Join me in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S by using this link playwt.link/milhistvis and get a premium tank or aircraft and three days of premium time as a bonus.
That game is currently just a P2W unbalanced cashgrab, where vehicles like Ferdinand have stupidly high repair cost due to their battle performance being quite high. Sadly, this braindead solution was favoured by the devs, because it also increases the demand for currency, thus increasing their profit...
That's a great line, but wow CoH looks bad since Steel Division 2 is out. Having a game with somewhat realistic ranges is such a huge improvement. Sadly the Elefant is locked in a 5€ DLC there and its division is just mediocre, but I love it. Even in 1944 that gun and armour are crazy.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N steel division 2 is more of a wargame than a squad based RTS, comparing the two beyond unit line memorability is a bit fruitless and I think SD2 would lose in that department, wargame's got boring unit voices.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Well, you never know. Absence of proof is no proof of absence, as they say in the streets ... *dangles around an old key ring"
Don't forget interservice rivalrys for control of vehicles. That's why you have the Sturmpanzer "Brummbar" under panzer control even when the StuG/StuH existed.
@@Marlene-ou5ol i'll try to explain it. a tank destroyer may or may not have sufficient armor, has to have superior firepower to the equivalent tank [i based on a light tank, the firepower of a medium tank, for example], may or may not have a roof and may or may not be able to fire in a full 360 degree horisontal plane. a tank has to have sufficient armor [with the exception of light tanks], has to have a roof and has to have the ability to fire in a full 360 degree horizontal plane. ofcourse, there are some exception to both of these, mainly to do with either early tanks or improvised tank destroyers... and the swedish strv 103. There is also modern tank destroyers that are, more commonly than not, just IFV's or other light vehicles equipped with anti-tank rockets.
My grandfather was a tank driver in 653, formerly Assault Gun Division 197. As far as I can remember, he always has the name Ferdinand. Overall, he only spoke positively about the vehicle. He felt very safe in it in comparison. During the mission in Italy he was the driver of the "Abschleppanzer". He liked this vehicle even more because of its lower weight! Unfortunately I was very young when he died and I missed the opportunity to ask a lot of questions.
Soviet field reports from Kursk had an important caveat about Ferdinand’s armour: internal fuel tanks were located beneath side armour, which could be ignited by kinetic force of impact of guns as small as 45mm, even if the shell itself did not penetrate.
5:45 you are the first historian to properly compare a gun to the armor of its adversaries. Always, I see comparisons between guns of adversaries and comparisons of armor tank-to-tank. Thank you for telling the actual story.
One of the best parts of this channel are the remarkably understandable mini graphic symbols. It goes a long way towards illustrating the concepts discussed. Creatively unique.
@aspielm Commenting helps a video in the algorithm. That was known long before Spiff's experiment. His was about community polls and triple interaction. In regular videos, how a video is viewed favorably in the algorithm can be represented by the following list (least favorable to most favorable): - Just watching - Leaving a like OR commenting - Leaving a like AND commenting (This ignores a bunch of other factors like CTR and total watch time, but you get the point). Leaving a like and commenting is considered a double interaction, and the algorithm views the video much more favorably as a consequence.
In defense of the Ferdinand/Elefant, it was a one-off conversion that was intended to make use of some spare Tiger prototypes and never entered production because even the Germans realized it was a very flawed vehicle.
I am glad that MHV addressed this myth and clarified things. I don't think it was so flawed and I very much doubt that the Germans were aware of the main problem aka weight (JagtTiger , Maus , Tiger2).
»» Corrections «« > At 5:43 I say 90 degree angle instead of 30 degree as depicted in text, the latter is correct. Thanks to Galtur and others pointing this out.
Greetings MHV! I've a question on the armor value for the M4A3 in the video, around the 6:01 mark. It is listed that the armor thickness is 61mm, but by 1944 particularly all M4A3 production had moved to the 2.5" RHA plate angled at 47 degrees from the vertical. If we convert this to millimeters we get (25.4)(2.5) = 63.5mm. Finally if we account for trigonometry we get 63.5 / cos(47) = 93.1087... = 93.11mm. This of course doesn't change the point you are making at all in the video, and this is a nit-pick more than anything, but I'm curious as to why you used the 61mm value, and where this number is coming from. Any insight you can offer is greatly appreciated, thanks!
At 5:40 Bernhard says "Penetration angle of 90 degrees", but the key at top says 30 degrees. Key should also say 90 degrees (as spoken) as penetration is always the "best case", but tankers know that is possible if they wear every good luck charm in existence.
Yep, the utter garbage video that gets contradicted on too many point to count by actual historical documents. But that is what happens when teh creator of said video was a) too lazy to put in some actual effort, b) was too dumb to even understand it or, c) a combination of both.
This is a theory I came up with about the name change to elephant. In 1940 Allied bombing killed an elephant in Berlin, and in 1944 bombing killed 7 more, leaving only 1 left. Maybe Mr. H was feeling sentimental and decided to name a tank after them.
One unique and cool thing about the 'tank' is that being a electric drive it could go the same speed forward or backwards. So while it had problem with hills if it was in a good spot with an escape route it really could shoot and scoot.
Am I the only one who's been conditioned to think that the zoom on the kill-cam at 14:27 was going to be a Gaijined moment instead of a properly registered shot?
It is one of my 2 favorite Panzers of all time! Thank you for covering the lack of a Maschinengewehr topic which is a common misconception about this beauty.
It's interesting to note (if I remember correctly) that in one of the after action reports a Ferdinand commander believed the vehicle to be too heavily armored for its role, with the additional 100mm thick zusatzpanzer plates unnecessary. It's also notable that the Sturmpanzer-IV "Stupa" (incorrectly known as the Brumbar) that entered combat along side the Ferdinand had additional armor removed as production progressed having 50mm zusatzpanzer on the lower hull front and 20mm side hull plates dropped in order to reduce weight and increase reliability of the final drive.
I know you probably won't do this, but I would love it if u kept using footage like from warthunder or other games to show of the tank in other videos. I felt very immersed in the tour of it's features. keep up the great work.
Thanks again M.H.V for another insightful and well presented video, on a well-known but often misunderstood weapon. It's really great to get the story on a German weapons system from a native German speaker. Without the normal biases that comes with mostly only hearing from the victor's. As always nice job. Thankyou
Part 2.. After the Kursk offensive, commanders reported their problems encountered while using the Ferdinands. The main problem was the lack of machine gun in the hull for self defense made, making the Ferdinands vulnerable to attacks of enemy infantry and anti-tank units. Other features such as: the gun mount (lack of traversing turret), drive system (Porsche’s Tiger - VK4501(P)) and lack of power (weight/engine power ratio) were also giving trouble to their crews. In October of 1943, 50 survivors were sent back to the factory for badly needed repairs and pre-planned modernization. Modernization consisted of the installation of a MG34 in the hull, improvement of armor protection, installation of wider tracks and installation of commander’s cupola (developed from that of Stug III Ausf G), which provided improved visibility. Most of the Elephants were partially covered with Zimmerite, an anti-magnetic paste. Modernization was made in February and March of 1944 by Nibelungenwerke in Austria and modified Ferdinands were renamed Elephants. Officially Ferdinands were renamed Elephants in general order dated May 1st of 1944. After modernization, 48 Elephants were grouped into schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and part of it was transferred to Italy in late February of 1944. They arrived in Rome by train via Salzburg, Innsbruck, the Brenner Pass , Trento and Florence on February 24th of 1944. They saw combat at Nettuno, Anzio and Cisterna as early as March 1st of 1944. sPzJagAbt 654 was moved to France in late 1943 and rearmed with Jagdpanthers. In April of 1944, part of sPzJagAbt 653 was transferred back to the Eastern Front. In Autumn of 1944, all existing Elephants were grouped into newly created unit - schwere Heeres Panzerjager Kompanie 614, sPzJagAbt 653 was re-equipped with Jagdtigers. sPzJagAbt 614 with some 13-14 vehicles saw service on the Eastern Front as late as early 1945 and eventually all remaining (4?) Elephants saw final service with Kampfgruppe "Ritter" in area of Zossen (south of Berlin) in mid April of 1945. When employed defensively in Italy and Russia, Elephants proved to be formidable opponents. As of January 1st of 1945, there were still 4 Elephants in service of which some took part in the defence of Berlin as part of Kampfgruppe Ritter. From August to September of 1943, three of original VK4501(P) tanks (issued to sPzJagAbt 653) and in October of 1943, two retired Ferdinands were converted to Bergepanzer Tiger(P). Hulls were modified and mounted in the rear with a small superstructure (with the components of PzKpfw IV) and engines were moved to a central location. Bergetiger(P) was equipped with 2ton crane and no other special equipment.The only armament was the 7.92mm MG34 mounted in the superstructure. Elephant proved to be very effective weapon when operating at long range, for example one Elephant knocked out Soviet T-34 at the range of 4.5 kilometers. Overall, Elephant was a very advanced design, which proved to be a superb defensive weapon with an enormous firepower. Today, there is only two existing Ferdinand/Elephants, one in Kubinka, Russia (captured at Kursk) and second in Aberdeen, USA (captured at Anzio).
91 chassis were converted not 90, 1 Prototype by Alkett and 90 production models by Nibelungenwerke. Also, although the change of name(first suggested in November 1943) orders were issued in February 1944 they didn't become official until mid to late May 1944, sPzjager Abt. 653 on their monthly reports didn't change the name until June 1944 and the 1./sPzjager Abt. 653 which was in Italy didn't change the name on their reports until August 1944, even as late as September 1944, if not later, the name Ferdinand and not Elefant was still appearing on official documents produced for the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen.
If WarThunder taught me anything, is that if you slap 50 bushes on this thing, hide in the other corner of the map and snipe, nothing but the highest penning HEAT is going through your armor, partly because it's far away and partly because you're wearing the entire rainforest, but it sure isn't the armor itself
I think I recall one Ferdi taken out by a Molotov. I saw it on Tank archives. I remember the exact quote saying that one Ferdi was set alight with " A precise throw of a Molotov coctail ". There is one taken out by a Polykarpov by plane with a direct hit from a bomb... One by a 152mm HE shell with a direct hit. The Ferdi itself was a sight to behold on the battlefield. But seeing it taken out in such rare and spectacular fashion, even more.
Thanks for the video, one feedback at 4:36 you talk about the gun and compare it Tiger, but it's just audio, hard to visualize, if you could just write on screen left side Ferdi, right side Tiger then it would be easier for Audience to see and hear the actual differences
Interesting that the lack of a hull mounted MG is often referenced as an "obvious" oversight on the Ferdinand, however many thousands of StuG III and IV were built without this feature and had excellent operational performance.
"We are losing the war, the Soviet war machine is pushing us further and further to Germany, we are in a dire situation!" Hitler: "We should rename that big tank "Elephant" get it? Elephants are big, and that's a big tank too, like a elephant!" .........."Yes my mein fuhrer you are so clever and wise....."
They had a very impressive kill ratio. Thanks for putting to death the rumours about the lack of an MG resulting in Soviet infantry attacks. The Electric motors gave a great torque output, making them good tanks. However, using lots of scarce copper was a problem.
Here are all the names listed in Spielberger's book: Sturmgeschütz mit der 8.8 cm lang - Führer's conference, 11/22/1942 Stu.Gesch. 8.8 cm K. (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) - "overview of the Army 's Armament State," Chef H. Rüst u. BdE/Stab Rüst III, 12/15/1942 Tiger-Sturmgeschütz - Nibelungenwerk, 12/29/1942 Sturmgeschütz auf Fahrgestell Porsche Tiger mit der langen 8.8 (Ferdinand) - Führer's conference, 2/6/1943 Ferdinand für 8.8 cm Sru.G.43/1 65 to auf Fahrgestell Tiger P 1 - Wa Prüf disguised names, 2/22/1943 Ferdinand (Stuk 43/1 auf Tiger) - Wa Prüf 6, 3/2/1943 Stu.Gesch. 8.8 cm K. (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) (Ferdinand) - "overview" (as above), 3/15/1943 to 8/15/1943 Panzerjäger "Tiger" (P) (Sd.Kfz. 184) - K.St.N. 1148c and 1155, 3/31/1943 8.8 cm Pz.Jäg.43/2 L/71 Tiger P - Wa Prüf, 5/1/1943 Panzerjäger Tiger (P) - D656/2, 5/1/1943 Ferdinand - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.653, 5/3/1943 to 4/1/1944 Ferdinand - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.654, 5/5/1943 to 5/10/1944 "Tiger(P)" Sd.Kfz. 184 - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.653, 5/7 and 5/19/1943 Pz.Jäger Ferdinand - Krupp order for parts, 5/13/1943 Ferdinand - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.656, July to December 1943 Stu.Gesch. 8.8 cm Pak 43 (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) (Ferdinand) - "overview" (as above), 9/15/1943 Panzerjäger "Tiger (P)" für 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz. 184) - O.K.H. (Chef H. Rüst u. BdE) In 6, October 1943 8.8 cm Stu.Gesch. m. 8.8 cm Pak 43 (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) (Ferdinand) - "overview" (as above), 11/15/1943 Ferdinand - Gen.Isnp.d.Pz.Tr.Akten, 11/28/1943 to 4/24/1944 Suggestive name "Elefant" für 8.8 cm Sturmgeschütz Porsche - GenStdH/Org.Abt., 2/27/1944 Elefant - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.653, 5/1/1944 to 12/??/1943? s.Pz.Jäger VI (P) 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 L/71 "Elefant" (früher Ferdinand) - Wa Prüf 6, 5/1/1944 Panzerjäger Tiger (P) mit 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 (Sd.Kfz. 184) - "overview" (as above), 3/15/1944 to 11/15/1944 Elefant (8.8 cm Stu.Gesch. mit 8.8 cm Pak 43/2) (Sd.Kfz. 184) - "overview" (as above), 3/15/1944 to 11/15/1944
If I remember correctly there was also one Tiger (P) made, with a Tiger turret and all which was actually used in combat. It was also better protected on the front compared to the Tiger I (H). But it had all the issues which lead to the refusal of the Tiger (P).
The Porsche tank was officially designated the VK 45.01 (P) as a prototype not Tiger for strange reasons. That said Only one tank went into service as a command tank in the Ferdinand, now Elefant unit, and served in Panzerjäger Abteilung 653 and was deployed in April 1944 and lost that subsequent July. In truth the turret was actuated by an electric-motor instead of being hydraulically driven on the "normal" Tiger (H).....
Thanks for clearing up some discrepancies in this vehicles history, especially the bit about the Soviet infantry. I always felt odd that the Germans would have these out front without infantry support.
The bull was named Ferdinand probably because the story took place in Spain, and Ferdinando was one of Spain's most famous kings (he was the one who sent Columbus to America).
6:09 - I thought the M4A3 Sherman had 63.5mm sloped at 47 degrees (at least according to war thunder) for an effective LOS thickness of about 93mm (rather than 61mm).
The annoying bit about warthunder is all german tanks feel shit, because they're all fighting tanks that are 2-3 years younger than themselves. (except the kv1). So you're there in a tiger, fighting tanks that were basically designed to beat it.
Another excellent video. In a way it's a pity that you couldn't go into more depth on the thing's many reliability, overheating and bogging-down problems, which were much more serious than the lack of an MG. I am surprised it didn't have a cupola from the beginning as surely that would be most important for a heavy TD to help it acquire long range targets.
The American Tank Destroyer Command found that their TD's shared the same issue with Infantry "Suppression" that the Germans found as well. The "In Contact" commands requested at least a Co-Ax MG if not both a Co-Ax & ball mount due to continued contact with opponent infantry forces while in support of friendly units. TD Command & Armored Ground Forces never altered the production specs so field units would create expedient MG mounts so the TD's had as least some means of self-defense/support.
What's worse is that ALL these SP GUNS were designed & BUILT in "OKH TOY FACTORY." In 1941 the factory had orders for 6 VK 3001 P 1941 @ 3/4 million RM each and 100 VK-4501P @ 4 million RM each...of which 47 VK-4501P were to be completed in 1942 . Both tank prototype came to nothing and only 6 VK-3001P were completed along with 10 VK4501 plus another 90 hulls. At that time 252 PzIV were also scheduled to be finished in 1942 as well, but only 186 were actually completed.The factory lay out had 7 stalls where medium tanks could be completed but only 2 bays where heavy tanks could be built or modified. In 1943 when the elephants were modernized all 90 were converted in the two large bays but were completed from January to May 1943. In other words completely overhauling a tank took 1/3 time and effort as building new one. Through out this period Pz-IV production in the other 7 bays was supposed to reach 350 per month but was rarely got 250 per month. The calculated out put was 2 mediums for every heavy tank.....over the 9 bays , but the actual out put was only 1132 PzIV in 1943. this was 28% of target or >4000 medium tanks. Which meant the other 1881 came from the other suppliers....adding up to estimated 6000 Panzer IV in1943.
Wow. Placing the 21cm Morser on a mobile chassis . . . The designer's chimera of a mechanized siege train remains with us today in the form of MLRS, AMOS, Paveway Penetrators, and FAD (Fuel/Air Devices). If we can locate a hardened position we can eradicate it soon enough. For the Great War and WW2 there were extensive fortress systems in place and certain of these would need bypassed or assaulted. The "Maginot" inspired border defense system. Sevastopol. The "Kursk/Orel Socket". Saipan. Okinawa. Even before Fall Gelb everyone expected that a self propelled chassis would be developed in time to use it to aid in the reduction of redoubts, fortresses, and fortified cities. To divert chasses for experimentation is a necessary evil of evolution, of course, but certain projects kept getting pushed back, placed on the back burner. In fact, the only nation with a decent self propelled siege weapon in 1940-41 was the Soviet Red Army. The unloved, always excoriated, KV-2 (AKA Big Turret KV). Sure, the 15.2cm is weak compared to the monster morsers, and guns like the K3, but there it is, bigger than life, and you ain't got nary a one, pilgrim. True, the Big Turret KV was rife with problems, but, give it a dirt road or other reasonably hard surface, and it could transport that weapon around pretty handily*. Whereas the other nations needed to truck or horse their weapons around. A much slower process. And, as we Americans used to say: "he who gets there fustest with the mostest wins". -Attributed to Nathan Forest If the KV is there, it's sooo much better than no siege weapon at all on site. All of that is negated by the truth, which was a defender doesn't need a giant, problem ridden, mobile fortress clogging his roads on the retreat. Goodbye KV2! Even so, it was the first good approach to the paradigm of a mechanized siege train. Jaja, I know: the French Canon de GPF 190mm wants to know my location. But see below. Efforts continued throughout the war to mount heavy weapons on recalcitrant Panzer Fahrgestel. Although fun is made of Deutscher efforts, the USA and UK and CCCP were just as quixotic. That BT5 with turret mounted 300mm Rockets, tho. The trouble was that such efforts always lagged behind the times. A great idea would spark a divisive train of research and come to a bad end. That story became the often repeated story of these uber-large siege weapons. I submit that trying the 21cm "sturm morser" on the Elefant chassis wasn't at all far-fetched, other than expectations of a short development period. I conclude with the idea that if the Germans could've done for their many captured/abandoned KV2 tanks in 1941 what they later did in 14 days in late July with Panther, that Stalingrad and Leningrad might've become untenable for the 64th and its addenda in the city defense. Just a thought. *And protect the crew pretty darn well, also. Try that with horses or trucks/lorries. ;-)
Im often wondering these memes online: You could one day (or now) afford a 718, 911, Taycan or even 959 or 918 - but you can't never possible own, or even have a chance to drive a VK4501
I think the Ferdinand is extremely underrated. Most of the reports come from people who primarily had to deal with its technical issues, and while those were undoubtedly really bad, they also had spectacular combat success. And many of the practical problems came from serious tactical and strategical abuse of these vehicles, or from flat out hopeless situations. You may say that this is a result of pursuing development strategies with too many low production vehicles like Ferdinand when higher numbers would have been better, which isn't entirely wrong, but much of it was preventable. In those occasions where they were used decently, they were nigh unstoppable. Simply fielding that amount of raw combat power by 1943 was a huge boon. For example in Operation Zitadelle the Ferdinand's "failure" was actually a consequence of its incredible dominance on the field, enticing them to advance too far and leave behind supporting troops who were unable to keep up against the incredible volume of artillery. In the process they were able to destroy ridiculous number of enemy armour. Just more cheaper vehicles would almost certainly have performed worse. All of this was a pretty good result to come out of an otherwise cancelled program. The real sin was to not make enough out of the experiences of the Ferdinand. To realise that they no longer had the opportunities to field such vehicles in their most effective ways, and that they definitely didn't need to go bigger.
Hitler was bent on launching a last summer offensive in 1943 and rushed both the Panther and Ferdinand tanks into combat before all their bugs could be worked out, which blunted their effectiveness and contributed to the failure of operation Zitadelle
ferdinand/elefant: no jagdpanther: i guess nashorn (in terms of cost efficiency for 88mm gun): yes some only think that this breaks down. i know that it is slow, inmaneuverable, and yes, breaks down and bursts into flames. if porsche had given this a proper damn engine, id be happy to command one of these in '43
i have over 4000h in arcade air battles from 5+ years ago and about 1000h rb air battle time recently... oh and yes some arcade tanks from way back when they where introduced :D and 18 people didnt like mhv playing a videogame...
That this was considered an assault vehicle, as opposed to mobile artillery, was a tacit concession that the Germans could only counter Soviet innovation with a crude overweight pillbox. As mobile artillery, totally immune to any counterfire except air attacks, the Ferdinand was a costly but effective vehicle. As an assault vehicle, helpless without Panzer Grenadiers, it was a flop. Thus we saw the field at Kursk, with the knocked out Ferdinands, an immensely (costly) waste of men and materiel.
When Porsche still making armored vehicles and tractors before moving on to the most successful car manufacturer in Le Mans and one of the top quality car manufacturer in the world.
The issue with lack of machine-gun that you didn't address is its use to discourage lightweight enemy aircraft using light bombs or short ranged rockets accurately.... air support becoming extremely common near the end of the war.
@@Dreachon Which is why machine guns where often mounted in an open ring mount atop one of the hatches (or as with the Sherman even the back armor of the turret itself, so the user physically stands on the tanks hull) when added late to many other designs used by many nations, even if a co-axial machine gun or bow gun was already fitted.
@@SheepInACart That is certainly true, even then most nations didn't mount a machine gun on their tanks for self defence against aircraft. The Germans only had them on their Panzers while not on any of their Jagdpanzer, StuGs. And the one used on German tanks was actually the hull MG that had been dismounted from its spot. The Soviets also rarely had them mounted and even then it was only on vehicles such as the IS-2 and in some rase cases an ISU though I've seen to see a wartime photo of one. Even the British did not seem to bother with this though given that by mid 1943 they do enjoy air superieurity this is somewhat understandable. It is really only the US that is able to do this though given its vast industrial complex this shoul not come as a surprise.
@Military History Visualized: Excuse me for the tiny correction, but in your videos you seem to pronounce 'chassis' as 'tschassie' (/ˈtʃæsi/), not correctly as 'schassie' (/ˈʃæsi/), just as it is, I believe, also pronounced in German, since in both languages we use the French pronounciatiom of this French word.
Love your use of your sponsor to illustrate. Do this more. Informative. And did any Elephants/Ferdinands/whateverthehellthisvehicleiscalledatanygiventime survive the war?
The Ferdinand, the most reliable, powerful, and well crafted machine of Germany in WW2.... If you count giving the Soviets free kills without them having to fire.
@@survingsailor3107 considering only 90 were built, and 31 survived up until late 1944, its not a bad result... compared to Panthers which out of 120 delivered for Kursk had just 4 operational several days later, most of them breaking down.. Ferdinand was relatively fine machine for what it was supposed to do..
According to sources the Ferdinands that did participate at Kursk destroyed over 500 enemy tanks. Considering their low numbers that is impressive. And it's successor the Elefant had also impressive kill counts as long as it was used correctly (and that was defense) Of course some bright guy had the idea to use this vehicle which was clearly meant for open terrain in the hills of Italy...
If I understod Drachinifell correct, in one of his sections about naval guns, the barell lenght in relation to the caliber could vary some between various nations, manufacturers etcerea. Apparently it is a question of where the barell begins and ends. Does it include part (or all) of the cartridge compartment, or does it include only the rifled part? Is end cap included in the lenght of the barell? Etcetera etcetera. It seem to be somewhat of open questions that every nation had their own take on.
6:00 A tank that can move without moving its tracks! What will those German's thank up next? So, this is how they were able to solve the fuel shortage. Having your tanks go into combat, without infantry support, is like a woman wearing a miniskirt and no panties, and doesn't believe she will be molested. Who would win a gunfight? A cowboy with a .45 and his opponent with a Winchester who is 100 yards away. WW2 videos I'd like to see: Tank recovery operations. And, how many German tanks were lost due to empty gas tanks.
holy crap dude you have 1700 hours in the game?! glad you like it I have 2100 hours though ;) most youtubers who get sponsored don't really play the game, would be interesting to see you incorporate footage from in-game with no HUD into some of your videos on tanks and such, your videos to add another layer of visual elements, and it would be interesting since they have upgraded the graphics and such and it would be freaking awsome.
yeah, it is actually more hours, those are just steam hours, I played quite a long time before steam. In-game footage of non-sponsored videos is not gonna happen, cause I generally don't use material that is owned by another company and if that company changes policies or is bought etc. this could have serious consequences.
I've always loved how complicated German names for equipment can be. They're always so specific. Then I remember that even the Americans gave their Sherman's names like: 'M4A3 76(w) w/ HVSS', or the '3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10'. Not as long sure, but still. For the longest time I always thought it was named 'GMC' because it was made by the General Motors Company (which admittedly some were). I love how old timey sounding 'Gun Motor Carriage' is. Are the names for German equipment also odd sounding to modern folks?
The US system for me is a weird combination of "M1 can be everything from a tank to a rifle" and some of those complicated once you mentioned, it seems generally rather inconsistent, whereas the German one seems to rather consistently complicated.
Join me in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S by using this link playwt.link/milhistvis and get a premium tank or aircraft and three days of premium time as a bonus.
How about the same good video in german? Would be nice.
Such a beast of a tank! The inability to traverse the turret pretty big down side though
That game is currently just a P2W unbalanced cashgrab, where vehicles like Ferdinand have stupidly high repair cost due to their battle performance being quite high. Sadly, this braindead solution was favoured by the devs, because it also increases the demand for currency, thus increasing their profit...
@@pavelslama5543 aww, did someones tank get knocked out?
So tired of Warthunder ads, polluting all my favorite youtubers.
In Company of Heroes 2, sometimes when you give the Elephant a move order, the driver yells "SLOWEST POSCHE EVER!"
That's a great line, but wow CoH looks bad since Steel Division 2 is out. Having a game with somewhat realistic ranges is such a huge improvement.
Sadly the Elefant is locked in a 5€ DLC there and its division is just mediocre, but I love it. Even in 1944 that gun and armour are crazy.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N What? Steel Division 2 and Company of Heroes 2 are two completely different kinds of games.
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N steel division 2 is more of a wargame than a squad based RTS, comparing the two beyond unit line memorability is a bit fruitless
and I think SD2 would lose in that department, wargame's got boring unit voices.
Much interest here. So I guess, one day we will get our Ferdinand out of the depot and into the exhibition.
I thought the only 2 left are in Kubinka, Russia and the United States.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Well, you never know. Absence of proof is no proof of absence, as they say in the streets ... *dangles around an old key ring"
What happened to the 10 tiger P's, were they just scrapped or destroyed?
@@hockey7438 I believe one was used as a command tank (number 003) and others were used as engineering vehicles.
@@PotageGourmand did any actually survive the war though? Did the command one keep its armament?
I guess it figures that they'd use both Assault guns and Panzerjager names interchangeably just to mess with people later on.
Don't forget interservice rivalrys for control of vehicles. That's why you have the Sturmpanzer "Brummbar" under panzer control even when the StuG/StuH existed.
@@TheLastSterling1304 Brummbar has a 15cm gun compared to the 10.5cm on StuH tho. Not quite exactly the same role imo
Honestly, I don't see the difference between a tank and a "tank destroyer" since a tank can already destroy other tanks.
@@Marlene-ou5ol i'll try to explain it.
a tank destroyer may or may not have sufficient armor, has to have superior firepower to the equivalent tank [i based on a light tank, the firepower of a medium tank, for example], may or may not have a roof and may or may not be able to fire in a full 360 degree horisontal plane.
a tank has to have sufficient armor [with the exception of light tanks], has to have a roof and has to have the ability to fire in a full 360 degree horizontal plane.
ofcourse, there are some exception to both of these, mainly to do with either early tanks or improvised tank destroyers... and the swedish strv 103. There is also modern tank destroyers that are, more commonly than not, just IFV's or other light vehicles equipped with anti-tank rockets.
I don't care for these online wargames but I like how they sponsor content creators and museums etc.
I was honestly surprised by the sheer amount of hours MHV has racked up, and how he used in game footage to demonstrate his points
@@dennisv3435 How we know it was his steam profile screenshot??
@@ScienceDiscoverer because lying to us about it would destroy his reputation.
My grandfather was a tank driver in 653, formerly Assault Gun Division 197. As far as I can remember, he always has the name Ferdinand. Overall, he only spoke positively about the vehicle. He felt very safe in it in comparison. During the mission in Italy he was the driver of the "Abschleppanzer". He liked this vehicle even more because of its lower weight! Unfortunately I was very young when he died and I missed the opportunity to ask a lot of questions.
And I never heard him say elephant... ;-)
so... they basically gave it a different name every time they built one.
:D
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized that smile emminates pure pain
Ah yes the good old German efficiency in action.
Me talking to the Porsche company:
Hello do you still sell this product?
*image of Ferdinand*
or even better if u show them the picture of the Tiger P
stealing memes very original xD
but they didnt make the tiger p tho
@@jackknall9966 But they did. What did you think the 'P' stood for?
It stood for Prototype, the Porsche thing is just a myth, both turrets were designed by Krupp
Soviet field reports from Kursk had an important caveat about Ferdinand’s armour: internal fuel tanks were located beneath side armour, which could be ignited by kinetic force of impact of guns as small as 45mm, even if the shell itself did not penetrate.
Warthunder is like a drug. You hate it but can’t stop using it.
Alt+F4 ragequit.... But you are back gaming a few days later..
Ya
I quit once I start losing focus on the game after a few victories. The game is mentally exhausting.
@@abcde1054 bck in after 2-3 hours
@יהב מאיר רזיאל אור שינדר מייזליש שריקי yeah but no other game actually provides what it provides. So it doesn't actually have a replacement.
This is what i mean when i want to drive a Porsche.
Underrated comment :D
I guess it was the first prototype for an SUV. ^^
5:45 you are the first historian to properly compare a gun to the armor of its adversaries. Always, I see comparisons between guns of adversaries and comparisons of armor tank-to-tank. Thank you for telling the actual story.
As a wise man once said about the Ferdinand.
“Fucking thing sucks!”
The panzer crews sucked in that thing but the artillery crews who were used to running anti tank guns did quite well in it.
We'll do it live
Porsche be like “I don’t know what that means....rotating turret. I’ll design it and we’ll do it live. Fuck it!”
@@tmack11 damn ur fast
“There’s no machine gun on it!!”
One of the best parts of this channel are the remarkably understandable mini graphic symbols. It goes a long way towards illustrating the concepts discussed. Creatively unique.
I agree with you
Nothing to say, but I'm feeding the algorithm for you.
How does that work?
I know spiffing Brit conducted a experiment, but I don‘t know how it ended
@aspielm
Commenting helps a video in the algorithm. That was known long before Spiff's experiment. His was about community polls and triple interaction.
In regular videos, how a video is viewed favorably in the algorithm can be represented by the following list (least favorable to most favorable):
- Just watching
- Leaving a like OR commenting
- Leaving a like AND commenting
(This ignores a bunch of other factors like CTR and total watch time, but you get the point).
Leaving a like and commenting is considered a double interaction, and the algorithm views the video much more favorably as a consequence.
@@seanshin1615 That's why I do it .
More subscribers should do it to help the producers we like.
*feeds the algorithm*
Speaking of feeding: I just watch a video about a Panzer and eat Schokolade _cough cough_
Biscuits for the algorithm
In defense of the Ferdinand/Elefant, it was a one-off conversion that was intended to make use of some spare Tiger prototypes and never entered production because even the Germans realized it was a very flawed vehicle.
Everyone else scrapped their garbage designs, the Germans had to make it work... sort of
I am glad that MHV addressed this myth and clarified things.
I don't think it was so flawed and I very much doubt that the Germans were aware of the main problem aka weight (JagtTiger , Maus , Tiger2).
@@mandalortemaan7510 On the contrary , there were many bad tanks that were build in numbers on the Allied side like Covenanter.
@@mihaiserafim On the contrary, the Covenanter was an amazing tank (it was OK for its role, just OK is not OK)
@@mandalortemaan7510 maybe you can elaborate on the amazing part ,please , because all I know about this vehicle is bad news.
»» Corrections ««
> At 5:43 I say 90 degree angle instead of 30 degree as depicted in text, the latter is correct. Thanks to Galtur and others pointing this out.
Greetings MHV! I've a question on the armor value for the M4A3 in the video, around the 6:01 mark. It is listed that the armor thickness is 61mm, but by 1944 particularly all M4A3 production had moved to the 2.5" RHA plate angled at 47 degrees from the vertical. If we convert this to millimeters we get (25.4)(2.5) = 63.5mm. Finally if we account for trigonometry we get 63.5 / cos(47) = 93.1087... = 93.11mm. This of course doesn't change the point you are making at all in the video, and this is a nit-pick more than anything, but I'm curious as to why you used the 61mm value, and where this number is coming from. Any insight you can offer is greatly appreciated, thanks!
I just want one of these so I can show up to a Porsche car meetup and flex on all of them.
"Ok Ferdinand, dig in!"
"With pleasure, Sir!!"
"wait wait, dig out, dig out!"
"So, about that... "
This video is like "let's address the Elephant in the room"
"You want us to attack an Elefant?"
"...Jawohl."
Le Ferdinand Exist:
Le Ferdinand driver Starting the engine
Le Ferdinand: Blazing in flames, crew burning alive
Le Ferdinand Crew: “At least ve are not freezing!”
@@thedrifter2790 okay you got me :D
This "le" format took me back to 2011 with 9gag and all
@@asiftalpur3758 Hey, 9 gag is cool. 2011 is cool.
At 5:40 Bernhard says "Penetration angle of 90 degrees", but the key at top says 30 degrees. Key should also say 90 degrees (as spoken) as penetration is always the "best case", but tankers know that is possible if they wear every good luck charm in existence.
Yall try to have fun with the Ferdinand enduring HEAT or APDS shells from 1960s tanks in WT
The snail really need to "seperate" WW2 with cold war era vehicles
Remember the Potential History video on this bad boy.
Yep, the utter garbage video that gets contradicted on too many point to count by actual historical documents. But that is what happens when teh creator of said video was a) too lazy to put in some actual effort, b) was too dumb to even understand it or, c) a combination of both.
This is a theory I came up with about the name change to elephant. In 1940 Allied bombing killed an elephant in Berlin, and in 1944 bombing killed 7 more, leaving only 1 left. Maybe Mr. H was feeling sentimental and decided to name a tank after them.
One unique and cool thing about the 'tank' is that being a electric drive it could go the same speed forward or backwards. So while it had problem with hills if it was in a good spot with an escape route it really could shoot and scoot.
At the risk of offending your sponsor, you can fight in a very excellent Ferdinand in "Tank Crew", the IL-2 BoX module. That gun is brutal.
Am I the only one who's been conditioned to think that the zoom on the kill-cam at 14:27 was going to be a Gaijined moment instead of a properly registered shot?
The armaments meeting must be one of the few things that Speer actually remembered happening
It is one of my 2 favorite Panzers of all time! Thank you for covering the lack of a Maschinengewehr topic which is a common misconception about this beauty.
Despite its flaws, its still my favourite tank
Tank ?
@@ericgrace9995 it has tracks, armor, and a gun, so it’s technically a tank.
I prefer SU 122 honestly. But I am quite biased towards soviet armor
Allies naming their tanks: we will name it Sherman firefly
The germans naming their tanks: haha, letters go brrrr
It's interesting to note (if I remember correctly) that in one of the after action reports a Ferdinand commander believed the vehicle to be too heavily armored for its role, with the additional 100mm thick zusatzpanzer plates unnecessary. It's also notable that the Sturmpanzer-IV "Stupa" (incorrectly known as the Brumbar) that entered combat along side the Ferdinand had additional armor removed as production progressed having 50mm zusatzpanzer on the lower hull front and 20mm side hull plates dropped in order to reduce weight and increase reliability of the final drive.
I know you probably won't do this, but I would love it if u kept using footage like from warthunder or other games to show of the tank in other videos. I felt very immersed in the tour of it's features. keep up the great work.
Thanks again M.H.V for another insightful and well presented video, on a well-known but often misunderstood weapon. It's really great to get the story on a German weapons system from a native German speaker. Without the normal biases that comes with mostly only hearing from the victor's. As always nice job. Thankyou
H. probably took a dislike to Porsche and changed the name to spite him. The former seems to at times been a very petty man.
the way he pronounces vehicle always cracks me up.
Part 2.. After the Kursk offensive, commanders reported their problems encountered while using the Ferdinands. The main problem was the lack of machine gun in the hull for self defense made, making the Ferdinands vulnerable to attacks of enemy infantry and anti-tank units. Other features such as: the gun mount (lack of traversing turret), drive system (Porsche’s Tiger - VK4501(P)) and lack of power (weight/engine power ratio) were also giving trouble to their crews. In October of 1943, 50 survivors were sent back to the factory for badly needed repairs and pre-planned modernization. Modernization consisted of the installation of a MG34 in the hull, improvement of armor protection, installation of wider tracks and installation of commander’s cupola (developed from that of Stug III Ausf G), which provided improved visibility. Most of the Elephants were partially covered with Zimmerite, an anti-magnetic paste. Modernization was made in February and March of 1944 by Nibelungenwerke in Austria and modified Ferdinands were renamed Elephants. Officially Ferdinands were renamed Elephants in general order dated May 1st of 1944.
After modernization, 48 Elephants were grouped into schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and part of it was transferred to Italy in late February of 1944. They arrived in Rome by train via Salzburg, Innsbruck, the Brenner Pass , Trento and Florence on February 24th of 1944. They saw combat at Nettuno, Anzio and Cisterna as early as March 1st of 1944. sPzJagAbt 654 was moved to France in late 1943 and rearmed with Jagdpanthers. In April of 1944, part of sPzJagAbt 653 was transferred back to the Eastern Front. In Autumn of 1944, all existing Elephants were grouped into newly created unit - schwere Heeres Panzerjager Kompanie 614, sPzJagAbt 653 was re-equipped with Jagdtigers. sPzJagAbt 614 with some 13-14 vehicles saw service on the Eastern Front as late as early 1945 and eventually all remaining (4?) Elephants saw final service with Kampfgruppe "Ritter" in area of Zossen (south of Berlin) in mid April of 1945. When employed defensively in Italy and Russia, Elephants proved to be formidable opponents. As of January 1st of 1945, there were still 4 Elephants in service of which some took part in the defence of Berlin as part of Kampfgruppe Ritter. From August to September of 1943, three of original VK4501(P) tanks (issued to sPzJagAbt 653) and in October of 1943, two retired Ferdinands were converted to Bergepanzer Tiger(P). Hulls were modified and mounted in the rear with a small superstructure (with the components of PzKpfw IV) and engines were moved to a central location. Bergetiger(P) was equipped with 2ton crane and no other special equipment.The only armament was the 7.92mm MG34 mounted in the superstructure.
Elephant proved to be very effective weapon when operating at long range, for example one Elephant knocked out Soviet T-34 at the range of 4.5 kilometers. Overall, Elephant was a very advanced design, which proved to be a superb defensive weapon with an enormous firepower. Today, there is only two existing Ferdinand/Elephants, one in Kubinka, Russia (captured at Kursk) and second in Aberdeen, USA (captured at Anzio).
Outstanding video and presentation.
Now hold on there, the words “enjoy” and “War thunder” should not be in the same sentence.
91 chassis were converted not 90, 1 Prototype by Alkett and 90 production models by Nibelungenwerke.
Also, although the change of name(first suggested in November 1943) orders were issued in February 1944 they didn't become official until mid to late May 1944, sPzjager Abt. 653 on their monthly reports didn't change the name until June 1944 and the 1./sPzjager Abt. 653 which was in Italy didn't change the name on their reports until August 1944, even as late as September 1944, if not later, the name Ferdinand and not Elefant was still appearing on official documents produced for the Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppen.
i get Potential History flashbacks
If WarThunder taught me anything, is that if you slap 50 bushes on this thing, hide in the other corner of the map and snipe, nothing but the highest penning HEAT is going through your armor, partly because it's far away and partly because you're wearing the entire rainforest, but it sure isn't the armor itself
I think I recall one Ferdi taken out by a Molotov. I saw it on Tank archives. I remember the exact quote saying that one Ferdi was set alight with " A precise throw of a Molotov coctail ".
There is one taken out by a Polykarpov by plane with a direct hit from a bomb... One by a 152mm HE shell with a direct hit. The Ferdi itself was a sight to behold on the battlefield. But seeing it taken out in such rare and spectacular fashion, even more.
Thanks for the video, one feedback at 4:36 you talk about the gun and compare it Tiger, but it's just audio, hard to visualize, if you could just write on screen left side Ferdi, right side Tiger then it would be easier for Audience to see and hear the actual differences
I know this isn't related to the video at all but I just wanna say that I really like your accent, Keep making these awesome videos Friend!
Interesting that the lack of a hull mounted MG is often referenced as an "obvious" oversight on the Ferdinand, however many thousands of StuG III and IV were built without this feature and had excellent operational performance.
"We are losing the war, the Soviet war machine is pushing us further and further to Germany, we are in a dire situation!" Hitler: "We should rename that big tank "Elephant" get it? Elephants are big, and that's a big tank too, like a elephant!" .........."Yes my mein fuhrer you are so clever and wise....."
They had a very impressive kill ratio. Thanks for putting to death the rumours about the lack of an MG resulting in Soviet infantry attacks. The Electric motors gave a great torque output, making them good tanks. However, using lots of scarce copper was a problem.
Copper shortage in wartime Germany was the first thought I had about the petrol-electric drive.
* Ferdinand the bastard tiger *
Campers: Ferdinand the strong tiger
2:03
could u mention other 17 names?
yes please.
this would be interesting
Here are all the names listed in Spielberger's book:
Sturmgeschütz mit der 8.8 cm lang - Führer's conference, 11/22/1942
Stu.Gesch. 8.8 cm K. (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) - "overview of the Army 's Armament State," Chef H. Rüst u. BdE/Stab Rüst III, 12/15/1942
Tiger-Sturmgeschütz - Nibelungenwerk, 12/29/1942
Sturmgeschütz auf Fahrgestell Porsche Tiger mit der langen 8.8 (Ferdinand) - Führer's conference, 2/6/1943
Ferdinand für 8.8 cm Sru.G.43/1 65 to auf Fahrgestell Tiger P 1 - Wa Prüf disguised names, 2/22/1943
Ferdinand (Stuk 43/1 auf Tiger) - Wa Prüf 6, 3/2/1943
Stu.Gesch. 8.8 cm K. (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) (Ferdinand) - "overview" (as above), 3/15/1943 to 8/15/1943
Panzerjäger "Tiger" (P) (Sd.Kfz. 184) - K.St.N. 1148c and 1155, 3/31/1943
8.8 cm Pz.Jäg.43/2 L/71 Tiger P - Wa Prüf, 5/1/1943
Panzerjäger Tiger (P) - D656/2, 5/1/1943
Ferdinand - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.653, 5/3/1943 to 4/1/1944
Ferdinand - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.654, 5/5/1943 to 5/10/1944
"Tiger(P)" Sd.Kfz. 184 - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.653, 5/7 and 5/19/1943
Pz.Jäger Ferdinand - Krupp order for parts, 5/13/1943
Ferdinand - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.656, July to December 1943
Stu.Gesch. 8.8 cm Pak 43 (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) (Ferdinand) - "overview" (as above), 9/15/1943
Panzerjäger "Tiger (P)" für 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 (Sf.) (Sd.Kfz. 184) - O.K.H. (Chef H. Rüst u. BdE) In 6, October 1943
8.8 cm Stu.Gesch. m. 8.8 cm Pak 43 (auf Fahrgestell Tiger P) (Ferdinand) - "overview" (as above), 11/15/1943
Ferdinand - Gen.Isnp.d.Pz.Tr.Akten, 11/28/1943 to 4/24/1944
Suggestive name "Elefant" für 8.8 cm Sturmgeschütz Porsche - GenStdH/Org.Abt., 2/27/1944
Elefant - s.H.Pz.Jg.Abt.653, 5/1/1944 to 12/??/1943?
s.Pz.Jäger VI (P) 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 L/71 "Elefant" (früher Ferdinand) - Wa Prüf 6, 5/1/1944
Panzerjäger Tiger (P) mit 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 (Sd.Kfz. 184) - "overview" (as above), 3/15/1944 to 11/15/1944
Elefant (8.8 cm Stu.Gesch. mit 8.8 cm Pak 43/2) (Sd.Kfz. 184) - "overview" (as above), 3/15/1944 to 11/15/1944
If I remember correctly there was also one Tiger (P) made, with a Tiger turret and all which was actually used in combat. It was also better protected on the front compared to the Tiger I (H). But it had all the issues which lead to the refusal of the Tiger (P).
The Porsche tank was officially designated the VK 45.01 (P) as a prototype not Tiger for strange reasons. That said Only one tank went into service as a command tank in the Ferdinand, now Elefant unit, and served in Panzerjäger Abteilung 653 and was deployed in April 1944 and lost that subsequent July. In truth the turret was actuated by an electric-motor instead of being hydraulically driven on the "normal" Tiger (H).....
Thanks for clearing up some discrepancies in this vehicles history, especially the bit about the Soviet infantry. I always felt odd that the Germans would have these out front without infantry support.
I thought Ferdinand was a bull...lol
The bull was named Ferdinand probably because the story took place in Spain, and Ferdinando was one of Spain's most famous kings (he was the one who sent Columbus to America).
Brilliant insight video and great graphics. Thanks for the dedicated research!
Me who saw this in like a tank fight animation once (those were popular in 2016): im basically an expert
Fantastic visuals, especially looking inside the vehicle!
"Slowest... Porsche... ever!"
6:09 - I thought the M4A3 Sherman had 63.5mm sloped at 47 degrees (at least according to war thunder) for an effective LOS thickness of about 93mm (rather than 61mm).
The annoying bit about warthunder is all german tanks feel shit, because they're all fighting tanks that are 2-3 years younger than themselves. (except the kv1). So you're there in a tiger, fighting tanks that were basically designed to beat it.
As a support tank destroyer the Elefant was quite effective!
Another excellent video. In a way it's a pity that you couldn't go into more depth on the thing's many reliability, overheating and bogging-down problems, which were much more serious than the lack of an MG. I am surprised it didn't have a cupola from the beginning as surely that would be most important for a heavy TD to help it acquire long range targets.
The American Tank Destroyer Command found that their TD's shared the same issue with Infantry "Suppression" that the Germans found as well. The "In Contact" commands requested at least a Co-Ax MG if not both a Co-Ax & ball mount due to continued contact with opponent infantry forces while in support of friendly units. TD Command & Armored Ground Forces never altered the production specs so field units would create expedient MG mounts so the TD's had as least some means of self-defense/support.
I was waiting for when this day would come. Great video!
7:40 "it's not a bug, it's a feature !"
- porsche, your tiger is trash we don't want it.
- but i already started mass production of hulls!
What's worse is that ALL these SP GUNS were designed & BUILT in "OKH TOY FACTORY."
In 1941 the factory had orders for 6 VK 3001 P 1941 @ 3/4 million RM each and 100 VK-4501P @ 4 million RM each...of which 47 VK-4501P were to be completed in 1942 .
Both tank prototype came to nothing and only 6 VK-3001P were completed along with 10 VK4501 plus another 90 hulls. At that time 252 PzIV were also scheduled to be finished in 1942 as well, but only 186 were actually completed.The factory lay out had 7 stalls where medium tanks could be completed but only 2 bays where heavy tanks could be built or modified.
In 1943 when the elephants were modernized all 90 were converted in the two large bays but were completed from January to May 1943. In other words completely overhauling a tank took 1/3 time and effort as building new one.
Through out this period Pz-IV production in the other 7 bays was supposed to reach 350 per month but was rarely got 250 per month. The calculated out put was 2 mediums for every heavy tank.....over the 9 bays , but the actual out put was only 1132 PzIV in 1943. this was 28% of target or >4000 medium tanks. Which meant the other 1881 came from the other suppliers....adding up to estimated 6000 Panzer IV in1943.
that was really a truly complete informational video. Thank you for your efforts in this video!
Thank you for another thorough and detailed study. I enjoy all your videos.
Wow. Placing the 21cm Morser on a mobile chassis . . .
The designer's chimera of a mechanized siege train remains with us today in the form of MLRS, AMOS, Paveway Penetrators, and FAD (Fuel/Air Devices). If we can locate a hardened position we can eradicate it soon enough.
For the Great War and WW2 there were extensive fortress systems in place and certain of these would need bypassed or assaulted. The "Maginot" inspired border defense system. Sevastopol. The "Kursk/Orel Socket". Saipan. Okinawa. Even before Fall Gelb everyone expected that a self propelled chassis would be developed in time to use it to aid in the reduction of redoubts, fortresses, and fortified cities.
To divert chasses for experimentation is a necessary evil of evolution, of course, but certain projects kept getting pushed back, placed on the back burner. In fact, the only nation with a decent self propelled siege weapon in 1940-41 was the Soviet Red Army. The unloved, always excoriated, KV-2 (AKA Big Turret KV). Sure, the 15.2cm is weak compared to the monster morsers, and guns like the K3, but there it is, bigger than life, and you ain't got nary a one, pilgrim. True, the Big Turret KV was rife with problems, but, give it a dirt road or other reasonably hard surface, and it could transport that weapon around pretty handily*. Whereas the other nations needed to truck or horse their weapons around. A much slower process. And, as we Americans used to say: "he who gets there fustest with the mostest wins". -Attributed to Nathan Forest
If the KV is there, it's sooo much better than no siege weapon at all on site.
All of that is negated by the truth, which was a defender doesn't need a giant, problem ridden, mobile fortress clogging his roads on the retreat. Goodbye KV2! Even so, it was the first good approach to the paradigm of a mechanized siege train. Jaja, I know: the French Canon de GPF 190mm wants to know my location. But see below.
Efforts continued throughout the war to mount heavy weapons on recalcitrant Panzer Fahrgestel. Although fun is made of Deutscher efforts, the USA and UK and CCCP were just as quixotic. That BT5 with turret mounted 300mm Rockets, tho. The trouble was that such efforts always lagged behind the times. A great idea would spark a divisive train of research and come to a bad end. That story became the often repeated story of these uber-large siege weapons.
I submit that trying the 21cm "sturm morser" on the Elefant chassis wasn't at all far-fetched, other than expectations of a short development period. I conclude with the idea that if the Germans could've done for their many captured/abandoned KV2 tanks in 1941 what they later did in 14 days in late July with Panther, that Stalingrad and Leningrad might've become untenable for the 64th and its addenda in the city defense. Just a thought.
*And protect the crew pretty darn well, also. Try that with horses or trucks/lorries. ;-)
Love the title
12:16 Yet another dream crushed...
Im often wondering these memes online: You could one day (or now) afford a 718, 911, Taycan or even 959 or 918 - but you can't never possible own, or even have a chance to drive a VK4501
I think the Ferdinand is extremely underrated. Most of the reports come from people who primarily had to deal with its technical issues, and while those were undoubtedly really bad, they also had spectacular combat success.
And many of the practical problems came from serious tactical and strategical abuse of these vehicles, or from flat out hopeless situations. You may say that this is a result of pursuing development strategies with too many low production vehicles like Ferdinand when higher numbers would have been better, which isn't entirely wrong, but much of it was preventable. In those occasions where they were used decently, they were nigh unstoppable. Simply fielding that amount of raw combat power by 1943 was a huge boon.
For example in Operation Zitadelle the Ferdinand's "failure" was actually a consequence of its incredible dominance on the field, enticing them to advance too far and leave behind supporting troops who were unable to keep up against the incredible volume of artillery. In the process they were able to destroy ridiculous number of enemy armour. Just more cheaper vehicles would almost certainly have performed worse.
All of this was a pretty good result to come out of an otherwise cancelled program. The real sin was to not make enough out of the experiences of the Ferdinand. To realise that they no longer had the opportunities to field such vehicles in their most effective ways, and that they definitely didn't need to go bigger.
Funny. You have simply never been to Russia. There is such slush that even modern tanks get stuck in it.
Hitler was bent on launching a last summer offensive in 1943 and rushed both the Panther and Ferdinand tanks into combat before all their bugs could be worked out, which blunted their effectiveness and contributed to the failure of operation Zitadelle
great video timing! I literally just unlocked it in warthunder.
ferdinand/elefant: no
jagdpanther: i guess
nashorn (in terms of cost efficiency for 88mm gun): yes
some only think that this breaks down. i know that it is slow, inmaneuverable, and yes, breaks down and bursts into flames. if porsche had given this a proper damn engine, id be happy to command one of these in '43
i have over 4000h in arcade air battles from 5+ years ago and about 1000h rb air battle time recently... oh and yes some arcade tanks from way back when they where introduced :D
and 18 people didnt like mhv playing a videogame...
That this was considered an assault vehicle, as opposed to mobile artillery, was a tacit concession that the Germans could only counter Soviet innovation with a crude overweight pillbox. As mobile artillery, totally immune to any counterfire except air attacks, the Ferdinand was a costly but effective vehicle. As an assault vehicle, helpless without Panzer Grenadiers, it was a flop. Thus we saw the field at Kursk, with the knocked out Ferdinands, an immensely (costly) waste of men and materiel.
When Porsche still making armored vehicles and tractors before moving on to the most successful car manufacturer in Le Mans and one of the top quality car manufacturer in the world.
I learnt today hat this vehicle was originally intended to be an assault gun. This was news to me. Thank you.
is it worth using the 'armor view' in the hanger to demonstrate various armour thickness and angles? just a thought, great content as ever!
The issue with lack of machine-gun that you didn't address is its use to discourage lightweight enemy aircraft using light bombs or short ranged rockets accurately.... air support becoming extremely common near the end of the war.
Hull mounted machine guns aren't usable against aircraft because they lack the required movement to engage such targets.
@@Dreachon Which is why machine guns where often mounted in an open ring mount atop one of the hatches (or as with the Sherman even the back armor of the turret itself, so the user physically stands on the tanks hull) when added late to many other designs used by many nations, even if a co-axial machine gun or bow gun was already fitted.
@@SheepInACart That is certainly true, even then most nations didn't mount a machine gun on their tanks for self defence against aircraft.
The Germans only had them on their Panzers while not on any of their Jagdpanzer, StuGs. And the one used on German tanks was actually the hull MG that had been dismounted from its spot.
The Soviets also rarely had them mounted and even then it was only on vehicles such as the IS-2 and in some rase cases an ISU though I've seen to see a wartime photo of one.
Even the British did not seem to bother with this though given that by mid 1943 they do enjoy air superieurity this is somewhat understandable.
It is really only the US that is able to do this though given its vast industrial complex this shoul not come as a surprise.
@Military History Visualized: Excuse me for the tiny correction, but in your videos you seem to pronounce 'chassis' as 'tschassie' (/ˈtʃæsi/), not correctly as 'schassie' (/ˈʃæsi/), just as it is, I believe, also pronounced in German, since in both languages we use the French pronounciatiom of this French word.
Love your use of your sponsor to illustrate. Do this more. Informative.
And did any Elephants/Ferdinands/whateverthehellthisvehicleiscalledatanygiventime survive the war?
Yep, one is in Russia, the other in the US.
@@catfish552 Oh yes! Kubinka!
And didja like the 'names'!?😅😂
I'd love for you to do a video on inter-service politics and relations. Like Waffen-SS vs. Wehrmacht; Einsatzgruppen vs. Front line troops etc.
The Ferdinand, the most reliable, powerful, and well crafted machine of Germany in WW2.... If you count giving the Soviets free kills without them having to fire.
It still performed great despite the fact it wasn’t supposed to exist
@@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150 They performed so great they blew up in flames when they even saw a small hill
@@survingsailor3107 wrong only happened to a few
@@survingsailor3107 considering only 90 were built, and 31 survived up until late 1944, its not a bad result... compared to Panthers which out of 120 delivered for Kursk had just 4 operational several days later, most of them breaking down.. Ferdinand was relatively fine machine for what it was supposed to do..
According to sources the Ferdinands that did participate at Kursk destroyed over 500 enemy tanks. Considering their low numbers that is impressive. And it's successor the Elefant had also impressive kill counts as long as it was used correctly (and that was defense) Of course some bright guy had the idea to use this vehicle which was clearly meant for open terrain in the hills of Italy...
My favorite tank.
It was condemned, From the benniging. But an Imposing Machine.
awaiting this a long time
Really liked the use of War Thunder for illustration
Advertising tank games in a tank video, legit AF!
If I understod Drachinifell correct, in one of his sections about naval guns, the barell lenght in relation to the caliber could vary some between various nations, manufacturers etcerea. Apparently it is a question of where the barell begins and ends. Does it include part (or all) of the cartridge compartment, or does it include only the rifled part? Is end cap included in the lenght of the barell? Etcetera etcetera. It seem to be somewhat of open questions that every nation had their own take on.
6:00 A tank that can move without moving its tracks! What will those German's thank up next? So, this is how they were able to solve the fuel shortage. Having your tanks go into combat, without infantry support, is like a woman wearing a miniskirt and no panties, and doesn't believe she will be molested. Who would win a gunfight? A cowboy with a .45 and his opponent with a Winchester who is 100 yards away. WW2 videos I'd like to see: Tank recovery operations. And, how many German tanks were lost due to empty gas tanks.
holy crap dude you have 1700 hours in the game?! glad you like it I have 2100 hours though ;) most youtubers who get sponsored don't really play the game, would be interesting to see you incorporate footage from in-game with no HUD into some of your videos on tanks and such, your videos to add another layer of visual elements, and it would be interesting since they have upgraded the graphics and such and it would be freaking awsome.
yeah, it is actually more hours, those are just steam hours, I played quite a long time before steam.
In-game footage of non-sponsored videos is not gonna happen, cause I generally don't use material that is owned by another company and if that company changes policies or is bought etc. this could have serious consequences.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Oh I see thats a shame still love the vids!
So Mr Ferdinand had a thing for putting the engine in the right wrong place.
Dragon is grateful for all 20 names.
Top stuff, Lads.
I've always loved how complicated German names for equipment can be. They're always so specific. Then I remember that even the Americans gave their Sherman's names like: 'M4A3 76(w) w/ HVSS', or the '3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10'. Not as long sure, but still. For the longest time I always thought it was named 'GMC' because it was made by the General Motors Company (which admittedly some were). I love how old timey sounding 'Gun Motor Carriage' is. Are the names for German equipment also odd sounding to modern folks?
The US system for me is a weird combination of "M1 can be everything from a tank to a rifle" and some of those complicated once you mentioned, it seems generally rather inconsistent, whereas the German one seems to rather consistently complicated.