Maus: What Were They Thinking?

[Max H]

... It lacked even reference to past mistakes with the shot trap on the front of the turret, that would have shed rounds right through the engine cover. ..

 

The turret front was identified as a weakness in may '43, and this culminated in the maus II turm seen in WoT on the E-100. However, by the time the design was finalised the only maus turret was already produced

 

(lets be fair, the diesel/gasoline electric drive system WAS impressive, if near impossible to maintain in combat)

 

Doyle is rather adamant that the system worked well on the ferdinand, cooling was apparently more of an issue due to the engine location though

 

A commanders cupola with a couple of MG42s under armour or flamer sub turret would have been worth considering at least.

 

A pair of heavily armoured flamethrower turrets at the back of the hull were planned at first, however they were dropped after hitler was shown the full scale wood mock-up. To quote stalin: "Why make a tank into a department store!"

[Max H]

Im pretty sure they had built a number of the original turrets. Ive a memory of the Wheels and Tracks article with a spare Maus hull lying in a boneyard by a British squaddie with a turret perched precariously on its side (the hull, not the British squaddie!)

 

That sounds an awful lot like the state the only maus built was in when the russians found it - are you sure it was a british squaddie? Panzer tracts mention the armour plates for half a dozen turrets were either cut ready to be welded or soon to be cut, however they are quite clear that only one was actually assembled. This is the maus after it was blown up, for reference:

 

Re sub turrets, I hate the fact Hitler appears to have had some sense of humour.

 

It's been said before, and I'll say it again: Wonderwaffen like the Maus, and even the Ratte, were the best possible tank for germany at that time - they were doomed anyway, so white elephants were the best use for their steel and factories to bring the war to a quick and less bloody end.

[Gavin-Phillips]

A pair of heavily armoured flamethrower turrets at the back of the hull were planned at first, however they were dropped after hitler was shown the full scale wood mock-up. To quote stalin: "Why make a tank into a department store!"

 

Wasn't it Stalin that said that quote when the T-100 and SMK were shown with the original 3-turret configuration? The 3rd was quietly dropped in favour of a dual-turret design.

 

The flamethrower turrets sound an interesting design feature though. Are there any details concerning these, pictures perhaps?

[Max H]

Wasn't it Stalin that said that quote when the T-100 and SMK were shown with the original 3-turret configuration? The 3rd was quietly dropped in favour of a dual-turret design.

 

Yep, which is why I thought it was particularly appropriate here

 

The flamethrower turrets sound an interesting design feature though. Are there any details concerning these, pictures perhaps?

 

There are a couple of pictures in Panzer tracts 6-3, which can be ordered here (or here if you're feeling naughty, I do wish panzer tracts took orders by e-mail). The basic gist was a cylinder protruding from the rear sloped armour either side of the fuel tank, with an L-shaped jet on a rotatable mount on top - one end of the L was on top of the cylinder, the other was outboard and forward of the mount to enable a clear firing arc forwards. You can see the L-shaped part on this scale mock-up of the maus at the rear corners, although pz tracts has better pictures:

 

Range was originally intended to be 150-200m, although I don't know if that was achievable. The final design had a 12-14mm nozzle @ 14 atmospheres and 1000 litres of fuel for it. It was aimed by the radio operator, and the armour for the cylindrical base was 150mm with the L-shaped bits protected by 30mm on the sides and 14.5mm on the top and bottom

[Beitou]

How many Maus did they envisage producing every month, can't have been too many?

[Marek Tucan]

Was it Maus hull or E-100 hull? (re. British squaddie reference, I believe Brits came across the E-100 and there were several Maus turrets made, it would make sense to have both in one púroduction facility)

[Max H]

How many Maus did they envisage producing every month, can't have been too many?

 

10/month for a total of 120 series production vehicles was the original plan, with full production of the armour hulls scheduled to be achieved in early '44. The number produced was increased to 135 on the 5th of may '43 meaning a total of 141 vehicles, including the planned 6 test vehicles. On the 1st july '43 it was decided to cut monthly production to 5/month, and the total figure to be produced was cut several times until the whole thing was cancelled on 27th oct '43

 

I can probably look it out the Maus picture and scan it if its of any interest.

 

If you could that would be great, it's really piqued my curiosity

[bojan]

There are some interesting details about book on Maus from Wargaming, including some Soviet protection tests. Single shot from 122mm D-25 was fired on front hull, hull side and front turret. Front hull and turret bounced of, side hull was penetrated (it was patched later, scar is visible on left side of Maus...

More when book arrives (in month or so, when friend comes back from Russia).

[Mikel2]

That the Germans didnt cut up these spare hulls suggests to me they intended to come back to them at some point. Or maybe they just couldnt spare the labour.

 

Maybe the Germans knew how useless those hulls really were

[ramontxo]

 

Wasn't it Stalin that said that quote when the T-100 and SMK were shown with the original 3-turret configuration? The 3rd was quietly dropped in favour of a dual-turret design.

Yep, which is why I thought it was particularly appropriate here

 

The flamethrower turrets sound an interesting design feature though. Are there any details concerning these, pictures perhaps?

There are a couple of pictures in Panzer tracts 6-3, which can be ordered here (or here if you're feeling naughty, I do wish panzer tracts took orders by e-mail). The basic gist was a cylinder protruding from the rear sloped armour either side of the fuel tank, with an L-shaped jet on a rotatable mount on top - one end of the L was on top of the cylinder, the other was outboard and forward of the mount to enable a clear firing arc forwards. You can see the L-shaped part on this scale mock-up of the maus at the rear corners, although pz tracts has better pictures:

 

Range was originally intended to be 150-200m, although I don't know if that was achievable. The final design had a 12-14mm nozzle @ 14 atmospheres and 1000 litres of fuel for it. It was aimed by the radio operator, and the armour for the cylindrical base was 150mm with the L-shaped bits protected by 30mm on the sides and 14.5mm on the top and bottom

 

After showing an article on the "Maus" to a friend (who happens to have an engineer degree), he cuestioned me on how many litres of fuel enable this monster to make one hundred meters...(or gallons per yard ) Above posting is the nearest to an answer i have found in TN, but 200 miles on 1000 liters? That seems to good to be true. Does any one here has an better estimation? As always thanks a lot in advance...

[bojan]

Electric transmission is quite effective.

[Loopycrank]

Effective as in "only technology that could handle that much torque available at the time," sure, but it was substantially less efficient than a mechanical transmission of the era.

[Ken Estes]

There were some extra Maus turrets and hulls, none of which had been completed. After the Krupp works was cleaned up from the bombing raid that effectively KO'd Maus production, there were four hulls in the way of ongoing production and the army authorized these to be scrapped in July44. Dr. Porsche had wanted to restart the Maus production and Krupp reported in Mar44 that it was possible to restart it, although they were not able to take on additional work. The hull works had seven assembled and enough plates for eight more. Six turrets had been welded together. Armor had been rolled for another 30 hulls and turrets and pieces were cut for 15 hulls and 9 turrets.

 

There was no turret for the E100 found at Paderborn, and even the combat track had been delayed and could not be mounted for lack of suspension components. The cover plate for the driver's compartment had not arrived and the driver's electrical system could not be completed. By the time the US army overran Paderborn, there were only three workers stationed there since January. It was effectively abandoned. Krupp had supposedly designed a different turret for E100, but given the situation at Krupp, I doubt if anything other than a Maus turret could have been fitted to E100.

[Max H]

After showing an article on the "Maus" to a friend (who happens to have an engineer degree), he cuestioned me on how many litres of fuel enable this monster to make one hundred meters...(or gallons per yard ) Above posting is the nearest to an answer i have found in TN, but 200 miles on 1000 liters? That seems to good to be true. Does any one here has an better estimation? As always thanks a lot in advance...

 

 

That's the range for the flamethrower - it had 1000 litres of "ammunition" and could, in theory, squirt it 200 metres Again referring to panzer tracts, the maus had a fuel tank for the engine with a capacity of 1600 litres, and a projected range on road of 160km on road and 62km cross-country. So in theory it would sip a mere litre of fuel per 100m on road.

[Max H]

Krupp had supposedly designed a different turret for E100, but given the situation at Krupp, I doubt if anything other than a Maus turret could have been fitted to E100.

 

Whether the E-100 hull could take the additional weight of the maus turret, with the thicker side armour than the projected E-100 turret, remains to be seen

[ramontxo]

 

After showing an article on the "Maus" to a friend (who happens to have an engineer degree), he cuestioned me on how many litres of fuel enable this monster to make one hundred meters...(or gallons per yard ) Above posting is the nearest to an answer i have found in TN, but 200 miles on 1000 liters? That seems to good to be true. Does any one here has an better estimation? As always thanks a lot in advance...

 

 

That's the range for the flamethrower - it had 1000 litres of "ammunition" and could, in theory, squirt it 200 metres Again referring to panzer tracts, the maus had a fuel tank for the engine with a capacity of 1600 litres, and a projected range on road of 160km on road and 62km cross-country. So in theory it would sip a mere litre of fuel per 100m on road.

 

Glorious misunderstanding... Thanks for correcting it...

[Jim Warford]

 

Wasn't it Stalin that said that quote when the T-100 and SMK were shown with the original 3-turret configuration? The 3rd was quietly dropped in favour of a dual-turret design.

Yep, which is why I thought it was particularly appropriate here

 

The flamethrower turrets sound an interesting design feature though. Are there any details concerning these, pictures perhaps?

There are a couple of pictures in Panzer tracts 6-3, which can be ordered here (or here if you're feeling naughty, I do wish panzer tracts took orders by e-mail). The basic gist was a cylinder protruding from the rear sloped armour either side of the fuel tank, with an L-shaped jet on a rotatable mount on top - one end of the L was on top of the cylinder, the other was outboard and forward of the mount to enable a clear firing arc forwards. You can see the L-shaped part on this scale mock-up of the maus at the rear corners, although pz tracts has better pictures:

 

Range was originally intended to be 150-200m, although I don't know if that was achievable. The final design had a 12-14mm nozzle @ 14 atmospheres and 1000 litres of fuel for it. It was aimed by the radio operator, and the armour for the cylindrical base was 150mm with the L-shaped bits protected by 30mm on the sides and 14.5mm on the top and bottom

 

 

Great pic...thanks!

[Gavin-Phillips]

I honestly wonder what the designers of the Maus would think if they knew all these years later, people would still be so curious and intrigued by the whole concept.

 

Does anyone know what the actual turret ring diameter of the Maus and E100 actually is? Were turrets interchangeable between the two vehicles?

[Oddball31]

They wanted to fight Martian tripods with it. No other sane explanation.

[lemd]

Given that current heaviest tank is 75 metric tonnes, if future threats arise, then 85 - 90 tonnes is possible.

 

If a 90 tonnes tank can trade 1 for 2 enemy's 45 tonnes tanks then I think it is a success because with 2 tanks, more crews are died, and more expensive to produce (2 guns, 2 engines, 2 sighting systems,..)

 

Using this mind set, if a 180 tonnes tank can trade for 4 enemy's 45 tonnes tanks then isn't it cheaper for 180 tonnes tank?

Edited March 9, 2014 by lemd

[Ken Estes]

The cost growth is likely more exponential than linear, given the man hours to roll, cut and fit larger plates, fabricate more complex machinery and so forth. In the case of Maus, there were no mass production techniques to be used, fabrication of hull and turret took place at Krupp's in Essen, with final assembly at Alkett in Austria. Six men required eight hours to change the track in the tank park at the Boeblingen test site.

 

The mission of the Maus in combat was listed as infantry support, IOW the classic breakthrough tank role, which is why the slow speed and other mobility limitations were accepted in its design. The tank was not designed for tank duels on a fluid battlefield. However, it reflected the gun-armor race of the day and would have had to fight enemy tanks in considerable numbers in the defense of the Reich. The only experience in superheavy tank combat against medium tanks in the end was that of the Jagdtiger, and the complaint with it operationally was that there were never enough on a battlefield to make a difference, and their rate of fire could not deal with the numerous enemy tanks. Of course, the breakdowns experienced while traveling on tracks from one mission to another made concentration even more difficult.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Ken Estes

[Ken Estes]

 

Krupp had supposedly designed a different turret for E100, but given the situation at Krupp, I doubt if anything other than a Maus turret could have been fitted to E100.

 

Whether the E-100 hull could take the additional weight of the maus turret, with the thicker side armour than the projected E-100 turret, remains to be seen

 

Last time I checked it, the turret ring diameter was the same, and I think in a vehicle of such size there would be no other difficulty. The design claimed by Jentz as Krupp's plan for the E-100 turret was probably never built and would have had its own problems IMO: Although it saved some weight, the idea of placing the 75mm secondary gun atop the 128mm gun in the turret would likely have failed any troop test and probably would have been discarded in the mockup stage for ergometric considerations. Thus the more conventional coaxial side mount would have been provided, perhaps using an original Maus turret among five found at Essen from the original lot and not yet scrapped. The E-100 was likely a one-off [certainly no production planned] and the Adler tech director [Jenschke] in charge of assembling it considered it already obsolete.

[Dave Clark]

**SNIP**

 

The mission of the Maus in combat was listed as infantry support, IOW the classic breakthrough tank role, which is why the slow speed and other mobility limitations were accepted in its design. The tank was not designed for tank duels on a fluid battlefield.

 

**SNIP**

 

IOW, the German "TOG"!

[Argus]

 

IOW, the German "TOG"!

 

 

So there's a question, which would you rather have in service (all else being equal and logistically supportable) to defend Germany in 1945, 100x TOG's or 100x Maus?

 

Hmm ok, lets Germanify the TOG a little, call it s 75/70 in place of the 17pdr, delete the sponsoon provision, and give it a coat of uber-sheik cool with at 40 model kit releases over the last 50 years now its Germany.

 

shane

[Gavin-Phillips]

 

 

IOW, the German "TOG"!

 

 

So there's a question, which would you rather have in service (all else being equal and logistically supportable) to defend Germany in 1945, 100x TOG's or 100x Maus?

 

Hmm ok, lets Germanify the TOG a little, call it s 75/70 in place of the 17pdr, delete the sponsoon provision, and give it a coat of uber-sheik cool with at 40 model kit releases over the last 50 years now its Germany.

 

shane

 

I think I'd rather go for a twin 88mm-armed version of the Maus or E100. If you scrap the idea of a coax 75mm, you have all that space free for the smaller 88mm rounds. Should be quite a devastating weapon really, until you get hammered by heavy artillery that is.