Maus: What Were They Thinking?

[mnm]

 

**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" "Honey Badger"!

 

 

FIFY.

[Max H]

 

 

**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" "Honey Badger"!

 

 

FIFY.

 

 

all we need is to remove the turret traverse, and it's perfect! mid engine and rear gun meaning it can take thick armour, combined with plenty of room inside for other roles!

[Loopycrank]

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.

 

 

 

So, if the maus threw a track it was basically immobile for a day.

 

For comparison, how long did it take to change the track on the tanks you commanded?

[Ken Estes]

Well, throwing a track in the field and replacing one in the tank park are two different worlds. To begin with, one must assemble the replacement track in the tank park from whatever shipping package is delivered. Is it sections of eight blocks or a complete side in a huge roll, for instance. Once assembled and laid out in the tank park apron, it becomes a simple matter of positioning the tank and track to effect the exchange.

 

A tank that has thrown its track varies in the extreme. Is it also bogged? How accessible is the track, suspension and so forth. Is the track old and encrusted/frozen with rust? You can see the dimensions of the problem. One hopes for luck, usually.

[Loopycrank]

So where along that continuum does the Maus example fit? I would assume that they were working under something like ideal conditions. The fact that the maus had enormous, fixed side skirts suggests that the designer did not have realistic ideas about field repair, and the test program would probably reflect that.

[Colin]

Loopy you are being ever so polite.

[Ken Estes]

Is he? Oh well, more work to do. See for yourself: For Maus, all in a day’s work: Prototype #1, now painted in camouflage, was severely bogged in a swampy area not recognized by the crew. Once the rear mud was dug away and wood lay underneath the tracks, the vehicle was able to self-extract. The stream appears rerouted as well to the far side.

 

This was a simple bogging. Imagine a thrown track as well.

 

 

Krupp shipped the first Maus hull to Alkett on 26 September 1943. Alkett assembled its suspension and shipped it to Boeblingen on 10 January 1944 for testing. To make space for production of other vehicles, Alkett shipped its remaining parts for the second hull on 7 March to Boeblingen for final assembly. The lone Maus turret arrived at Boeblingen on 3 May 1944 and was placed on the second hull during June.

The first Maus hull ran its trials at Boeblingen with a weight structure mounted to simulate the turret weight and size. The chassis alone drove five kilometers from the railhead to the tank park without difficulty on 14 January. The next day, with the turret weight structure, the vehicle steered well for 2 kilometers off-road, despite sinking a half meter into the clay soil. Later trials determined the turning radius as 14.5 meters at forward speed. With its electrical drive, a neutral steer could be performed when halted. The chassis forded streams one meter deep and negotiated banks of 45 per cent successfully.

The second Maus arrived from Alkett on 20 March, requiring finishing at the tank park. Its turret arrived from Krupp Works on 4 May and was installed 8 June. Manual traverse was attempted on a ten degree slope, and it required 30 kg of force to accomplish. Power steering was not yet available but failed when energized in early July. Fuel consumption then was noted as 350 liters per 10 kilometers, although engine defects may have accounted for some of this poor performance. The flat track plates were considered unusable and cleated track was ordered as replacements. The replacement of the track in the tank park required six men and eight hours effort. With the second prototype on hand, the evaluation of the powering of one tank through an electrical cable to another engaged in fording proved successful.

 

 

 

 

Had Maus gone operational, I think this would have been an all too frequent occurrence.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ken Estes

[Loopycrank]

Thanks Ken.

 

I've got to wonder what the people involved in the test program thought. How could anyone be under any illusions that it was a practical vehicle? Especially after seeing it move personally; it should have been fairly obvious that it was an extravagant waste of resources.

 

I know I would have been pretty alarmed when the thing sank a foot and a half into clay. If it hadn't been able to extract itself, what on earth would they have done?

 

And, from that excerpt, it does sound like it was eight hours two change tracks under sterile conditions. Yikes.

[Mikel2]

I think the whole program was an excuse to keep the design team from being sent to the Eastern front

[Ken Estes]

In wartime, everything is rushed to production too soon, almost as frequently premature in peacetime, we can now see.

 

Sometimes the concepts exceed the available technology, and then somebody with courage needs to say whoa!

 

My conclusion on the superheavies is the following:

Although primarily a history of multiple failures, the super-heavy tanks of World War II provided a multitude of challenges to the engineering problems of tank design and manufacture and several technological exploits resulted from the experience of bringing them to the final stages. In most cases, however, the sheer size and weight of these vehicles exceeded the available technologies and manufacturing capabilities.

These setbacks proved no specific undoing for the armies concerned, despite the sheer waste of materials one might consider they involved. The numbers attempted remained very small. Above all, the tactical and operational considerations that brought them into consideration were proven false or obsolete by the time they could have entered service. Fortifications of all kinds and power were encountered and overcome in World War Two without the use of specialized armored vehicles. The accomplishment of tactical and operational breakthrough on the modern battlefield came to depend more on numbers, mobility and logistical sustainment than the application of superior guns and armor at a single point. The minor experiences of German operations with their Jagdtiger tank destroyers pointed out that when not employed in substantial numbers, they were soon overwhelmed and swept aside in the Allied advances.

Above all, the logistical handicaps of the super-heavies presaged their doom. The operational constraints posed by at least partial disassembly for rail transport, the limitations of bridging and fording means and the ever existent possibility of miring in swamps or even city streets that their high length to width steering profiles could carve up all made for extraordinary difficulties. Left to their own automotive power for deployment, they could not hold up for long under constant stressing of barely tested components.

The armies learned well from these experiences and nothing of their like ever again roamed the earth, except for some highly specialized engineering and construction equipment.

 

[Harold Jones]

Funny that of all the shit house rumors that I heard when I was stationed at Panzer Kaserne in Boeblingen, none of them concerned the Maus being tested out in the LTA. I suspect that marshy spot that it sunk in was probably the same one we used for recovery training a couple times. Getting M1s up the hill from the rail yard to the kaserne could be a chore, especially when the cobblestone road was wet or snow covered. I can only imagine what getting the Maus up there was like even if the weather was perfect.

[Ken Estes]

Does this look familiar then, Harold? My caption is: "...prototype returns to the tank park under the observation of Dr. Porsche, (back, nearest camera). The vehicles length to width ratio becomes clear. Steering in mud and soft soil was reported difficult. (Author collection)" I was lucky to acquire 18 of these plus two of the E100 from a used bookstore in Paris, two years ago. I had asked the owner for certain rare tank books and he later pulled a manila folder out of his desk and asked if I was interested in these 8x10s!

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2014 by Ken Estes

[Harold Jones]

A little, there were several motor pools on post for various units, they all had the same sheds and cobblestone paving. An M1A1 could peel back a nice swathe of those cobblestones just by turning hard, can't imagine what that thing did to them. On the upside they could be fixed in about two days by the 'cobblestone guy' and his apprentice.

[Gavin-Phillips]

Just goes to show sometimes just being in the right place, at the right time and talking to the right person works wonders.

 

What're the two circular features on the Maus, on the underside of the glacis between the tracks?

 

It must've been quite an amazing experience driving such a vehicle, recovering it from being mired somewhat less so!

[Colin]

Track tension access?

[Dave Clark]

Just goes to show sometimes just being in the right place, at the right time and talking to the right person works wonders.

 

What're the two circular features on the Maus, on the underside of the glacis between the tracks?

 

It must've been quite an amazing experience driving such a vehicle, recovering it from being mired somewhat less so!

 

The mounting points for the tow lugs.

[a77]

I think it's generally agreed here that the Maus was one of the most shockingly wrong-headed AFV designs ever conceived, much less prototyped.

 

What's never been clear to me is what the thinking behind it was. Why did anyone think a 180+ tonne tank was a good idea? Faulty analogy to naval warships?

 

They was past the godzilla threshold. if Germany continue build conventional tanks, they loses the war, so any wacky stupid idea that has any chance of success is worth trying, that include a 180 ton tank....

[bojan]

...

1. Was there an attempt by the Soviets to actually evaluate the thing postwar?

2. Im aware the hull is gutted, but is there any evidence that was done by the Germans, or actually might have happened in postwar Soviet service?

 

3. More to the point, has anyone seen any photographs of how they moved the damn thing East?

1. Yes. They were interested in very thick armor plates. They were also disappointed in Maus armor a bit, plates were of sub-standard resistance for AFV armor.

2. Mostly germans, but Soviets removed some things also.

3. Using railroad cars used for very heavy factory machinery.

[Nikolas93TS]

[Nikolas93TS]

Regarding track changing.

 

[Dave Clark]

 

The rail waggon was 27 metres long and weighed 70 tons.It must have been fun changing the gauge on the 14 axles when they got to the Russian broad-gauge tracks.

[Dave Clark]

Incidentally, for real fans of the Maus, Motorbuch Verlag last year published an excellent book on the vehicle. They even claim it is a continuation of the legendary Spielberger series!

 

Fröhlich, Michael. Kampfpanzer Maus: Der überschwere Panzer Porsche Typ 205. Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 2013. ISBN 978-3-613-03548-5

[Dave Clark]

 

...

1. Was there an attempt by the Soviets to actually evaluate the thing postwar?

2. Im aware the hull is gutted, but is there any evidence that was done by the Germans, or actually might have happened in postwar Soviet service?

 

3. More to the point, has anyone seen any photographs of how they moved the damn thing East?

1. Yes. They were interested in very thick armor plates. They were also disappointed in Maus armor a bit, plates were of sub-standard resistance for AFV armor.

2. Mostly germans, but Soviets removed some things also.

3. Using railroad cars used for very heavy factory machinery.

 

 

Maus 205/1 was a runner. After being repaired on Shießbahn West/Kummersdorf with components from Maus 205/2 located near the Maybach bunker in Wünsdorf, it was driven to Kummersdorf-Gut where the turret of Maus 205/2 (which was pretty well gutted by the explosion of the demolition charge) was mounted. The vehicle was then driven on to the rail waggon. This probably took place from the end of March until mid April 1946. It is known that the vehicle arrived in Kubinka on 4 May 1946. The vehicle was gutted in 1951, the components being distributed to other institutes for further testing.

[Dave Clark]

Yes, exactly my thoughts Dave. Thanks for the photo by the way, a friend of mine is a rail and German armour nut so he will love this

 

Thank Nikolas93TS, he posted it originally! In fact, my thanks to him as well!

[sunday]

Or, instead of axle changing, put the load in another car at the border.