Why should it given those given they never had panzer grey, they arrived after dark yellow became the standerd and they never saw service in the desert, 3 tone camo is the only right thing for the Elefant.
@0willsy01 Then are you also saying that the T34 was also the Worst Tank, since they were pressed into battle right away after each one was produced during the Battle of Stalingrad?
@0willsy01 It was the Worst Tank, because what other German Tank that went into Battle, especially in a Major Offensive such as Kursk without a Machine Gun to defend itself from enemy infantry?
Also, it is known that the engine and the suspension was not designed for the added weight of the L/71 88 and upper superstructer, because originally, the chassis was designed to be the Tiger I.
And heres the catch about the Elefant, it was used for the wrong purpose.
Oh how about the StuG, same goes for just about every other russian assault gun, calling it the worst tank just because it no MG mounted int he hull is just dumb.
@Dreachon Early model Stug III with the short barrel 75 didnt have machine guns, because they were accompanied by German Troops, later model StuGs had machine guns and a High Velocity 75, they were more cheaper and easier to mass produce and more effective because of their size compared to the Elefant, also no one takes to account that the Elefant was put together in Haste and rushed to the front, and its debut at Kursk was its test and most failed due to mechanical problems on the battlefield
The hull MG didn't appear until 1943 with the ausf. G, and yes they were also often without infantry support as the StuG's belong to independent formations, it's the same with the Elefant, for it's role the Elefant didn't need close infantry support.
Also despite their mechanical problems they perfromed well, they couldn't be taken out by artillery or anti-tank guns, their guns were powerfull and accurate enough to tackle any tank threat.
As for infantry the Elefants carried FE shells with them and in the 654 combathistory book there is an account of firing these, coupled with the Ferdinands accuracry they caused considerable damage to infantry formations.
@Dreachon Thats only within Firing Range of the 88, but in close proximity of the Elefant, the barrel can not go down any further, thus rendering the Main Gun from being fired on incoming infantry, and like I said before, the Elefant had no Secondary Armament when it went into battle at Kursk to keep Russian Infantry from getting closer, also there were other problems that made the Elefant less effective as it was hoped for, especially when there were no recovery vehicles for a downed Elefant.
Again the Elefants main gun could depress low enough to tackle infantry at combat ranges, within that range it become hard even for other vehicles, StuG III had even less depression that the Elefant
Again you are wrong about having no other armerment as all Ferdinand did carry an MG-34 within the vehicle itself.
Again this fixation of your with the Elefant not beeing able to deal with infantry when it never envisioned to deal with them in the first place.
It's also rather dumb that you base the entrie performance of the Elefant throught the war, that's 2 years of serive on just not having a MG in the hull at Kursk while completely ignoring the vast amount of russian rants they knocked out on the eastern front, during the withdrawls following Kursk it were often 2 to 3 Ferdinands that stopped company after company of armour buying precious time for others to get away.
@Dreachon Its no one's Fault that the Germans forgot to place in an MG, but that wasnt the only thing that made the Elefant look bad, its overall weight, mechanical problems fuel consumption also contributed to its poor performance as an Offensive Weapon, and why do you think less than 100 were ever produced in those 2 years in service compared to the StuG III and IV, because they were more faster to build and more versatile than the Elefant
If I had any question with regards to you not knowing what you are talking about then now i have the proof, the Ferdiandn was build on th rejected chassis of the Tiger I porsche.
It was never ever going to see more unless the Tiger Porsche had gone into production as well.
And yet again this complete and uetter fixation on no hull MG, your starting to sound like a bad grammophone, just repeating the same nonsense, it didn't impact the Ferdinands that much at Kursk.
@0willsy01 And the Russians were able to replace those losses without any problems, where as the Germans were not able to replace their losses after Kursk was over.
@Joeasia1981 No, it's the Elefant. Ferdinand did not have a bow machine gun. After the Ferdinands were overrun by Russian infantry at Kursk, the remaining examples were sent back for refit and the MG you see in this video (gun itself is gone) is the result. Long story, but this is the Elefant version.
Basily the difference lies in that the Ferdinand was the vehicle in it's first form that saw action at Kursk in 1943.
The name elefant although it is not linked to the upgrading that took place in early 1944 refers to the then upgraded version, hull mounted MG, commander cupola and zimmerit.
@spirit774 Elefant and Ferdinand different. Large difference between the two being the addition of an anti-personnel machine gun on the Elefant. Ferdinand did not have this feature.
I really enjoy watching the Tank Overhaul episodes as they do incredible work. (Thanks guys). However, the paint scheme on the Elefant just does not do it justice. I would have attempted a "Giraffe" pattern.
Man man man....ist das jämmerlich...verkaufe diesen Elefant Panzer an jemanden der Geld hat um es zu restaurieren...das kann man doch nicht mit anschauen wie er da vor sich hin gammelt...oder verschenke ihn an jemanden der es restauriert...immer noch besser als ohne Grund zu rotten...traurig, traurig!!
Cripes Sake! With all the frigging money we pay in taxes and given to the military this is best they do to preserve one of two surviving examples of the Elephant? A frigging disaster and disgrace of a wreck. Who the hell do we start bitching too about this?
This Elefant tank has now been restored and is still at the aberdeen proving ground, the other is in Russia. There was only 90 Elefant built and designed by Ferdinand as a tank destroyer. This tank lost the competiton for a new tank that could house the 88mm gun but seeing as Germany needed all the tanks they could get, was thrown into action at the battle of Kursk.
@MeatstickRob88 There was 91 built and the reason is they are the old early prototype Porshe model and there was 91 hulls that weren't used cause another company built the Tigers so they thru and gun on it and went with it cause they had them
@MeatstickRob88 the elefant tank was not a shit tank. it was produced in mid 1943-1944 and the k/d ratio was 12/1 every 1 elefant tank that was blown up there was 12 soviet tanks blown up. in my opinion the elefant tank was a great tank but it suffered the most critical problem, mechanical break downs. the suspension wasn't strong enough and the engine wasn't strong enough. but the elefant tank suffered more losses to mechanical problems than enemy tanks.
@Suppentrulli501 Elefant, it was an Anti-Tank-Self-propelled-Gun (Panzerjäger), based on the chassis of a Tiger I, carrying an 88mm Flak-Gun and being heavily armored it was first presented during the battle for Kursk 1943. It proved inefficient due to the lack of a machine Gun and malfunctioning mechanics. The vehicle is also known as "Ferdinand".
jo, so sinds hald die amis, schau dir mal die Go 229 im Smithonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC an, die haben diesen Prototypen eiskalt "dreissig"Jahre draussen stehen lassen. theese noobs!
hmmm is this the one they had in the musuem years ago? Why is it in this bad condition? I remember this tank looked much better when I was at Aberdeen PG in the 90's
Im a former marine / TOW 2 tech and was stationed there for optics school in 1992. I remember they had quite a few tanks outside just rusting away and thought what a waste it was to keep them outside in the elements like that. Most of the ww2 tanks were painted white/grey and looked much better than this from what i can remember.
as a side note, I remember looking out my classroom window at a train with several captured T-72s coming from iraq. i cant believe its been 18 years now...
Curiously enough, after viewing this video several days ago I saw a special on the Military Channel where Aberdeen restored this vehicle.
It was a great story and it look beautiful when they were finished. They were given some rediculous time and budget restraints but they pulled it off.
well,apparently you are a lot more stupid than that tank,or you have no eyes.Cause in the front,there is A MACHINE GUN. And also this was meant as fire support,it wouldn't have been uses against infantry
This beast might be the best tank destroyer during WW2 only in terms of kills per losses, it reached even a better kill to loss ratio than the Jagdpanther or any other tank destroyer during the whole war! in 1943 during the battle of Kursk, only 84 Elefants were used by the 653. Jägerpanzerbattalion and 654. Jägerpanzerbattalion. both battalions destroyed 556 soviet tanks and 1,200 guns/artillery pieces! most Elefants were destroyed by their own crews after mechanical failures.
@xNexus65x ABSOLUTELY NOT. the elefant was terrible.it had no machine guns, so enemys could just walk up and put a mine on it. plus production was hurried so they often broke down before even seeing action. ponderous mobility also made them EASY targets for russian tank crews. it also had very little armor (50mm) whoever you got your facts from is a bone head and i would not believe every thing he says. with my my great uncle being German, and have driven one you should just trust me.
Doubtfull, enemy infantry did not approach them as they were scared of them, no molotov were ever thrown on their engine decks.
What easy targets, Elefants did get into close brawls with enemy armour.
Also only 50mm, what are you smoking, frontal armour was 200mm, side and rear were 80mm thick.
They didn't break down before action, both battalion were at full operational strenght at the start of the battle excluding those vehicles that still needed to be delivered.
@Dreachon look, bottom line is,my great uncle drove one and he couldn't tell you how many colligues of his died in one of those because of lack of proper armor, (frontal armor may be thick, but they were slow so enemys could easily out flank them and hit the side armor) or because of malfunctions, and russians just tossing in a molitov. and they wouldnt be scared of them they had no close combat defense so if anything they viewed elefants as mobile (barely) flaming wrecks wating to happen.
If anyone is pulling from their ass it's you, look at any other reference material on the Ferdinand/Elefant all will tell you it's 80mm thick.
Also no russian infantry charegd at an Ferdinand with a molotov, that is just fiction, I have a lot of personal memoirs from crews of both the 653rd and the 654th during the Kursk operation.
Do tell the name of your Uncle and we will be able to find his name on the rosters of the batalion.
@Dreachon driver, Fritz Aachen, and he was from the 656th panzerjager regiment.
reference book armoured fighting vehicles by philip trewhitt states that armor on sides and rear is 50mm
"In addion, the lack of machine guns meant that there was no defence against Soviet troops disabling them with explosive charges in close quarter combat. The survivors were withdrawn to Italy, where unreliability and lack of spares ensured their continued innefectiveness," is an exact quote from that book.
@Dreachon Ya im sure it was. my book is just as valid as those. unless your right next to it and can measure the thickness, either one can be right. oh wait, i believe I know someone who was right by a elefant. i believe that wouldbe my great uncle. and he said 50mm he would always lecture me on how if he could drive any other tank/td he would have because he hated the elefant.
We have techincal drawings of the Ferdinands themselves shwoing 80mm of side and rear armour, why do you think that the superstructure weighed in at a massieve 16 tonnes.
Hauptmann Henning, acting commander of the 654 cited this with regards to the Ferdinands armour.
"The armour appears too strong, it seems to me that 120 to 150mm of frontal armour and 50mm of rear armour would be sufficient"
This shows that the rear armour was thicker than the 50mm
As for mr Trewhitt book, it seems it get's average scores, mainly due to "poor reference, lots of misinformation and errors" given by those that seem to have read it.
As for your uncle's only reference of Ponyri sadly doesn't help much as it seems both the 653 and 654 had clashes there.
Was he deployed anywere after the fighting there, personally given on that you mention him fighting only there it's likely he served with the 654th and that he later could have driven a jagdpanther which did have 50mm of side armour, would have likely seen him on the western front agaisnt UK or US forces were "sticky bombs" common.
@Dreachon the shrapnel in his leg put him out of service so he didnt see any after Ponyri. and he didnt see the bomb so he mentioned it couldve been anything like a magnetic mine (i don't think the elefant had anti-magnetic paint) or a grenade put on the top side of the tracks (the tank wasnt moving) also where are the reviews of the book. I would like to see them myself. finaly niether of us is going to change our oppinions I can see so i suggest we no longer argue about about the tanks armor
Also be more specific, which of the 2 battaliosn did he belong 2, 653 or 654, the 656th consisted of more than just ferdiandns ( 653 and 654 ) there were sturmpanzer Iv ( 216th sturmpanzer abt. ), StuG III 9 Fkl Kp. 313 and 314 ) and a Stab with panzer III.
Also take an educated guess to how many ferdiands were lost in Italy due to unreliability, here's a hint not much.
@Dreachon He passed away in 2008, so all I know is he was in the heavy panzerjager regiment 656 with 90 elefants, and he only fought in Ponyri if thats of any help. and to counter you no explosive destruction in close quarters, argument, his ferdindand was taken out via sticky bomb on the wheels, and stray shrapnel was imbeded in his right leg. so dont give me any shit about elefants were never taken out in close quarters. because thats simply not true.
@Dreachon and read what xNexus65x said "most Elefants were destroyed by their own crews after mechanical failures." Me and my great uncle could not have agreed more.
@Dreachon oh and this guy pwner9999 "I completely agree with you but just want to add a negative thing about the Elefant too, mechanically it was quite unreliable, making it sometimes disliked by Panzer crews."
@Dreachon and snyp0r65 "sadly, that's correct. Although they destroyed many Russian tanks, they performed quite poorly in other respects. Within the first four days nearly half of the vehicles were out of service, mostly due to technical problems and mine damage to tracks and suspensions. Most damaged Ferdinands had to be abandoned as they were too heavy to tow and others were lost to mechanical breakdown during the retreat."
@Dreachon Hey I was reaserching on the Elefant/Ferdinand, and i've actually discovered that they were slightly different vehicles... the difference being, the elefant was better. I believe my great uncle (Fritz Aachen) drove a "Ferdinand", and had problems with that. I will agree that the "Elefant" was a very effective combat vehicle that did not get all the credit it deserved.
There is a series of modeficaties, Elefant is generally the therm used for the vehicle after they were modernised in early 1944.
Amongst other a cupola was adeed, hull machine gun, also modifications or replacing the engines I believe, I need my books for the full list of what was done to them.
Elefant like the Ferdinand performed exceptionally well provided they were in the right kind of situation, generally at a nice distance op open grounds.
It's hard to say, the Elefant is more likely to have seen the more favorable conditions but even then in late 1943 Ferdinands were making a mess of soviet armour during the long fighting withdrawl.
I do agree though that several of the modifications were crucial like the commanders cupola and improved engines.
The white paint would seem to indicate that this tank served on the eastern front however I believe this tank was captured by the US in Anzio. Perhaps it was painted afterword during testing.
whatever the reason it has in fact since been restored with a freshly painted camouflage. However I was under the impression it was only a visual restoration and that it doesn't run.
This is a one of a kind video. That doesn't even look like the main Aberdeen site... was this in a seperate area? I wonder what the deal is with the paint.... it doesn't look original does it?
What a beautiful old machine. If I had the money I'd buy and restore it. Maybe some day the bovington tank museum will save it as Ferdinands are very rare.
they destroyed many Russian tanks. Actual combat losses to direct Soviet action were very low as the Elefant's very thick armor protected it from almost all antitank weaponry. In terms of kills per loss, the Elefant might well have been the most successful tank destroyer employed during the war a ratio of 10:1. This impressive ratio was primarily due to its extreme firepower/protection ratio, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in a defensive role.
I completely agree with you but just want to add a negative thing about the Elefant too, mechanically it was quite unreliable, making it sometimes disliked by Panzer crews.
sadly, that's correct. Although they destroyed many Russian tanks, they performed quite poorly in other respects. Within the first four days nearly half of the vehicles were out of service, mostly due to technical problems and mine damage to tracks and suspensions. Most damaged Ferdinands had to be abandoned as they were too heavy to tow and others were lost to mechanical breakdown during the retreat.
true indeed =) but I just wish to point out that the Jagdpanter had very few mechanical problems. but maybe thats because it didnt move around much xD mostly used as a ambush weapon
the StuG III G was superior to the soviet tanks at the time (T34/KV-1). Notice hat the T34 was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the StuG III G! The early 76,2 mm gun of the T34 could penetrate maximum only 62mm at short distance (ca. 500 m). Too bad, the frontal armour of the Stug III G was 80mm: ;)
therefore, the Sturmgeschützt armed with the powerful L/48 gun was able to destroy a T34 from disctance of 1,200 meters from all edges.
It's sad to see these pieces of history just sitting around like this. I wish they would restore them to working order. I mean seriously, only two left, and all they do is let it sit there?
The idea of not having a moveable turret is that it allows more armor to be put on, without the weak points between turret and body, and it's also easier to produce.
The StuG III was one of the most successful vehicles in the war. Low profile, good armor protection, and in the early days the best bet against the KV-1 and T-34.
Yes, not having a turret has drawbacks, but advantages, too.
I don't think was really used as howitzer but tank destroyer because of high velocity gun L71 which was even better than the infamuos flak 88. The poor mobility was the problem and just 25 grades angle of the gun also.
Because of huge recoil the backhatch needs to be open in the time of the shooting.
Anyway the L/71 gun was the best thing of it that's way probably on the latests improvements they added an 3 tones round shield to protect the barell sysytem.
As I heard it the problem with the Elefant was the fact it had no secondary armament like a bow gun or a machinegun on the top, so anyone could get up close to take it out like throwing a grenade or Molotov inside. Now imagine yourself walking around it during a battle!
the elefant had a self defense machine gun but it was coaxial meaning it could only fire in the direction the main gun was pointing.(dumb) and like arty pieces of now day you wouldnt find this thing fighting in the front lines with the infantry.
Thanks for pointing it out. Come to think about it it looks as if the gun itself is fixed in position rather then designed with a movable turent like some American tank destroyers.
I collect die cast tanks and fighting vehicles and the elefant looks awesome but looks like they didn't put too much thinking into the design. just like all the jagd series the turret doesnt move unless the whole thing moves in the direction of the target.
With that said does the gun itself have a long range? It might only be useful if it had a long range gun, hence it might have been useful as mobile artillery.
@t37able45 Very true the armor was poor at times, however, the service length of the Sherman despite it's flaws could be improved upon with addition of armor and changes in armament. The problem with German armor was that it was too few and too specialized. The Shermans were knocked out but there were a lot more of them, they were easily hidden, and the crews that survived learned to fight on. I will say this however, captured German tanks were used on occasion, but they specialized.
this one was restored for museum display not to long ago....it was on tank overhaul....it was hit deveral times and the hits are painted in silver so they can be seen.
Comment removed
MrEkshin 2 months ago
where is that?
motomorfo 4 months ago
Love this vehicle
TalonMercenary 4 months ago
ok someone REALLY needs to give that beast a decent paint job...at least grey or desert camo for gods sake!
98bennyj 5 months ago
@98bennyj
Why should it given those given they never had panzer grey, they arrived after dark yellow became the standerd and they never saw service in the desert, 3 tone camo is the only right thing for the Elefant.
Dreachon 4 months ago
@Dreachon ok! thanks for lettin me know!
98bennyj 3 months ago
@0willsy01 Then are you also saying that the T34 was also the Worst Tank, since they were pressed into battle right away after each one was produced during the Battle of Stalingrad?
EvilFingers 6 months ago
@0willsy01 It was the Worst Tank, because what other German Tank that went into Battle, especially in a Major Offensive such as Kursk without a Machine Gun to defend itself from enemy infantry?
Also, it is known that the engine and the suspension was not designed for the added weight of the L/71 88 and upper superstructer, because originally, the chassis was designed to be the Tiger I.
And heres the catch about the Elefant, it was used for the wrong purpose.
EvilFingers 6 months ago
@EvilFingers
Oh how about the StuG, same goes for just about every other russian assault gun, calling it the worst tank just because it no MG mounted int he hull is just dumb.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon Early model Stug III with the short barrel 75 didnt have machine guns, because they were accompanied by German Troops, later model StuGs had machine guns and a High Velocity 75, they were more cheaper and easier to mass produce and more effective because of their size compared to the Elefant, also no one takes to account that the Elefant was put together in Haste and rushed to the front, and its debut at Kursk was its test and most failed due to mechanical problems on the battlefield
EvilFingers 6 months ago
@EvilFingers
The hull MG didn't appear until 1943 with the ausf. G, and yes they were also often without infantry support as the StuG's belong to independent formations, it's the same with the Elefant, for it's role the Elefant didn't need close infantry support.
Also despite their mechanical problems they perfromed well, they couldn't be taken out by artillery or anti-tank guns, their guns were powerfull and accurate enough to tackle any tank threat.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@EvilFingers
As for infantry the Elefants carried FE shells with them and in the 654 combathistory book there is an account of firing these, coupled with the Ferdinands accuracry they caused considerable damage to infantry formations.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon Thats only within Firing Range of the 88, but in close proximity of the Elefant, the barrel can not go down any further, thus rendering the Main Gun from being fired on incoming infantry, and like I said before, the Elefant had no Secondary Armament when it went into battle at Kursk to keep Russian Infantry from getting closer, also there were other problems that made the Elefant less effective as it was hoped for, especially when there were no recovery vehicles for a downed Elefant.
EvilFingers 6 months ago
@EvilFingers
Again the Elefants main gun could depress low enough to tackle infantry at combat ranges, within that range it become hard even for other vehicles, StuG III had even less depression that the Elefant
Again you are wrong about having no other armerment as all Ferdinand did carry an MG-34 within the vehicle itself.
Again this fixation of your with the Elefant not beeing able to deal with infantry when it never envisioned to deal with them in the first place.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@EvilFingers
It's also rather dumb that you base the entrie performance of the Elefant throught the war, that's 2 years of serive on just not having a MG in the hull at Kursk while completely ignoring the vast amount of russian rants they knocked out on the eastern front, during the withdrawls following Kursk it were often 2 to 3 Ferdinands that stopped company after company of armour buying precious time for others to get away.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon Its no one's Fault that the Germans forgot to place in an MG, but that wasnt the only thing that made the Elefant look bad, its overall weight, mechanical problems fuel consumption also contributed to its poor performance as an Offensive Weapon, and why do you think less than 100 were ever produced in those 2 years in service compared to the StuG III and IV, because they were more faster to build and more versatile than the Elefant
EvilFingers 6 months ago
@EvilFingers
If I had any question with regards to you not knowing what you are talking about then now i have the proof, the Ferdiandn was build on th rejected chassis of the Tiger I porsche.
It was never ever going to see more unless the Tiger Porsche had gone into production as well.
And yet again this complete and uetter fixation on no hull MG, your starting to sound like a bad grammophone, just repeating the same nonsense, it didn't impact the Ferdinands that much at Kursk.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@0willsy01 And the Russians were able to replace those losses without any problems, where as the Germans were not able to replace their losses after Kursk was over.
EvilFingers 6 months ago
Федя
TYZWillbe 6 months ago
Is This a Ferdinand ?
Joeasia1981 7 months ago
@Joeasia1981 yes, same machine got two different names.
roaklin 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheSaturnV 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Joeasia1981 No, it's the Elefant. Ferdinand did not have a bow machine gun. After the Ferdinands were overrun by Russian infantry at Kursk, the remaining examples were sent back for refit and the MG you see in this video (gun itself is gone) is the result. Long story, but this is the Elefant version.
TheSaturnV 7 months ago
Пушка стоковая у Феди )))
Sam56Oren 7 months ago
@Suppentrulli501 elefant.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
Как у них под Курском взрывался боеуклад то хорошо
SeregaAli 7 months ago
Check my channel for the Elephant Restoration Documentary
bunsinh456 7 months ago
"Федя" :)))
MakcSib 8 months ago
@MakcSib затем идет ЯгТигр)))
SeregaAli 7 months ago
@SeregaAli конечно,дальше только Яга ))Бог немецких ПТ ;))
MakcSib 7 months ago
@MakcSib
ну))))
SeregaAli 7 months ago
Фердинант!...
BULLETUBEwg 8 months ago
Caman!What the hell? THAT is a beautiful piece of iron!
calara5226 8 months ago
What a waste too see it rusting out in open it should be protected from the weather for future generations to see.
terrabeg 8 months ago
doch das is einer
denehtor 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ferdinand,
sero131 9 months ago
@spirit774
That was just the name it was built under, and the name of the man who designed it.
gtikounaify 9 months ago
@12thssmaus
where is the different between it and Ferdinand?
BigMete0r 9 months ago
@BigMete0r
Basily the difference lies in that the Ferdinand was the vehicle in it's first form that saw action at Kursk in 1943.
The name elefant although it is not linked to the upgrading that took place in early 1944 refers to the then upgraded version, hull mounted MG, commander cupola and zimmerit.
Dreachon 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
BigMete0r 9 months ago
it was later renamed the elefant
yet they are a ferdinand
TeHDeStrOyER101 9 months ago
@spirit774 Elefant and Ferdinand different. Large difference between the two being the addition of an anti-personnel machine gun on the Elefant. Ferdinand did not have this feature.
columnsx 9 months ago
I really enjoy watching the Tank Overhaul episodes as they do incredible work. (Thanks guys). However, the paint scheme on the Elefant just does not do it justice. I would have attempted a "Giraffe" pattern.
Panzer4F2 9 months ago
@spirit774 Easy to differ these - Ferdinand dont have hull MG
JURAHELL 10 months ago
Looks like it needs some TLC.
anvilofcrom 10 months ago
looks more like it's abandoned than kept in a museum.
peeeveli 1 year ago
its in fort lee now
Imachowderhead 1 year ago
Why hasn't it been looked after? It's so rare and needs preserving.
soundslave 1 year ago
Comment removed
soundslave 1 year ago
Man man man....ist das jämmerlich...verkaufe diesen Elefant Panzer an jemanden der Geld hat um es zu restaurieren...das kann man doch nicht mit anschauen wie er da vor sich hin gammelt...oder verschenke ihn an jemanden der es restauriert...immer noch besser als ohne Grund zu rotten...traurig, traurig!!
Falke40lg 1 year ago
Cripes Sake! With all the frigging money we pay in taxes and given to the military this is best they do to preserve one of two surviving examples of the Elephant? A frigging disaster and disgrace of a wreck. Who the hell do we start bitching too about this?
Torpedoeight 1 year ago
they should really restore this beatiful piece of history
MrWryyyy 1 year ago
Fact: The very first bomb dropped by the Allies on Berlin in World War II killed the only elephant in the Berlin Zoo.
kolaidman67 1 year ago
Is this the same one they restored on Tank Overhaul?
GCOLE2 1 year ago
@GCOLE2 They dident restore it...they just sanblasted it and gave it a shit paint job.....
12thssmaus 1 year ago 8
@12thssmaus don't believe there are any spare part to make it run. I think there are only two left in the world.
pacman5213 1 year ago
@pacman5213 make new ones
Dominykas14 1 year ago
@12thssmaus what a pity :-(
deckarudo 7 months ago
@12thssmaus - sad to see them ruin that tank in a American style restoration
hideous62 5 months ago
@12thssmaus worse thing i saw that show - all i could think was - it's American
hideous62 5 months ago
This Elefant tank has now been restored and is still at the aberdeen proving ground, the other is in Russia. There was only 90 Elefant built and designed by Ferdinand as a tank destroyer. This tank lost the competiton for a new tank that could house the 88mm gun but seeing as Germany needed all the tanks they could get, was thrown into action at the battle of Kursk.
YummyBreadSticks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was a shit tank destroyer type vehicle in WW2 absolute shit thats why they only made like 100 of them
MeatstickRob88 1 year ago
@MeatstickRob88 Are you really that dumb…..
12thssmaus 1 year ago 8
@12thssmaus yes he is... :D
there were "only" made 1350 tiger tanks, was it a shitty tank...NO !
such a idiot
SotaJumalan 1 year ago
@MeatstickRob88 There was 91 built and the reason is they are the old early prototype Porshe model and there was 91 hulls that weren't used cause another company built the Tigers so they thru and gun on it and went with it cause they had them
DaManzMoney 1 year ago
@MeatstickRob88 Lol. Fool.
jeebateeba56 1 year ago
@MeatstickRob88
May I suggest that next time you make a statement to makes you look like an uneducated fool you actually read a good book regarding the subject.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@MeatstickRob88 the elefant tank was not a shit tank. it was produced in mid 1943-1944 and the k/d ratio was 12/1 every 1 elefant tank that was blown up there was 12 soviet tanks blown up. in my opinion the elefant tank was a great tank but it suffered the most critical problem, mechanical break downs. the suspension wasn't strong enough and the engine wasn't strong enough. but the elefant tank suffered more losses to mechanical problems than enemy tanks.
lovefishin101 1 year ago
@MeatstickRob88 You're a fucking idiot.
They were great at destroying tanks.
l0nelydude 1 year ago
@Suppentrulli501 Elefant, it was an Anti-Tank-Self-propelled-Gun (Panzerjäger), based on the chassis of a Tiger I, carrying an 88mm Flak-Gun and being heavily armored it was first presented during the battle for Kursk 1943. It proved inefficient due to the lack of a machine Gun and malfunctioning mechanics. The vehicle is also known as "Ferdinand".
GendPzTrSchmidt 1 year ago
@Suppentrulli501 No
12thssmaus 1 year ago 2
Thats almost where it was ..haha
12thssmaus 1 year ago
looks like u just found it on a farmers field XD
heisenfeis 1 year ago
@heisenfeis It's in a big field next to the army ordnance museum.
seanson38 1 year ago
We are building a Tiger 1. web page is comming. Tiger 313 is being reborn.
tron2102 1 year ago
nice video dude
TELORINODELHOYO 1 year ago
Geil!!!
Panzerturm 1 year ago
That elephant is coming to fort lee va..
wilhelm1974 1 year ago
schade könnte mal ne vernüftige Restauration gebrauchen.
michaeldergroe 2 years ago 2
jo, so sinds hald die amis, schau dir mal die Go 229 im Smithonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC an, die haben diesen Prototypen eiskalt "dreissig"Jahre draussen stehen lassen. theese noobs!
buxi4 1 year ago
This was at APG Museum in 2009, it is now gone to storage depot.
canary11141 2 years ago
Man the army needs to let this one go to a collector so they can re biuld it and put it under cover.
commanderbacara198 2 years ago 6
hmmm is this the one they had in the musuem years ago? Why is it in this bad condition? I remember this tank looked much better when I was at Aberdeen PG in the 90's
66mra 2 years ago
Im a former marine / TOW 2 tech and was stationed there for optics school in 1992. I remember they had quite a few tanks outside just rusting away and thought what a waste it was to keep them outside in the elements like that. Most of the ww2 tanks were painted white/grey and looked much better than this from what i can remember.
as a side note, I remember looking out my classroom window at a train with several captured T-72s coming from iraq. i cant believe its been 18 years now...
willypete2171 2 years ago
i take that back. I was there May of 1991.
willypete2171 2 years ago
Besides every bad thing written about this tank destroyer, the elephants were credited with over 500 kills during Kursk.
Attila709 2 years ago
Curiously enough, after viewing this video several days ago I saw a special on the Military Channel where Aberdeen restored this vehicle.
It was a great story and it look beautiful when they were finished. They were given some rediculous time and budget restraints but they pulled it off.
swordofdixie 2 years ago
link S.V.P.
88Thyra 2 years ago
Why is this left outdoors?????
This is a Historic relic !!!
He who wins writes the history books. Regretably I write , VAE VICTUS
88Thyra 2 years ago 7
We're spending too much money teaching blacks in Africa how not to get AIDS to preserve such historic relics as this sitting in our own country.
swordofdixie 2 years ago
painfully true ..
88Thyra 2 years ago
She was made to fight outdoors really. I agree tho.
sufkiller 2 years ago
This is awesome!
Self propelled death.
Those Krauts could really build some impressive sh*t.
They should get it to run and fire again.
Thanks!
the82spartans 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stupid tank really . i didnt have eny machine guns no infantry just ran over it .
joshuahimself 2 years ago
stupid comment really, its a friggin self-propelled Anti Tank gun, not a "stupid tank"
2boredfortv 2 years ago 7
learn how to spell
elvenarcher101 2 years ago
well,apparently you are a lot more stupid than that tank,or you have no eyes.Cause in the front,there is A MACHINE GUN. And also this was meant as fire support,it wouldn't have been uses against infantry
ANAstarproductions 2 years ago
@ANAstarproductions nooo thats not a machine gun thats a vision port you are the stupid one
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
This beast might be the best tank destroyer during WW2 only in terms of kills per losses, it reached even a better kill to loss ratio than the Jagdpanther or any other tank destroyer during the whole war! in 1943 during the battle of Kursk, only 84 Elefants were used by the 653. Jägerpanzerbattalion and 654. Jägerpanzerbattalion. both battalions destroyed 556 soviet tanks and 1,200 guns/artillery pieces! most Elefants were destroyed by their own crews after mechanical failures.
xNexus65x 2 years ago 28
@xNexus65x ABSOLUTELY NOT. the elefant was terrible.it had no machine guns, so enemys could just walk up and put a mine on it. plus production was hurried so they often broke down before even seeing action. ponderous mobility also made them EASY targets for russian tank crews. it also had very little armor (50mm) whoever you got your facts from is a bone head and i would not believe every thing he says. with my my great uncle being German, and have driven one you should just trust me.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Doubtfull, enemy infantry did not approach them as they were scared of them, no molotov were ever thrown on their engine decks.
What easy targets, Elefants did get into close brawls with enemy armour.
Also only 50mm, what are you smoking, frontal armour was 200mm, side and rear were 80mm thick.
They didn't break down before action, both battalion were at full operational strenght at the start of the battle excluding those vehicles that still needed to be delivered.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon look, bottom line is,my great uncle drove one and he couldn't tell you how many colligues of his died in one of those because of lack of proper armor, (frontal armor may be thick, but they were slow so enemys could easily out flank them and hit the side armor) or because of malfunctions, and russians just tossing in a molitov. and they wouldnt be scared of them they had no close combat defense so if anything they viewed elefants as mobile (barely) flaming wrecks wating to happen.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@Dreachon And no front was 200 but side and rear were 50. you pulled 80mm right out of your ass and you know it.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Side and rear is 80mm thick, if anyone is pulling from their ass it's you, check every available resource on the Elefant.
I know for sure now that your lying as you are just repeating myths, no Elefants were lost to enemy infantry running at them with molotovs.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
If anyone is pulling from their ass it's you, look at any other reference material on the Ferdinand/Elefant all will tell you it's 80mm thick.
Also no russian infantry charegd at an Ferdinand with a molotov, that is just fiction, I have a lot of personal memoirs from crews of both the 653rd and the 654th during the Kursk operation.
Do tell the name of your Uncle and we will be able to find his name on the rosters of the batalion.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon driver, Fritz Aachen, and he was from the 656th panzerjager regiment.
reference book armoured fighting vehicles by philip trewhitt states that armor on sides and rear is 50mm
"In addion, the lack of machine guns meant that there was no defence against Soviet troops disabling them with explosive charges in close quarter combat. The survivors were withdrawn to Italy, where unreliability and lack of spares ensured their continued innefectiveness," is an exact quote from that book.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Than I have to say that he is an incompetent writher given that is nothing but junk that he writhes.
1st. Check references from Jentz or the superb combathistory of the 653rd schwere panzerjager abteilung by Karlheinz Munch.
2nd. No elefants were lost to enemy infantry with explosieve charges, it's just myth, check the combat histories, they record every ferdinand used.
3rd. Ferdinand kept fighting until december 43 before returning to the Nibelungen works for overhaul
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon And I believe trewhitt is refering to the top section of the tanks side and rear armor, not the upper chassis/ lower superstructure
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Even that was all 80mm thick, just read any referenrce of mr. Jentz or get the combat history of the 653.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Ya im sure it was. my book is just as valid as those. unless your right next to it and can measure the thickness, either one can be right. oh wait, i believe I know someone who was right by a elefant. i believe that wouldbe my great uncle. and he said 50mm he would always lecture me on how if he could drive any other tank/td he would have because he hated the elefant.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
We have techincal drawings of the Ferdinands themselves shwoing 80mm of side and rear armour, why do you think that the superstructure weighed in at a massieve 16 tonnes.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Hauptmann Henning, acting commander of the 654 cited this with regards to the Ferdinands armour.
"The armour appears too strong, it seems to me that 120 to 150mm of frontal armour and 50mm of rear armour would be sufficient"
This shows that the rear armour was thicker than the 50mm
As for mr Trewhitt book, it seems it get's average scores, mainly due to "poor reference, lots of misinformation and errors" given by those that seem to have read it.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
As for your uncle's only reference of Ponyri sadly doesn't help much as it seems both the 653 and 654 had clashes there.
Was he deployed anywere after the fighting there, personally given on that you mention him fighting only there it's likely he served with the 654th and that he later could have driven a jagdpanther which did have 50mm of side armour, would have likely seen him on the western front agaisnt UK or US forces were "sticky bombs" common.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon the shrapnel in his leg put him out of service so he didnt see any after Ponyri. and he didnt see the bomb so he mentioned it couldve been anything like a magnetic mine (i don't think the elefant had anti-magnetic paint) or a grenade put on the top side of the tracks (the tank wasnt moving) also where are the reviews of the book. I would like to see them myself. finaly niether of us is going to change our oppinions I can see so i suggest we no longer argue about about the tanks armor
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Overhaul started on 19th January 1944.
4th Only the 1st company was sent to Italy with 11 vehicles, the remaining ones were after completing sent back to fight in Russia again.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@SwissCheese707
Also be more specific, which of the 2 battaliosn did he belong 2, 653 or 654, the 656th consisted of more than just ferdiandns ( 653 and 654 ) there were sturmpanzer Iv ( 216th sturmpanzer abt. ), StuG III 9 Fkl Kp. 313 and 314 ) and a Stab with panzer III.
Also take an educated guess to how many ferdiands were lost in Italy due to unreliability, here's a hint not much.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon He passed away in 2008, so all I know is he was in the heavy panzerjager regiment 656 with 90 elefants, and he only fought in Ponyri if thats of any help. and to counter you no explosive destruction in close quarters, argument, his ferdindand was taken out via sticky bomb on the wheels, and stray shrapnel was imbeded in his right leg. so dont give me any shit about elefants were never taken out in close quarters. because thats simply not true.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@Dreachon Andby the way elefantsdid not have to be in "close brawls," skilled enemy td or tank crews could hit one from hundreds of dekameters away.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon and read what xNexus65x said "most Elefants were destroyed by their own crews after mechanical failures." Me and my great uncle could not have agreed more.
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon oh and this guy pwner9999 "I completely agree with you but just want to add a negative thing about the Elefant too, mechanically it was quite unreliable, making it sometimes disliked by Panzer crews."
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon and snyp0r65 "sadly, that's correct. Although they destroyed many Russian tanks, they performed quite poorly in other respects. Within the first four days nearly half of the vehicles were out of service, mostly due to technical problems and mine damage to tracks and suspensions. Most damaged Ferdinands had to be abandoned as they were too heavy to tow and others were lost to mechanical breakdown during the retreat."
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
@Dreachon Hey I was reaserching on the Elefant/Ferdinand, and i've actually discovered that they were slightly different vehicles... the difference being, the elefant was better. I believe my great uncle (Fritz Aachen) drove a "Ferdinand", and had problems with that. I will agree that the "Elefant" was a very effective combat vehicle that did not get all the credit it deserved.
SwissCheese707 6 months ago
@SwissCheese707
There is a series of modeficaties, Elefant is generally the therm used for the vehicle after they were modernised in early 1944.
Amongst other a cupola was adeed, hull machine gun, also modifications or replacing the engines I believe, I need my books for the full list of what was done to them.
Elefant like the Ferdinand performed exceptionally well provided they were in the right kind of situation, generally at a nice distance op open grounds.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon But can we at least agree that the Ferdindand was the lesser performing vehicle of the two?
SwissCheese707 6 months ago
@SwissCheese707
It's hard to say, the Elefant is more likely to have seen the more favorable conditions but even then in late 1943 Ferdinands were making a mess of soviet armour during the long fighting withdrawl.
I do agree though that several of the modifications were crucial like the commanders cupola and improved engines.
Dreachon 6 months ago
these things had armour up to 250MM thick!! craaaaaaaazy
wewillrockyou92 2 years ago 2
@wewillrockyou92 200 max and thats only front
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
Do you work for APG? This must have been shot on site. Please shoot the J Walter Christy thats in storage.
canary11141 2 years ago
The white paint would seem to indicate that this tank served on the eastern front however I believe this tank was captured by the US in Anzio. Perhaps it was painted afterword during testing.
whatever the reason it has in fact since been restored with a freshly painted camouflage. However I was under the impression it was only a visual restoration and that it doesn't run.
EGdriver 2 years ago
Most of the tanks at Aberdeen Proving Grounds are painted this colour (German, US, USSR, etc), it is apparently their default colour.
beetstreet4 2 years ago
This is a one of a kind video. That doesn't even look like the main Aberdeen site... was this in a seperate area? I wonder what the deal is with the paint.... it doesn't look original does it?
lorirocks777 2 years ago
What a beautiful old machine. If I had the money I'd buy and restore it. Maybe some day the bovington tank museum will save it as Ferdinands are very rare.
DushBuff99 2 years ago 2
i lived in apg for three years there's alot of old tanks and other things there
gamerzx2 2 years ago
This Elephant is on display at Aberdeen.
canary11141 2 years ago
It has been restored but it is not in running order
12thssmaus 2 years ago
ones of my most favorite tanks, next to the marder. This tank has a beautifle design!!just awesome
WWIIAustrailianTroop 2 years ago 5
this has been restored it was on discovery tank overhaul
mozza250 2 years ago 5
why is it just standing there rotting away, such a rare vehicle should be restored!
what are they thinking? money problems?
ApocDevTeam 2 years ago 25
I agree
funkiestmonkeyIRL 2 years ago 2
This Elephant has been externally restored for static display.
Bullseyearchery 2 years ago
Let's see, about 100,000 for the motor. 100,000 for the parts. Did I mention the treads?
CoolDog202 2 years ago
this was just on tank overhaul
beerbaron101 2 years ago 3
You do know that this particular Elefant has been restored 2 years after this video (2008-2009) It now looks awesome and the engine works well.
ferrarithief 2 years ago
@ApocDevTeam Type in Restored Elefant and u will see this after it was redone but no in running condition
DaManzMoney 1 year ago
bring it fast bag to her homeland Germany oh my god ,
Schlachtkreutzer 2 years ago
And now to the Elefant Jagdpanzer:
they destroyed many Russian tanks. Actual combat losses to direct Soviet action were very low as the Elefant's very thick armor protected it from almost all antitank weaponry. In terms of kills per loss, the Elefant might well have been the most successful tank destroyer employed during the war a ratio of 10:1. This impressive ratio was primarily due to its extreme firepower/protection ratio, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in a defensive role.
snyp0r65 2 years ago
I completely agree with you but just want to add a negative thing about the Elefant too, mechanically it was quite unreliable, making it sometimes disliked by Panzer crews.
pwner9999 2 years ago
sadly, that's correct. Although they destroyed many Russian tanks, they performed quite poorly in other respects. Within the first four days nearly half of the vehicles were out of service, mostly due to technical problems and mine damage to tracks and suspensions. Most damaged Ferdinands had to be abandoned as they were too heavy to tow and others were lost to mechanical breakdown during the retreat.
snyp0r65 2 years ago
Nothing unusual for the German tanks/tank destroyers of that time XD
blasty137 2 years ago 3
true indeed =) but I just wish to point out that the Jagdpanter had very few mechanical problems. but maybe thats because it didnt move around much xD mostly used as a ambush weapon
DiiCommander 2 years ago
i totally agree with you, DevSolar!
the StuG III G was superior to the soviet tanks at the time (T34/KV-1). Notice hat the T34 was unable to penetrate the frontal armor of the StuG III G! The early 76,2 mm gun of the T34 could penetrate maximum only 62mm at short distance (ca. 500 m). Too bad, the frontal armour of the Stug III G was 80mm: ;)
therefore, the Sturmgeschützt armed with the powerful L/48 gun was able to destroy a T34 from disctance of 1,200 meters from all edges.
snyp0r65 2 years ago
It's sad to see these pieces of history just sitting around like this. I wish they would restore them to working order. I mean seriously, only two left, and all they do is let it sit there?
comradecaptaincrunch 2 years ago
This tank itself Was restored.
I saw it getting restored in tank overhaul.
potnude 2 years ago
The idea of not having a moveable turret is that it allows more armor to be put on, without the weak points between turret and body, and it's also easier to produce.
The StuG III was one of the most successful vehicles in the war. Low profile, good armor protection, and in the early days the best bet against the KV-1 and T-34.
Yes, not having a turret has drawbacks, but advantages, too.
DevSolar 2 years ago 3
I don't think was really used as howitzer but tank destroyer because of high velocity gun L71 which was even better than the infamuos flak 88. The poor mobility was the problem and just 25 grades angle of the gun also.
Because of huge recoil the backhatch needs to be open in the time of the shooting.
Anyway the L/71 gun was the best thing of it that's way probably on the latests improvements they added an 3 tones round shield to protect the barell sysytem.
Juarezoll 2 years ago
I saw this tank itself on tank overhau, in tv.
They are restoring her.
potnude 2 years ago
I meant 'Tank overhaul'
potnude 2 years ago
As I heard it the problem with the Elefant was the fact it had no secondary armament like a bow gun or a machinegun on the top, so anyone could get up close to take it out like throwing a grenade or Molotov inside. Now imagine yourself walking around it during a battle!
schizoidboy 2 years ago
the elefant had a self defense machine gun but it was coaxial meaning it could only fire in the direction the main gun was pointing.(dumb) and like arty pieces of now day you wouldnt find this thing fighting in the front lines with the infantry.
it was a self propelled gun or arty piece.
nrmejia 2 years ago
Thanks for pointing it out. Come to think about it it looks as if the gun itself is fixed in position rather then designed with a movable turent like some American tank destroyers.
schizoidboy 2 years ago
I collect die cast tanks and fighting vehicles and the elefant looks awesome but looks like they didn't put too much thinking into the design. just like all the jagd series the turret doesnt move unless the whole thing moves in the direction of the target.
nrmejia 2 years ago
With that said does the gun itself have a long range? It might only be useful if it had a long range gun, hence it might have been useful as mobile artillery.
schizoidboy 2 years ago
yeah that was the only purpose of it.
it was a self propelled artillery like the paladin that we have now days. look uo self propelled howitzer and you will see the similar designs
nrmejia 2 years ago
thanks for your reply, incidentally I think the M109 has a turnet that can turn but I do see the comparison.
schizoidboy 2 years ago
no it didnt have a coax gun,they were sent to have coax fitted but by then only 30 existed
royalsignaller101 2 years ago
actually it was a tank destroyer,it didnt fire arty shells only 88mm,also it couldnt be fired indirectly
royalsignaller101 2 years ago
Would like to ear about an american tank destroyer...Shermann....?...Ronson tank...makes me laugh
t37able45 1 year ago
@t37able45 Very true the armor was poor at times, however, the service length of the Sherman despite it's flaws could be improved upon with addition of armor and changes in armament. The problem with German armor was that it was too few and too specialized. The Shermans were knocked out but there were a lot more of them, they were easily hidden, and the crews that survived learned to fight on. I will say this however, captured German tanks were used on occasion, but they specialized.
schizoidboy 1 year ago
@t37able45 M18 fastest armored vehicle in the entire war. even faster than wheeled vehicles
SwissCheese707 7 months ago
awesome video
lorirocks777 2 years ago
is this the one that was restorded on the show Tank Overhall on the Military Channel?
HaloMuderKing 2 years ago
yep
HAWKEYE8430 2 years ago
that tank looks amazing restored
HaloMuderKing 2 years ago
Dai ma come è tenuto male. un pezzo di storia rovinato cosi =(
zlorfik87 2 years ago
this one was restored for museum display not to long ago....it was on tank overhaul....it was hit deveral times and the hits are painted in silver so they can be seen.
DULDEN85 2 years ago