Maus: What Were They Thinking?

[Beitou]

Does anyone have a schematic of Maus armour layout?

[Max H]

From panzer tracts 6-3, Jentz & Doyle

[rmgill]

The 50mm set under the mantlet, is that yet another shot trap area like on the Panther?

[Beitou]

Ta very much

[DougRichards]

I wonder how well railways would cope with Maus weight.

 

Probably not very well even mordern tank size are determined by the rail road carrying capacity and they are maxed out at around 70-80 tonnes. The rail system of the 1940's were probably less than that. There is no doubt that if the Maus could get to the battle feild without being bombed, without a breakdown, had enough bridges that could take it's weight on the way to the battle and had enough of a supply train to keep enough feul,parts and ammo it would cause problems to the Allies.

 

The Churchill was built within the railway gauge and was 10'8" wide, and weighed around 38 tons. The TOG was just 10'3" wide, also designed within the railway gauge, and weighed 80 tons.

 

The French FCM Char 2C of 1919 weighed in at 70 tons, and were transported by rail on special wagons.

 

To say that the railways of 1940 were not capable of carrying heavy vehicls is a bit misleading.

[Max H]

The 50mm set under the mantlet, is that yet another shot trap area like on the Panther?

 

Yep, and the second turret design (not constructed) replaced the rounded bit with a 200mm plate at 30 degrees. Also massively reduced the rest of the turret armour, saving a few 10's of tonnes

[Loopycrank]

I recall that there were special-purpose railway cars for shipping the Maus. I'm not exactly sure how these worked.

[DougRichards]

Maybe something like this, considering that the Morser Karl weighed 124 tonnes, and was able to be transporter in one load by rail.

 

This tends to put the carrying capacity of rail into perspective.

 

 

And the average heavy railway gun, for instance, the German K5, weighed 218 tons. The Siegfried K was even heavier, at 286 tons.

Edited November 10, 2012 by DougRichards

[Mikel2]

How did the Soviets transport it into Kubinka? In pieces or using its transport gear?

[DougRichards]

Perhaps with a very heavy transporter, like the way the Brits moved this.

 

Bridges would still have been a problem, may have had to use railway bridges for their heavier capacity.

 

[bojan]

Rail, separete hull w/o suspension and separate turret and suspension components IIRC.

[Mobius]

How did the Soviets transport it into Kubinka? In pieces or using its transport gear?

I have a photo of a 4 truck (8 axle) flat car at Stalingrad with some sort of pump and other machinery in it. I think it was for at least 70 metric tons, maybe more.

[Edit] Sorry. looked it up. It was for a load limit of 200 metric tons.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Mobius

[Gavin-Phillips]

How did the Soviets transport it into Kubinka? In pieces or using its transport gear?

 

I think the recovery of the Maus and its transportation to its final resting place at Kubinka museum would be worthy of a book all bu itself. How far away was the Maus from the nearest railway line? Bearing in mind it took 6 T-28 medium tanks to tow the 55ton (?) SMK heavy tank some distance before it could be dismantled; the Maus recovery would surely have been quite a memorable project in itself. Ground conditions can mean alot to any salvage effort. Firm ground is one thing, marshy is quite another entirely!

 

Its a shame more pictures aren't available of its transportation back to Kubinka, unless some actually do exist and we just don't know about them yet?

[commander]

Thought Kubinka Maus was an amalgam of the 2 built hull of one and turret of the other due to explosion damage

[Max H]

Bearing in mind it took 6 T-28 medium tanks to tow the 55ton (?) SMK heavy tank some distance before it could be dismantled; the Maus recovery would surely have been quite a memorable project in itself. Ground conditions can mean alot to any salvage effort. Firm ground is one thing, marshy is quite another entirely!

 

I've heard of one tiger that got stuck in a marsh and overrun by the russians before the germans could destroy it - they used 5 T-60's to pull it out of the bog, and then a KV to get it back to their lines

 

Thought Kubinka Maus was an amalgam of the 2 built hull of one and turret of the other due to explosion damage

 

Correct

[Mikel2]

Well, I was asking about the Thor at Kubinka, not the Maus. But both stories are equally interesting. I would love to see photos of those behemoths being moved!

Edited November 11, 2012 by Mikel2

[bojan]

Both Thors (two complete vehicles and parts from damaged) were dissembled then assembled again. They were used until late '40s for testing new fortifications and one in Kubinka is a mix between Adam (gun) and chasis from other (Zui?).

[Homerr]

Here is a post I did a while back from another forum with pics of the train carriage used to transport the Maus to the USSR.

 

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57653

[Mr King]

Found this

 

[Gavin-Phillips]

Well I do recall reading something about the fact that since it was well recognised even to the designers of the Maus that it'd be too heavy for most bridges, the ability to snorkel was considered of great value.

 

Perhaps it was on the former AFV Interiors website (which had an excellent article on the Maus vehicle), that mentioned there was also a mechanism to lower the turret down to seal both it and the hull from water ingress. Very impressive innovations I think; but not one I'd be willing to try!

 

I'm not sure what the cable showing on the rear of the vehicle is for however, a power cable perhaps?

[mnm]

And how would they recconoitre the wading section for a 150T vehicle on a river bed several metres under water? Was this tested in the field in real conditions other than on a concrete bed ditch? Sounds like a risky plan to me.

[APF]

 

I'm not sure what the cable showing on the rear of the vehicle is for however, a power cable perhaps?

 

The maus was supposed to ford in pairs: the one on the river bank used its motor to deliver power to the one submerged - don't forget that the maus had a diesel-electric drive which made this stunt quite easy and straightforward.

[Gavin-Phillips]

And how would they recconoitre the wading section for a 150T vehicle on a river bed several metres under water? Was this tested in the field in real conditions other than on a concrete bed ditch? Sounds like a risky plan to me.

 

It certainly would be interesting to hear if indeed this test was ever actually done! But indeed, how do you know what the river bed is going to be like. Will the vehicle be able to crawl along the river bottom if its all mud/sand/silt rather than rock? What if it gets stuck?

 

Wasn't one of the Maus vehicles fully electric and the other a hybrid diesel/electric?

[APF]

I don't know what you want to imply by "fully electric", but both vehicles had a ICE-electric drive, i.e. an ICE powered a generator which in turn drove an electric motor. Sounds a bit lunatic, but at that time there was no mechanical transmission available which could cope with the torque produced by the motors, so an electric drive was choosen. I've read that the primary difference between both vehicles was a gasoline vs. a diesel ICE.

[Mr King]

Does not sound very lunatic to me. I believe LeTourneau used that set up in quite a few of his creations, diesel trains tend to use that set up, and also there seems to be a lot of discussion to use a similar set up on future hybrid powered AFV's.

 

edited - realized I left out a important word.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Mr King