But there is a big problem with the "Elephant". It was designed as a tank killer. It should have had to perform well as a tank killer. It didn't. It was better for a role which was not designed for: self-propelled gun... What an ironny...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Actually, Friedrich, when speaking of your grandfather you mentioned how good a tank killer the elephant was?
An assualt gun would use a howitzer, not a Pak gun- like the StuH42.
The only problem the Elephant had was mobility and reliability. But with the amount of armor it had, along with mounting the 88L71, the Elephant was certianly an impressive tank killer.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

It depens on terrain and tactics.

In a built up area I would like shedloads of Panzerfaust-armed infantry, or PIATS if I was British. I don't think rumbling around streets is a job for the Elefant. I'm not too happy with the Bazooka or Panzershreck because I can't use it indoors without incinerating myself. In the dense Bocage, Olive Groves of Italy...it looks fine.

On the other hand if I am in the Desert I'd probably prefer a little more mobility, unless I can get those Crusaders to obligingly charge my AT Gun line...oh yes here they come again...

Jumbo

__________________
"Capital! We're nearly out of ammunition! Now we can get at them with the bayonet!" General Paddy Gough, 1st Sikh War

Actually, crazy. I think of a tank killer facing an enemy tank in a range of 500-300 metres, moving a little, like a Jagdpanther. The Elephants used in Italy where self-propelled PAKs which shot 1.000 metres away and did not move at all. That seems more like a self-propelled gun.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Ah. I understand your point. But I think usually "self-propelled gun" is used to refer to self propelled artillery, not anti-tank vehicles. I misunderstood your point...
That's one of the reasons I like the Hetzer so much- it was VERY mobile. The small size of the vehicle allowed it to move many places where something like the Elephant could not, and also made it cheaper to produce.
but then again, the 75mmL48 gun was no match for the Elepahnt's 88, and the Hetzer armor was relatively thin.
In the case of many of the Elephants, maybe we should even consider them a "static" gun! I've read in some sources that because of the slow speed and unreliable transmission, Elephants in Italy were often dug into a strategic position and not moved at all.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

No, I don't think they were buried. It would have been a total waste.

But yes, you are completely right about the Hetzer, it is a very fast and powerful little thing (if the PzKpfw 38 (t) was not good at all, its chasis was superb). But I don't agree about the armour. I could receive some pusnishment of T-34s and certainly could hold several Sherman impacts. Let's say it is a light version of the Jagdpanther.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

The Elephant was considered a mobile pillbox. Usually in Italy it was used in the defence of strategic locations along field lines and at important crossroads. As I mentioned earlier it was to bolster up Friedrich's granfathers divion with helpful "hjeavy" support as probably his grandfather's unit did not have sufficient heavy armor to take on the opposing Allied armor and infantry. many times the guns came in 1's and 2's and 3's and could easily win the field with their long rang "rods" while the Allied armor would be wimpy and could not find the range. As a anti tank support wepaon it could be buried in house debris or in fields covered with cornstalks, hay, wood and tree limbs. this is Italy during 1944 would be keen to help protect from recon a/c as well as the dreaded P-47 jabo's.
The Hetzer was a small mobile machine that was used by lesser AT units and abteilungs that did not have a stug abteilung. The small vehicle served in several well noted SS jagdpanzer gruppen and did well against all Soviet Panzers especially given proper camouflage. Armor was weak and with all German armor could get easily bogged down in the mud of the spring of 45 on any theater front. It didn't matter. The Hetzer did not have the super long range 7.5 cm of the Panther and had to rely on cealment and a fast loader/gunner. Beiong light weight and mobile it could easily fire and get out of harms way as long as the commander knew the countryside.

E

Good stuff!
Friedrich, I'm pretty sure that some Elephants were dug in pretty well, but ONLY if they could not move. One of my books, a small volume on the "specials" of the Tiger family, talks about this. It mentions that on some occasionas, when and Elephant had been disabled and could no longer move, it would be dug in. But you're right about the waste- I'm sure if the vehicle could run, the germans would try and keep it that way. I think the issue here would be spare parts- by 44, there might not have been a possibility of repairing an Elephant- but the germans would not have wasted the gun!
And good stuff on the Hetzers, Erich. You're right about the gun- the hetzer could ony mount the 75mmL48, nowhere near as powerful as the Panther's L70. And I don't think the armour was excessively thin; I was comparing the Hetzer's armor with that of the Elephant; 60mm front and 20mm side for the hetzer, 200mm (!) front and 80mm side for the Elephant. But the hetzer certainly could take a beating, and it's very low silouette made it much harder for an enemy to actually see the hetzer, let alone hit it.
I've read varying reports about the hetzer's popularity. It seems to have been effective; we've noted many of the reasons. But I've also read (and seen) about the tiny interior. The crew was extermely cramped, unlike many german AFVs. And it had other problems; the loader was located on the wrong side of the gun, and hence had to reach over the gun to load it. The commander was located directly behind the gun, which meant he recieved most of the fumes and smoke after the gun was fired.
Comparing the two, I'm really not sure which I would say was the better vehicle.
One interesting thought/comparison- In basic dimensions and size, one could easily compare the Hetzer to the Stug III (close, but I'd take the StuG), and one could also easily compare the Jadgpanther and Elephant (duh? Jagdpanther).

I'd certainly agree on the terrain issue- that would of course be the determining factor. Trying to use a panzerfaust on a tank 500 meters away... or a Jagdpanther rolling through alleys and streets...
Overall, I'd have to say the panzerfaust impresses me most. I'm not sure it was quite "revolutionary", but it was just such an effective weapon, in terms of both combat effectiveness and ease of production.

I'm also suprised though- considering how often I've seen him quoted here, noone has yet mentioned Rudel and the tank busting stukas. Given german air superiority, that method would probably trounce all the above!

[ 03 August 2002, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

You're talking about a completely new thread....aircraft against tanks. for Rüdel and his boys it would have to be what Year. complete air superiority ? No doubt they made a huge impact, along with the Hs 129 staffeln and the fw 190's with rockets.

E

What about aircraft? I know they accounted for a lot of Panzers, both East and West fronts. In addition to tactical air, there is also operational and strategic air. Cut the logistics lines to those tanks, and they don't do much deprived of fuel and ammo.

OK. You are right. I asked my grandfather and he told me that there was one Elephant buried some time, but it was because both caterpilars were broken and it had no engine !!! It was absolutely ruined!!! It became a normal artillery gun, emplaced in a hill, covered with trees and things to make it invisible. Quite interesting... They knocked out Shermans even 1.200 metres away!!!

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

During the battle for arnhem, british paras used the piat, but also found that an ap grenade in an open hatch got rid of tanks quicly and cheaply... but only if you got the balls to get that close.

Anothered favoured method was to lob a phosphorous bomb or Gammon bomb on the rear hull and destroy the engine. this seems to have been quite effective against Tigers and Panthers, but then i guess it would be effective against anything really!

Out of interest did you know that six tiger II's were sent into arnhem and were withdrawn after four were knocked out. I think due to lack of well trained infantry support!

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Mein Gott!

Tell us more details, please!

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

RedBraon, you're right- the engine decks were often a vulnerable on most tanks. I've read about russian troops using a similar tactic- they would use a molotov cocktail on the rear deck. When the bottle broke, the flaming gas would drop through the vents into the engine compartment, and, boom...
I've read mainly bad stuff about the Piat. Seems like the bomb certainly did the job if it hit, but the range and accuracy were pretty bad, and the big spring system used to fire it was incredibly hard to re-cock. And if it jammed, it seems like it basically had to be thrown out, because the spring was so hard to undo.
Don't remember it exactly, but the Tiger II knock-out don't suprise me. Without support, tanks were in pretty bad shape- we must remember the limited vision possible from ww2 tanks. It was relatively easy for infantry to sneak up on a tank and disable it. If I remember correctly, the Tiger IIs at Arnhem were used in urban terrain- even easier for infantry to ambush them.

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.

The Molotov cocktail was a very effective weapon-if you had the balls to go enough close, that is. In many cases russian tanks were captured in winter war-as men learned-that even talking finnish on the tank hull and dropping some alcohol in the tank made the crew crazy.They thought that a bottle had been broken on the engine and soon it would catch fire! They would come out and be shot. Then the tank would be manned by finns and turned against their previous owners!

Just another nice trick that doesn´t cost much but was lethal. You would put a strong stick in the middle of the path where the tank would come.To this you attach some wires, which would be attached to trees near the ground. Below that level you nearly cut down the tree. As a tank takes the stick it cuts down the trees finally and soon runs out of speed as the trees slow it down. Now the tanks are quite helpless and the crews can´t do a thing but just wait for the undertaker! Nice one!

__________________

I will find out more and report back tomorrow. It seems that the Germans lost 80% of their vehicles during the market garden campaign, many to the para's 6 pounder in arnhem itself. The Tiger II's were lost due to the lack of support training which the accompanying German infantry did not have! the vehicles which seemed to have fared the best in Arnhem were the panzer III and the Stug III. But urban combat does give the defender a huge advantage and is the worst situation for tank crews to fight in.

Read 'It never snows in september' by robert kershaw, truly stunning book, will write a review up if anybody is interested...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

The 6pdr was a cracking little weapon for it's calibre and in the scattered villages and woods around Arnhem proved to be pretty deadly...until the ammo drop zones fell to the Jerries.

Jumbo

__________________
"Capital! We're nearly out of ammunition! Now we can get at them with the bayonet!" General Paddy Gough, 1st Sikh War

Tiger IIs at Arnhem....

Two companies of s.Pz.Abt.506 were sent to the Arnhem area. 3./s.Pz.Kp.506 were attached to 9.SS-Pz.Div. and went to Oosterbeek and 2./s.Pz.Kp.506 was attached to 10.SS-Pz.Div. and went to Elst.

Oosterbeek's narrow roads were a hopeless environment for these huge tanks. The best-known casualty was the Konigstiger attached to KGr. Von Allworden which was knocked out on Monday 25 September by several anti-tank shells in Weverstraat. One shell hit the right-hand track and the tank was abandoned.

This is actually the only Tiger to be definitely identified as knocked out in the fighting around Oosterbeek. It is assumed the others were halted due to track damage/unsuitable road surfaces.

The tanks at Elst were used in 10.SS-Pz.Div's counterattack in early October. Eight tanks were lost ( mainly bogged-down after sliding from dykes ) but one was definitely disabled by a PIAT from 11th Platoon, 7th Bn. The Green Howards.

The source for all this is 'German Armored Units At Arnhem September 1944' by Marcel Zwarts ( Concord Publishing 2001 ) a nice softback book full of fascinating photos and very cheap !

But don't forget, 'Market-Garden Then & Now' is coming.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Well, thanks.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

A trick that requires a lot of cold bloodedness. I read yesterday on Finns destroying the Russian tanks in Winter war that as they started to learn how to do it, they dug a hole in the ground and put the PAK in it and camouflage it. As often we had by then AT guns that would only pass the armor in close range, the guys would wait for the tanks to come closer and " would lift the PAK up from the hole and shoot the tank from a range of 10-20 meters and then put the PAK back in the hole!".

__________________

Hmmmm... I must ask where you read that, Kai. It sounds unlikely to me- the weight of the anti tank gun would be a problem. Even the smaller ones... say, a 5cm PaK38, weighed a pretty good amount. I can't find specific numbers right now, but I would think it would be hard to lift one quickly with less than 4 men. Also, there's the firing position- I can't imagine an anti-tank gun could be fired unless it was stable and on the ground- you're source seems to suggest that the Finns would fire the gun while holding it off the ground. This seems like it would be nearly impossible...

I'm curious about this one...

__________________
Seriously, all today is missing is free cotton candy and the annual Bay State Hooker Parade to make it any better.