JW Collins Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Now this.....is TANK!!!!!! No 8 inch gun? NOT TANK ENOUGH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Now this.....is TANK!!!!!! No 8 inch gun? NOT TANK ENOUGH! Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Is not gun enough! This better!8" is great, but 9" is fine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolas93TS Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Firepower,mate,firepower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 If only I had the photo editing skills to super-impose the Czar cannon onto the hull of a Maus tank... That'd be the worlds biggest shotgun for sure. It is true though, compared to the bulk of the AFV, the gun does seem pretty small. I'm certainly not doubting its performance in any way, shape or form. Was the recoil so severe they needed such a huge chassis/hull or was it that size simply for the engine/fighting/ammunition storage requirements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 There was a short 15cm gun on the drawing board for the maus, although I cannot see what good it would be. Recoil of the 128mm wouldn't require something as big as the maus - the jagdtiger managed ok with under half the mass. AFAIK the huge size was more due to the incredibly thick armour, in order to fit an engine capable of moving itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 There was a short 15cm gun on the drawing board for the maus, although I cannot see what good it would be. Recoil of the 128mm wouldn't require something as big as the maus - the jagdtiger managed ok with under half the mass. AFAIK the huge size was more due to the incredibly thick armour, in order to fit an engine capable of moving itself. An HE-thrower perhaps? A shorter barreled normal tank gun wouldn't make much sense I must admit but then again the whole 100ton+ Panzer idea isn't very logical either. Is this short 150mm weapon the same as that designed for the E-100? I have seen a picture somewhere of the weapon mounted on the E-100 with a curiously large fume extractor on the muzzle too but wasn't sure if that was anything based on facts, paper drawings or the remnants that were recovered along with the almost complete E-100 hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 An HE-thrower perhaps? A shorter barreled normal tank gun wouldn't make much sense I must admit but then again the whole 100ton+ Panzer idea isn't very logical either. Is this short 150mm weapon the same as that designed for the E-100? I have seen a picture somewhere of the weapon mounted on the E-100 with a curiously large fume extractor on the muzzle too but wasn't sure if that was anything based on facts, paper drawings or the remnants that were recovered along with the almost complete E-100 hull. It was only L38, which begs the question of why not the PZ4 based assault gun if you wanted to throw HE. The gun is the same as that planned for the E-100, which was planned to fit in the standard maus turret according to pz tracts. I haven't heard of a fume extractor on the E-100 before, are you sure that wasn't a muzzle brake? Hilary Doyle's drawings of the 15cm cannon all feature a large one on the muzzle, although he also states the turret was designed to withstand the recoil of the 15cm gun without a muzzle brake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 An HE-thrower perhaps? A shorter barreled normal tank gun wouldn't make much sense I must admit but then again the whole 100ton+ Panzer idea isn't very logical either. Is this short 150mm weapon the same as that designed for the E-100? I have seen a picture somewhere of the weapon mounted on the E-100 with a curiously large fume extractor on the muzzle too but wasn't sure if that was anything based on facts, paper drawings or the remnants that were recovered along with the almost complete E-100 hull. It was only L38, which begs the question of why not the PZ4 based assault gun if you wanted to throw HE. The gun is the same as that planned for the E-100, which was planned to fit in the standard maus turret according to pz tracts. I haven't heard of a fume extractor on the E-100 before, are you sure that wasn't a muzzle brake? Hilary Doyle's drawings of the 15cm cannon all feature a large one on the muzzle, although he also states the turret was designed to withstand the recoil of the 15cm gun without a muzzle brake. Ermm possibly... Concerning the drawings of the 15cm cannon, was this also in the Pz Tracts article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Concerning the drawings of the 15cm cannon, was this also in the Pz Tracts article? Yep, there's a drawing of an early concept for the maus with a 15cm gun, and a drawing of an interchangeable turret for E-100 and maus with the 15cm. There is also a drawing of a L67 15cm gun that was discussed for a jagd-100, but whoever came up with that idea should have been taken outside and shot for wasting resources. 150mm Derp Gun? Yes please. and a hell of a waste of steel if that's all you wantSummat like this on a tiger chassis could be pretty cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 L/38 is not that short. After all ML-20S was "only" L/32. AP shell would still be pretty powerful and Germans experiemtned with APDS for 15cm (even though I think it was basically 8.8cm APCBC in a sabot. Atleast according to this:http://www.skbgmbh.de/kdm_monate/2009/9_03.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 L/38 is not that short. After all ML-20S was "only" L/32. AP shell would still be pretty powerful And L38 is only 2 calibres longer than the short 75mm gun that shared the mount, and a long way short of the L55 128mm. It would be a large chunk of steel moving fast, but not in the same category for penetration as even the L70 75mm. The pershing frontally would be asking a lot of it and the IS-2 would be beyond it, assuming similar ballpark performance to the ML-20, which begs the question of what the point is of replacing the 128mm. Germans experiemtned with APDS for 15cm (even though I think it was basically 8.8cm APCBC in a sabot. Atleast according to this:http://www.skbgmbh.d...e/2009/9_03.pdf Doyle agrees, and that is why the turret could take the recoil of the 15cm gun without muzzle brake. There was also interest in firing 88mm pzgr 40 out of the 128mm at 1260m/s, however according to pz tracts 6-3 discarding sabot without a tungsten core did not add much - perhaps that shell was intended to make it easier to load AP in artillery guns, rather than a quest for better performance? As the US army experience with the T30 showed, 15cm direct fire cannons firing full-bore AP is asking quite a lot of the loader (and 17cm is just getting silly, why doesn't WOT give me the 15cm L67 on the jagd-100 already?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loopycrank Posted December 8, 2012 Author Share Posted December 8, 2012 What was the secret behind the T-62s 115mm then? As I recall, that was firing all-steel APFSDS at well beyond the velocity that steel is supposed to shatter on impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max H Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 AFAIK the german stuff was just 88mm AP shells in sabots, which is rather different to APFSDS at 1600+m/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) And 115 had quite less performance (with steel APFSDS) vs vertical armor then it's competition rifled 100mm D-54T (with tungsten APDS). It benefited from better and simpler HEAT round however which is why it was chosen for T-62. Edited December 9, 2012 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Considering many of the JT's were lost to driver error destroying the final drives, one has to ask how they intended to train drivers to drive this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 With automatic electrical transmission it would have been somewhat easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pikachu Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 L/38 is not that short. After all ML-20S was "only" L/32. AP shell would still be pretty powerful And L38 is only 2 calibres longer than the short 75mm gun that shared the mount, and a long way short of the L55 128mm. It would be a large chunk of steel moving fast, but not in the same category for penetration as even the L70 75mm. The pershing frontally would be asking a lot of it and the IS-2 would be beyond it, assuming similar ballpark performance to the ML-20, which begs the question of what the point is of replacing the 128mm. Germans experiemtned with APDS for 15cm (even though I think it was basically 8.8cm APCBC in a sabot. Atleast according to this:http://www.skbgmbh.d...e/2009/9_03.pdf Doyle agrees, and that is why the turret could take the recoil of the 15cm gun without muzzle brake. There was also interest in firing 88mm pzgr 40 out of the 128mm at 1260m/s, however according to pz tracts 6-3 discarding sabot without a tungsten core did not add much - perhaps that shell was intended to make it easier to load AP in artillery guns, rather than a quest for better performance? As the US army experience with the T30 showed, 15cm direct fire cannons firing full-bore AP is asking quite a lot of the loader (and 17cm is just getting silly, why doesn't WOT give me the 15cm L67 on the jagd-100 already?) Max, it's also possible that the size of the projectile makes AP penetration moot. Remember, ISU-152 crews were also issued HEAT but mostly just lobbed HE anyway. A 15cm gun firing HE would have been able to pop Pershing turrets off their mountings with a direct hit IRL. Even Tigers could be decapitated by 152mm HE rounds. At the very least, a direct hit would have either KO-ed the crew or disabled the tank in some other way. The tracks would probably be the first to go, followed by either turret or gun drive. Optics would find it hard to survive as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Max, it's also possible that the size of the projectile makes AP penetration moot. Remember, ISU-152 crews were also issued HEAT but mostly just lobbed HE anyway.No HEAT was issued during WW2, plain AP was used (BR-540 and BR-540B). But as you noted crews often did not bother with AP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolas93TS Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Picture from another angle,taken from facebook (but there is a mark in the lower right angle,so credit goes to that Russian site about railways). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolas93TS Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 http://vvs2058.ucoz.ru/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'd love to know how the Maus was actually supposed to be used in relation to other vehicles, mission roles and how it would be arranged within an army group. Somehow I cannot see hundreds of these things trundling along, perhaps its long range firepower would prove ideal for longer range engagements like what we'd typically use ATGM vehicles for these days? Smaller vehicles protecting the flanks and providing recon plus avoiding soft ground and maybe preparing a fording for the Maus tanks to cross a river... Was there a doctrine covering the use of super heavy beasts like the Maus, E-100 and Lowe? Or perhaps its just a case of "well we had the Tiger II but it wasn't big enough so we built something that's 3 times the size"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 They could have used it as a mobile pillbox. It could even have had a use as a coastal defence. OTOH the Sturmtiger would be a nasty machine in city fighting, not that different from the 240mm Mortar used by the Soviets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnm Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 OTOH the Sturmtiger would be a nasty machine in city fighting, not that different from the 240mm Mortar used by the Soviets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Well, trying to instill common sense in German tank programs is a loosing proposition, OTOH, if programs were rationalised you´ll get complains about potential war winners like the M6 not making it to the troops! If provided with the Maus, the Wehrmach would surely try to find a role even if only as a static piece on Seelowe heights. 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