coordination of the Soviet defensive positions. The only way to have managed the intended breakthrough would’ve been to attack somewhere else…at best a bloody slugfest would be the outcome. It’s been proven time and again that without absolute air dominance above a battle space wherein defence in depth backed by large mobile units isn’t somewhere you can attack and feel good about success.
I would agree, it wasn't good or bad, it was, like many limited production units, used incorrectly. The ferdinand would likely have made for an excellent defensive long range support platform, or even a limited offensive one. Kursk however isn't a fair example for German units at all. They were attacking into what is arguably the single most heavily prepared defensive position ever created, and doing so in far too much of a rush. Italy also was never designed for heavy armoured warfare, even the far lighter panther had issues there, and that is were it arguably had its most success (due to the lack of suitable counters to it fielded by the allies).
"Ferdinand was excelent" the Porsche Tiger caught fire during trials, since the powerplant couldn't cope with the weight. What does Porsche do? Put on even more weight on the chasis. Ferdinand was an absolute dog.
@@slayer35st64 and the 8.8 cm PaK 43 is not mediocre Was on thew tiger 2 the Nashorn and the Jagdpanther and the ferdinand other than the jagdtigers 128 mm id say it is the best anti tank gun of the war and at the very least the best german one.
both companies that made the Tiger (P) and Tiger 1 respectively ordered more hulls to be constructed even before the contract was even awarded, so both sides kinda did it. ONE Tiger (P) chassis was kept in its "original" configuration with the exception of having a Maybach engine fitted to it instead of the much more under-powered diesel engine the other Ferdinands had to use.
Interesting that an AFV as Ferdinand/Elefant which were produced 90 of get so much attention. The AFV was a biproduct of Porsches Tiger project. There was never any intention to serie produce it. The Heer didn't know how to use it in their strategies and field operations. So why the attention to it in the first place?
LOL. I have never heard anyone claim that the Ferdi's the single greatest tank destroyer. Now, I have heard people claiming that for the JagdTiger... but that one was too heavy, immobile, slow, rare and expensive to make a difference. I'd put the Stug IIIG or the JagdPanther in first place.
According to American tankers in Italy a Ferdinand could be knocked out by bouncing a 75mm AP round from a Sherman off the ground just infront of the lower frontal armour which would then penetrate the hull.
fighter aircraft with 50cals would be ably to so similar. they could 'mission kill' tanks with ricochet from the ground into the underside of the vehicles
@Jason The Chieftain, Nicholas Moran, retired tank commander and historical archivist who has researched the primary sources. I do not have those to hand but it usually forms part of his talk on the US decision to leave 76mm Shermans in the south of England on D-Day as they saw the 75mm Sherman as sufficient for the anti-armour role, and having a superior HE round for the more regular anti personnel and pillbox duties, with the bonus of simplified logistics.
The Elefant was a powerful anti-tank gun with heavy armor. So long as it was employed properly and kept mobile, it was a superb weapon, the allies had nothing like it. The bottom line is that there was NOTHING the Americans or Russians had that could perform the same task. This is why it is legendary, despite the fiasco of its initial deployment. The Tiger's initial deployment was an even worse debacle.
pedantic point i know but most of these are elefants not ferdinands. the Ferdinand only had a 100mm frontal plate with no MG port. the later upgraded model (elefant) had an extra 100mm frontal plate attached boosting it to an exceptional 200mm of frontal armour and an MG port for anti infantry
absolutely love ur channel but i find myself turning up and down my volume a lot to hear you but then its to loud, then i cant hear u again and have to turn it back up to hear you then u get loud again...i dont kno if its ur mics on ur end or the way u narrate but id figure id let you no
I feel like the overall concept was sound, but the vehicle itself had issues. The hybrid drive train was not ready for field use, and overall it suffered from the same tendency for over-engineering that a lot of Nazi vehicles had. It would have benefitted from an extended development period. So my overall takeaway is "When it worked, it was good. When it didn't, not so much."
If they'd been slightly delayed and used like Jagdpanzers and Jagdtigers as long-range defensive tank killers rather than an armoured spearhead you might have seen a lot of successful Ferdinands and they certainly wouldn't have had such devastating losses to mines but as an offensive vehicle they're only going to work on a flat track with the enemy tanks 2ks away. Not against the heavily fortified Russian defensive positions at Kursk.
I've never heard the Ferdinand/Elefant described as the "greatest most powerful tank destroyer od WWII" surrounded "by whispers of doubt". If anything it was always the other way around, everyone everywhere (except maybe Hitler and F. Porsche) seemed to agree they were utter unreliable crap. I've never met anyone claiming it was a great tank unless they were 10 years old and all their knowledge stemmed from trump card games (pretty popular in 1980's and 1990's).
My Grandfather was directly involved in the fighting against Ferdinands at Kursk. Germans hit the Rifle divisions first, i honestly don't know where Bohm found tanks to destroy the first night. Tanks arrived later, once the direction of the attack became clear.
The problem was these vehicles survived until there was nothing left to be fired at. Then they were concentrated on and hit from all sides. Their sides were no more armored than a Tiger. I don't think the Russians had 40 SU-152s at Ponyrii. Maybe only 12. And they may have just exchanged losses. I think for only the month of July 1943 the Ferdinand was supplied with 88mm PzGr 40/43 APCR rounds.
I feel like the russian SU-100 and SU-152 might be the most underrated tank destroyers, you always hear about the jagdpanther, hetzer, Stugs, Hellcats and jacksons but never the SU series
Seems like it might have been a good vehicle when used properly as a tank-hunter and heavy gun, instead of being put in a spearhead or thrown out into areas where pretty much all tanks are going to be bad - even the Leopard II, M1A1 Abrams and other MLT have problems dealing with minefields 80 years later. And it's hard to get the sense of a vehicle's effectiveness when used improperly, by poor commanders, or in conditions where no vehicle would be expected to work well. Put any MLT in a dense minefield and it will die. Put any MLT into a narrow confine where enemy units can just target it and it will die. Put any MLT in a column on bad roads and it will get stuck. So it isn't exactly fair to hold the combat record against it - it was pretty much set up to fail. If it had been used as a designated tank-hunter or anti-hardpoint vehicle backed up by infantry and other armor, it might have done well. "Fair" seems a good assessment - it did a decent job when the drive worked and it was used correctly. We'll never know
Plagued by the same issues most German tanks had. My list still stands as the M4 Sherman, Panzer 4, and finally the T34. Medium tanks really defined tank combat as MBTs ultimately evolved from the utility offered by the Mediums.
Let put one thing clear: Guderian was an idiot when it came about the use of Stu - no, STU wasn't his concept, it was v.Manstein idea to have a mobile artillery/tank destroyer to support motorized infantry (Panzergrenadiere) - and both had very very different views about the Kursk strategy. The cost of a Ferdinand was ZERO. They were made with left over hulls from Porsche failed Tiger design. They were build as artillery support unit and it was Guderian stupidity to make them a "breakthrough" weapon - v.Manstein in his book "Verlorene Siege" said how stupid it was to use a vehicle without machine gun/infantry defensive weapon as a breakthrough weapon, it advanced without infantry and was easy prey to... enemy infantry. The Ferdinand is the name of the original vehicle, once it was clear it would be used as a Panzerjäger, they were removed from the front and were upgraded/changed for that purpose - this "Panzerjäger" version is called Elefant. And f... NO, they didn't "disappear" after Italy, they were employed until August 1944 in the East Front the schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 - 1. Panzerarmee (Heeresgruppe NordUkraine) - just the name Ferdinand disappeared. Crap, there is notice of 2 Elefants at the Battle of Berlin in 1945... so from the 91 produced in 1942, 2 are confirmed to have survived up to 1945 - and people still say they were a failure surviving 3 of the worst years for the Wehrmacht. There is a great book about the 653 - Karlheinz Münch The Combat History of German Heavy Anti-Tank Unit 653 in World War II
It might have its flaws but the crews loved it and if you read the book on the 656-653 regiments you will see why they did. It also killed about 1500 russian tanks.
I'm deeply disappointed that a british man failed to avail himself of an obvious pun. It should have been "causing them to fail left and reich." Be better, Simon.
The Ferdinand did have its share of problems. Too big, to slow, high silhouette and a tendency to self immolate. But it did have the distinction of having the highest kill to loss record of any armored vehicle during WWII. It came in at 10 to one. The STG-III had far more kills but over 10,000 STG-IIIs saw action vs fewer than 100 Ferdinand. Had the Germans just used it in Russia and only on defense it could have been battlefield dominant. Using it for offense was the problem. Italy, with it's narrow roads and mountainous terrain was far from ideal as well.
Once I've heard that they could pick up a Shermman tank 4km out with the JEAGER.. But being stripped of armour made him an easy target to blow in shreds..
The Germans still had the Nashorn so as with how "Hitler-ism" always "worked"(functioned) there had to be a competitor for the new *"as given"* (Tank Destroyer) product which in this instance would in fact actually be field tested in Battle absolutely true. That this was so wasn't the fault of those who created this product but instead of those who felt in any way this product able to be brought straight into Battle which clearly was false and wrong by the German Military Command. The Nashorn was quite the opposite a very well thought out and put together Tank Destroyer that being an open turret was absolutely *HUGE* in both size and effectiveness. As a waste of resources no, hardly the worst Tank Destroyer of World War 2 as, well given lessons learned created the Nashorn. Plus the Germans still had the very effective and remarkably numerous "Hetzer." The Red Army in the alternative used the IL-2 Sturm anti-armor "flying Tank" against which the German War effort had no answer as far as an equal by 1943 despite literally inventing the "Tank Destroyer by Air" Stuka. Once the Ferdinand failed as everyone knew would be the case Germany needed to immediately create an "new Stuka" but of course this never was effected.
I don't think anyone every considered this to be the best anything. And no, it was not a "hybrid system like you find on a modern car". There were no massive batteries. It was a diesel electric drive. The diesel engine powered generators which in turn powered motors which turned the drive sprockets. If the engine wasn't running the vehicle wasn't moving.
The problem is the vehicle when it's extreme weight and undersized power package mean it was extremely situational to the point that "tactics and circumstances" would have had it barely used at all despite its high price tag. When slight hills and terrain overtax the engine so much it catches fire, there's not many situations you could use it in. Might as well save a ton of money and have a static gun emplacement at that point and just put a 200mm plate of steel around it since it would be just as likely to get kills when not attracting artillery fire as has about the same mobility.
@@jmill1334 never said it didn't have problems just it wasn't understood and used wrong as to why it sucked so bad!! even a turd of a weapon can do halfway descent if it's understood and used right!
I didn't think they made that many Ferds and I think they were plagued with the problems of most things engineered by Germans...they were over-engineered...broke down a lot, parts were scarce, etc.😊
The Ferdinand was great. It was just as they had wanted it, perfect in the controlled environment testing and on paper. Then reality set in. It's kind of like the Russian Kuznetsov Carrier, perfect in a controlled environment, but once in reality, a bag of s*it would be a bigger threat. You're also giving Ferdinand Porsche too much credit in the sanity department. I mean he did offer to mount a 75mm gun on the back of the turret of the Maus pointed straight up to try to combat aircraft who might bomb the thing. You know, for those obviously successful bombing strategies of drop payload and keep flying straight. There's absolutely no way the bomb dropped by the intended target prior to it possibly being shot by this single shot 75mm gun wasn't already headed towards the Maus which had less agility than the Boston Molasses Flood of 1919.
The Russians reported how bad the Ferdinand was. That is a good proof that it was the opposite. Interesting, Ferdinand’s showed up until the last days of the war. Since only 120 or so were produced, that alone shows that they couldn’t be all bad. Russian historians completely revised the account of Kursk. That report by Russian SU152 seems more that suspicious. Here is a fact: only 146 Tigers were employed and 6 (six) were actually destroyed. Regardless,the Ferdinand was not optimal if not downright a failure ( because of the drive train) I.e. it would have been better if more Panthers were made.
I heard somewhere, those who got Ferdninad in the battle of Kursk. If they had been on a StuG before and had a cleanup they knew where to use the Ferdninad, stay back in the attack and use the range of the gun. But the newbies didn't know how to use Ferdninad, relied too much on the armour protection, they advanced forward because they thought they were unstoppable. If you don't use the tools you have properly, nothing will work.
It’s bad is because it can only do well in a very specific situation that happens very rarely. In every other situation than long range combat on flat surfaces where the enemy is coming to you, there’s vehicles that are cheaper, more reliable and most importantly does the job better. The jagdpanther for example is better in almost every way. JP4 does the same job almost as well at a much lower cost and is far more versatile.
And having multiple vehicles that can work together is much better than a single vehicle.
Correct. I think it was Hilary Doyle who looked at the after-combat reports where the STUG crews performed well but the crews who were used to normal panzers didn't use the Ferdinand effectively.
It is not that, Ferdinand were used for Breakthrough alongside Panthers and Tigers.
Germans were attackers in Kursk and Red Army was in cover and camo in defense in Ferdinand sector so it is extremely unlikely they could do Stug tactic.
The Soviet regularly counter attack but that was on the flank of German assault not the main breakthrough
@@EstellammaSSThe Ferdinand were built because the Porsche Tiger chassis already existed. They designed it to put those chassis to use. The Ferdinand was never meant to be a mass product it was only a reutilisation of already existing equipment and resources. And it did very well when utilised to its best capabilities. It was a mobile, well protected Pak43, not a break through tank!
Who told him Ferdinand was good? ... Oh Must have been Porsche.
The Ferdinand was good as a tank destroyer on flat surface not on hilly earth 😊
The Ferdinand was good as a tank destroyer on flat surface not on hilly earth 😊
@@leratomojalefa3162 so basically like almost every other tank destroyer?
@@nightowl1771 yes and no
Every German vehicle is thought of as being great - because it's so big and strong that it breaks down mechanically under its own greatness.
But really, if you use a tank destroyer as an offensive weapon, you've already done goofed
I like how German high command said the Ferdinand was too complicated and went the other route with the Tiger.... and it still ended up being a complex mechanical nightmare.
The Tiger was complex, possibly too complex but it wasn't a mechanical nightmare. Even in the deteriorating war and supply situation, Germany dealt quite well with the Tigers and got a good combat value out of them on return, especially in the East where by far most of them were deployed.
The Tiger 1 came out first...and the Ferdinand hull is essentially what was supposed to the the Porsche version of the Tiger 1. Porsche didn't get the Tiger 1 contract but had built almost 100 hulls which would eventually be used for the Ferdinand project.
TBH, everyone else’s heavy tanks weren’t really better. Why the hell do you think the Sherman has a better combat record than the Pershing?
The Tiger's overall operational average rate was 65%-70% West and East fronts. Not much different to the supposedly much more reliable Panzer IV which was 68%-71%.
The Tiger I especially was not as unreliable as the modern myth claims. Definitely more reliable than the Pershing and KV.
Honestly this is the first ive heard any praise at all for the Ferdinand/elephant. Ive heard good things about the armor, but apart from that all i knew about it is fire, electric transmission, more fire and fear of slight inclines
The gun was also very good.
I don't know anyone or have heard anyone claim the Ferdinand was a success let alone highly rated. So not sure how it could be overrated.
@stuglenn1112
It has the highest kill ratio of any AFV in WW2.
0:45 - Chapter 1 - Background
2:15 - Chapter 2 - Development
3:25 - Chapter 3 - Initial combat history
12:10 - Chapter 4 - Service in italy
Imagine reporting to your commander you lost your Ferdinand because a tank fell on it.
We lost a tank because a tank fell on it
Were you by any chance playing World of Tanks when this happened? 😆
The Ferdinand was a great tank IF used by it's intended role. Ferdinands were defensive/support long range tank, and had a very strict and heavy maintenance that they needed to follow. Once they were used wrongly and they maintenance skippd, it showed it's bad side.
In Italy they were forced to drive thru complicate mountain terrain, pushing the engines and drivetrin to the limit, making it worse.
When these tanks were used propperly, they were beasts. The Pak 43/2 was the strongest 8,8 in service.
True, but I think they were a little too late for their true worth to shine. Soviet and Allied air power was creeping in and if anything at all, the Ferdinand was just a slow lumbering target in the best case scenario. Had they had them in 1940, then they would have been perfect, but having them so late in the war with advancements in Soviet and Allied tech and also the encroaching air power closing in, the Ferdinand didn't have a lot of time on the clock to begin with.
Both excellent comments and I couldn't agree more. It's not that they were bad, so oftenly characterized and failures. As pointed out, when used in their intended role, they performed well. Like the Tigers, when used properly, they were formidable. As the tides changed for Germany and they were pressed into roles for which they were never intended, then they failed. The lack of spare parts didn't help things either. As the video correctly pointed out, when you have something this massive, your enemy is going to concentrate all of their firepower or resources on taking it out. The Tiger and Tiger B ran into similar problems. That being said, Germany didn't have the resources to mass produce tanks the way the US did with the Sherman, so they relied on quality over quantity. Remember, the more tanks the more resources to keep them going which Germany just couldn't afford. The tide had turned and they there throwing anything and everything into the mix to try and change that tide. Even if it meant misusing their armor, such as the Tiger and Ferdinand/Elefant. And side note, the Porsche Tiger was not crap. Their main problem was engine overheating and the copper needed for the electric motors was needed for other projects. Read the actual reports for the Henschel and Porsche Tigers when tested, and the Porsche was mechanically better, especially with its electric transmission.
The Porsche Tiger is an example of a concept being far ahead of the technology of the time. It was famously terrible, constantly breaking down and catching fire and now it's a concept that's in most modern hybrid cars and is even featured in the recent Abrams X next generation concept tank
Most wrong. That sort of powerplant was already in use in civilian buses for a few years already. Porsche didn't bring any sort of inovation to the Werhmarcht, he just bet on an already existing technology and hoped that it worked with a heavier load.
Electric and Hybrid cars, trucks and trams were in use in both North America and Europe for literally decades prior to Porsche’s proposal to put it in a tank.
12:33 "anti-magnetic mine paint" Invented by Germany to prevent magnetic mines from sticking to the metal of the vehicles. Ironically, the only country to really use magnetic mines was also Germany.
The most ironic part in this is having gotten a porsche commercial in the middle of this video, it gave me a chuckle
Ferdinand was highly successful in the defensive fighting after Kursk, particularly the River Dnieper bend battles of autumn 1943. Ferdinand losses were few and far between and they took out a high toll of enemy armour. Many continued fighting through 1944 after being revamped into Elefants. A few even made it back to the Berlin fighting in 1945.
Only one company of the 653. Schwere Panzerjägerabteilung was sent to Italy, the other three ( Stab, 2nd and 3rd) remained on the Eastern front in 1944-45. The last two Elefants took part in the Battle for Berlin and and were captured at the end.
Is the story at 9:00 confirmed from both both sides? The Soviets basically called everything German with a turret "Tiger", and everything without "Ferdinand". Depending on sources, only 6-13 Tigers were total losses during the Kursk operation.
In defence and ambush, it was great. Using it in offence different matter. There also was the aspect who was using it. When handed to stug operators it did well, to tankers not so.
Regarding waste, the hulls existed, so using it did not waste anything.
Well presented!
Could you do a video on the King Tiger please Simon?
"Single greatest tank desroyer of WW2" said nobody.
The StuGIII was by far the most successful and therefore the best TD in WW2.
The Jagdpanther is considered to be the overall best TD construction but was deployed in relatively small numbers.
Both the Ferdinand and the Jagdtiger were impressive indeed but a waste of resouces.
The Stug was only the most successful because they were built in the largest numbers.
The Ferdinand had a far higher kill ratio and crew survivability rate.
The resources for 90 Ferdinands were miniscule. Germany wasted far more than that on other projects. What was the point in building the Tirpitz when it basically hid in Norwegian fjords for most of the war?
3 JPanthers, 2 minutes, close range combat, 10 Churchills destroyed.
That has to be a record of some kind.
The Stug laughs at the Ferdi!
Stug life!
STÜRMTIGER
But Hetzer still gonna Hetz!
I've never heard anyone say the Ferdinand was a good vehicle. Edit: I've heard more praise directed at the Jadgtiger than the Ferdinand, and we know how that worked out...
I wouldn't wonder if the kill ratio turns out to be in favour of the Ferdinand. It was a very effective long range AT vehicle when used as such.
@@wanderschlosser1857 it probably was a positive K/D, but I think that's more a credit to the gun than the vehicle as a whole. It's also hard to deny that front armor worked too, but the logistics and maintenance side of it is really what made it a failure. It also probably would have been better with a traditional powerplant as well.
@dlblaster
Ferdinand wasn't a failure. Kursk was merely a brief two week part of its combat career. It was highly successful for the rest of 1943 and 1944.
Anti-magnetic mine paste is a concrete like substance that is smeared on the tanks mainly straight surface up to about 2 metres from the ground. The composition is such that a magnetic mine cannot get a hold on the tank. The Germans used it quite extensively for about a year and a half ( june '43 til december '44 ) until they realized they were the only ones using magnetic mines. They had it in theyre infantry anti tank weapon systems, like the Panzerfaust and the 6 headed stielgranate.
So… The antimagnetic mine paste was efficient at protecting German tanks from German mines? :-)
@@jonathanlindtner2616 Basically yes. They probably thought, "we can't be the only one using such an effective weapon?" Forgetting that it was equally as dangerous for the poor infantry guy using it. Mind you, some enemies used captured ones, but not often.
Ferdi's has two main problems. Mechanical Drive Challenges and lack of Machine Guns. The main Ferdi's where not attack vehicles, but defense bunkers that could be deployed. In static defense they did well, but in offense they failed. It is a simple scenario where generals used the wrong weapon system the wrong way.
German Tank Destroyers: Let’s put as much armor as possible, frame be damned.
American Tank Destroyers: Lets take as much armor off as possible, crew be damned.
Surprisingly the American approach worked better when your enemies hand cranked turrets could keep up with M18s speed that was 3-4 times faster than a typical WW2 tank.
German tanks had power-driven turret traverse motors. The hand-cranked notion is a myth; they had manual backups but the primary system was electrical.
Everyone thinks US tank destroyers zipped around the battlefield like race cars thanks to World of Tanks, but that's not how they were fought in reality. In fact, the M18 didn't have provisions for firing on the move at all so the idea that the enemy wasn't able to keep track of them as they zoomed about the battlefield popping panzers like lightbulbs is a complete myth. The reality was that they used their great speed to get to a good position in the enemies line of advance and then ambushed them - and if need be they could also use their speed to bug disengage if things got too hot.
@@mattbowden4996 Quite right. No tank of WW2could really fire on the move. Some could fire from a quick halt faster than others of course.
You don't understand the reasons why they needed a TD nor what the German's were facing in the east.
Your comment is typically clueless, you must be American.
Remember US units only faced second rate German units as they viewed US units as far inferior to other allies.
Eg they viewed 10 US equivalent to 1 Russian.
German tanks had good suspension and could theoretically fire on the move versus US tanks bouncing around.
German tank destroyers were knocking out US tanks at 2 to 3 KM, one famous encounter 3 Sherman’s knocked a=out at over 3km by a Jaagdtiger.
Sp your comment is miles off.
Please learn a bit of history and stop watching US media for your news as its mostly wrong.
You missed out the biggest flaws: economics and weight. It was far too expensive to be useful and far too heavy to be effective. A vehicle isn't much use if it can't go over most bridges.
I don't agree with your point on the price of the Ferdinand as this Veichle was a one time expense using existing hulls that the germans had no better use for. With this background they were quite economic when you consider the number of soviet tanks they destroyed.
In theory, it was a good idea and a brilliant concept BUT, not for muddy, hilly terrain of the Russian Steppe. But, by mid 1943, the German's had no choice. They had to get a game changer on the battle field that could knock out russian tanks at distances greater than the tiger or panther medium tanks. And by Kursk, they simply did not have enough tanks to support the offensive and had to throw in the Ferdinand as an offensive weapon as well (northern front)>
@AvtarSinghHistory
The Ferdinand performed extremely well in the anti tank role during the defensive fighting of late 1943 and through 1944. Losses were few and far between. Some made it back to the Berlin fighting even.
The reason there were no more references to the Ferdinand in Italy is that the upgraded Vehicles were renamed Elefant - somehow this was not mentioned in this Video, and pictures of Ferdinands and Elefants were shown... 😅
And Guderian... you are absolutely right, he is an unreliable source, as the things he wrote down after the War were aimed to make himself look good (as if he was the one single handedly invented Tank Tactics), put blame for failures on others - and he did not like Tank Destroyers (StuGs, Ferdi) at all, as he thought of those Vehicles taking away precious resources from Panzers (Tanks).
Interesting Video, though.
8 of the 11 Elefants in Italy were lost over a half year period. None were taken out by any allied tanks. The other 3 were sent to Austria.
The 100 leftover hulls were put to use, the idea was for long range killing in Russia..not for contact with infantry or Italian roads..with more time it could of been perfected. Both Germany and USA have howitzers built on this concept.
Porsche's hybrid drive was closer in concept to a diesel locomotive than it was to a modern hybrid car.
The Ferdinand are like many of the German armored vehicles, individually they are absolutely amazing feats of engineering and technology being far superior to the Allied armor that was good enough to the job on an individual vehicle level. However unlike the Allied armor they did not translate well to strategic & logistical levels and required technology that was ahead of its time and not effective use of resources in war time
if you took a screw from one sherman and it put in another it would fit. With tigers, this was rarely ever the case. I hardly think its good engineering, its just putting a lot of steel on tracks.
@dfjab Mass Production and Assembly Lines were a huge key to our armor and aircraft force capabilities. All the stories we usually hear are the war ones. Look at some of the feats and marvels of engineering and production on the civilian side.
All German Armour is amazing...............when used for Bltizkrieg.
They weren't designed for prolonged engagements requiring logistical support as the idea was an area would be conquered and become the new depot/ workshop, with no immediate rush to repair downed vehicles.
Thank you for sharing this Simon. This is the first that I have learned about the Ferdinand. I've heard these same criticisms directed at all WWII German tanks, worse comments re the Sherman tank, and nothing but praise for the Soviet tanks. Is this correct or was it just the Ferdinand? I think that your conclusion was excellent.
tbf that engine design was REALLY ahead of its time - it wasnt a new concept, it was used in buses etc but never in a heavy vehicle. Well guess what, the Abrams X concept basically uses the same principle - but this time it works of course
I have read in 'Time of Trumpets, that 5 Ferdinands somehow got to the sporthen flank during the Batrle of the Ardenne (bulge).
They took a position on a hill in sloppy weather and muddy conditions. American Sherman's churgned up the slope to take the hill, ans, the Ferdinands sloughtered them. You needed a heaver calibre naval gun to knock them out frontally.
I think the Ferdinand was just used wrong. They wanted it to be an offensive weapon to counter the T-34s because Germany had no answer to them in the early stages, so they through 88s on anything that could hold them. Had they been used more defensively, I think they would have done much better. Rather than driving through minefields and being ambushed, they could be on the other side of that equation. Germany should have found ways to better mass produce the Panzer IV rather than try and create the Tiger, Tiger 2 or Maus. The Panther was a great tank and considering the vehicle compared to the Panzer IV, they could produce them faster.
The "build more Panzer IVs" claim is misleading. Yes, more tanks would be good..however the German had limited manpower and fuel. Thus making 'better' tanks was a valid plan.
Note, "valid" =/= successful
@@Mugdorna I agree about them needing better tanks versus more tanks, but the resources they used on the Panther could produce multiple Panzer IVs. The problem was that they never got rid of the old vehicles to upgrade them. Crews that were running PZ IIIs in France, were still running PZ IIIs in Russia and that tank was useless in tank on tank battles before war even broke out. Heck, even the PZ I was running around in Russia. When Germany started operation Barbarossa, they entered Russia with over 3400 tanks. If they would have had the most upgraded PZ IVs or Panthers from the start, I doubt the T-34 would have been as feared as it was and the Soviets might have had much higher tank losses. Again all speculation.
They would have still been magnets for artillery fire and their ridiculously slow speed would have made them easy targets. Their already high K:D would likely have been higher, but the issue with breakdowns and even being able to get anywhere is still an issue. They just went to extremes. More armor and better guns were nice and all and necessary, but the engines and transmissions and all that needed to be much better and really couldn't be. They were really between a rock and hard place. Either make mobile bunkers that would breakdown constantly or be slow AF, or have more effective tanks that they were running out of manpower to crew. It does need to be said that the crews are more valuable than the tank itself in most cases.
Suprised that the war wide contribution of the panzer 3 didn't get a nod at the end. A real workhorse alongside the panzer 4. The chassis also being used long after it had aged as a tank.
After the Ferdinand was upgraded with a cupola and on-board machine gun, plus a few other upgrades, it was renamed the ‘Elephant’.
It must have had a good memory 😬
Not so. The renaming was separate from any hardware modifications. This story has been repeated in a gazillion books but it is a myth.
It was coincidence that the renaming and the refit just happens around the same time.
@@executivedirector7467 -
You may be right about that, but I have read it, and seen the ‘experts’ repeat it on numerous occasions. If what you say is correct, are they all wrong, and how did this coincidence come about?
It is interesting to say the least. I certainly would like to know the facts. Thanks for the info man. Cheers!
@@garylawless3608 Read your sources in the order they were published. The old ones repeat the myths; the newer ones will have more accurate information. Rely on the sources that use primary sources such as Jentz or Doyle.
it's no longer even a point of contention. It's well-accepted.
Your great content aside, it's a breath of fresh air how you gave a light lesson on how to critically think about sources of information and take note of possible biases from the source. Critical thinking has become a thing of the past in the US. Thanks for all of your content
The suspension system, road wheels and tracks. Make more sense and are less prone to being clogged up with dirt and mud. It makes you wonder why the design wasn't more widely used on the other Panther and Tiger variants.
Because they didn't work very well.
Your reasoning is sound. I have no further comment. Thanks to all for your work. Mos.
F enlightening
Would like to see you do a video on the king tiger
The problems encountered were the reason why it was not selected for the Tiger.
It then became an adhoc vehicle.
Crews had very little training prior to deployment.
It was supposed to be a stand off weapon. The main gun could kill a T-34 at 3 Km away. Despite all the reliability issues, infantry was supposed to accompany it, but it out ran them.
I think Porsche was an American Agent, the Ferdinand used a mile of copper wire per vehicle.
At a time when Germany could not get enough copper.
Used properly, in its intended role of long-range tank smashing, properly supported, and supplied with recovery vehicles, Ferdinand was excellent.
Italy was probably the worst place bar the Normandy bocage to operate a Ferdinand.
I read the book written by a veteran of the 653rd, and he had high praise.
There are suggestions that the other unit, being converted from towed guns, simply wasn't ready for enoyment at Kursk.
People always point to Kursk as this unthinkable failure for the new German tanks but they fail to understand the sheer amount of preparation, depth and coordination of the Soviet defensive positions. The only way to have managed the intended breakthrough would’ve been to attack somewhere else…at best a bloody slugfest would be the outcome. It’s been proven time and again that without absolute air dominance above a battle space wherein defence in depth backed by large mobile units isn’t somewhere you can attack and feel good about success.
I would agree, it wasn't good or bad, it was, like many limited production units, used incorrectly.
The ferdinand would likely have made for an excellent defensive long range support platform, or even a limited offensive one.
Kursk however isn't a fair example for German units at all. They were attacking into what is arguably the single most heavily prepared defensive position ever created, and doing so in far too much of a rush. Italy also was never designed for heavy armoured warfare, even the far lighter panther had issues there, and that is were it arguably had its most success (due to the lack of suitable counters to it fielded by the allies).
"Ferdinand was excelent" the Porsche Tiger caught fire during trials, since the powerplant couldn't cope with the weight. What does Porsche do? Put on even more weight on the chasis. Ferdinand was an absolute dog.
the Ferdinand had major issues climbing inclines. Even small hills at single digit degrees could be enough for the transmission to fail.
The 10 to 1 kill ratio implies it was a lot better than people say it was.
Anything with a mediocre cannon can have a positive K/D when it just sits and waits in ambush
@@slayer35st64 and the 8.8 cm PaK 43 is not mediocre Was on thew tiger 2 the Nashorn and the Jagdpanther and the ferdinand other than the jagdtigers 128 mm id say it is the best anti tank gun of the war and at the very least the best german one.
both companies that made the Tiger (P) and Tiger 1 respectively ordered more hulls to be constructed even before the contract was even awarded, so both sides kinda did it. ONE Tiger (P) chassis was kept in its "original" configuration with the exception of having a Maybach engine fitted to it instead of the much more under-powered diesel engine the other Ferdinands had to use.
Interesting that an AFV as Ferdinand/Elefant which were produced 90 of get so much attention. The AFV was a biproduct of Porsches Tiger project. There was never any intention to serie produce it. The Heer didn't know how to use it in their strategies and field operations. So why the attention to it in the first place?
LOL. I have never heard anyone claim that the Ferdi's the single greatest tank destroyer. Now, I have heard people claiming that for the JagdTiger... but that one was too heavy, immobile, slow, rare and expensive to make a difference. I'd put the Stug IIIG or the JagdPanther in first place.
The Jadgpanther is a sexier cat.
And the kids today wonder why I call Volkswagens and Porches "Master Racers".
It was incredibly cool looking though.
According to American tankers in Italy a Ferdinand could be knocked out by bouncing a 75mm AP round from a Sherman off the ground just infront of the lower frontal armour which would then penetrate the hull.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
source?
Sounds like the kinda thing that would be developed in combat.
fighter aircraft with 50cals would be ably to so similar. they could 'mission kill' tanks with ricochet from the ground into the underside of the vehicles
@Jason The Chieftain, Nicholas Moran, retired tank commander and historical archivist who has researched the primary sources. I do not have those to hand but it usually forms part of his talk on the US decision to leave 76mm Shermans in the south of England on D-Day as they saw the 75mm Sherman as sufficient for the anti-armour role, and having a superior HE round for the more regular anti personnel and pillbox duties, with the bonus of simplified logistics.
Next month, the Bolton Paul Defiant was an effective plane, when used properly
The Elefant was a powerful anti-tank gun with heavy armor. So long as it was employed properly and kept mobile, it was a superb weapon, the allies had nothing like it. The bottom line is that there was NOTHING the Americans or Russians had that could perform the same task. This is why it is legendary, despite the fiasco of its initial deployment. The Tiger's initial deployment was an even worse debacle.
Thoughts on the nashorn?
pedantic point i know but most of these are elefants not ferdinands. the Ferdinand only had a 100mm frontal plate with no MG port. the later upgraded model (elefant) had an extra 100mm frontal plate attached boosting it to an exceptional 200mm of frontal armour and an MG port for anti infantry
another video which was not properly reviewed before release. red crosses over several pictures (i guess from some kind of transition error?)
Ok I'm going to throw a potential Megaprojects video into the pot.
Building & Dismantling Nuclear Reactors: The Magnox Reactors
Within parameters.... That's damning with praise.
absolutely love ur channel but i find myself turning up and down my volume a lot to hear you but then its to loud, then i cant hear u again and have to turn it back up to hear you then u get loud again...i dont kno if its ur mics on ur end or the way u narrate but id figure id let you no
I feel like the overall concept was sound, but the vehicle itself had issues. The hybrid drive train was not ready for field use, and overall it suffered from the same tendency for over-engineering that a lot of Nazi vehicles had. It would have benefitted from an extended development period. So my overall takeaway is "When it worked, it was good. When it didn't, not so much."
3:45 Someone has been working on his... how he says the words he says...
First the German; Now the Russian...
Good work, Brain Boy. 👍
If they'd been slightly delayed and used like Jagdpanzers and Jagdtigers as long-range defensive tank killers rather than an armoured spearhead you might have seen a lot of successful Ferdinands and they certainly wouldn't have had such devastating losses to mines but as an offensive vehicle they're only going to work on a flat track with the enemy tanks 2ks away. Not against the heavily fortified Russian defensive positions at Kursk.
Everything looks good when it's still on paper.
I'll give credit where credit is due, the German spirit of recycling is to be admired
I've never heard the Ferdinand/Elefant described as the "greatest most powerful tank destroyer od WWII" surrounded "by whispers of doubt". If anything it was always the other way around, everyone everywhere (except maybe Hitler and F. Porsche) seemed to agree they were utter unreliable crap. I've never met anyone claiming it was a great tank unless they were 10 years old and all their knowledge stemmed from trump card games (pretty popular in 1980's and 1990's).
My Grandfather was directly involved in the fighting against Ferdinands at Kursk. Germans hit the Rifle divisions first, i honestly don't know where Bohm found tanks to destroy the first night. Tanks arrived later, once the direction of the attack became clear.
Didnt really talk about the tactic of Self propelled gun on the offence, the later jagdpanther was much more successful in a defensive role
The real question is, was it more or less reliable than the Tiger 2, the other 88mm L/71 armed heavyweight?
Yes totally agree with you..
The problem was these vehicles survived until there was nothing left to be fired at. Then they were concentrated on and hit from all sides. Their sides were no more armored than a Tiger. I don't think the Russians had 40 SU-152s at Ponyrii. Maybe only 12. And they may have just exchanged losses.
I think for only the month of July 1943 the Ferdinand was supplied with 88mm PzGr 40/43 APCR rounds.
No matter what, I love Elefant/Ferdinad. ❤❤
I feel like the russian SU-100 and SU-152 might be the most underrated tank destroyers, you always hear about the jagdpanther, hetzer, Stugs, Hellcats and jacksons but never the SU series
You forgot the SU-122, the 122mm A-19 was soviets best tank killer.
sU-152 was an assault gun not a TD.
@@viceralman8450 like stug multifunction
@@jantschierschky3461 ?
@@viceralman8450 it was multi-purpose right from the beginning. Like the SU-122
Seems like it might have been a good vehicle when used properly as a tank-hunter and heavy gun, instead of being put in a spearhead or thrown out into areas where pretty much all tanks are going to be bad - even the Leopard II, M1A1 Abrams and other MLT have problems dealing with minefields 80 years later. And it's hard to get the sense of a vehicle's effectiveness when used improperly, by poor commanders, or in conditions where no vehicle would be expected to work well.
Put any MLT in a dense minefield and it will die. Put any MLT into a narrow confine where enemy units can just target it and it will die. Put any MLT in a column on bad roads and it will get stuck. So it isn't exactly fair to hold the combat record against it - it was pretty much set up to fail.
If it had been used as a designated tank-hunter or anti-hardpoint vehicle backed up by infantry and other armor, it might have done well. "Fair" seems a good assessment - it did a decent job when the drive worked and it was used correctly. We'll never know
Plagued by the same issues most German tanks had. My list still stands as the M4 Sherman, Panzer 4, and finally the T34. Medium tanks really defined tank combat as MBTs ultimately evolved from the utility offered by the Mediums.
"...military blunders are as intrinsic to Naziism as antisemitism". Best line on RUclips today. 👍
A video on the Stürmgeschutz IV Tank-killer would be awesome! Grey content as always, Simon!
Jagdpanther rules! Thank you Sir!😎
My favorite tank of the war.
The kill record of these machines cannot be ignored
Yes. Highest kill ratio of any tank in WW2.
I dig on my Ferdi in World of Tanks! and the TigerP
Let put one thing clear: Guderian was an idiot when it came about the use of Stu - no, STU wasn't his concept, it was v.Manstein idea to have a mobile artillery/tank destroyer to support motorized infantry (Panzergrenadiere) - and both had very very different views about the Kursk strategy.
The cost of a Ferdinand was ZERO. They were made with left over hulls from Porsche failed Tiger design. They were build as artillery support unit and it was Guderian stupidity to make them a "breakthrough" weapon - v.Manstein in his book "Verlorene Siege" said how stupid it was to use a vehicle without machine gun/infantry defensive weapon as a breakthrough weapon, it advanced without infantry and was easy prey to... enemy infantry.
The Ferdinand is the name of the original vehicle, once it was clear it would be used as a Panzerjäger, they were removed from the front and were upgraded/changed for that purpose - this "Panzerjäger" version is called Elefant. And f... NO, they didn't "disappear" after Italy, they were employed until August 1944 in the East Front the schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 - 1. Panzerarmee (Heeresgruppe NordUkraine) - just the name Ferdinand disappeared.
Crap, there is notice of 2 Elefants at the Battle of Berlin in 1945... so from the 91 produced in 1942, 2 are confirmed to have survived up to 1945 - and people still say they were a failure surviving 3 of the worst years for the Wehrmacht.
There is a great book about the 653 - Karlheinz Münch The Combat History of German Heavy Anti-Tank Unit 653 in World War II
Paint it pink, and call it Schnapps. Just for the heck of it :-)
Interesting end credits. Two Editors two Hosts and no writer. Hmm, i suppose Simon is Your mouthpiece George !:-)
It might have its flaws but the crews loved it and if you read the book on the 656-653 regiments you will see why they did. It also killed about 1500 russian tanks.
Fewer! Fewer Ferdinands! Fewer mines! Good heavens, chap. Who wrote this twaddle
All of the heavy armour vehicles the Germans used were for break through and support not a continuous operation. A held up advance could be moved .
How someone could question a moving Flak 88?!
I have never heard someone say the Ferdi was anything other that a bed shit on tracks.
8:40 A Lieutenant is an officer, not an enlisted soldier, Brain Boy. Wts?
I'm deeply disappointed that a british man failed to avail himself of an obvious pun.
It should have been "causing them to fail left and reich."
Be better, Simon.
I'm glad you addressed the elephant in the room.
My pants are sodden
The Ferdinand did have its share of problems. Too big, to slow, high silhouette and a tendency to self immolate. But it did have the distinction of having the highest kill to loss record of any armored vehicle during WWII. It came in at 10 to one. The STG-III had far more kills but over 10,000 STG-IIIs saw action vs fewer than 100 Ferdinand. Had the Germans just used it in Russia and only on defense it could have been battlefield dominant. Using it for offense was the problem. Italy, with it's narrow roads and mountainous terrain was far from ideal as well.
Once I've heard that they could pick up a Shermman tank 4km out with the JEAGER.. But being stripped of armour made him an easy target to blow in shreds..
The Germans still had the Nashorn so as with how "Hitler-ism" always "worked"(functioned) there had to be a competitor for the new *"as given"* (Tank Destroyer) product which in this instance would in fact actually be field tested in Battle absolutely true.
That this was so wasn't the fault of those who created this product but instead of those who felt in any way this product able to be brought straight into Battle which clearly was false and wrong by the German Military Command.
The Nashorn was quite the opposite a very well thought out and put together Tank Destroyer that being an open turret was absolutely *HUGE* in both size and effectiveness. As a waste of resources no, hardly the worst Tank Destroyer of World War 2 as, well given lessons learned created the Nashorn. Plus the Germans still had the very effective and remarkably numerous "Hetzer."
The Red Army in the alternative used the IL-2 Sturm anti-armor "flying Tank" against which the German War effort had no answer as far as an equal by 1943 despite literally inventing the "Tank Destroyer by Air" Stuka. Once the Ferdinand failed as everyone knew would be the case Germany needed to immediately create an "new Stuka" but of course this never was effected.
Do one of the German AAA vehicles Salmon
...... I have never met 1 person saying that the Ferdinand was the "Greatest tank destroyer "
I don't think anyone every considered this to be the best anything. And no, it was not a "hybrid system like you find on a modern car". There were no massive batteries. It was a diesel electric drive. The diesel engine powered generators which in turn powered motors which turned the drive sprockets. If the engine wasn't running the vehicle wasn't moving.
the problem is not in the vehicle it's in the tactics and circumstances it was deployed in!!
The problem is the vehicle when it's extreme weight and undersized power package mean it was extremely situational to the point that "tactics and circumstances" would have had it barely used at all despite its high price tag. When slight hills and terrain overtax the engine so much it catches fire, there's not many situations you could use it in. Might as well save a ton of money and have a static gun emplacement at that point and just put a 200mm plate of steel around it since it would be just as likely to get kills when not attracting artillery fire as has about the same mobility.
@@jmill1334 never said it didn't have problems just it wasn't understood and used wrong as to why it sucked so bad!! even a turd of a weapon can do halfway descent if it's understood and used right!
I've never heard it called the Ferdinand before...Interesting
0:42 background
2:11 development
3:22 initial combat history
12:06 combat in Italy
Borg, Seven of Nine. Hehehe years before the Voyager
200mm of armour... I just tap my '2' key and carry on =]
I didn't think they made that many Ferds and I think they were plagued with the problems of most things engineered by Germans...they were over-engineered...broke down a lot, parts were scarce, etc.😊
The Ferdinand was great. It was just as they had wanted it, perfect in the controlled environment testing and on paper. Then reality set in. It's kind of like the Russian Kuznetsov Carrier, perfect in a controlled environment, but once in reality, a bag of s*it would be a bigger threat.
You're also giving Ferdinand Porsche too much credit in the sanity department. I mean he did offer to mount a 75mm gun on the back of the turret of the Maus pointed straight up to try to combat aircraft who might bomb the thing. You know, for those obviously successful bombing strategies of drop payload and keep flying straight. There's absolutely no way the bomb dropped by the intended target prior to it possibly being shot by this single shot 75mm gun wasn't already headed towards the Maus which had less agility than the Boston Molasses Flood of 1919.
Am I the only one that thinks that when Simon is off camera that he has like no accent and sounds nothing like his onscreen persona in RL?😆
he's actually from Chicahhhgo and sounds like the "Da Bears" guys.
It's still the most awesome looking tank destroyer of WWII.
The Russians reported how bad the Ferdinand was. That is a good proof that it was the opposite. Interesting, Ferdinand’s showed up until the last days of the war.
Since only 120 or so were produced, that alone shows that they couldn’t be all bad.
Russian historians completely revised the account of Kursk. That report by Russian SU152 seems more that suspicious. Here is a fact: only 146 Tigers were employed and 6 (six) were actually destroyed.
Regardless,the Ferdinand was not optimal if not downright a failure ( because of the drive train) I.e. it would have been better if more Panthers were made.