Info: Panzerjäger Tiger (P) Elefant Sdkfz 184

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Info: Panzerjäger Tiger (P) Elefant Sdkfz 184

#1

Post by admfisher » 03 Jun 2002, 08:00

These units saw action first with, Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 and 654. This was in the Battle Kursk. With a 88 mm PaK 43/2 L/71 and up to 200 mm of frontal armor there where great things expected from these machines.

"For many years it was thought that most of the Elefants were lost because they had no machine guns, but this not true. Many of them were lost due to damage or a lack of fuel, not because of the deadly shooting from enemy guns or infantry. The Elefant was an offensive weapon, so during the retreating combat it had less
chance of fighting successfully and many of them had to be abandoned on the battlefields with only minor damage, like this one here."

During the battle of Kursk the Elephant was the heaviest AFV in service. In the time following the war the Elephant was described as unsuccessful and basically inefficient in combat. This is based on one statistic - the number of these lost, which was only 39. The losses were in fact heavy but they were only about half of Jagdpanzer Regiment 656 (Pz.Jag.653 and PZ.Jag654 ).

This was about the same percentage of the losses of the Tiger units involved in Kursk also. The Elephants exacted a heavy toll when they could during the 22 days of battle, the were responsible for the destruction of 502 tanks and other weapons.
Source:
Armor Battles on the Eastern Front
(2) Downfall of the Reich"

Panzerjäger Tiger (P) Elefant Sdkfz 184

Chassis Designer: Porsche

Fighting Weight: 68 tonnes 66.9 tons
Length Overall: 8.14 m 26.7 ft
Hull Length: 6.8 m 22.3 ft
Height Overall 2.97 m 9.7 ft
Width Overall: 3.43 m 11.3 ft

Engine: 2 Maybach HL 120 TR - V-12
Fuel: Petrol
Fuel Capacity: 950 L - 210 gal
Max. Speed Road: 20 kph - 12.5 mph
Max. Cross Country Speed: 17 kph - 10.5 mph
Road Range: 150 km - 93 miles
Cross Country: Range 90 km-56 miles
Crew: 6

Armament
MainGun: 8.8 cm Pak 43/2 L/71
Secondary: (Late model improvement) MG 42
Main Gun Ammunition: 50 rds

Armor
Superstructure Front Armor: 200 mm at 25 °
Superstructure Side: 80 mm at 20 °
Superstructure Rear Armor:80 mm at 20 °
SuperStucture Rear: 30 mm at 86 °
Hull Front Upper Plate Armor:100 + 100 mm at 12 °
Hull Upper rear:80 mm at 40 °
Hull Top rear:90 mm at 90 °
Hull Front Lower Plate Armor: 100 + 100 mm at 35 °
Hull Lower Side Armor: 60 mm at 0 °
Hull Lower Rear: 80 mm at 0 °
Lower Hull Top 50 mm at 20 to 90 °
Hull Rear Armor: 80 mm at 90 °
Gun Mantlet: 25 mm at 0 ° + 100 mm rounded

http://www3.sympatico.ca/admfisher/html/elefant.html

:mrgreen:

Fredrik
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 21:47
Location: Sweden

#2

Post by Fredrik » 03 Jun 2002, 10:29

Admfisher wrote: During the battle of Kursk the Elephant was the heaviest AFV in service. In the time following the war the Elephant was described as unsuccessful and basically inefficient in combat.

"Dear General Hartmann! I have taken the freedom to give you a short report about the use of our Ferdinands. On our first day of battle casemates, infantry, artillery and anti tank defences were attacked with great succes. Our guns have been in a barrage for three ours and they have proven their protection against artillery fire! On the evening of the first day some tanks were destroyed, while the others fled. The crews of the artillery and anti tank guns fled for our guns, after repeated fire. In the first combat 120 tanks were destroyed by our Abteilung, as well as many artillery batteries, anti tank guns and casemates."

As stated above, by Uffz. Boehm, the Elefant was certainly no failure. The only lunacy that can be traced in its brief story is that it was canceled in favour of the far more clumpsy and unsuccessful successor, the Jagdtiger.

Please refer to the entire report at the following page: http://www.geocities.com/madsin72/ebericht.html

Regards,

Fredrik
Last edited by Fredrik on 16 Jun 2002, 21:11, edited 1 time in total.


Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

#3

Post by Ovidius » 03 Jun 2002, 10:43

A kill ratio of 12.87:1 is not exactly a failure, is it?

Anyway, I think you were wrong. The hull machineguns on tanks were usually MG 34, because after the introduction of the MG 42, the MG 34 machineguns were collected in exchange from the troops and fitted on vehicles, where they had less chance to jam due to dust and dirt.

These sources:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com

http://www.achtungpanzer.com

state that the machinegun fitted on the Ferdinand/Elefant was a MG 34.

~Regards,

Ovidius

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Panzerjager

#4

Post by admfisher » 03 Jun 2002, 19:51

I did noy ontend to imply that I feel the Elephant was a dismall failure.

Read the top of the post and it states that they exacted a heavy price from the Russians.
As a matter of fact I have some more on the Elephant that tells of the machines killing ability, which was almost unmatched at Kursk.
The problem we all know is that there were no built in MG on the hull.
This was added after they were pulled back to regroup before going to Italy.

From what I understand is there were only a few Elephants killed at Kursk by gunfire. The losses were mainly caused by mines and mechanical failure. The Porsche Tiger hull was failure, and as with the Panthers they were still not totally ready for combat.

As for the actions in Italy I have very little and since I made this post in response to the post calling for more panzer post, I will leave it to others to fill in that part.

I hope the origanal post was not a slight to anyone!
:?

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14053
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#5

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 03 Jun 2002, 22:10

Good info.

You can find two articles at http://www.sturmtiger.de about the service record of the Ferdinand...

Christian

Mistel1
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 16 Apr 2002, 14:26
Location: Turkey

#6

Post by Mistel1 » 04 Jun 2002, 13:26

Zhukov states that on the way to Berlin, his troops had encountered
some "Ferdinand SPG"s in a town. They got rid of them with minimal losses, he adds...

Are these "Ferdinands" Elephants? If so, it means they still fought until the end...

And again if it is so, did the Russians really eliminate them easily? I have doubts...

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14053
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#7

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 04 Jun 2002, 14:03

Well, all Ferdinands (the 90 there were) changed their name to Elefants. his had nothing to do with the addition of the shield on the gun, or the hull machine gun.

Even though they had the MG in the hull, they still had no MG in the commanders coupola, and were therefore very vulnerable to attacks from the side and the rear.

From the front, however, they were very hard to kill...

Christian

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Elefant

#8

Post by admfisher » 16 Jun 2002, 19:51

It seems to me that Zhukov was mistaken, but then I may be wrong.
Many officials that wrote of the war mislabelled equipment.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14053
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#9

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 16 Jun 2002, 21:10

I think that since he met them as the first field marshal at Kursk, he used that name for the duration of the war in his notes.

It was not at all uncommon for generals to get the names wrong. Generalmajor F. W. von Mellenthin has stated that early Panthers had 8.8cm cannons and that the Ferdinand was called Porsche Tiger...

Christian

User avatar
Stuka
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 21 Oct 2002, 07:57
Location: CHINA P.R.

#10

Post by Stuka » 20 Jan 2004, 05:28

Sdkfz 184 was a kind of weapon with much speciality, the most powerful tank-kill ability, cruiser's protection, while the cursed mobility made it lump, anyway, it was not a good weapon to my owen opinion, but my favorite :D .
It was not the "universal tank" with even performance such like T-34, Sherman or even PzIV, it could not be used at any case, how to use it to avoid it's shortcomings and to exert it's strongpoint was the key to achieve the victory.
I think the usage of Ferdinand in Kursk was totally wrong.
They were used to break through the Soviet line (of course, maybe there were many reasons, the enemy line was so hard to break through, must depend Ferdinand's thick armour, that what I guess), gentlemen, Ferdinand is a kind of tank-destroyer, not TANK! Will you use Panzerjager I to break through?! O.K., Ferdinand's protection was good, but it has no turret, no bow machine-gun, no good maneuverability...... It was ill-suitable to let them do what should be done by the tank, of course they would suffer heavy losses, the tank-destroyer is a weapon of defense, not offense, any censure to the Ferdinand in Kursk is improper.
Sdkfz 184 as well as the other German tank-destroys were bore to kill the enemy tank, any other usage could be regarded as criminal, detroying is the only purpose, the only glory, and the all life for them.
Anyway, offten I hear some guys complain that Sdkfz 184 lack of a machine-gun, O.K., to add a machine-gun was better, but this was not the main point, why they don't complain the lack of machine-gun on SU-85, SU-100???!!! Because the Russian used them in correct way (not always :lol: )!

User avatar
John W
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 08:12
Location: United States of America
Contact:

#11

Post by John W » 20 Jan 2004, 06:50

Oh dear! RBF to the call again :D

Regarding:
It seems to me that Zhukov was mistaken, but then I may be wrong.
Many officials that wrote of the war mislabelled equipment.
"The 20 of April, tank #40247 came under fire from a self-propelled gun "Ferdinand" from a range of 1500-2000 metres. The tank-crew could fire only one shot because of the faulty firing mechanism. Manoeuvring to get away from the fire of self-propelled gun, JS-122 received, without any damage, 5 hits on the frontal plate. Meanwhile another unseen "Ferdinand" approached from the flank at a distance of 600-700 metres and perforated close to the right side of the engine compartment with an armor-piercing round. The crew left the immobilized tank, which burnt suddenly.

Tank #40255 received a direct hit by a 88 mm round of "Tiger" in the frontal lower plate at a the distance of 1000-1100 metres. Because of that, the left fuel tank was penetrated and the driver was wounded by a fragment of armour. The rest of the crew received light burns. The tank was burnt out.

After receiving three shots from the 88 mm Tiger's rounds on the nose from a distance of 1000-1500 metres, tank #4032 was destroyed by fire from another Tiger some 400-500 metres away. An 88 mm armor-piercing round penetrated the sloped armor plate from the right side. First the shell-case charges ignited, and then the fuel. The crew left the tank and evacuated the driver to the rear.

After being holed by 88 mm round of a "Tiger", from the distance 400 metres, on the frontal armor; the tank #4033 was towed to the to a repair facility for repair.

Tank #40260 was burned out after receiving a 88 mm round from a "Tiger", which fired at the left side from the flank at a range of 500 metres. The round damaged the engine and the tank ignited. The commander and the driver were wounded.

Tank #40244 received a hit from an 88 mm armor-piercing round fired by a "Tiger". The hit was received at the close range of 800-1000 metres in the right side of the hull. The driver died and the diesel fuel from damaged right fuel tank ignited. The tank was evacuated and blown up by sappers.

Tank #40263 caught fire after two rounds hit its side.

Tank #40273 was on its own, apart from the Regiment, and the 30 of April, near Iggisk, received two direct hits: the first in the turret and, immediately after, the second in the side plate of the engine compartment. The crew in the turret died at once, and the driver was wounded. The tank was left in enemy territory. During the combat, the tank crew participated in the repulse of the attack of 50 T-IIIs, T-IVs and T-VIs [the Russian term for Pz-III, Pz-IV, Pz-VI - Valera P.] which were supported by artillery and air attacks.

Tank #40254 was damaged from a distance of 800-1000 metres, by a "Ferdinand" in ambush. The first round did not penetrate the turret ring, but the second round put the engine out of order. The crew was evacuated and the tank was burnt out on the battle field.

Tank #40261 received a direct hit into the gun barrel. After the combat the barrel was changed for a new one."

[Please note: although the Russians often confused StuG with the Ferdinand, in this report the Ferdinand was confused with the Marder. - Valera P.]
(emphasis original)

From : Tank Damage report of the 72nd Independent Guards heavy Tank Regiment (especially during the period from 20 of April to 10 of May 1944)

:D

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#12

Post by Tiwaz » 20 Jan 2004, 09:18

Stuka, I kind of disagree while agreeing with you. Using something as heavily armoured as Elephant in attack can actually be a good idea. If you are not in a hurry that is...

Thanks to heavy armour they can be used to try to lure enemy tanks and AT-guns to reveal their position by firing and after that wipe out such threats to less armoured vahicles with their guns. Of course they will need some support and avoid situation where flanking is danger but that is problem with all tanks.

Ron Klages
In memoriam
Posts: 299
Joined: 20 Oct 2002, 22:34
Location: Lynnwood, Washington

Number Built

#13

Post by Ron Klages » 20 Jan 2004, 23:21

To all,

By the way my research shows that there were actually 91 Ferdinands built with 89 sent to fight at Kursk and 2 remaining at Kummersdorff for testing and training.

On page 76 of Karlheinz Münch's book Combat History of Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 653 there is a picture of the last Ferdinand coming off the chassis assembly line with the chassis number 150091 and the picture is dated 23 April 1943.
On page 88 and 89 dated 8 May 1943 there are pictures noted as the last Ferdinand to leave the factory and it has Fgst. Nr. 150100 in chalk on the side.
Then on page 90 there is a picture of Ferdinand at Kummersdorf and it notes that Fgst. Nrs. 150010 and 150011 underwent testing at Kummersdorff until December 1943. This means these two Ferdinands never went to Kursk.

In Thomas Jentz's Panzer Tracts No. 9 he notes that the Ferdinand had Fgst numbers 150010-150100. If you subtract 150009 from 150100 you get 91.
Also in PT 9 he notes that 150010 and 150011 were trial vehicles and that 89 vehicles were sent to sPRgt. 656 prior to Kursk.

On pages 59 thru 62 in Karlheinz Münch's book Combat History of Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung 653 there is a disposition report of the Ferdinands as of 1 September 1943 as follows: Note: the first set of numbers is the Fgst. Nr.; the second set of numbers is the tactical numbers and the third set of numbers is the unit-either sPJA 653 of sPJA 654. These are the survivors of the July and August 1943 battles. This means that sPJA 653 lost 13 Ferdinands and sPJA 654 lost 26 Ferdinands in July/ August 1943. The fifty survivors are:

150012 124 653
150013 322 653
150014 101 653
150015 313 653
150017 202 653
150018 334 653
150019 133 653
150020 201 653
150021 314 653
150022 612 654
150024 102 653
150028 211 653
150030 534 654
150031 512 654
150034 714 654
150036 513 654
150040 511 654
150044 533 654
150046 532 654
150047 722 654
150050 613 654
150055 721 654
150057 702 654
150060 632 654
150062 611 654
150064 521 654
150067 212 653
150068 621 654
150069 631 654
150071 633 654
150073 324 653
150074 213 653
150075 321 653
150076 622 654
150077 131 653
150079 301 653
150080 121 653
150081 214 653
150082 312 653
150083 114 653
150086 221 653
150087 222 653
150089 223 653
150092 224 653
150093 123 653
150094 231 653
150095 332 653
150097 233 653
150098 302 653
150100 234 653

The Fgst. Nrs. losst in July/August 1943 are:

150016
150023
150025
150026
150027
150029
150032
150033
150035
150037
150038
150039
150041
150042
150043
150045
150048
150049
150051
150052
150053
150054
150056
150058
150059
150061 turret number 724
150063
150065
150066
150070
150072
150078
150084
150085
150088
150090 turret number 624
150091
150096
150099

The turret numbers lost in July/August 1943 are:

losses for sPJA 653 are
111
112
113
122
132
134
232
311
323
331
333
I 02 blown up on mine
unk

Losses for sPJA 654 are:

501 mine damage
502 mine damage
514 broken off tracks and destroyed road wheel by mines
522 broken off tracks and destroyed road wheels
523 broken off tracks and destroyed road wheels
524 mine damage
531 destroyed by bomb from PE-2
601 broken off tracks on right side from shell hits
602 76mm gun hits
614
623
624 Fgst. Nr. 150090 tracks are destroyed by mines
634
701 hits by 203mm shells
711
712 hit by shell
713 hits by shells
723 hits by shells
724 Fgst. Nr. 150061 hits by shells
731
732 hit by shell and set afire by KS bottle
733
734 broken off tracks
II 01 set afire by KS bottle
II 02 broken tracks right side and destroyed road wheels by mine
II 03 hits by shells and set afire by KS bottle

Therefore at the battles in the Kursk region [July-August 1943] and then the Dnjepr Bridgehead [September-November 1943] the 656. sPJRgt had destroyed 654 soviet tanks and had lost 39 Ferdinands at Kursk and 8 after Kursk plus they lost 19 Sturmpanzer IVs for total losses of 66 panzers while destroying 654 enemy panzers a ratio of 1 to 9.9. Still a very effective ratio.

Probaly more information than wanted but here it is.

Best regards,

Ron Klages

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14053
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#14

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 21 Jan 2004, 00:05

I did knew about the 89/91 numbers, but the breakdown of the turret nunmbers is quite nice - thanks!

Christian

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#15

Post by Tim Smith » 22 Jan 2004, 10:24

The Elefants did very well in Italy against the Allies, I hear.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”