Elefant in Kursk

[Ron Klages]

Hi all,

A bit of a lengthy post but this should cover many questions regarding the FERDINAND/ELEFANT


A Bit of History regarding the:

Panzerjäger Tiger (P) mit 8.8cm Pak 43/2 L/71 [Sd.Kfz. 184]
Ferdinand/Elefant
Chassis Numbers 150010-150100

On 22 September 1942 orders were given to modify some of the Porsche Tigers as Sturmgeschütz with 200 mm frontal armor and the long 8.8cm Pak L/71 gun. Nibelungenwerk was contracted in November 1942 to assemble the chassis and Alkett was to assemble the superstructure but in February 1943 the decision was made to have Nibelungenwerk complete all of the assembly work. Krupp had completed their contract in October 1942 to deliver 100 Tiger (P) hulls to Nibelungenwerk which was located in Austria. These were the basis of the Sturmgeschütz vehicle. On 22 February 1943 the cover name “FERDINAND” was issued for this new vehicle to honor Dr. Ferdinand Porsche. Alkett retained the responsibility for completion of the two trial vehicles [chassis numbers 150010 and 150011 using completed chassis from Nibelungenwerk. Nibelungenwerk then was responsible for the assembly of the remaining 89 vehicles with chassis numbers 150012 through 150100. There has been published errors in the total quantity of these vehicles being 90 vehicles but as you can see there were 91 vehicles built in total.

Combat History:

On 1 April 1943 Sturmgeschütz Abteilung 197 was re-designated as schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 at Bruck on the Leitha in Austria and in May they began to receive their “FERDINANDs]. At the same time a new unit was being formed at Rouen, France named schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654. In May and June 1943 these two units were to receive the 89 FERDINANDS with chassis numbers 150012 through 150100. On 8 June 1943 schwere Panzerjäger-Regiment 656 was established in St. Pölten, Austria under the command of ObstLt. Baron Ernst von Jungenfeld. schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 became the I. Bataillon and schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 became the II. Bataillon. The III. Bataillon was Sturmpanzer-Abteilung 216 with the “BRUMMBÄR”. The regiment also had attached Panzer-Kompanie (Funklenk) 313 and Panzer-Kompanie (Funklenk) 314 equipped with Sturmgeschütz III, Ausf. Gs and demolition vehicles. Finally the Stab Kompanie of the Regiment was equipped with Panzer IIs. This was quite a large force and in went into action in Operation “Zitadelle” in July 1943 on the northern front of the Kursk salient.

In the fighting in the northern section of the Kursk salient schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 lost 13 FERDINANDs in combat out of a total of 44 and schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 lost 26 FERDINANDs in combat out of a total of 45. Therefore a total of 50 FERDINANDs survived the fighting for the Kursk salient from 5 July 1943 to 27 July 1943. During this period schwere Panzerjäger-Regiment 656 destroyed 502 Soviet tanks and destroyed over 200 anti-tank guns and 100 cannons. In August the regiment found themselves in Karatchev and then Briansk areas to the west of Orel on the northern front of the Kursk Salient. In September the unit was moved south to the Dnjepropetrovsk bridgehead fighting first in the Saporoshje bridgehead from 10 September 1943 to 13 October 1943 then the Nikopol bridgehead in November and December 1943. By the end of November 4 more FERDINANDs were lost in the fighting leaving a total of 46 survivors. I should also note that of these 46 surviving FERDINANDS three had been converted to BergeFERDINANDs by the regiments workshop Kompanie. Also the total number of destroyed Soviet tanks had now risen to 654 and destroyed anti-tank and cannons was now at 610. If you do the math then the kill ratio was 43 FERDINANDS to 654 Soviet tanks or 1 to 15.21. Not bad for a panzer without a machinegun. From 16 December 1943 to 10 January 1944, schwere Panzerjäger-Regiment 656 was transported to Austria since they were desperately in need of a complete overhaul.

Much has been said about the ineffectiveness of FERDINANDs and that they were destroyed by Soviet infantry at Kursk because of the lack of a machinegun. In my opinion this is an oversimplification. With a kill ratio of over 15 to 1 the FERDINAND was an effective weapon system. The high losses at Kursk were do to improper use of the FERDINANDS and a great difficulty in recovery. Most of the FERDINANDs were lost because of a very efficient and effective Soviet defensive system of mines. These huge vehicles lost their running gear to mine damage and because of the difficulty of recovery they had to be abandoned on the battlefield. Others were disabled by artillery damage to the running gear. Yes, some were destroyed by infantry but this was the exception. Any tank is vulnerable to infantry if the infantry can approach from the rear. This is why efficient use of armor on the battlefield usually has accompanying infantry to protect the panzers rear and flanks from enemy infantry. A good example is the situation currently in Iraq. The US lost only 1 Abrams tank in the initial assault but after the capitulation of the Iraq army there has been 23 or more Abrams lost in the insurgent fighting the last two years. This is why a armored unit does not like to use tanks in an urban environment.
Also remember that the lack of a forward firing machinegun on the Ferdinand would not have helped at all on the rear or flanks. I also believe that another problem at Kursk with the FERDINAND was significant weight and the complexity of the power system and the suspension system.

After arrival in Austria in mid-January 1943 overhaul and modifications commenced on the surviving 46 FERDINANDs. Plus some of the destroyed and burnt-out FERDINANDS that had also returned from the Eastern Front. The two FERDINANDs, chassis numbers 150010 and 150011 that were at Kummersdorf were also sent to Austria for incorporation of the modifications. In total it appears that 47 FERDINANDs and 3 BergeFERDINANDs were upgraded in Austria at Nibelungen. Besides the complete overhaul the numerous modifications were made including:

1. changing the ventilation gratings over the engine compartment
2. adding a ball-mounted machinegun for the radio operator
3. adding a commander’s cupola with periscopes and a flap for extending the scissors periscopes through the closed hatch
4. reversing the deflector shield in front of the ball mount for the 8.8cm Pak 43/2
5. applying Zimmerit coating on the outside up to a height that a man could reach while standing on the ground

Also after returning to Austria, schwere Panzerjäger-Regiment 656 was disbanded and schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 was converted to a Jagdpanther unit. Only schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 remained as a FERDINAND unit.

The 1. Kompanie of schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 was the first element to return to company when they were ordered to Italy on 1 February 1944. They loaded on trains for Italy on 16 February 1944 and arrived and unloaded at Rome on 24 February 1944 with 11 FERDINANDs and 1 BergeFERDINAND, They remained in Italy until departure on 2 August 1944. They were sent to Vienna, Austria where they turned over their 3 surviving ELEFANTs and 1 BergeELEFANT to the Army Arsenal. The remaining personnel then were sent to the Mielau Training in Poland and then on 18 August 1944 they went on leave. While fighting in Italy they had lost 8 FERDINANDs/ELEFANTs in combat and had not received any replacements.

You noticed that I have changed the designation to ELEFANT from FERDINAND during the above paragraph. On 29 November 1943 Adolf Hitler, Der Führer, suggested that the name should be changed to ELEFANT. Now we all know that a suggestion from Hitler was actually a command so on OKH orders dated 1 February and 27 February 1944 the name was officially changed. It had nothing to do with the overhaul and modification that was done in Austria beginning in January 1944. An interesting side comment is that the name FERDINAND continued to be used by the soldiers and on the Panzerlage they were always shown as PzJg. VI. Also in Italy it was not until 19 May 1944 that the designation ELEFANT was used at all. The terrain in Italy was not ideal or friendly for armor and especially heavy armor so the ELEFANTs were utilized as artillery more than as a tank destroyer.

The remainder of schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 remained in Austria until they returned to the Eastern Front in early April 1944 The Stab, 2. Kompanie and 3. Kompanie arrived at Brzezany in the Ukraine on 6 April 1944 with 31 ELEFANTs and 2 BergeELEFANTs. They quickly went into battle in and around Tarnopol fighting into July 1944. By the end of June 1944 they had received 5 additional ELEFANTs but by the end of July 1944 they had lost 19 ELEFANTs and 2 BergeELEFANTs. In August 1944 they withdrew to the area in southern Poland near Bad Rabka just to the south of Krakau, Poland. Here they could report only having 12 ELEFANTs however they received 2 additional ELEFANTs from Austria. These were probably overhauled ELEFANTs that had survived the fighting in Italy. Also the unit was now reorganized to consist of only the 2. Kompanie. On 15 December 1944 the 2. Kompanie was renamed as the schwere Panzerjäger-Kompanie 614 and it first continued to operate with the 4. Panzer-Armee in the Kielce area and they around 15 January 1945 they withdrew to the west and north fighting their last battles just to the south of Berlin at Zossen. The last ELEFANTs were fighting at: 1 at Mittenwalde and 1 at Klein Köris on the road to Löpten and they both then fought at the Karl August Platz and the Trintity Church in Berlin.

The other survivors of schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653, Stab, 1. Kompanie and 3. Kompanie had gone to Germany and then Austria where they were retrained on the Jagdtigers which they took to battle in the west.

That about covers the history of the 91 FERDINAND/ELEFANT weapon systems of World War II. An effective weapon system---YES, a practical weapon system----NO. It was a very effective gun mounted on an overweight underpowered chassis that had highly sophisticated suspension and power systems [a gasoline engine powering a generator that drove an electric engine that turned the road wheels]. Can not get much more complicated than that.

Best regards to all,

Ron Klages

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Thanks for the post, Ron - it certainly answered a lot of my questions!

Which sources would you recommend I add to my wishing list if I want to find out more for myself?

[Ron Klages]

Christian,

There are really two major books that will cover everything you wished to know about the Ferdinand/Elefant. Both are by Karlheinz Münch and published by J.J. Fedorowitz. The first book and the single one to aquire is

Combat History of Schwere Panzerjäjer Abteilung 653

and the second is

Combat History of Schwere Panzerjäjer Abteilung 654

Both are expensive but excellent with many photos and complete history of the units. The book on 653 even covers StuG Abt 197 which was reorganized as 653 prior to Kursk.

Tom Jenz has a booklet in the Panzer Tracts series that covers Panzerjägers but it only has a few drawings and 1 page of technical information.

If there are any questions you might have on the Ferdinand/Elefant, let me know.

best regards,

Ron Klages

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Thanks - I'll have to get those books (though at those prices, it's not likely that I'll buy both in the same month ).

Christian

[Igorn]

Combat History:

This was quite a large force and in went into action in Operation “Zitadelle” in July 1943 on the northern front of the Kursk salient.

In the fighting in the northern section of the Kursk salient schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 653 lost 13 FERDINANDs in combat out of a total of 44 and schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 654 lost 26 FERDINANDs in combat out of a total of 45. Therefore a total of 50 FERDINANDs survived the fighting for the Kursk salient from 5 July 1943 to 27 July 1943. During this period schwere Panzerjäger-Regiment 656 destroyed 502 Soviet tanks and destroyed over 200 anti-tank guns and 100 cannons.

Cheap Nazi propoganda to disguise fiasco of Ferdinands during the Zitadelle. I advise you to read the memoirs of Heinz Guderian about poor Ferdinand's performance during the Kursk Battle. If Ferdinand's performed that well what hindered General Model to achieve his strategic objective to defeat the troops of Soviet General Rokossovsky and reach Kursk?

By the end of November 4 more FERDINANDs were lost in the fighting leaving a total of 46 survivors. I should also note that of these 46 surviving FERDINANDS three had been converted to BergeFERDINANDs by the regiments workshop Kompanie. Also the total number of destroyed Soviet tanks had now risen to 654 and destroyed anti-tank and cannons was now at 610. If you do the math then the kill ratio was 43 FERDINANDS to 654 Soviet tanks or 1 to 15.21. Not bad for a panzer without a machinegun.

Again, cheap Dr. Goebbels propoganda. If Ferdinand (Elephant) was so successful why Germans produced only 90 units of this wonder-weapon and stopped further serial production?

Best Regards from Russia,

[Ron Klages]

Igorn wrote:

If Ferdinand's performed that well what hindered General Model to achieve his strategic objective to defeat the troops of Soviet General Rokossovsky and reach Kursk?

Klages responds:


PAPA STALIN,
as a result of Papa Stalin at the helm of the great ship “CCCP” and his splendid leadership the fascist criminals were soundly defeated at every engagement from 22 June 1941 until the end of the hostilities.


Igorn wrote:

If Ferdinand (Elephant) was so successful why Germans produced only 90 units of this wonder-weapon and stopped further serial production?


Klages responds:

PAPA STALIN,
as a result of Papa Stalin at the helm of the great ship “CCCP” and his splendid leadership he stopped the supply of the resources necessary to build thousands more of the WONDER WEAPON Ferdinand (Elefant).


Oh by the way, they produced 91----oops I forgot, must be more Dr. Goebbels propoganda.


Best regards as always,

Ron Klages

[matthall]

Oops, I thought we'd got rid of our great communist friend. I guess he escape from his mental institution.
Again.

Matt

[Igorn]

I see Mr. Mathhall still delights Nazi-fans on this forum by his appearance.

Best Regards from Russia,

[greenhorn]

I think the post of Ron and Matt on the subject of Ferds & Elefants are models of clarity and but fail miserable in the bullshit aroma stakes.

Most of the junk I've ploughed through on the web, appears to be merely hearsay and mythologises their so called vulnerability to infantry....
Crappy web sources alledge that the Ferds didn't have an MG, which is part correct in that it didn't have a bow/hull or coaxially mounted MG, but had an MG34 that could be used outside the vehicle.

If some people would read through the whole thread.....
Porsche's design failed in the competition, (Henschels won). The 91 chassis were loitering around the Nibelungenwerkes like a bad smell.... these were then utilised.

"The Ferds' Regt was responsible for the destruction 502 Soviet tanks and destroyed over 200 anti-tank guns and 100 cannons, for the loss of 50 Ferds plus other AFVs.... "

Obviously scale on that level is unsustainable. If they had built 900 Ferdinands.... that would have been interesting...... can't even beginning to imagine the scale of German failure then....

5020 Soviet Tanks, 2000AT guns, 1000 cannons....

By the way what proportion were the Ferdinands in relation to total German Tank & SPG strengths during Zitadelle? 5 or 10%?

[Igorn]

Ferdinand (Elephant) having weight of 65 tons was not able to turn around on the soft ground. While turning one track is moving and second one has to be braking. But Ferdinand had a weight of 65 tons and with such a weight and relatively narrow tracks, a track which has to be braking was digging up in ground and Ferdinand was bogging down in mud or sand. Therefore due to their huge weight Elephants (Ferdinands) were practically not used in Eastern and even Western Europe. After catastrophic first appearance at Kursk bulge, all Ferdinands (Elephants) had to be shifted to Italy to the hard (stone) ground. But lessons we not learned by Hitler’s panzer designers and in the meantime they worked on E-100 tank with weight of 140 tons and Dr. Porsche was working on creating of Mouse tank with weight 188 tons. But they faced a lot of problems. First of all where to get such powerful engines. Maibach 234 -800 h/p was installed on E-100. It seemed to be very powerful engine for that time. But a tank had an incredible weight and had only about 5 h/p per ton of weight. MB-509 -1050 h/p engine was installed on Mouse and again, only 5.5 h/p per a ton of weight. This is what they did at the end of the war and were not able to complete. Just to compare, Russian the most obsolete BT-2 had 6.5 times higher h/p per a ton of weight ratio compared to Hitler’s Mouse. Engine is the heart of a tank. Hitler’s Mouse had a weak heart compared to its incredible weight. But the most important point was that these panzers could be built only by small series or individual units. And one more point. European bridges of that time rarely could sustain a weight of more than 40 tons. Weight of 140 tons and 188 tons could not be sustained by any bridge. Question. Why they need a panzer which leaving the factory gate could move to a first river and not further?

German General –Lt Erich Scheider gave the following characteristic to Hitler’s super tank Maus: “… from military perspective this tank did not have any value. Its design was created by Porshe and Krupp. During the testing it turned out that it could not cross through any bridge and served as a good target and did not have armor thick enough to place its forehead under any anti-tank gun without risk. To create an experimental model and to prepare serial production of this tank many valuable materials and labor were consumed. These efforts could be used for solving other, more urgent tasks…”

In this assessment of German general I was amazed by the phrase “During the testing it turned out that it could not cross through any bridge...” I wonder if before the testing it was not clear for German designers of 188 tons tank?

Red Army' manual how to destroy a Ferdinand

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/weapons12_r.html

Best Regards from Russia,

[MWellner]

Sounds like if Porsche had used an tried and true transmission and other components and especially used as an defensive weapon, it might have been more effective as the latter was pointed out earlier.

[Nibelung]

Igorn I don't understand what does the E-100 have to do with Elephants at Kursk.

The track of the Elephant was 65 cm wide - is that narrow? You also keep forgeting that it was UNTESTED until Kursk, so it had many flaws (like the Panther) which had to be improved once they were acknowledged on the battlefield.

best,
Miha / Nibelung

[Matt L]

I think the post of Ron and Matt on the subject of Ferds & Elefants are models of clarity and but fail miserable in the bullshit aroma stakes.

Huh? Are you trying to suggest that our posts were clear but full of fertilizer? Everything I wrote came from original German wartime reports and the reminiscences of veterans of the units- hardly BS. They're the most reliable material there is- everything else is just supposition, theory, and opinion. Not only that but I don't recall saying anything about the Ferdinand/Elefant being a good machine- I only addressed the myth that it was a dismal failure and the reasons for its difficulties at Kursk.

I'm really confused greenhorn- which side of the argument are you on? Half of what you wrote seems to suggest you think that the negative stuff written about the Ferdinand/Elefant is the myth it is, and half seems like you think it was the worst machine ever built. Which is it?

I advise you to read the memoirs of Heinz Guderian about poor Ferdinand's performance during the Kursk Battle. If Ferdinand's performed that well what hindered General Model to achieve his strategic objective to defeat the troops of Soviet General Rokossovsky and reach Kursk?

I don't recall Generalinspektur der Panzertruppen Guderian being a field commander during Unternehmen Zitadelle- well you learn something every day Just because a well-known officer says something doesn't make it true Igor- certainly not in the face of reports to the contrary from sources closer to the issue. Adolf Galland perpetuated the myth about Hitler's interference hindering the deployment of the Me262 as a fighter- something that's easily proven not to have been the case because the engines weren't ready until the machine was finally fielded anyway. They're no less susceptible to theories and mistaken conjecture. If Guderian had been there at Kursk with the men who wrote the reports and gave their stories to Münch for his book, I'd take his opinions much more seriously.

Red Army' manual how to destroy a Ferdinand

So? Looks like the same stats that would apply to any armored vehicle. HE and smaller caliber stuff to knock out tracks and wheels, hand grenade into hatches, flammables into engine intakes, AP shot through sides. Not exactly specific for the Ferdinand save for the ranges. I do find it interesting that the pictures only show tungsten carbide APC ammunition going through the side armor. And notice how any possibility of destroying the vehicle from the front is absent- unlike the Ferdinand/Elefant's vs. ANY Soviet tank

And the cry of 'propaganda' would be a lot less ridiculous if it weren't coming from the #1 fan of the Soviet Union- the biggest propaganda organization in the history of the world.

[Schachbrett]

was there any hauler (repair vehicle) capable of towing a damaged ferdinand with its 65 ton weight? it`s my impression that most of the vehicles that have broken down had to be abandoned or destroyed by the crews. am i wrong?

[Matt L]

They were recoverable- there are numerous entries in the reports in Münch's book mentioning various types of track, running gear, etc. damage that would have prevented the Ferdinand from returning to the workshops itself- although it wasn't easy to be sure. Quite a lot of the losses that are incorrectly credited to Soviet infantry at Kursk were actually due to the fact that recovery wasn't possible for one reason or another. I mentioned a bunch of photographs earlier in this thread that show various types of severe mine damage that required the Ferdinands to be abandoned. The machines themselves don't appear to have a writeoff level of damage, but were lost nonetheless.

Matt