Every tank was a Tiger. Every assault gun was a Ferdinand. Those misconceptions severely affected the pace of the allied advance. Sometimes the best propaganda is rumors sweeping through the enemy troops waiting to move forward.
If the enemy is scared of your tank, the tank has done its duty without having fired a shot. Same with the '88, the Ju 87, and other weapons the Germans deployed.
All the bad things we hear about this thing makes me think of Dennis showalters Armor and blood, the battle of Kursk, where he says the crews had no complaints. They loved them.
It required 3 SdKfz 9 recovery vehicles to tow a Ferdinand. The halftracks were overstressed, but it's better than losing a second Ferdinand while trying to tow it.
The Ferdinand was a failure from the start. Instead of being a tank for assault, or mobile artillery for the rear, it was a combo which absorbed an enormous amount of resources. The money/materials should've been invested in the Panthers or Tigers for assault, or the much lighter and cheaper mobile 88's carriages that would make up the rear. Given a fair chance, such as in Italy, the Ferdinand did briefly acquit itself well, but it was never worth the huge expenditure to buy/build them.
well, strong armour does not mean a invulnarebility. russians did learn that lesson at the later war stage. they keeped the heavy tanks in the back and made the spotting jobs by light tanks first.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=25051244
Very informative and well researched. Subscribed!
Every tank was a Tiger. Every assault gun was a Ferdinand. Those misconceptions severely affected the pace of the allied advance. Sometimes the best propaganda is rumors sweeping through the enemy troops waiting to move forward.
If the enemy is scared of your tank, the tank has done its duty without having fired a shot. Same with the '88, the Ju 87, and other weapons the Germans deployed.
They were of a family of design construction, very difficult to tell apart on the battlefield. Better to be paranoid than not...
All the bad things we hear about this thing makes me think of Dennis showalters Armor and blood, the battle of Kursk, where he says the crews had no complaints. They loved them.
it was a dangerous weapon
Great research presentation and editing ❤
thank you. please subscribe and share.
That was an excellent presentation... liked much...
thanks a lot
It required 3 SdKfz 9 recovery vehicles to tow a Ferdinand. The halftracks were overstressed, but it's better than losing a second Ferdinand while trying to tow it.
or x5 panzer 4 recovery tanks
well, thats a logistic problem. but not that of this tank
Great video!
thank you. please subscribe and share
Thank you very much!!!
15:18 couldn't the destroyed tank destroyer with the 128mm cannon be a Jagdtiger?
Or Sturer Emile.
@@WildBillCox13 yes but he said that Sturer Emils were not used after Stalingrad.
@@georgesriachi8485 Good point.
I think Jagdtiger were only used on the western front.
There were only two Sturer Emils built
Dude legit praise for your video, how about some suggestions?
what kind of suggestions?
The Ferdinand was a failure from the start. Instead of being a tank for assault, or mobile artillery for the rear, it was a combo which absorbed an enormous amount of resources. The money/materials should've been invested in the Panthers or Tigers for assault, or the much lighter and cheaper mobile 88's carriages that would make up the rear. Given a fair chance, such as in Italy, the Ferdinand did briefly acquit itself well, but it was never worth the huge expenditure to buy/build them.
Funny it had a Kill ratio of 10 to 1. Which was better than Tiger 1- 2's and Panthers.
Yes. All that R&D and Factory retooling while fighting a War on Two Fronts. Ludicrous.
Either way, we'd still be watching this
Should of only produced panthers
@@kevinvojta692 everyone ignores this fact
Nice presentation Facts and Myths Note to self The Elefant isn't offensive armor🏴☠️💥
well, strong armour does not mean a invulnarebility. russians did learn that lesson at the later war stage. they keeped the heavy tanks in the back and made the spotting jobs by light tanks first.
Liked, subbed, and shared.
appriciate that. thanks
Great video.
thanks
Nice piece. Subscribed 🍻
thanks
highest kill per loss ratio .... that's a failure ???
well, there is a problem with the kill confirmations for tanks. but the tank was very dangerous.
Had to look up 200mm.
Tremendo blindado!! A enfrentar a los SU de su tipo, y un verdadero desgaste en la operación Citadelle!! 👌
Great video; too bad I couldn't hear the narration...
why not?
@@historygun6329 You need a better microphone.
@@s.marcus3669 i have got already a good one
@@historygun6329 If you say so....😒
Arnold? That you???
no
its like you reading a text srsly..... horrible...
ok, sorry, bye
The biggest piece of crap in WW2 !
haha 10.1 kill per loss ratio
not really. russians developed the IS-4 as the answer to this.
Ты здесь нормально перевел. Почему там так перевел
чувак, хочешь на меня поработать? за бесплатно. сидеть и часами озвучивать, текст писать? нет? и я не хочу. так что бери что есть.