rmgill Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Handling the cables would be a bear I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) "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?"--Gavin-Phillips Shoot the engineer who surveyed the fording site? Edited November 25, 2012 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 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. That's probably what I recall reading then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 "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?"--Gavin-Phillips Shoot the engineer who surveyed the fording site? On the plus side, the rest of the vehicles now have a ford, just need to pass over the sunk Maus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) "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?"--Gavin-Phillips Shoot the engineer who surveyed the fording site? On the plus side, the rest of the vehicles now have a ford, just need to pass over the sunk Maus......yep, you already have one pillar for an underwater bridge...maybe our notional engineer can fast-talk his unhappy superiors with the benefits of this, and avoid having his relatives charged with the cost of the cartridge. Edited November 28, 2012 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just quickly rename it the ; "Maus Ark" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armoured_Ramp_Carrier_02.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Hmm well I guess you could always stick a folding bridge on it like the British did with the Churchill (Ark?) and cross the river that way. Just saw the above post lol. Its a shame the Maus as it is now isn't actually a runner... I mean Kubinka is a very special museum because of the number of prototypes and other one-offs they have in their collection but to have a running super heavy panzer... wishful thinking I know! Edited November 28, 2012 by Gavin-Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Video showing Maus' tactical challenges, starting at 1:39... Edited November 28, 2012 by shep854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 If anyone could get it togther and running it would be the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW Collins Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Suppose one of these got to the frontline without breaking down, running out of gas, getting stuck, or getting picked off by an aircraft. Did allied tankers have a plan for dealing with German super-heavy armor? Or was the existence of such projects not all that well known? Bypassing it or calling in air support seems the best choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Just bomb it or hammer it with arty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Drop enough large caliber HE on it and it won't matter what thickness the armor is. It will be mission killed and then it'll be more than useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toysoldier Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 They could also zerg it with grenade wielding penal battalions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopycrank Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 The ground pressure and maximum vertical obstacle clearance couldn't have been that great with all that weight and those tiny little road wheels. Getting it stuck in some sort of trap sounds feasible. But then I don't think anyone here is arguing that the maus was particularly useful. On the other hand, it could be argued that by the time the maus was conceived Germany's defeat was inevitable and the best they could hope for was for their collapse to come swiftly so as not to prolong the bombing of cities and other needless deaths. Since the maus was a complete waste of resources with no conceivable combat utility, it could therefore be argued that it was the best possible AFV design for the Germans to be investing in at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW Collins Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Well, one in some Berlin street might have held up the advance for a half hour before an entire artillery regiment leveled the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky59 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 On the other hand, it could be argued that by the time the maus was conceived Germany's defeat was inevitable and the best they could hope for was for their collapse to come swiftly so as not to prolong the bombing of cities and other needless deaths. Since the maus was a complete waste of resources with no conceivable combat utility, it could therefore be argued that it was the best possible AFV design for the Germans to be investing in at the time.Very silly thinking! Reading Tooze's masterpiece "Wages of destruction" it's very clear that it was evident to the Nazi leadership, including Adolf Hitler himself, that by the middle of 1942 Germany still had only very slight chances of winning the war and that if they were not able to knock Soviet Union out of the war within 1942, it would then be impossible to reverse the course of the events in the east. In that case, the best they could hope for was to reach a kind of military/political stalemate in the east and try to repel the invasion expected in Western Europe looking for a diplomatic solution. For this reason all military or technologic projects or developments thought not being able to bring results within 12 months, maximum, were canceled or frozen by mid-1942, being considered useless under the circumstances. Among them, the German atomic bomb program, that was considered very promising in terms of military value but unable to bring any practical result before two-three years being, as consequence, worthless for the immediate and dramatic strategic and military needs of nazi Germany.It's therefore very funny that such an unsound and almost worthless vehicle like the Maus ever made a step beyond the drawing table; the fact that it was actually built and tested in 1944 and 1945 is a proof of how confused and jeopardized was the whole structure of German military machine, with conflicts of competence spreading out at every level with fierce bureaucratic wars being fought among hundreds of different military, governmental and political bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 The ground pressure and maximum vertical obstacle clearance couldn't have been that great with all that weight and those tiny little road wheels. Getting it stuck in some sort of trap sounds feasible. According to Doyle & Jentz it could deal with a 75cm step, a 35 degree grade and cross a 3.5m trench (obviously not all at once, of course). Ground pressure was 1.45Kg/cm2, and ground clearance was 57cm. The Tiger 1, for comparison's sake, could climb a 79cm step, 35 degree grade, cross a 2.5m trench, had 47cm ground clearance and a ground pressure of 1.05Kg/cm2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Well, one in some Berlin street might have held up the advance for a half hour before an entire artillery regiment leveled the area. Much longer. The hulk would make a helluva roadblock/barricade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 That's assuming the buildings survived the attention of the arty regiment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 That's assuming the buildings survived the attention of the arty regiment Problem is, mountains of smoldering rubble are very formidable obstacles in their own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Seems like you haven't planned for enough artillery fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky59 Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 A battery of B-4 203 mm heavy howitzer would make a wonderful job. Or a polk of sturmovik attack planes, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolas93TS Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Now this.....is TANK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolas93TS Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I am sorry for leaving out the commentary. When I see it compared next to standing man,plus mounted on some kind of railroad flatbed,it doesn't look that big to label it engineer monstrosity,when seen from that period perspective and compared with designs seen in other countries. But combat reality was way different than combat theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now