Success of Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyer...

[Jack Carr]

I have read that a major weakness of the Ferdinand tank destroyer was a lack of an MG. I'm wondering just how much of a weakness this was? There weren't very many of these monsters made. How many were lost to Russian infantry crawling all over them and lighting them on fire?

The main gun's best use was to engage enemy targets at a long distance. I would think that the Germans always made an attempt to use the vehicle in that capacity. Are there any statistics on how many of these were lost to Soviet infantry?

[JasonC]

A number were lost at Kursk in one or two bad patches. The main issue was AT mines. But when many got hung up on the mines or immobilized there, the Russians then went after the left behinds and cripples with infantry, and successfully KOed them. I have not seen any evidence that infantry kills got many after that.

It was a one time thing, in a teething stage, when they didn't really know how to use them yet. They were trying to use them to lead breakthroughs, and that meant going first, and that meant hitting mines first. It wasn't the best use of a killer long range gun and impenetrable front.

Later they were used to destroy things from behind range of effective reply, mostly on defense and sniping in modest numbers. They were highly successful in that role. There just weren't many left for it, and those gradually broke down over time. Not without running up impressive total scores, however. Anything that hits without dying will run up a large score over time, without needing to kill much at once.

[Jack Carr]

I read a very good book entitled, "Blood Red Snow" in which the author, a German soldier, describes one of these tank destroyers being brought up to deal with enemy armor that had been giving them a hard time. The author basically said, don't have the book with me, that the tank destroyer did a great job taking out the Russian tanks and the Russians did everything they could to try and find out what was making mince meat out of their armor.

[Andreas]

Haven't read that one, but could he be talking about the much more common Nashorn?

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Haven't read that one, but could he be talking about the much more common Nashorn?

Andreas,

I'll make a point to grab the book when I get home and take a read through to find the spot. I will type in the text from the book when I reply to this thread.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Haven't read that one, but could he be talking about the much more common Nashorn?

Page 158 of "Blood Red Snow" describes the action of the "Ferdinands"... "the new 75 ton tank destroyer with an 88mm gun".

Plate #22 is supposed to be a picture of a Ferdinand, but it's such a close-up shot from the front quarter that I can't see the over-all body of the tank.

Good (first person account) book.

Tell Santa you've been good this year.

Ken

[Andreas]

Thanks Ken. Just spent another Euro 150 or so on books that I don't have time to read

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Thanks Ken. Just spent another Euro 150 or so on books that I don't have time to read

I would make an attempt to find the time for this book. It's quite good in my opinion. My Christmas list has "Black Edelweiss" on it. Currently reading, "Hell's Gate".

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

Haven't read that one, but could he be talking about the much more common Nashorn?

Page 158 of "Blood Red Snow" describes the action of the "Ferdinands"... "the new 75 ton tank destroyer with an 88mm gun".

Plate #22 is supposed to be a picture of a Ferdinand, but it's such a close-up shot from the front quarter that I can't see the over-all body of the tank.

Good (first person account) book.

Tell Santa you've been good this year.

Ken </font>

[Måkjager]

About 50 out of the 90 deployed Ferdinands survived the the battle at Orel and the subsequent withdrawl.

Måkjager

[MikeyD]

If you look at the big 653rd book it seems as though most of the Ferdi's losses were unrecoverable breakdowns and not falling victim to swarms of heroic Russian soldiers. Admittedly, if the Ferdi broke down in mid-battle it would just sit there til those swarms of soldiers eventually arrived, but that would simply be falling victim to the inevitable. Doing research recently I discovered the majority of Elefant shots in Italy - including the famous one of soldiers marching past a Ferdi on the side of the road - are of broken-down vehicles.

'Heroic' ancedotes can't be the standard of a vehicle's standard of performance. Otherwise we'd have to say the Tiger was equivalent to the M8 Greyhound AC (a Greyhound managed to nail a Tiger with a point-blank rear shot once)!

[Mattias]

An oldish thread on the subject:

over here

M.

[JasonC]

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/losses/losses5.html

Plenty were burned out by molotovs. But generally to finish them off after mine, arty, or AP damage.

The Germans did not consider the first use of them at Kursk a success. In case everybody forgot, the northern prong, led by them rather than turreted Tigers (there were only 2 companies of turreted Tigers in the northern prong, while there were 90 Elephants and 7 full battalions of higher echelon StuGs), was stopped after advancing about 6 miles. Most of that gain was made on the first 2 days, after which they went practically nowhere.

The common figure of their stupendous kill record is for the whole balance of the year, though November, not for Kursk. And is of course German side claims, which tend to be high by up to a factor of 2 (because of multiple claims, etc). The Russians, meanwhile, claim 420 AFVs by mines alone in the northern sector, two third of them in the first 3 days.

There is no question they eventually proved effective tank killers, effective largely because they lived a long time. (Their kill claims come to something like 8 per vehicle that survived Kursk, over the course of 4 months. That is high longevity, but not many kills per live vehicle per unit time). But they were a definite "fizzle" at Kursk, when used to lead armor attacks instead of sniping from safe distances.

This was part teething problems (engine fires, drive train overstrain, unprotected engine deck), part tactical mishandling (battering ram rather than AT "pike"), part just the fact that AT mines don't care if you are a Tiger.

[ November 15, 2003, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[PJungnitsch]

A big problem of the Ferdinand was the high ground pressure, about double that of the Kingtiger, due to the way the suspension/tracks were designed. Another advantage to holding them back, I suppose would be the ability to keep them on known ground.

Still, the Soviets ended up calling all German self propelled guns 'Ferdinands' so they did make an impression. It would be interesting what the total kill record of all the Ferdinands/Elephants would be. Didn't some last almost to the end of the war?

[JasonC]

"they did make an impression".

Funny, but the Germans did not think losing 25% of these super-vehicles in less than 3 days was a great success. Those bizarre wacky guys, they backed off and tried something completely different.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/elefant/elefant.htm

Nibelungenwerke

Chassis nos.: 150001-150100

April-May 1943: 90

First saw action at Kursk. They were part of the Jagdpanzer Regiment 656 ( Panzerjägerabteilungen 653 and 654). It saw service with the XXXXXI Panzer Corps on the north side of the battle. 502 Russian tanks, 20 antitank guns, 100 other guns were destroyed by July 27, 1943. However, a big weakness was the lack of a MG. When they were separated from accompanying infantry they fell victim to close combat. They continued to fight until the end of 1943 at the Nikopol bridgehead and the Dniepr where they destroyed more than 200 Russian tanks.

During the winter of 1943-44 the remaining 50 (48 from another source) were recalled to Nibelungenwerke. At that time a MG34 bow MG was installed in the hull as well as a commander's cupola. Were issued to the 653rd Panzerjäger and the 614th Panzerjägerkompanie. Used mostly in Italy after that. Suffered from shortage of spare parts. Usually put out of action by mechanical failures more than by battle.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/elefant.html

[ November 15, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Spanish Bombs]

Is it true that all Ferdinands were at Kursk? All 90 saw action? Ergo, by definition the Aberdeen Elefant was at Kursk and in action? That though fascinated me when I saw it a few years back - I assume it was captured in Italy, but there is so little information in the tank park.

[Other Means]

A big problem of the Ferdinand was the high ground pressure

so they did make an impression.

guys, you've got to start catching these for yourselves.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

Is it true that all Ferdinands were at Kursk? All 90 saw action? Ergo, by definition the Aberdeen Elefant was at Kursk and in action? That though fascinated me when I saw it a few years back - I assume it was captured in Italy, but there is so little information in the tank park.

Two battalions plus a battalion of Brummbars.

From readings it appears they did. It seems a one shot production run. But after Kursk (where they did some damage), they must have had a low total write-off rate.

Its 6 man crew means that at least one guy can throw grenades..

The driver/bow mger are totally separate from the gun crew.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

Is it true that all Ferdinands were at Kursk? All 90 saw action? Ergo, by definition the Aberdeen Elefant was at Kursk and in action? That though fascinated me when I saw it a few years back - I assume it was captured in Italy, but there is so little information in the tank park.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Battlefield/3784/Survivors.html

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Funny, but the Germans did not think losing 25% of these super-vehicles in less than 3 days was a great success. Those bizarre wacky guys, they backed off and tried something completely different.

Err...not sure what brought that on...I wasn't contradicting you there, Jason. What the Soviets found so impressive probably had to do with the types extremely thick frontal armour, especially as it entered battle far before the Kingtiger. The fact that a number were crippled and lost by mines probably made the Soviet PAK crews extremely grateful, as they was not much they could do to such a monster, at least frontally. And of course the long 88 could rip through anything the Soviets had.

Quite a change from facing down a Panzer III.

[PJungnitsch]

Oh, and nice article on the Elephant at AFV interiors.

[Mr. Tittles]

Ferdinands were assigned to schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and 654 (each was to be equipped with 45 Ferdinands), in preparation for the Kursk offensive (Unternehmen "Zitadelle") in July of 1943. Both units were formed in April of 1943 at Bruck. sPzJagAbt 653 was formed from personnel from 197th Sturmgeschuetz Abteilung. sPzJagAbt 653 was commanded by Major Steinwachs, while sPzJagAbt 654 by Major Karl-Heinz Noak, both (along with Sturmpanzerabteilung 216 - equipped with Brummbars) formed the 656 sPanzerjager Regiment commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Jungenfled.In fact, sPzJagAbt 653 had 45 Ferdinands, while sPzJagAbt 654 had 44 Ferdinands as a single one was still being tested at Kummersdorf. In order to provide Ferdinands with ammunition, six Panzer IIIs were converted into Munition Schleppers attached to the Ferdinand units. 656 sPanzerjager Regiment was part of 41st Panzer Corps (under command of General Harpe) of Army Group Center for the upcoming operation.

On the first days of action, Ferdinands were disaster due to the technical problems (few were lost because of the fuel line fires), the lack of adequate support and the most important the lack of a self-defense weapon. Many Ferdinands were destroyed either by their crews after being immobilized (by combat damage or mechanical problem) or by Soviet infantry and artillery as well as by SU-152 "Zwieroboj" heavy mechanised guns. It was recorded that some Ferdinand's crews (ex. Major Noak's crew) used to fire their 7.92mm MG34 machine guns through the barrel of main 88mm gun while others mounted their 7.92mm MG34 underneath the gun, in order to fire at the enemy infantry units. Temporary field-made solution was the rear mounted platform for Panzergrenadiers, but it only resulted in heavy casualties among them. During the Kursk offensive until November of 1943, Ferdinands from sPzJagAbt 653 destroyed some 320 Soviet tanks and lost 13 Ferdinands, while entire 656 sPanzerjager Regiment destroyed some 502 Soviet tanks and 100 other vehicles. Ferdinands proved to be very effective when employed behind the lines.

"On the first day of action, we successfully engaged bunkers, infantry, field and anti-tank artillery positions. For three hours our guns (Ferdinands) fought in the cavalcade of enemy fire and proved to be immune to enemy fire !. In the evening of the first day, first enemy tanks were destroyed, while others retreated. Crews of field and anti-tank guns run away after firing few uneffective shots against our guns (Ferdinands). In first engagements our regiment (656 sPanzerjager Regiment) destroyed numerous artillery positions, bunkers as well as 120 enemy tanks..." - Report from July 19th of 1943 by Platoon commander Boehm.

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.

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).

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

[Mr. Tittles]

These units, were they crewed by StuG guys? Artillerymen?

They seem to have given a good account for themselves, even in Kursk. From the way it sounds, company sized units were distributed to other units.

Using any non-turreted vehicle in a 'first-wave' fashion is just asking for trouble.

Anyone have Brummbar kursk information?

[rum]

From the article of M. Svirin, published at

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/Ferdinand/ferdinand2.html#kursk

(sorry i dont know if any english translation is exist).

I could translate some quotes which are about Ferdinand.

======

"Total at the battlefield near Ponyri where were 21 Ferdinand, 3 150mm assault gun "Brummbar", eight PzIII and Pz IV tanks (three of them with short barrel), two Commander tanks and two remote-controlled "Borguard tankettes".

Most of the Ferdinants were found on the minefield, where landmines were made by the captured high cariber rounds and airbombs, and more then the half of the vehicles had their tracks/wheels damaged. Five vehicles had tracks/wheels damage from the 76mm and higher caliber shells. Two vehicles had their guns disable because of shot-through with soviet shells or ATRs. One vehicle was demolished by direct hit of the airbomb from Pe-2, and one with the hit of 203mm howizer shell into the combat containment top. Only one Ferdinand had a hole from 76mm shell on his port side (7 T-34 and a battery of 76mm guns were shooting at him from all direction at 200...400 meters range, and Only one Ferdinand, which didnt had any tracks/wheels damage, was burned with incendiary bottle thrown by infantry (hilited with me - rum)

======

Where are not enought Ferdinats to get any real statistic (and total 90 producted wont get any statistic at all), but seems what the most effective weapon against them were minefield. Although some infantry soldiers were lucky with ATRs and Molotov Cocktail, also.