@dennismwallentin296

I must say that I do not agree at all. The chassis were left over from Porsche's bid for the Tiger so only 90 were made and available. Ferdinand and later when being upgraded and renamed to Elefant had an average kill ratio of 10:1 and at one battle even 14:1. The crews and commands of Abt 563 and 564 appreciated it very much and it become even better after the remaining Ferdinands had been upgraded. Every AFV had its pros and cons so did Ferdinand/Elefant but to say it was a disaster is to lie too much.

@davesherry5384

couldn';t be  success? Given this, tank destroyer had the highest kill ratio to Tank destroyers of all the tank destroyers, it's only failure was there weren't enough of them. Once they got rid of the stupid Hybrid engines and replaced them with standard engines, the tank destroyer was a remarkable success, given there were less than 100 of them.

@AndrewAustinFrustrated

When used properly with support these were lethal weapons as was stated in the video they were misused at kursk, these were long range snipers that could take out any allied tank while being impervious to return fire when used in a hull down position.

@selfdo

The Ferdinand/Elefant only resulted due to political infighting, i.e., Ferdinand Porsche, for whom this misbegotten hulk was named after, THOUGHT he'd win the Tiger production contract, and began producing vehicles.  Krupp was to supply the turret for either his or Henschel's design.  With about 100 chassis produced, that was about 4,000 TONS of high-grade steel that, had Germany the resources, not only in the precious metals used for the alloys, but also the ENERGY (mainly high-grade coal), more in abundance, they might have been cut up for scrap and melted down, to be cast and/or rolled into something else.  This vehicle was an improvisation, like many of the Strumgeschutzen or Panzerjagers that the Panzerwaffe rolled out, due to the need to make do with what they had.

Given its high kill ratios where engaged, the Elefant shouldn't be considered a "failure", but more an example of how a monumental managerial screwup was corrected into something useful.  Given that this was a rather limited run, the Elefant was not going to prove any great effect on the war's outcome, which was decided by (uber) MASS production.  Germany was utterly smothered by that, as it was matched by the UK, exceeded at least in numbers by the Soviet Union if not necessarily in effectiveness per vehicle produced, and CRUSHED by the US, the "Arsenal of Democracy".

@alexbowman7582

There’s an amazing documentary on the restoration of one of these tanks in the United States.

@zillsburyy1

they should have stuck with the STUG 3

@asullivan4047

Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. Class A research project!!! Much -much too heavy & mechanized break down issues. The project needed perhaps 2 more years to perfect. 2 years Germany didn't have.

@auladadavamosembora

Ferdinand was build from the left over Porsche Tiger I chassis and conceived as an auxiliary for Artillery units, it was Guderian decision to make it an Assault Gun - that is why the lack of a MG was notable at Kursk. After its "weakness" in the new role at  Kursk, Ferdinands were refitted as proper  Assault Guns and the name changed for Elefant for administrative purposes.

It was never mass produced and some of the 90 produced one survived the war - means they stayed in combat for 2 years.

It design survived WW2, just look at the Pz.Haub. 2000.

@brooksroth345

This vehicle had the highest kill/loss ratio for any other vehicle in the German army. Interesting for a failure.

@conceptalfa

The Citadell was too much of a battle by itself, not even speaking of testing the Ferdinand there for the first time in real and heavy battle conditions!!!
Both tactic and mechanical wise....

@briankorbelik2873

As a long range panzerjager, it was deadly.  And it's frontal armour was rarely penitrated.  But, it was used as a breakthrough tank, where infantry tank killing sauads could get to it.  Plus untill sent back to the factory for modernazation, it had no secondary machine gun.  Very flawed, yet a great armour killer.

@Swellington_

I think Mr Porsche thought everyone else was as smart as him,who could work on that damn suspension and drive train?

@Wardads1

10 to 1 kill ratio , and a lot of that was in piss poor tank country in Italy.

@dpt6849

This would be a good gun for a fortified position within concrete casing or so.

If necessary for driving between fixed covered positions as a driving turret

@Cesarc2

El mejor tanque que tuvo Alemania en la guerra fue el Panzer IV; el mejor cañón de asalto y caza carro el Stug III. El primero pertenecía al arma blidada, el segundo- a pesar de los esfuerzos de Guderian- a la artillería.

@gooldii1

Looks exactly like a Panzerhaubitze 2.000!

@luillierstephane1463

BTW, it was not the PAK (Panzer Abwehr Kanone) 43 which was mounted on the Elefant, nor the Kõnigstiger or the Jagdpanther, it was the KwK (Kampfwagen Kanone) 43. This last one was different in several ways.

@sonsofthewestredwhiteblue5317

Augustus, save some room for later!!

@creightonleerose582

I'd read a few crew accounts from Ferd crews Kursk, that when envelop'd by nearby Soviet infantry & out of  available HE cannon rounds, or any rounds @ all, theyd taken to opening the 88 L71's breech-block, stuffing the MG down 'er, sighting in & firing the onboard MG34 >> DOWN >> the length of its barrel to eliminate the nearby infantry squads!?...

-Imagine the available 8.8cm 3-1/2 inch field of view down the entire length of a 17 foot long cannon!...Not too mention damage done to the lands & groove of the cannons rifling profile due to errant projectile strikes down its length....Ha!

.-Just insane really, but I guess such kept a few Ferdinands & the crews from total destruction. Its beyond me why the manufacturer, or engineers, @ the very least failed to install a co-axial mounted MG, let alone a bow MG. Such thinking prob heavily clouded by the loooooong range aspect of its intended n' expected overall usage....
-Problem being that upon any battlefield you wont be faced with ideal situations 100% of the time & need to plan &/or adjust for such....



-A rather complicated, but forward thinking original  hybrid drive-train. Recovery of damaged/mobility kill'd, but yet still repairable vehicles being a serious issue as well....

@JoeKing-_i_am_not_joking

A german military historian interviewed some Ferdinand/Elefant-crews and the loved the afv. They felt safe and the gun was incredible.
Sure, mobility was not Good but it was designed to be a Tank sniper, ambushing from cover