"Ferdinand Penetration Tests " Topic

"First, we have the 45 mm gun. Naturally, it can't do anything to the Ferdinand's thick side. AP shells shatter when hitting the armour, cores from APCR shells sink into the armour without penetrating…."

link

More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting.

Of course since it had no machine gun, the easiest thing was to run up and set the engine on fire, which is what the Russians did. Elephant was a death trap.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!.

Haven't it a machine gun in the outside of the torret?

Amicalement
Armand

It hasn't got a torret.

Very interesting site you liked to Armand, thanks

11 Ferdinands were disabled right off the bat by running into one of their own undocumented minefields. They were back in action the next day. Many were disabled by mines each day and put back in play the next. They took a beating.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend.

At the top of the tank… were the officer get out… I don't remember the word now … by memory I have seen a machine gun there…

Amicalement
Armand

I've been reading that site for some time. You might notice some Anonymous posts signed '-m'.

Armand, going from memory, the MG was added later after the Kursk experience showed that it was needed.

Ah!…. you are right my friend!.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

AFAIK there's no evidence for any Ferdinand being destroyed by infantry at Kursk.
Losses were almost all to mines.
One was destroyed by artillery or a su 152 and there was just as much call for increasing the top armour as adding a machine gun or flame thrower.

There were some propaganda pictures published by the soviets post Kursk which claimed to show their brave infantry taking on ferdinands. These were posed post action.

Another cause of this myth could well be some descriptions of enemy infantry shying away from the main gun as it was fired.
The pressure wave from a 88 was pretty substantial.
Frontal is of course the arc the elephant machine gun covered.

s mine dispensers or one of those turret mortar thingummies might have been a better idea if their concern was defence from infantry assault.

My readings agree with Andy's and Mobius' comments.

It appears that the image of Russian infantry swarming over Ferdinands and burning them out at Kursk was a myth, perhaps originated in WW2 Soviet propaganda, perhaps in Rotminstrov's self-serving writings, but certainly spread far and wide by Caiden's "The Tigers are Burning" … a book that is fun to read by a terrible source for anyone wanting to understand what actually happened at Kursk.

The study of Kursk has drawn more and better historians than I into disagreement, but here is the net impression I have of the Ferdi's at Kursk (so far … still subject to change if better research emerges).

There are many first-hand accounts of Soviet infantry successfully engaging Ferdinands. I have read accounts of successfully engaging, immobilizing, and destroying Ferdinands with ATRs! These stem from the tendancy of the Soviet soldiers to refer to ANY German assault gun as a "Ferdinand". If you see an account of Soviet infantry taking on a Ferdinand, you really need to read it for context to determine if they are really speaking of a StuG, or a Brumbaer, or a Hetzer, or a genuine Ferdinand.

There were few permanent losses of Ferdinands at Kursk. Among those, most were to various sources of immobilization (mines, breakdowns) followed by abandonment.

The problem with their employment was not that they lost too many units due to the lack of MGs, but that they could not achieve much of anything due to the lack of MGs. They tended to wander deeper into the layered defenses than other German units, as they were largely invulnerable to the weapons deployed against them. This is where their lack of machine guns gave great concern to their own crews and commanders. The risk was real of the vehicles being swarmed (even if there is little evidence that it actually happened). So when they got too far ahead, they could not hold ground, and were forced to withdraw (and on some occasions abandon immobilized vehicles). The net result is that they had little effect on the combat results.

But … most DID have a machine gun. It was carried internally. The idea was to stuff it into the breach and fire it down the main gun barrel. This is, of course, near lunacy in terms of wanting any form of effective fire, but that's what they had.

It was after Kursk that the hull ball-mount was added. This was done specifically due to the reports of combat experience in the vehicle. The idea of the hull MG was not so much for self-defense, but for mutually supporting defense. One vehicle could "hose" the infantry off of another vehicle as needed.

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I am currently reading 'Objective Ponyri!'. I'm at day 2 and several Ferdninands have been knocked out (other than with mines). Only one was knocked out by direct fire, that from 800m from the side by a SU-152. Most losses have been from artillery and crew members killed by shrapnel while they were exposed or outside the vehicle.
The Ferdninands up to day 2 have hung back the infantry and fired at long range in support. When the 2nd Tank Army launched an attack on the infantry the Ferdninands and other SPs knocked out about 90 of them with few losses.

I'm most interested in the propaganda aspect. I understand there was a similar issue on certain fronts in Western Europe with Tiger 2s.

Mobius:

Based on your post I have looked into that book "Objective Ponyri!".

link

It looks very interesting! Potentially an exceptional source for those who want to understand the battle on the northern shoulder of the Kursk campaign proceeded at the tactical (battlefield) level. Also a potential source for many wargaming scenarios.

You say you have read as far as day 2 of the offensive. Is it as good as it appears in the publisher's descriptions?

Inquiring minds want to know …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Yes. It has aerial photos of the actual battle. In fact you can see tanks, artillery and even Ferdinands in some.

BTW, the infantry didn't want to be anywhere near the Ferdinands. They attracted the most and heaviest artillery and they were noisey and the infantry couldn't hear incoming.

I am going to have to rebuild my map of Ponyri Station I made for Panzer Command.

I am going to have to rebuild my map of Ponyri Station I made for Panzer Command.

Might this be available for friends, chatroom colleagues, table top co-combatants, etc. etc. ?

(I do have Panzer Commander somewhere … but haven't seen nor played it for mumble mumble years now. And extracting a map from the game ain't the easiest thing to do.)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I'll probably attach it to a post over a Matrix someday.

I'll have to build a new model of the RR station. What I find is that the Soviets built substantial buildings for their RR stations. The station was a big two story stone or brick thick walled affair. Way out of proportion for a little podunk village like Ponyri.

I do like building RR 3D maps. Having once worked with the Railroad Tycoon 3 group.

Mark

While I have not read "Objective Ponyri" I can say in personal conversations with Col Glantz he was very impressed with the publications coming out from Leaping Horseman Books.

Blood,Steel, and Myth. From the SS view.
Demolishing the Myth. From the Russian view written by the Kursk battlefield museum director.

There are 2 other books using above references and earlier works which are good. These are
Visual Battle Guide:
Das Reich at Kursk and
Fifth Guards Tank Army at Kursk

Glantz also did a book The Battle of Kursk