Don't Paladins sorta resemble Elephants? Weren't the Brumbars made for the same thing? Why didn't they just stick to those? Or what about the StugIII and Hetzers? All that material. They could have produced more aircraft. That is what they needed. Stupid Udet, and his anti-long range bomber, WW1 mentality.
Don't Paladins sorta resemble Elephants? Weren't the Brumbars made for the same thing? Why didn't they just stick to those? Or what about the StugIII and Hetzers? All that material. They could have produced more aircraft. That is what they needed. Stupid Udet, and his anti-long range bomber, WW1 mentality.
Don't Paladins sorta resemble Elephants? Weren't the Brumbars made for the same thing? Why didn't they just stick to those? Or what about the StugIII and Hetzers? All that material. They could have produced more aircraft. That is what they needed. Stupid Udet, and his anti-long range bomber, WW1 mentality.
why did the germans waste so much time building all of these tank destroyers. all they needed was the "tiger". it outclassed everything on the battle field.
@lorirocks777 ok. i just checked on the history on the m26. now i know why i know nothing of this tank. there where only 20 tanks sent to europe in 1945. so can you really say that it would have outclassed the "tiger". right now i'm reading "tigers in the mud". it was a killer on the battlefield. 4 "tigers" and 30 "t34s" was no problem. that may be do to the fact that the soviets went into battle with there tanks "button up". you have to respect the tiger and what it could do.
@drod103164 There's no doubt about it, Tigers were amazing and fearsome.. but the Germans really did the right thing by bringing out the Tiger 2, because the allies were also bringing out tanks with more powerful canons, not to mention field artillery.
Yeah it's sad that only 20 Pershings saw action in WWII, considering that there were more Pershings produced in WWII than Tigers.
I agree with you, if Germany had concentrated on 1 tank, they might have had better chances.
@lorirocks777 Ah yes - the if Germany invested more in the Panzer IV or Panther rather than creating more and more heavier expensive TD or heavy tanks the course of the war would have been different. You know similarity could be said for hte Me-262 - whilst Hitler did insist it be used as Bomber (he personally hated the word fighter) the Me-262 was also difficult to be designed and built. True only 20 M26's of the Zebra Mission went to Europe but you know there was Korea...
@lorirocks777 And the Pershing created its legacy - it led later to the 50's Pattons (M46 and M47) then to the famous M48 and M60 Pattons and later the development of the MBT-70 and later today's M1A2 (A3 will come out in 2017 hoho) - so hehe
@lorirocks777 Its said that yes - if the Germans invested in Panzer IV's and perhaps Panthers rather than projects that barely made it off the drawing board, Tiger variants and TD's which were increasingly used as tank sub's by late 1944-1945 due to heavy losses in Panzers. While the Tiger I built its famous reputation, the Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger was less of a legend, though it too had the famous repuation of being very difficult to knock out and in a good crew it was very manueverable :)
@lorirocks777 But if they invested only in the Panzer IV or Panther - wouldn't in the end the Allies still developed more lethal tanks in the end? I mean take the T-34/85 it was superior to the Panzer IV in general performance and economics but to the Panther it was still inferior technically - or say the JS-2? Would it have really changed the tide if you know what I mean if they Germans invested one tank type rather than a range?
@lorirocks777 Well - the Pershings did well in Korea didn't they? Plus later they developed to the M46-M47 and later the M48 Patton and the M60 lineage Patton tanks where eventually we got concepts to the MBT-70 (I am not sure if there's a relationship between the M60 or Pattons to this failed project) whilst later the M1 Abrams today more or less :D - and we can see the legacy of the Pershing -> Patton in a sense :)
@HeirofGojira91 Thanks for your comments. Very interesting. I guess it's a question we can't know the answer to. I personally like the way the Germans built their tanks... and all the different versions that they made... whether it helped them or not we don't know... But the history is all very interesting, as are the stories from crews.
@lorirocks777 But question I am curious is about is you know how I mentioned the Pershing led later to the Patton series tanks like the M47, M46, M48 -> M60 tanks with variants like the M60A2 designed to have the flawed 152.4mm gun-missile system? Was the MBT-70 related to the Patton series designs of not? If so then it makes sense as the MBT-70 -> M1 Abrams tanks and we can say in a sense the M1 Abrams is a descendant of the PERSHING! HAHA!
@lorirocks777 I share the same intresst as you in german tanks. The tiger II was certainly a step in the right direction in terms of cost, but sadly that tank never saw its true potential ither. It sufferd from untrained crewmen, lackage of oil, defected iron and it never saw any real air superiority during its service. It to had some design flaws but was a monster on the field!.. In the end, the best german tanks was the Panther I and Pzkfw4 in terms of the war effort.
@tyskbulle Actually if I may a colleague of mine Dreachon said despite the fact the Germans indeed struggled to maintain the standards of thier armor - the 'crappiest' German armor was still superior to Soviet and Western Allied armor in WWII; the Kubinka tests were more for propaganda - if you think about it - there is practically no true photo in combat of a Tiger Ausf B's frontal 150mm (at 50 deg cos so that gives you 233mm FLAT ARMOR) penetrated at all!
@tyskbulle But yes the Tiger Ausf B was by no means easy to maintain; not helped by the fact it was near 70 tonnes and many drivers were inexperienced. However its 'mobility' many claim to be faulty was actually unique; the Tiger Ausf B could still manage 38kph on top speed and that was respectable for a heavy battle tank - particularly its ground pressure - given its nearly 70 tonnes like the slightly bigger and more powerful Jagdtiger :D
@tyskbulle The Jagdtiger also had a respectable move for a heavy tank destroyer, particularly the Henschel models (though the Porsche models ironically were easier to build and cheaper) BUT again it was lamented by aces like Herr Carius the skill of managing a huge 70 tonne behemoth like the Jagdtiger was often insufficient; there is a story on wikipedia (not sure if its true) but in '45 an entire Jagdtiger crew was KIA when the commander panicked and exposed the side armor to Shermans :(
@tyskbulle The Panther indeed was a fine tank; although many state it had weight and final drive problems - it was at first at Hitler's insistence it be used a Kursk; it suffered drive and engine problems as the battle went in history and all salvaged Panthers had to be recorrected; later Panthers while still having final drive problems and complexity nonetheless in the hands of a fine crew could still demand respect and proved superior to Allied Armor
@tyskbulle Targu Frumos was one; a Panther and Tiger I squad destroyed a bigger '34/85' and JS-2 force despite the fact the Tiger I's initially failed to penetrate JS-2 armor at 2000 yards+ and despite the fact the Tiger I's were forced to go within at least 1000 yards or so - the JS-2's ability to spall/knock the German tanks; the combination of crew skill, superior optics, single shells and a faster mv of the Panther's gun meant JS-2 crews would recive some hard knocks before firing back :)
@tyskbulle The Tiger Ausf B was said to be so huge sometimes JS-2 crews would run away in fright by the size of it; I havne't seen one in person but I'm guessing the Tiger Ausf B would be a frightening giant amongst tanks even today - and another colleauge mentioned to me the Jagdtiger was even bigger in a sense with a comparably big gun the KwK 44 - arguably among the most powerful (though expensive) AT/Tank guns in WWII...
@tyskbulle Hmm - historians claim if the Panzer IV was invested more with more priority on simplifying Pantehrs rather than huge Tiger behemoths the war would have been different in a sense. Its ironic the Panther - was abel to be used for the excellent Jagdpanther (not that you care but I personally like the Jagdpanther more than the Panther) - where it retained the Panther's speed and armor - yet sacrificing a turret for a bigger gun :) while Tigers got bigger and bigger :(
@drod103164 Also - heard of General Leslie Mcnair? He was the commander of the American Armored Forces during WWII and he beleived in the Tank Destoyer doctrine which tanks like the Sherman were not to engage tanks but the support infantry whilst TD's using speed and higher velocity guns would knock the German tanks. Unfortunately it wasn't always ideal under circumstances. He also opposed the T25/T26 project w' the 90mm gun, only allowing the M36 and the M1 Shermans prior to '45 :(
@lorirocks777 Ah the Elefant by sheer thickness was 200mm - even more than the Panther which would have armor approx 120-140mm thick but then again it was collossal and very slow - with limited traverse. The Jagdpanther seemed to be a better candidate and did the job better than the Elefant for very obvious reasons :)
@lorirocks777 Well - it isn't just techinical superiority if I may add this my fellow WWII aficionado :) The Battle of Targu Frumos showed if the Tiger was used in a tactical level, together with the advantage of stealth, first rate fire and superior tactics/experienced crews they could still defeat tanks like the JS-2 tank for the matter. General Hasso von Mantuffel noted whilst at 2000+ yards the 88mm rounds failed to knock the JS-2 at 1100 yards and using stealth his Tigers still KO'ed JS-2's
@lorirocks777 Problem with the tigers though was as mint as they where they where very hard to repair due to the way they had been built. So a damaged tiger was pretty much useless where as the allie'd tanks could be easily repaired.
@moochkin are we talking armor or the wheel drive? If its armor actually there is a story of a Tiger I that was briefly abandoned in a battle prior to being retrieved; the German mechanics counted at least 11 76.2mm shots, 45-57 57mm shots, 227 14.5mm shots and rolled over 3 mines - it was eventually repaired. A British test analysis of a captured Tiger I showed that the armor was extremely durable - most shots didn't penetrate the Tiger at all! But if ti was engine or wheels
@moochkin If it was engine it was heavy and difficult to replace and need I not need to mention what a nightmare it was to German engineers to repair the road wheels and prepare the tracks for crossing or what ever purpose. Not to mention the fact there are photos of Tiger I's towing another Tiger I - despite restrictions Tiger I's tended to tow crippled comrades back to a repair park and practically every Tiger I commander/crew could experience this...
@drod103164 Actually the Tiger I was expensive itself and took a while to engineer - apparently it took 300000 working hours to design one alone. Plus as pointed the Pershing, JS-series, Comet and improving Allied tank numbers/destroyers took thier eventual tolls on the Tigers. Tank destoyers are theoretically cheaper than tanks - and according to a report by Heinz Gunderian he suggested the StuG's were more efficient thna the Panzer IV's hence Hitler decided to initiate all these TD projects
@drod103164 And whilst some like the Elefant/Ferdinand, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanzer IV Gunderian's Duck and various wild prototypes + the Panzer VIII Maus and the E-100 Nacht-tiger were expensive and extreme - you have to acknowledge the excellent Jagdpanther - mind you the Jagdpanther was a fine baby in TD during WWII - it had the Panther's benefits plus unlike the Jagtiger, Nashorn or Elefant - it had good speed, good armor and excellent firepower but essentially was more balanced than these TD's
@drod103164 In the case of the Ferdinand - the original plan was to convert the 90 Porsche Tiger I tanks - and actually have them converted to Porsche Tiger I tanks to be sent to the North Africant front due to the engines being air cooled but given as history showed Porsche's hybrid transmission was usually a failure and difficult to maintain. Hence they got orders to convert the chassis into a heavy mobile platform to be armed with the 88mm PaK 43 - more powerful than the Tiger I'sgun!
@drod103164 Even before that conversion Hitler/the OKW demanded the chassis have projects capable of mounting 150mm, 170mm or even the 210 mm siege mortar/heavy howitzers as an assault weapon - before it was decided the 88mm PaK 43 was to be fitted onto a heavily armored super-structure!
@drod103164 The Tiger was a technological marvel for its time, so was its price and afterwards we realised it was a waste. But the germans came out whit the Panther I and Ferdinand "or Elefant tank" whitch was mutch cheaper and more effective. Still, these tanks had design flaws along whit a lack of spare parts and crew training that crippled them from thier true potential. This tank is a product of the total war, something the russians were far ahead whit and led to victory.
@tyskbulle Panther also has disadvantages compared to Panzer IV or Sherman; while better in field performance such as power-weight or ground pressure in the mud the Panther however has the long barrelled 75mm PaK/KwK 42; in Normandy this was a serious tactical weakness where manuerving in woods/towns the Panther could struggle. Also the Panther had a slow turret traverse to the SHerman and the final drive was of weak grade steel and had double gears rather than herringbone gears...
the elefant was actually supposed to become the tiger but the vehicle was rejected in favour of the henschel version which became the tige we know. the spar vehicles were the modified to become tank destroyers - the elefant
@reedeteo All the possession you guys had, you either destroyed yourselves to prevent them from being captured, or left them to rot. The one Elefant that Americans took home they restored it and put it in a museum.
@kjb297 no its not a ferdinand the elefant is a expanded version of the ferdinand with upgraded features such as a coaxial machinegun turrent which is not on the ferdinand and this one was also featured on the show Tank Overhaul i suggest you look it up its a cool show and it tells us tank geeks little details but the ferdinand was the first production variant but could get swarmed by soviet infantry thats why they added the coaxial machingun on the front right of the vehicle
@flyboyreloaded Indeed - other minor changes you could note to Elefants from Ferdinands were that Elefants had slightly upgraded drives, armor and the addition of a commander's improved cupola and Zimmerit applications, if you don't count battle damage from Kursk as a whole haha. Indeed the severe drawback of the Ferdinand at Kursk was barely any close range support weapon - where commanders sometimes were forced to fire an MG-34 through the main-gun barrel.
what a beast! it is the ferdinand porsche elephant. the same guy who made porsche sports cars designed this. the major flaw was lack of close anti-personell weapons. the russians would immobilizie it and bypass it, or just burn the crew out. listen at 0:10 seconds and you can hear it rev up. it sounds sooo badass. (that is a joke for you fukin morons out there)
I saw the episode of 'Tank Overhaul' where they restored THIS specific Elefant. It's the same one. I remember how it had damage on the front next to the gun.
@bulletinyurass Yeah. The frontal armor of the panther was about 80mm thick. The frontal armor on the elefant in comparison is 200mm thick. It's like tapping your finger on solid rock.
@lorirocks777 i hope there were not too much dumbasses with the german tankers , it must be painfull it you eccidently fall on it becouse it was slippery or something... :D
@lorirocks777 THe Panther tank had armor 80mm sloped so actually it was thicker in effectiveness than the Tiger I's armor and had better protection at the front. However whilst the 80mm is equal to say 120-140mm by SHEER thickness we can see and agree that the Elefant's armor would be insanely thick - which was why in battle it was actually difficult to knock out or even destroy as a whole by most weaponary :)
@bulletinyurass Apparently a German propaganda film on the fighting in Normandy showed Panther tank crews proudly attributing thier survival and ability to hold off against most Allied tanks due to the durability and good protection of the Panther tank. I haven't seen a Panther tank myself but I'd love to feel the thick armor - was the mantlet of the Panther you saw MASSIVE? Also have you seen a Jadgpanther before in person? Just curious thats all.
@bulletinyurass Still you managed to tap a Panther upclose :( I haven't the chance to see any WWII tanks yet - would like to see a Panther itself - a wall of steel eh? Did you manage to tap the side turret or the turret mantlet? Or only the frontal armor? That Panther must have been pretty hardy and well built haha. BTW was the gun mantlet of the Panther enormous? And was the Panther tank a 'tall' tank?
@bulletinyurass A few days ago I picked up a 4 inch thick piece of steel - and I tapped it - I can imagine now just how it was like to tap the glacis of a Panther tank - even though I am sure the Panther's armor is definitely more duable than the mere 4 inch piece of steel I tapped!
Well for some reason I am addicted to reading youtube comments lol but I read into it and the most potent German WW2 gun was 150mm mounted on a variety of self propelled motor carriages. Information from Panzergrenadier divisions 1939-45 by Chris Bishop hope that helps any it is a great reference book for these if your interested another good book is Soviet tank units 1939-45 by David Porter or Western Allied Tanks 1939-45 by David Porter they are great for WW2 armor references.
The 150mm gun was a houwitzer and it certainly was not the most potent gun, that isreserved for the monstrous 8.8cm and 12.8cm gun that had the penetration power to knock out tanks at even over 3000m.
@Dreachon Correct! 150mm howitzer - not the high velocity guns like the 88mm Flak/Kwk 36 and 43 or the 128mm PaK/KwK 44 guns - insane how these guns at the time could be accurate at ranges of 2000-3000 metres - the howitzer I take is more of a support weapon, given it clearly would not have penetrated armor as well as the high velocity AT guns - though it may have delivered a more useful HE. I read the Kubinka test against the Bengal Tiger - the Soviets
@Dreachon Oh yes - now I remember - 1130m/s using Tungsten filled shots - which was expensive and rare in WWII - with that damned long barrel - frighteningly fast indeed if one may say - would be cool to catch the shot in slow motion hehe ;) Yep - I find the Kubinka test pretty rigged the moment I read those claims the Russians made on a Bengal Tiger but again who cares given its propaganda...
@Dreachon the Soviets noted that whilst the 88mm KwK 43 had superior accuracy and armor penetration than the IS-2 tank's D25-T gun - they claimed the 121.92mm gun regardless had 40-44% more damage via HE shell tests - that sound valid from the highly melodramatic Kubinka tests?
the epefant and the ferdinand are almost the same tanks. the only diffrence is that the first production version called the elefant didnt had a machine gun for infantery defence. so they decided to build a machine gun in side the front of the hull and called it the ferdinand. the tank hunter in the video is a elefant because it do,nt have the machine gun inside the hull
I have a question to ask you, when you made this video, did you have an indication of how thick the plates were on the side and rear of the superstructure, the plates were interlocking so it would be possible to meassure them.
@Dreachon Interesting... I don't remember, I didn't measure them. Whenever I want to know those kinds of things I just go to this website: onwar.com I'll send you the link in a message.
@MrTankosaurus The only difference between the Ferdinand and Elefant are an added machinegun, coppula and minor armor changes, so no different tanks at all. After these changes the un-official name was Elefant. From 1 may 1944 this was then the "official" name. I say "official" because the official designation/name for this tank is Panzerjäger Tiger.
@Limbids Some had Zimmerit -and you could say 'battle damage' from Kursk haha but yes that was pretty much the upgrades of the Ferdinand to Elefant TD - its interesting the Porsche Tiger prototype was to be mounted with the 88mm PaK 43 which the Henschel Tiger I could not mount...
@Limbids Correct - as it was the chassis of the Porsche prototype of the Tiger I tank but in the end the Henschel and Sons got the contract to produce the Tiger I that we know of in history - besides the Ferdinand/Elefant chassis of the Tiger I Porsche required complex electric-gas transmission - plus the fact it needed quite some copper
I saw the show that they restored this tank on today! I can't quite decide whether this is a beautiful or ugly machine, but either way, it's a monster!
@tankist300 lol... a lie... A lie is something intentional... My description isn't a lie because if there is some incorrect information it was unintentional. I've never heard of Elefants with a 128mm gun... Do you have a source for this information? I basically just did a whole lot of reading on these tanks in tank books and came up with that description myself. But if I've got something wrong, I'd be more than happy to correct it... Just give me some proof.
Ferdinand/Elefant never had a 12.8cm gun, also the modifications had nothing to with the renaming of the vehicle, at the time the name was changed some vehicles had already been modified and some weren't.
They were also still beeing called Ferdinand by their crews.
The sturer emil was build on the chassis of the lenghtened VK3001H which was Henschel design for a new heavier tank, it was later dropped in favor of the heavier VK3601H which was then used in the devellopment of the VK4501H which would becoem the Tiger I.
@lorirocks777 128 mm gun? That sounds somewhat silly - only the Jagdtiger was armed with such a gun though the Panzer VIII Maus and the E-100 Nacht-Tiger would have had provision for it - as well as the proposed Jagdpanther II TD... Besides the Elefant was pretty heavy already - adding a 128mm gun would hinder weight severely and plus the 128mm PaK 44/Kwk 44 had a 2 piece loading ammo - would have suffered same problems like the IS-2 tank...
I hope your not taking your info from WoT cause if you did you wouldn't look so good, the Ferdinand/Elefant never had a 12.8cm gun, also the modifications had nothing to with the renaming of the vehicle, at the time the name was changed some vehicles had already been modified and some weren't.
They were also still beeing called Ferdinand by their crews.
If you want more info on the Ferdinand/Elefant look for the combathistory of schwere pabzerjager abteilung 653 by K. Munch.
i cant bag this guy because he got to see one:( they had 88 elephants tho..the big change was the MG and some more armor..the 12.8`s were not in the initial upgrade(i think)
@tankist300 .Dont say so stupid things ,read more on it if u want to say something real and smart.Ferdinand was build on chassis from prorsche's tiger .they was rejected by the okw (wehrmacht high commandment).Then porsche decided to transformed tiger's chassis as strumgeschutz ,and crew's called him ferdinand.After kursk they adapted an mg42 on the front side and changing the name as elefant.only this modification was made !!!
Where is the connection from the name "Ferdinand" to the gun ???
It was called "Ferdinand" after its Designer "Ferdinand Porsche" (Yes - Porsche was building tanks i war) ...
It was renamed to Elefant after some changes like an added MG, changes to the tracks and some more - but the gun stayed the same, it was never armed with nothing else than the 8.8.
@lorirocks777 They were sometimes called ferdinand but the codename is elefant, your description isn't a lie, it's very accurate, so don't be bother by those guys
@megatwingo Thanks... I just updated the details.. I filmed it at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, USA... but I heard that since then they've moved their tanks somewhere else... it should be on wikipedia
The restore was on "Tank Overhaul" on the Military Channel. The restoration crew hi-lighted the impact marks to the right of the gun mantle for effect. The round that disabled this vehicle in Italy was on the right side and hit the road wheels. The Germans abandoned it and it was shipped back to the states for evaluation.
A vehicle this rare should be an indoor exhibit. They had quite a few rare german WWII tanks at that outdoor museum that are just sitting there rusting.
i love it!.............one qhestion tho, the holes by the gun are from enemy impact correct?and why did you decide to still leave em?
its still a marvel to look at and simply amazing the quality of it, after all it was created by FERNAnDIN PORCSHE. and we all know what else came from him
All nice and repainted, so now it can sit outside and rust for another couple decades. It's a shame we live in the "richest country in the world" and we (Americans) don't have a decent indoor tank museum. The Russians have a world class one in Kubinka (I've been there) and I'm sure they have less money than our government does to support their museum.
@MakeNine42 I think it's cool that there's an extra tank for us to marvel at today. I don't know if I'd say it was a waste. The 88mm in the Elefant was too big to mount in a Tiger... and the Elefant also had twice the frontal armour. I think it's pretty cool myself.
The didn't make too many Elefants... because they ended up developing the Tiger 2 which had enough room for the larger 88mm canon with longer shells and a higher muzzle velocity.
@lorirocks777 the first models didn't even have a machine gun so couldn't defend themselves against the infantry. when used in attack on the eastern front they failed to destroy enemy gun positions and the infantry couldn't advance behind them and the ground gained was lost. they just weren't decisive and were useless to the panzer divisions who needed quick tanks not SPG's
@Rucksack1944 Wow! That must've been a treat... how did you manage that? Did you find out why it was burned out? ... Those old machines are sooo interesting!
@lorirocks777 It was definitely fire damage..Many of those were shot to hell in armor tests...I think you can go in the museum and they have the history for each one of the tanks there (at least the Germans ones) that tell where they were captured, who used them and how they were acquired by the Army and the museum..It had been opened and the hatches were left open. The rear one was actually on the ground behind it as it was HUGE..I just climbed in..Wished i still had the pic..
@lorirocks777 The engines back then ran on Petrolium Distilate, a very hot burning fuel. The tank was hit my an M-10 shell and that must have started a fire in the fuel tanks. The shell hit the left(?) front sprocket, and the engine is front mounted, with fuel tanks not far away.
@lorirocks777 It went through the somewhat thin armor on the lower side. The shell hit the sprocket and destroyed ti, then penetrated the thin amor behind it and entered the engine, but after that it didn't go much farther.
The Ferdinand/Elefant used a very complicated hybrid electric diesel drive system that broke down fairly often. Couple that with the lack of infantry defense, and it's no wonder that the foot soldiers tore the things to pieces. A big metal box that has no guns that can effectively shoot at foot soldiers, and no way to move when it breaks down? It's a death trap!
Once the Hull MG was added though and reliability was addressed I'd say it was a fine AFV.
google Hetzer
allesscheisse88 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't Paladins sorta resemble Elephants? Weren't the Brumbars made for the same thing? Why didn't they just stick to those? Or what about the StugIII and Hetzers? All that material. They could have produced more aircraft. That is what they needed. Stupid Udet, and his anti-long range bomber, WW1 mentality.
YambidiBlamBlam 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't Paladins sorta resemble Elephants? Weren't the Brumbars made for the same thing? Why didn't they just stick to those? Or what about the StugIII and Hetzers? All that material. They could have produced more aircraft. That is what they needed. Stupid Udet, and his anti-long range bomber, WW1 mentality.
YambidiBlamBlam 3 weeks ago
Don't Paladins sorta resemble Elephants? Weren't the Brumbars made for the same thing? Why didn't they just stick to those? Or what about the StugIII and Hetzers? All that material. They could have produced more aircraft. That is what they needed. Stupid Udet, and his anti-long range bomber, WW1 mentality.
YambidiBlamBlam 3 weeks ago
88mm anti-tank gun?
linx007ed209 1 month ago
@linx007ed209
8.8cm PaK 43/2 L71 with enough punch to penetrate 152mm of flat armour at a distance of 2000m.
Dreachon 1 month ago
did u know that brit us and soviet took share of ger man scientist after the war was over well correct me if im wrong thanks
pouj4000 1 month ago
@pouj4000 nah your right, interesting fact that the guy who designed the german V2 rocket also designed the shuttle that went to the moon
ANIOLATORV 1 month ago
This ist no a Sturmgeschütz. Its a Tank Destroyer.
And this Tank Destroyer named "Elefant".
"Ferdinand" has no Machine Gun in the Front.
Sorry for my bad englisch. I am German. :-)
EggiHL 2 months ago
why did the germans waste so much time building all of these tank destroyers. all they needed was the "tiger". it outclassed everything on the battle field.
drod103164 2 months ago
@drod103164 Well, the Tiger was slowly outclassed itself. I mean... Tigers could be destroyed by the Comet, M 26 Pershing, Js II, Js III...
And on the economic side of things it was cheaper to build vehicles without a turret. The elefant also had twice the armor of a Tiger.
lorirocks777 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 ok. i just checked on the history on the m26. now i know why i know nothing of this tank. there where only 20 tanks sent to europe in 1945. so can you really say that it would have outclassed the "tiger". right now i'm reading "tigers in the mud". it was a killer on the battlefield. 4 "tigers" and 30 "t34s" was no problem. that may be do to the fact that the soviets went into battle with there tanks "button up". you have to respect the tiger and what it could do.
drod103164 2 months ago
@drod103164 There's no doubt about it, Tigers were amazing and fearsome.. but the Germans really did the right thing by bringing out the Tiger 2, because the allies were also bringing out tanks with more powerful canons, not to mention field artillery.
Yeah it's sad that only 20 Pershings saw action in WWII, considering that there were more Pershings produced in WWII than Tigers.
I agree with you, if Germany had concentrated on 1 tank, they might have had better chances.
lorirocks777 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 Ah yes - the if Germany invested more in the Panzer IV or Panther rather than creating more and more heavier expensive TD or heavy tanks the course of the war would have been different. You know similarity could be said for hte Me-262 - whilst Hitler did insist it be used as Bomber (he personally hated the word fighter) the Me-262 was also difficult to be designed and built. True only 20 M26's of the Zebra Mission went to Europe but you know there was Korea...
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 And the Pershing created its legacy - it led later to the 50's Pattons (M46 and M47) then to the famous M48 and M60 Pattons and later the development of the MBT-70 and later today's M1A2 (A3 will come out in 2017 hoho) - so hehe
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 Its said that yes - if the Germans invested in Panzer IV's and perhaps Panthers rather than projects that barely made it off the drawing board, Tiger variants and TD's which were increasingly used as tank sub's by late 1944-1945 due to heavy losses in Panzers. While the Tiger I built its famous reputation, the Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger was less of a legend, though it too had the famous repuation of being very difficult to knock out and in a good crew it was very manueverable :)
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 But if they invested only in the Panzer IV or Panther - wouldn't in the end the Allies still developed more lethal tanks in the end? I mean take the T-34/85 it was superior to the Panzer IV in general performance and economics but to the Panther it was still inferior technically - or say the JS-2? Would it have really changed the tide if you know what I mean if they Germans invested one tank type rather than a range?
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 Well - the Pershings did well in Korea didn't they? Plus later they developed to the M46-M47 and later the M48 Patton and the M60 lineage Patton tanks where eventually we got concepts to the MBT-70 (I am not sure if there's a relationship between the M60 or Pattons to this failed project) whilst later the M1 Abrams today more or less :D - and we can see the legacy of the Pershing -> Patton in a sense :)
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 Thanks for your comments. Very interesting. I guess it's a question we can't know the answer to. I personally like the way the Germans built their tanks... and all the different versions that they made... whether it helped them or not we don't know... But the history is all very interesting, as are the stories from crews.
lorirocks777 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 But question I am curious is about is you know how I mentioned the Pershing led later to the Patton series tanks like the M47, M46, M48 -> M60 tanks with variants like the M60A2 designed to have the flawed 152.4mm gun-missile system? Was the MBT-70 related to the Patton series designs of not? If so then it makes sense as the MBT-70 -> M1 Abrams tanks and we can say in a sense the M1 Abrams is a descendant of the PERSHING! HAHA!
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 I share the same intresst as you in german tanks. The tiger II was certainly a step in the right direction in terms of cost, but sadly that tank never saw its true potential ither. It sufferd from untrained crewmen, lackage of oil, defected iron and it never saw any real air superiority during its service. It to had some design flaws but was a monster on the field!.. In the end, the best german tanks was the Panther I and Pzkfw4 in terms of the war effort.
tyskbulle 1 month ago
@tyskbulle Actually if I may a colleague of mine Dreachon said despite the fact the Germans indeed struggled to maintain the standards of thier armor - the 'crappiest' German armor was still superior to Soviet and Western Allied armor in WWII; the Kubinka tests were more for propaganda - if you think about it - there is practically no true photo in combat of a Tiger Ausf B's frontal 150mm (at 50 deg cos so that gives you 233mm FLAT ARMOR) penetrated at all!
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@tyskbulle But yes the Tiger Ausf B was by no means easy to maintain; not helped by the fact it was near 70 tonnes and many drivers were inexperienced. However its 'mobility' many claim to be faulty was actually unique; the Tiger Ausf B could still manage 38kph on top speed and that was respectable for a heavy battle tank - particularly its ground pressure - given its nearly 70 tonnes like the slightly bigger and more powerful Jagdtiger :D
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@tyskbulle The Jagdtiger also had a respectable move for a heavy tank destroyer, particularly the Henschel models (though the Porsche models ironically were easier to build and cheaper) BUT again it was lamented by aces like Herr Carius the skill of managing a huge 70 tonne behemoth like the Jagdtiger was often insufficient; there is a story on wikipedia (not sure if its true) but in '45 an entire Jagdtiger crew was KIA when the commander panicked and exposed the side armor to Shermans :(
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@tyskbulle The Panther indeed was a fine tank; although many state it had weight and final drive problems - it was at first at Hitler's insistence it be used a Kursk; it suffered drive and engine problems as the battle went in history and all salvaged Panthers had to be recorrected; later Panthers while still having final drive problems and complexity nonetheless in the hands of a fine crew could still demand respect and proved superior to Allied Armor
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@tyskbulle Targu Frumos was one; a Panther and Tiger I squad destroyed a bigger '34/85' and JS-2 force despite the fact the Tiger I's initially failed to penetrate JS-2 armor at 2000 yards+ and despite the fact the Tiger I's were forced to go within at least 1000 yards or so - the JS-2's ability to spall/knock the German tanks; the combination of crew skill, superior optics, single shells and a faster mv of the Panther's gun meant JS-2 crews would recive some hard knocks before firing back :)
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@tyskbulle The Tiger Ausf B was said to be so huge sometimes JS-2 crews would run away in fright by the size of it; I havne't seen one in person but I'm guessing the Tiger Ausf B would be a frightening giant amongst tanks even today - and another colleauge mentioned to me the Jagdtiger was even bigger in a sense with a comparably big gun the KwK 44 - arguably among the most powerful (though expensive) AT/Tank guns in WWII...
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@tyskbulle Hmm - historians claim if the Panzer IV was invested more with more priority on simplifying Pantehrs rather than huge Tiger behemoths the war would have been different in a sense. Its ironic the Panther - was abel to be used for the excellent Jagdpanther (not that you care but I personally like the Jagdpanther more than the Panther) - where it retained the Panther's speed and armor - yet sacrificing a turret for a bigger gun :) while Tigers got bigger and bigger :(
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@drod103164 Also - heard of General Leslie Mcnair? He was the commander of the American Armored Forces during WWII and he beleived in the Tank Destoyer doctrine which tanks like the Sherman were not to engage tanks but the support infantry whilst TD's using speed and higher velocity guns would knock the German tanks. Unfortunately it wasn't always ideal under circumstances. He also opposed the T25/T26 project w' the 90mm gun, only allowing the M36 and the M1 Shermans prior to '45 :(
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 Ah the Elefant by sheer thickness was 200mm - even more than the Panther which would have armor approx 120-140mm thick but then again it was collossal and very slow - with limited traverse. The Jagdpanther seemed to be a better candidate and did the job better than the Elefant for very obvious reasons :)
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 Well - it isn't just techinical superiority if I may add this my fellow WWII aficionado :) The Battle of Targu Frumos showed if the Tiger was used in a tactical level, together with the advantage of stealth, first rate fire and superior tactics/experienced crews they could still defeat tanks like the JS-2 tank for the matter. General Hasso von Mantuffel noted whilst at 2000+ yards the 88mm rounds failed to knock the JS-2 at 1100 yards and using stealth his Tigers still KO'ed JS-2's
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@lorirocks777 Problem with the tigers though was as mint as they where they where very hard to repair due to the way they had been built. So a damaged tiger was pretty much useless where as the allie'd tanks could be easily repaired.
moochkin 1 month ago
@moochkin are we talking armor or the wheel drive? If its armor actually there is a story of a Tiger I that was briefly abandoned in a battle prior to being retrieved; the German mechanics counted at least 11 76.2mm shots, 45-57 57mm shots, 227 14.5mm shots and rolled over 3 mines - it was eventually repaired. A British test analysis of a captured Tiger I showed that the armor was extremely durable - most shots didn't penetrate the Tiger at all! But if ti was engine or wheels
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@moochkin If it was engine it was heavy and difficult to replace and need I not need to mention what a nightmare it was to German engineers to repair the road wheels and prepare the tracks for crossing or what ever purpose. Not to mention the fact there are photos of Tiger I's towing another Tiger I - despite restrictions Tiger I's tended to tow crippled comrades back to a repair park and practically every Tiger I commander/crew could experience this...
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@drod103164 Actually the Tiger I was expensive itself and took a while to engineer - apparently it took 300000 working hours to design one alone. Plus as pointed the Pershing, JS-series, Comet and improving Allied tank numbers/destroyers took thier eventual tolls on the Tigers. Tank destoyers are theoretically cheaper than tanks - and according to a report by Heinz Gunderian he suggested the StuG's were more efficient thna the Panzer IV's hence Hitler decided to initiate all these TD projects
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@drod103164 And whilst some like the Elefant/Ferdinand, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanzer IV Gunderian's Duck and various wild prototypes + the Panzer VIII Maus and the E-100 Nacht-tiger were expensive and extreme - you have to acknowledge the excellent Jagdpanther - mind you the Jagdpanther was a fine baby in TD during WWII - it had the Panther's benefits plus unlike the Jagtiger, Nashorn or Elefant - it had good speed, good armor and excellent firepower but essentially was more balanced than these TD's
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@drod103164 In the case of the Ferdinand - the original plan was to convert the 90 Porsche Tiger I tanks - and actually have them converted to Porsche Tiger I tanks to be sent to the North Africant front due to the engines being air cooled but given as history showed Porsche's hybrid transmission was usually a failure and difficult to maintain. Hence they got orders to convert the chassis into a heavy mobile platform to be armed with the 88mm PaK 43 - more powerful than the Tiger I'sgun!
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@drod103164 Even before that conversion Hitler/the OKW demanded the chassis have projects capable of mounting 150mm, 170mm or even the 210 mm siege mortar/heavy howitzers as an assault weapon - before it was decided the 88mm PaK 43 was to be fitted onto a heavily armored super-structure!
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
@drod103164 The Tiger was a technological marvel for its time, so was its price and afterwards we realised it was a waste. But the germans came out whit the Panther I and Ferdinand "or Elefant tank" whitch was mutch cheaper and more effective. Still, these tanks had design flaws along whit a lack of spare parts and crew training that crippled them from thier true potential. This tank is a product of the total war, something the russians were far ahead whit and led to victory.
tyskbulle 1 month ago
@tyskbulle Panther also has disadvantages compared to Panzer IV or Sherman; while better in field performance such as power-weight or ground pressure in the mud the Panther however has the long barrelled 75mm PaK/KwK 42; in Normandy this was a serious tactical weakness where manuerving in woods/towns the Panther could struggle. Also the Panther had a slow turret traverse to the SHerman and the final drive was of weak grade steel and had double gears rather than herringbone gears...
HeirofGojira91 2 weeks ago
@drod103164
the elefant was actually supposed to become the tiger but the vehicle was rejected in favour of the henschel version which became the tige we know. the spar vehicles were the modified to become tank destroyers - the elefant
TheDexda 1 week ago
My favorite...tanks alot!
majormannfred 3 months ago
Give us our possession back, Americans!
reedeteo 3 months ago
@reedeteo All the possession you guys had, you either destroyed yourselves to prevent them from being captured, or left them to rot. The one Elefant that Americans took home they restored it and put it in a museum.
Sorry for being a dick :D
MultiAREE 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrEkshin 3 months ago
@MrEkshin Wow... interesting... thanks for the comment
lorirocks777 3 months ago
Man i wish they had one of these babys that could move under her own power! :)
flightdeckreviews 3 months ago
does this tank model have cupholders?
Obamaphiliac 4 months ago
Comment removed
Obamaphiliac 4 months ago
its Ferdinand
kjb297 4 months ago
@kjb297 read description
lorirocks777 4 months ago
@kjb297 no its not a ferdinand the elefant is a expanded version of the ferdinand with upgraded features such as a coaxial machinegun turrent which is not on the ferdinand and this one was also featured on the show Tank Overhaul i suggest you look it up its a cool show and it tells us tank geeks little details but the ferdinand was the first production variant but could get swarmed by soviet infantry thats why they added the coaxial machingun on the front right of the vehicle
flyboyreloaded 3 months ago
@flyboyreloaded Indeed - other minor changes you could note to Elefants from Ferdinands were that Elefants had slightly upgraded drives, armor and the addition of a commander's improved cupola and Zimmerit applications, if you don't count battle damage from Kursk as a whole haha. Indeed the severe drawback of the Ferdinand at Kursk was barely any close range support weapon - where commanders sometimes were forced to fire an MG-34 through the main-gun barrel.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@kjb297 a ferdinand does not have an mg port
abot19 3 months ago
what a beast! it is the ferdinand porsche elephant. the same guy who made porsche sports cars designed this. the major flaw was lack of close anti-personell weapons. the russians would immobilizie it and bypass it, or just burn the crew out. listen at 0:10 seconds and you can hear it rev up. it sounds sooo badass. (that is a joke for you fukin morons out there)
octoberflak 6 months ago
I saw the episode of 'Tank Overhaul' where they restored THIS specific Elefant. It's the same one. I remember how it had damage on the front next to the gun.
Theakker3B 6 months ago
Awesome!
TaZ101SAGA 6 months ago
i once tapped my hand on the armor of a panther and it really is thick as hell, its really like tapping a huge steel wall
bulletinyurass 6 months ago
@bulletinyurass Yeah. The frontal armor of the panther was about 80mm thick. The frontal armor on the elefant in comparison is 200mm thick. It's like tapping your finger on solid rock.
lorirocks777 6 months ago
@lorirocks777 i hope there were not too much dumbasses with the german tankers , it must be painfull it you eccidently fall on it becouse it was slippery or something... :D
bulletinyurass 6 months ago
@lorirocks777 THe Panther tank had armor 80mm sloped so actually it was thicker in effectiveness than the Tiger I's armor and had better protection at the front. However whilst the 80mm is equal to say 120-140mm by SHEER thickness we can see and agree that the Elefant's armor would be insanely thick - which was why in battle it was actually difficult to knock out or even destroy as a whole by most weaponary :)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@bulletinyurass Apparently a German propaganda film on the fighting in Normandy showed Panther tank crews proudly attributing thier survival and ability to hold off against most Allied tanks due to the durability and good protection of the Panther tank. I haven't seen a Panther tank myself but I'd love to feel the thick armor - was the mantlet of the Panther you saw MASSIVE? Also have you seen a Jadgpanther before in person? Just curious thats all.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 if you tab the armor its really is as solid as hell, it really is like a wall of steel. no i haven't seen a jagdpanther before :C
bulletinyurass 2 months ago
@bulletinyurass Still you managed to tap a Panther upclose :( I haven't the chance to see any WWII tanks yet - would like to see a Panther itself - a wall of steel eh? Did you manage to tap the side turret or the turret mantlet? Or only the frontal armor? That Panther must have been pretty hardy and well built haha. BTW was the gun mantlet of the Panther enormous? And was the Panther tank a 'tall' tank?
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 well i climbed it from the track :D can i send you a picture or something?
bulletinyurass 2 months ago
@bulletinyurass A few days ago I picked up a 4 inch thick piece of steel - and I tapped it - I can imagine now just how it was like to tap the glacis of a Panther tank - even though I am sure the Panther's armor is definitely more duable than the mere 4 inch piece of steel I tapped!
HeirofGojira91 1 month ago
LoL 0:49 does it feels solid? :D
Nox665 6 months ago
@Nox665 Oh yeah... There was no chance that I was going to move that track...
lorirocks777 6 months ago
it has a machinegun on the right..it had so it must be a elefant
sdkfz162kingtiger 7 months ago
Well for some reason I am addicted to reading youtube comments lol but I read into it and the most potent German WW2 gun was 150mm mounted on a variety of self propelled motor carriages. Information from Panzergrenadier divisions 1939-45 by Chris Bishop hope that helps any it is a great reference book for these if your interested another good book is Soviet tank units 1939-45 by David Porter or Western Allied Tanks 1939-45 by David Porter they are great for WW2 armor references.
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk
The 150mm gun was a houwitzer and it certainly was not the most potent gun, that isreserved for the monstrous 8.8cm and 12.8cm gun that had the penetration power to knock out tanks at even over 3000m.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon oh well I just glanced through all the stats for the tanks do you have a reference for that information?
ak907jk 7 months ago
@ak907jk
You can find the penetration data for these guns on the internet and in alot of books that deal with german armour.
But to give some examples.
at 1000m the 8.8cm L71 would penetrate 165mm of armour, the 12.8cm L55 would do 143mm, both are against a plate sloped at 30 degree.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Correct! 150mm howitzer - not the high velocity guns like the 88mm Flak/Kwk 36 and 43 or the 128mm PaK/KwK 44 guns - insane how these guns at the time could be accurate at ranges of 2000-3000 metres - the howitzer I take is more of a support weapon, given it clearly would not have penetrated armor as well as the high velocity AT guns - though it may have delivered a more useful HE. I read the Kubinka test against the Bengal Tiger - the Soviets
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Well the Pak 43 derived this accuracy from the sheer speed with which it's shell flew, 1000m/s if damn fast.
As for those Kubinka test don't bother as they test is just rigged with a lot of crucial info beeing left out.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@Dreachon Oh yes - now I remember - 1130m/s using Tungsten filled shots - which was expensive and rare in WWII - with that damned long barrel - frighteningly fast indeed if one may say - would be cool to catch the shot in slow motion hehe ;) Yep - I find the Kubinka test pretty rigged the moment I read those claims the Russians made on a Bengal Tiger but again who cares given its propaganda...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
Soviet fanboys cling to it as to vindicate their absurd claims.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@Dreachon the Soviets noted that whilst the 88mm KwK 43 had superior accuracy and armor penetration than the IS-2 tank's D25-T gun - they claimed the 121.92mm gun regardless had 40-44% more damage via HE shell tests - that sound valid from the highly melodramatic Kubinka tests?
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91
I have yet to see prove that it could do enough damage to warrent the russian claims.
Dreachon 3 months ago
My favourite is Stug III.
valttu94 7 months ago
This Elefant Tank is called Ferdinand ;)
severg11 7 months ago
@severg11 Was Ferdinand b4 the Kursk battle, after which they renamed it and put Machine gun on it :D
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@severg11 elefant is a a better version of ferdi .. dumbass
Sethasss 7 months ago
@severg11 Yep, that's in the description
lorirocks777 7 months ago
@lorirocks777 actually the Elefant is the upgraded version of the Ferdinand
zeron2222 5 months ago
the epefant and the ferdinand are almost the same tanks. the only diffrence is that the first production version called the elefant didnt had a machine gun for infantery defence. so they decided to build a machine gun in side the front of the hull and called it the ferdinand. the tank hunter in the video is a elefant because it do,nt have the machine gun inside the hull
hardcorecrusher12 7 months ago
It was so hevy that it was drowning in mud!!!
Cheburashka207 8 months ago
These old tanks really should be in-side in a proper museum !
luvpump1 8 months ago
Check my channel for the Elephant Restoration Documentary
bunsinh456 8 months ago
@bunsinh456 Cool, thanks a bunch!
lorirocks777 8 months ago
a beatiful machine... the nazis were asshole and all that shit... but they made beatiful machines...
jonofh 8 months ago
so the german had Elephant, panther, tiger. wheres the lion? no Rhino?
rax7 9 months ago
@rax7
Look for the nashorn, that's the german rhino, the Lowe or lion was only a paper panzer.
Dreachon 8 months ago
Never criticize a German tank video you hear? They are the best tanks in the World
PEDROCLASSIC 9 months ago
I watched em restore it on tank overhaul. Unless this is a different one and that is pretty unlikely
srvfan454 9 months ago
Who cares about the name... it's just incredible that it was made
lorirocks777 9 months ago
@lorirocks777
I have a question to ask you, when you made this video, did you have an indication of how thick the plates were on the side and rear of the superstructure, the plates were interlocking so it would be possible to meassure them.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon Interesting... I don't remember, I didn't measure them. Whenever I want to know those kinds of things I just go to this website: onwar.com I'll send you the link in a message.
lorirocks777 8 months ago
Comment removed
MarcandSalome 9 months ago
If you guys don't agree on the name Ferdinand or Elefant, use it's actual name: Panzerjäger Tiger(P) - Sd.Kfz. 184
Limbids 9 months ago 5
@Limbids The Elefant and the Ferdinand are two different tanks(actually tank destroyers). Ferdinand was the previous version.
MrTankosaurus 7 months ago
@MrTankosaurus The only difference between the Ferdinand and Elefant are an added machinegun, coppula and minor armor changes, so no different tanks at all. After these changes the un-official name was Elefant. From 1 may 1944 this was then the "official" name. I say "official" because the official designation/name for this tank is Panzerjäger Tiger.
Limbids 7 months ago
@Limbids Some had Zimmerit -and you could say 'battle damage' from Kursk haha but yes that was pretty much the upgrades of the Ferdinand to Elefant TD - its interesting the Porsche Tiger prototype was to be mounted with the 88mm PaK 43 which the Henschel Tiger I could not mount...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@Limbids Correct - as it was the chassis of the Porsche prototype of the Tiger I tank but in the end the Henschel and Sons got the contract to produce the Tiger I that we know of in history - besides the Ferdinand/Elefant chassis of the Tiger I Porsche required complex electric-gas transmission - plus the fact it needed quite some copper
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
this is Ferdinand
82ilja 10 months ago
German power
xganger2 10 months ago
Das focke wulf ist Sturmgeschuetz mitz nine stuka sturer 48,63 mm...
DAS BEERFEST!!!
scski14 11 months ago
=OOOOO VERY BEAUTIFULL SNIF SNIF
WFCliquid 11 months ago
cool and it kinda looks like a real elephant
dontlookatme011197 11 months ago
This tank is called Ferdinand/Elephant and was once the porsche design of the migthy Tiger .
But the Henschel design was better so the Henschel design is now called Tiger I.
Some of the porsche Tanks were halfbuilt at this time so they started to make a heavy tank hunter for the Kursk offensive.
The tank is called either Ferdinand to honor the constructor ferdinand porsche or elephant because its so heavy and can deal much damage.
Red93Alert 1 year ago
I saw the show that they restored this tank on today! I can't quite decide whether this is a beautiful or ugly machine, but either way, it's a monster!
TheWaffleWankers 1 year ago
That's some interesting hull damage @0.35
I wonder if that was from Russian Anti-tank rifles or some kind of post-war damage?
artemisfowl31 1 year ago
tank is called ferdinand because it has 8,8cm gun
after modifications to 12,8cm gun and other shit it was renamed to elefant
description is a lie
tankist300 1 year ago
@tankist300 lol... a lie... A lie is something intentional... My description isn't a lie because if there is some incorrect information it was unintentional. I've never heard of Elefants with a 128mm gun... Do you have a source for this information? I basically just did a whole lot of reading on these tanks in tank books and came up with that description myself. But if I've got something wrong, I'd be more than happy to correct it... Just give me some proof.
lorirocks777 1 year ago 4
@lorirocks777
Ferdinand/Elefant never had a 12.8cm gun, also the modifications had nothing to with the renaming of the vehicle, at the time the name was changed some vehicles had already been modified and some weren't.
They were also still beeing called Ferdinand by their crews.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon I didn't think they did either... tell that to tankist300
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@Dreachon well there where 2 experimentals called "sturer emil"
they have got the 12,8cm gun
but i dont know if they are built the same way as the elefant
Abensberg 11 months ago
@Abensberg
The sturer emil was build on the chassis of the lenghtened VK3001H which was Henschel design for a new heavier tank, it was later dropped in favor of the heavier VK3601H which was then used in the devellopment of the VK4501H which would becoem the Tiger I.
Dreachon 11 months ago
@Dreachon ahhh yeah thats it!
thanks ;-)
Abensberg 11 months ago
@lorirocks777 128 mm gun? That sounds somewhat silly - only the Jagdtiger was armed with such a gun though the Panzer VIII Maus and the E-100 Nacht-Tiger would have had provision for it - as well as the proposed Jagdpanther II TD... Besides the Elefant was pretty heavy already - adding a 128mm gun would hinder weight severely and plus the 128mm PaK 44/Kwk 44 had a 2 piece loading ammo - would have suffered same problems like the IS-2 tank...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@tankist300
Ferdinand/Elefant never had a 12.8cm gun,
Dreachon 1 year ago
@tankist300
I hope your not taking your info from WoT cause if you did you wouldn't look so good, the Ferdinand/Elefant never had a 12.8cm gun, also the modifications had nothing to with the renaming of the vehicle, at the time the name was changed some vehicles had already been modified and some weren't.
They were also still beeing called Ferdinand by their crews.
If you want more info on the Ferdinand/Elefant look for the combathistory of schwere pabzerjager abteilung 653 by K. Munch.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@tankist300 ferdinand and elephant had pak 43 8.8 cm but elephant had km :<
ThePeterk1719 1 year ago
@tankist300 ferdinand and elephant had pak 43 8.8 cm but elephant had km :<
ThePeterk1719 1 year ago
@tankist300 Both the Ferdinand and Elefant had the 88m KwK L/71 cannon. The Jagdtiger had a 128mm cannon.
jeebateeba56 11 months ago
@tankist300
i cant bag this guy because he got to see one:( they had 88 elephants tho..the big change was the MG and some more armor..the 12.8`s were not in the initial upgrade(i think)
chereadnine 11 months ago
@tankist300 crap. The tank is called "Ferdinand" because the developers name was Ferdinand Porsche ;)
Arminius1871 11 months ago
@tankist300 .Dont say so stupid things ,read more on it if u want to say something real and smart.Ferdinand was build on chassis from prorsche's tiger .they was rejected by the okw (wehrmacht high commandment).Then porsche decided to transformed tiger's chassis as strumgeschutz ,and crew's called him ferdinand.After kursk they adapted an mg42 on the front side and changing the name as elefant.only this modification was made !!!
they ve never mounted a 12.8cm on a ferdinand!!!
lemetatrone 9 months ago
@tankist300
Where is the connection from the name "Ferdinand" to the gun ???
It was called "Ferdinand" after its Designer "Ferdinand Porsche" (Yes - Porsche was building tanks i war) ...
It was renamed to Elefant after some changes like an added MG, changes to the tracks and some more - but the gun stayed the same, it was never armed with nothing else than the 8.8.
vhwie 9 months ago
@AdamSavage88 Yeah it was thank you :) But the Jadgtiger it is a tank destroyer version of the Tiger II right?
BlackTiger112 1 year ago
Isnt this tank just called "Ferdinand"
BlackTiger112 1 year ago
@BlackTiger112 Read the description!
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 Ah alright sorry tbh that was to much text that's why I didnt read the last part.
BlackTiger112 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 They were sometimes called ferdinand but the codename is elefant, your description isn't a lie, it's very accurate, so don't be bother by those guys
Hanzounet 1 year ago
@Hanzounet Thanks :)
lorirocks777 1 year ago
the gremans had the coolest looking tanks. I think we have a tank called the paladin that looks kinda similiar to the elefant.
glennjridge 1 year ago
Interesting video. Thumbs up!
I miss in the video description some details about this special tank in the video and where it is located now.
Is this a museum and where is it?
Greetings
megatwingo 1 year ago
@megatwingo Thanks... I just updated the details.. I filmed it at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, USA... but I heard that since then they've moved their tanks somewhere else... it should be on wikipedia
lorirocks777 1 year ago
The restore was on "Tank Overhaul" on the Military Channel. The restoration crew hi-lighted the impact marks to the right of the gun mantle for effect. The round that disabled this vehicle in Italy was on the right side and hit the road wheels. The Germans abandoned it and it was shipped back to the states for evaluation.
tallguy3708 1 year ago
A vehicle this rare should be an indoor exhibit. They had quite a few rare german WWII tanks at that outdoor museum that are just sitting there rusting.
moogug 1 year ago
i love it!.............one qhestion tho, the holes by the gun are from enemy impact correct?and why did you decide to still leave em?
its still a marvel to look at and simply amazing the quality of it, after all it was created by FERNAnDIN PORCSHE. and we all know what else came from him
1988malo 1 year ago
amazing at the tank museum i thought that only reproduction are made but now i see ,because of the scratches it has ,it's not a reproduction !
acvaticlifE 1 year ago
a piece of honor! .. he killed so fucking many Russians in WW2
ra8791 1 year ago
All nice and repainted, so now it can sit outside and rust for another couple decades. It's a shame we live in the "richest country in the world" and we (Americans) don't have a decent indoor tank museum. The Russians have a world class one in Kubinka (I've been there) and I'm sure they have less money than our government does to support their museum.
solinvictus39 1 year ago
Comment removed
evilboyRUS85 1 year ago
with limited secondary defenses, they were easy prey for enemy infantry once isolated
volvo4377 1 year ago
superb clip :)
thanks for posting it, for those of us who cant make it to the museum easily :)
infernalzen 1 year ago
@infernalzen Thanks, I'm glad you like it... I think next time I'll need to take a tripod so it's less shaky
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@lorirocks777
sounds like you were on abit of a deadline from your female friend ;)
infernalzen 1 year ago
@lorirocks777
Hey Dude, i got this Elephant in the New Season of Tank Overhaul on my channel.
this is not a spam of something, but more-a-less a heads up because you got this video.
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 year ago
this vehicle was such a waste. they should have used the chassis for extra Tigers.
MakeNine42 1 year ago
@MakeNine42 I think it's cool that there's an extra tank for us to marvel at today. I don't know if I'd say it was a waste. The 88mm in the Elefant was too big to mount in a Tiger... and the Elefant also had twice the frontal armour. I think it's pretty cool myself.
The didn't make too many Elefants... because they ended up developing the Tiger 2 which had enough room for the larger 88mm canon with longer shells and a higher muzzle velocity.
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 the first models didn't even have a machine gun so couldn't defend themselves against the infantry. when used in attack on the eastern front they failed to destroy enemy gun positions and the infantry couldn't advance behind them and the ground gained was lost. they just weren't decisive and were useless to the panzer divisions who needed quick tanks not SPG's
MakeNine42 1 year ago
@MakeNine42 actually this veicle was made to not waste about 90 chassis of the crappy tiger designed by porshe
Gjldo 1 year ago
the proof i ve been looking for
lordvimless 1 year ago
Ive actually been inside that Elephant back in the 90s..pretty burned out but it was a treat...
Rucksack1944 1 year ago
@Rucksack1944 wow... How did you manage to organise that? That must've been a treat!
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@Rucksack1944 Wow! That must've been a treat... how did you manage that? Did you find out why it was burned out? ... Those old machines are sooo interesting!
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 It was definitely fire damage..Many of those were shot to hell in armor tests...I think you can go in the museum and they have the history for each one of the tanks there (at least the Germans ones) that tell where they were captured, who used them and how they were acquired by the Army and the museum..It had been opened and the hatches were left open. The rear one was actually on the ground behind it as it was HUGE..I just climbed in..Wished i still had the pic..
Rucksack1944 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 The engines back then ran on Petrolium Distilate, a very hot burning fuel. The tank was hit my an M-10 shell and that must have started a fire in the fuel tanks. The shell hit the left(?) front sprocket, and the engine is front mounted, with fuel tanks not far away.
Maus5000 1 year ago
@Maus5000 You're sure it was hit by an M-10 shell? It must've been at close range to get through the 200mm of armour...
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 It went through the somewhat thin armor on the lower side. The shell hit the sprocket and destroyed ti, then penetrated the thin amor behind it and entered the engine, but after that it didn't go much farther.
Maus5000 1 year ago
I noted the strike marks on Jagdtiger on May 4&5, 2010. The Little David shell & 800mm Schwere Gustav shell are gone away.
canary11141 1 year ago
@canary11141 Do you visit there quite often? ... I remember the strike marks but it looked like they painted them silver...
lorirocks777 1 year ago
@lorirocks777 Not often, but the strike marks are silver.
canary11141 1 year ago
The Ferdinand/Elefant used a very complicated hybrid electric diesel drive system that broke down fairly often. Couple that with the lack of infantry defense, and it's no wonder that the foot soldiers tore the things to pieces. A big metal box that has no guns that can effectively shoot at foot soldiers, and no way to move when it breaks down? It's a death trap!
Once the Hull MG was added though and reliability was addressed I'd say it was a fine AFV.
BDNeon 1 year ago