Talk:Elefant

Does anyone know for sure how the add-on armor was fastened to the front plates? The fasteners most surely look rivets to me, eventhough it is usually said that the plates were bolted.

LVLV

Protection

The page is semi-protected because of a burst of vandalism committed by poor spellers who watched The Colbert Report two days ago. See Talk:Elephant for discussion. Tempshill 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

The "Production" section ends with:

"Three (5) Bergepanzer Tiger (P) armoured recovery vehicles were converted in Autumn 1943. One (three) from a Tiger (P) prototype and two from battle-damaged Ferdinands not suitable for the Elefant modification."

This baffles me. Were there three or five recovery vehicles? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three were converted from Tiger (P) prototype chassis and two more from battle-damaged Ferdinands. --Denniss (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrupted or missing image

The main image on the top right is currently broken. --216.65.48.66 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

There seems to be no mentions of the production numbers of this vehicle or how many opponents it destroyed. I don't mean to call into question the contentions made in the article, as many new armoured vehicles do have mechanical errors. However this seems to be an overwhelming trend for Germans in the final stages of the war and the Soviets assert that most of the 'mechanical errors' were caused by the vehicles being struck by anti tank fire. Sure, thats still mechanical failure, but its not, as this article asserts, supporting German contentions about its kill / loss ratio.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Spare part production for german afvs was neglected later in the war, in favour of increasing vehicle production. 134.2.202.30 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Drive sprockets

The article mentions that the vehicle is unusual in having drive sprockets front and rear. The vehicle was powered by Porsche's petrol electric drive. Is the presence of two drive sprockets related to this system? Was the power transmission to the front, as was usual German practice, or to the rear?

A clarification of these points would enhance the article by adding information to the observation made about front and rear sprockets.Travellingnorth (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness in battle

The range mentioned against soviet vehicles at 3 miles seems overly dramatic. Modern tanks cant effectively fire on enemy armor at that range even today. This is already lacking a citation perhaps it should be removed? 2602:304:CF62:15D9:65A0:A112:535B:51C7 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not dramatic, if you have clear vision to a static target 3 miles away you could hit it with a precise gun supported by precise optics (and a bit of luck). Nobody claims these were moving targets. --Denniss (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, with a bit of luck every distance becomes an effective range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:21A2:A700:9284:DFF:FEF5:C9F8 (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently there are some inconsistencies in the claims of the 653rd Heavy Panzerjäger Battalion mainly because they fight against elements the 31st Tank Brigade which launched a raid deep into the rear of german lines but only haved 13 tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraph-RX (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Engines in the front

I have removed and/or altered the part about how "the Porsche Tiger chassis was chosen because it already had the engines moutned in the front, leaving space free in the rear for a casemate", as it is patently wrong. The Porsche Tiger had its TURRET mounted in front. The engines in the Ferdinand are mounted roughly where the commander and loader would be standing in a Porsche Tiger. The Porsche likely had its engines mounted MORE forward than the Henschel Tiger, but they were still radically relocated to create the Ferdinand. This could easily be done, of course, since it doesn't matter where the prime movers are located on a diesel/petrol-electric, provided a power cable can be run from them to the drive motors. Anyway, the article as it sttod appeared to be saying that all they had to do to make a Porsche Tiger into a Ferdinand was use some of the open space in the rear of the hull to make a casemate. That might have been true if we were talking about one of the rear-turret experimental designs, but not in this case. Its also funny, the article on the Porsche Tiger claimed that the prototype failed trials because "Germany was unable to obtain quality copper to build electric motors" (never mind the Uboat fleet apparently). This one mentions how they replaced the presuambly troublesome Porsche engines with more standard types, but the only intensive maintenance mentioned is that the drive sprockets need frequent replacing: none of these have anything to do with the petrol-electric drive that keeps being cited as the cause of so much trouble. Indeed, I don't see any reason why it ought to be: they'd been using them for decades on railroads and vessels. I think a baulky engine and poor track design are far more likely culprits. It also seems to be suggesting that somehow the poor fuel economy (which ought to be converted into English measure for Americans who don't know what L/100km means) is also to blame on the electric drive. Very doubtful. It wouldn't matter if it was a conventional drive or not, the Ferdinand is a chassis heavier than a Tiger I with a big armored casemate and a long-barreled 88mm gun. It would guzzle fuel regardless. It requires TWO engines running at full power to move around.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this allowed

Hi Editors. I recently changed Disambiguation template text from "For the animal" to "For an incorrect spelling of elephant" because I thought that work better, however I think somebody already reverted this since you're apparently not supposed to write "For a misspelling of" in this small Italic-text notes, or at least I think so. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

10:1?

Regarding the text "The Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful mass-produced tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss[citation needed], reaching an average claimed ratio of approximately 10:1", you may want to view this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trbGMIEn9-Y , Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've edited this statement to note the lack of evidence, won't entirely remove it the event something comes up to prove it. CanadianBaconeer (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)