Talk:Elefant

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Drive sprockets 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effectiveness in battle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elefant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://i2.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/012932/12932897.jpg
*Added  tag to http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2009/aug/24/move24_20090823-214803-ar-33122/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304130632/http://www.strange-mecha.com/german/army/sdkfz184.jpg to http://www.strange-mecha.com/german/army/sdkfz184.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elefant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603100113/http://photo-war.com/eng/archives/album2772.htm to http://www.photo-war.com/eng/archives/album2772.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Engines in the front