killmore Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 I assume that means the bottom armour (underneath the tank). Isn't it a terrible waste of "material" and increases weight of the tank for no reason? Or was it accually usefull? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paullus Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 I don't know about the bottom armor on the Ferdinand, but the entire vehicle was a waste of resources. Almost all of them were lost at Kursk because the designers forgot to give them a single MG. Russian infantry just walked up to them and took them out with grenades and satchel charges. Now at a distance, they were probably decent in the AT role, but their tactical use was a complete disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I assume that means the bottom armour (underneath the tank). Isn't it a terrible waste of "material" and increases weight of the tank for no reason? Or was it accually usefull?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only time belly armor is useful is when crossing a tall obstacle (see various "bocage" threads) or defending against mines. I think the South Africans have shown that innovative shaping and design of the hull and suspension components is much more effective in the latter role than adding thicker armor. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 paullus: I disagree. The Ferdinand's debut may not be very glorious but if you do a search you will see that several very informative older threads cover this subject. AFTER Kursk most of the surviving Ferdinands survived the war. IIRC even at Kursk they traded 7:1. (I think Fionn stated something like this, but don't quote me ) And ... I like them!! ------------------ visit lindan.panzershark.com member of the Combat Mision webring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 25, 2000 Share Posted July 25, 2000 The Ferdinand is like a lot of vehicles and weapons during war. It had a fault and thus is derided BUT further research shows it to have been an awesome vehicle. Basically the Germans lost about 48 of them at Kursk ( most .. about 80% IIRC to arty fire... I read a translation of some Soviet documents detailing the causes of the destruction of all Elefants at Kurks and this is what I remember. I may be out a few% but it is roughly right). Anyways, during July, August and September, for the loss of 40some tanks they took out over 300. They got close to an 8 to 1 exchange rate. Given that kind of exchange rate they were actually MORE effective on a per ton basis than the Panther or Pz IV or Pz III at the time. Also, for 2 Ferdinands to be involved in fighting in Berlin in the last days of the war speaks of a pretty awesome level of survivability once their limitations were realised. All in all the Ferdinand did exactly what it was designed to do. Wherever it stopped and set itself up with clear fields of fire it stopped enemy tank attacks cold. The ONLY way to get past was to do a deliberate attack with dozens of tanks, entire Bns of artillery etc. Thus, I think the Ferdinand was pretty efficient. Then again, I'm one of the people who believes the Germans were right to build only a few heavy tanks instead of lots of light tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted July 26, 2000 Author Share Posted July 26, 2000 Ok - but was the belly 100mm armor an overkill? Or was it usefull? It could be usefull or surviving AT mines and charges tossed under the tank but then again these will probably take out a track and immobilize the vehicle completly making it much easier to kill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 Chamberlain/Doyle quotes the Ferdinand with 20 to 50mm bottom armor. I don't know where you ran across 100mm. apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paullus: I don't know about the bottom armor on the Ferdinand, but the entire vehicle was a waste of resources. Almost all of them were lost at Kursk because the designers forgot to give them a single MG. Russian infantry just walked up to them and took them out with grenades and satchel charges. Now at a distance, they were probably decent in the AT role, but their tactical use was a complete disaster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans invisaged that the supporting infantry would help prevent the Russkies from getting too close to the Ferdinand. Trouble was, the infantry got shot away immediately after the jumping off point, but the Ferdinand's pressed on regardless. One Ferdinand at Kursk did in fact have a MG - an interprising crew bought one along and fired it down the barrel of the 88mm! Roll on CM2! Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paullus: I don't know about the bottom armor on the Ferdinand, but the entire vehicle was a waste of resources. Almost all of them were lost at Kursk because the designers forgot to give them a single MG. Russian infantry just walked up to them and took them out with grenades and satchel charges. Now at a distance, they were probably decent in the AT role, but their tactical use was a complete disaster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Ferdinand was never meant to engage Infantry at close range. The problem was Model who oo'd & Ah'd over their gun and armor protection tacticly misused the Ferdinand, as an assault gun. Instead of what it was designed to do, kill tanks, at long range. Model decided to supplement the Tigers who were originaly to make the initial breach with Ferdinand's. While Inf moved up behind the AFVs, the Russian's who by this time were no slouches at breaking up tank/inf attacks, used artillery,etc to force the supporting Inf away from the tanks & SPs. Which left the Tiger's & Ferdinands exposed in carefully layed out anti tank kill zones, areas where the Russians had layed extensive AT mines and deployed specialy trained anti tank inf, and engineers as well as channeling mine feilds. Any tank or AG with MG's or without was in dire straits without Inf support, even with it, it would have been rough. Guderian, commenting on their misuse during Zitadelle, said useing Ferdinands against dug in infantry was like useing a 'cannon to shoot quail'. The myth that Ferdinands suffered their losses for the lack of an MG is just that a myth, perpetuated by the Germans to cover up Models mistake in how they were used. Out of the 90 Ferdinands deployed with Pz.Jag.Abt's 653 & 654 during Zitadelle 40 were lost, despite their losses and improper use Ferdinands were credited with the destruction of 502 Soviet tanks from July 5 thru July 27th. Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 Are you sure about the 502 figure John? I'd always heard closer to 320 than that ( then again, I don't have any sources here so I'm just going off memory ( which is fallible ) here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 Combat history of the 653rd is very frank in sections about the shortcomings of the tank destroyer. On the other hand, it was not uncommon to find two Ferdinands perched on a hill taking out entire russian tank columns at ranges in the 1,000s of yards. Has one picture of the front of a SU-152 with a nice clean hole punched through the front armor. Underpowered engines prone to overheating and fire, and enormous ground pressure per sqft were the main problems that plagued the Ferdinand. It commonly took 3 18-ton prime movers to "unbog" a Ferdinand. Later in the war, rescue vehicles were developed that were essentially Ferdinands without the fighting compartment up top. The Germans were very careful about routing the marches of the Ferdinands as well, since they destroyed the roads they traveled over, to say nothing of the common wooden bridges found out in the steppeland of the eastern front. As for the allied use of "funny" tanks, the 653rd book has a photo of some creative work by the German maintenance and repair guys scavenging parts... A panther hull with a Pz IV turret bolted to the top as a rescue/tow vehicle. [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 07-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Are you sure about the 502 figure John? I'd always heard closer to 320 than that ( then again, I don't have any sources here so I'm just going off memory ( which is fallible ) here).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What Fionn BAH yer not fallible 8P. Yes 502 is what their credited with; in the minor refrence material's I had laying around (Still unpacking) the hard covers are still buried somewhere 8). Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: Combat history of the 653rd is very frank in sections about the shortcomings of the tank destroyer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great refrence... Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-26-2000).] [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Schalburg Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 From the book German tanks of world war II by von Senger and Etterlin. The Jgd Pz Tiger (Elefant) Bow armour: 200mm Driver plate armour: 200mm Side armour: 80mm Stern armour: 80mm Roof armour: 80mm Floor armour: 80mm Well it was a strongly armoured vehicle with limited mobility, but I think that the gun makes up for that drawback. ------------------ In god we trust, the rest we monitor... von Schalburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flipper Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 could be the....80,000th post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Schalburg Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 -- ------------------ In god we trust, the rest we monitor... von Schalburg [This message has been edited by von Schalburg (edited 07-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted July 26, 2000 Author Share Posted July 26, 2000 I my opinion Ferdinant survivability was so high because they were so rare. If they would be more common the larger guns would be introduced to take them out. But since they were so unfrequent no one was worrying about them too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I my opinion Ferdinant survivability was so high because they were so rare. If they would be more common the larger guns would be introduced to take them out. But since they were so unfrequent no one was worrying about them too much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's an excellent observation. Battlefield evolution. It's the same in nature as in technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 26, 2000 Share Posted July 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I my opinion Ferdinant survivability was so high because they were so rare. If they would be more common the larger guns would be introduced to take them out. But since they were so unfrequent no one was worrying about them too much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Tiger 1 had about the same survivabilty as the Ferdinand and was more common. The Soviets knew they needed a better gun since they studied the 1st Tiger 1 they captured intact but for fear of disrupting current production run guns, held off as long as possible, getting them going, later they settled on the 85mm, 100mm, & 122mm guns, to try and bting their AFVs on a better footing with the Panther & Tiger. While the surviving Ferdinand's were sent back to Germany, renamed Elephant,given bow MGs & sent to Italy. The 85mm couldnt deal with the Panther or Tiger1 frontaly above 300ms, even with HVAP ammo, the 100mm had a better chance, while the 122mm gained some success in the TD role on mantlet & side turret hits vs both German tanks. The Germans then introduced the Tiger II which again put them ahead in fire power & armor protection. The US & UK had known about the Tiger 1's advantages in armor since Tunisa and they knew from the Soviets about the Panther, yet the US especialy dragged its heals in getting an better gun. The US, UK eventualy went to the 76mm, 17pd'r & 90mm etc, developed better ammo etc,to try and equal the gun armor advantage of German tanks. As the war progressed so did gun armor race. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts