Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German Maus

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by Frozezone9, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. Frozezone9

    Frozezone9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could i get some info on the Maus. I know that it's a German mega-machine but was first created in Russia. It weighs at 188 tons. carries a crew of six. and there were not that many made. I really want some more info. Apparently looking it up on the web isn't helping because all that I find is facts I already know.
     
  2. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    There's not a lot to say about the Maus that isn't in this article;

    Panzer VIII Maus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I have never before heard that it was created in Russia, I believe you are getting mixed up with the joint German/Russian tank development trials from the late 1920s, which are not directly connected with the Maus in any way.

    Only one complete Maus was built, and it weighed closer to 200 tons.

    Hope this helps - ask again if you have any specific questions :)
     
  3. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Here is some info:
    Pet project of Adolf Hitler, which few were aware of, appears to have been a superheavy tank that would have dwarfed even the King Tiger. Dubbed the Mouse, this behemoth of doubtful military value was to weigh 207 tons, combat loaded. Two were actually built, although they were never equipped with their armament.



    It appears they never really were completed. Read the article here
    Biggest tank in WWII was called Maus (mouse)

    Here is a video about it
    [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pYVmn2LJAc[/YOUTUBE]
    (the audio is just music, so turn it down.)
     
  4. Stitchy

    Stitchy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    6
    NOT created in Russia; the only surviving example is in Russia (the Kubinka museum outside of Moscow), but the "tank" (if you can call it that) was originally built in Germany in 1944-45. Hitler always had a fascination for "uberweapons", or super weapons, and the Maus was intended to be a super tank. Two examples were built (at least partially), one with a petrol (gasoline) engine, and one with a diesel engine. Shortly before the end of the War, with the Russian armies advancing on Paderborn, the one "funtional" Maus (it actually had the turret installed) was blown up by the retreating Germans; however, the turret wasn't damaged, only the chassis. The Russians found this unit (I believe it was called "V2"), and the chassis for "V1" (the one with the diesel engine), and took both of them back to Moscow where they took the turret (more or less undamaged) from the V2 hull and put it on the V1 hull to make a complete tank. Unsubstantiated rumors say that, during the last weeks of the War, the Maus actually saw action against the "Russian hordes" just east of Berlin, but most reliable sources state that the V2 hull broke down before it could reach the front, and was summarily blown up by it's retreating crew.

    Here is the V2 after it was blown up:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Frozezone9

    Frozezone9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh that's right, the Russians "Reassembled" the Maus using the hull of the V1 and the V2 turret. I got it mixed up. But you can tell because on the Russian version has plain road wheels and intact towing eyes. It is very dirty and is damaged with shell dents in the glacis. Of note is the fact that the front fenders now have large wing nuts at each corner, which are not present on V1 or V2 in German hands. The camouflage on these plates is also slightly different from that on V I. This suggests repair and replacement of these parts by the Soviets after capture.
     
  6. Frozezone9

    Frozezone9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait but didn't the V1 have a attachable turret?







     
  7. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    What do you mean?
     
  8. Frozezone9

    Frozezone9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like couldn't the v1's turret be removed and replaced or something?
     
  9. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
  10. Stitchy

    Stitchy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't know what you mean about "removed and replaced or something"; the initial prototype was tested with a "dummy" turret made out of concrete that weighed something like 50 tons. It was meant to replicate the size and weight of the real turret, which actually weighed less than 50 tons. There WAS an alternative, more streamlined turret that was proposed without the co-axial 75mm cannon, but it never left the drawing-board (incidentally, this was the same turret that was proposed for the E-100 for 1946; as it was, the first E-100's to roll off the production line were to be fitted with the same turret as the Maus). Here's the Maus with the concrete "dummy" turret:

    [​IMG]

    Here is a side-view comparing the Maus with the more sreamlined turret of the propsed E-100:

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Frozezone9

    Frozezone9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    But when the Soviets captured it they put on the V2's turret on the V1's hull, even though it didn't have much use in the war.
     
  12. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    The war was already over by that point. The soviets mating the turret and hull into one complete tank was so that they could carry out some trials on the maus. It appears that they didn't find much that they liked in the design.
     
  13. Stitchy

    Stitchy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    6
    Who would? It's an interesting concept, but a complete waste of valuable resources. It had Dr. Ferdinand Porsche's petrol-electric drive that he was so enamored with throughout the War, having first tried it on his Tiger prototype, the VK4501(P). However, it used a lot of copper for the wiring, which the Germans couldn't really afford, so almost every German tank produced during the War used a conventional drivetrain. According to sources who actually saw the interior of the Maus during the War, even though it was such a large vehicle, the entire interior was full of machinery and wiring; sounds like a mechanics nightmare to me. It wasn't really so much a tank as a mobile pillbox.
     
  14. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    Not so mobile :)

    Incidentally the wide track arrangement meant that in the hull there was actually very little room for much - the majority of the crew space was in the turret.
     
  15. Frozezone9

    Frozezone9 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    well thanks anyways, you were all lot of help, i learned more and now i can finish that project on WW2 heavy artillery :D
     
  16. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    Good luck, although I wouldn't consider the Maus to count as heavy artillery. It was a heavy tank, and was not designed for an artillery role. There were however many heavy artillery items in use earlier in the war, including several self propelled ones.
     
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Two comparative views of Maus:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I can never tell the difference...

    ~A
     
  18. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    :D

    My thoughts, too ! Maus is undeniably fascinating to armour enthusiasts, and I'd love to see the surviving one. But you have to shake your head and think that the Germans really were heading down a blind alley with this one.....:confused:
     
  19. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    222
    I wonder what the survivor would fetch on the open market if it was put up for sale/auction? - Probably more than the whole project originally cost?

    Personally I can't find a single technological advance that lead directly or indirectly from this project - it was a definite dead end.
     
  20. ulrich74

    ulrich74 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    i also reckon that maus wasn't good project like many more huge weapon invented by germans. For instance Jagdttiger saw action and didn't prove nothing special.
    Tanks like that wern't useful at all.
     

Share This Page