Maus Tank

Someone mentioned it would take about 20 rockets from a plane to take out the Maus. Maybe not. I have a picture of a Panther on its roof after a strike by a Typhoon. The rockets didn't actually hit the Panther but it was put out of action all the same.

 

A Panther weighs "only" 45 tons though, which is less than a quarter of what the Maus would have massed. I'm no physics expert but I assume it would take a lot more force to topple that much tank.

 

Since inertia is linary, if object A weighs four times that of object B, it requires four times the force to result in the same momentum.

 

Yes, but inertia will not necessarilly kill a tank IIRC and is not necessary to knock out a tank. For example a round that knocks a tank out doesn't have to "Flip" it at all, just incapacitate the crew, correct?

 

Yes but a replacement crew may be assigned.

 

Yes, but I was specifically speaking about a rocket flipping a tank over.

 

Not in the middle of a battle though. Crews have to be trained specifically for the type of tank they are using, especially with an extraordinary case like the Maus would have been.

 

The problem of the Maus is not so much its vunrebility to aircraft or other weapons but its deployment. Which train can carry this tank and which bridge can ford this tank? And then we did not even consider the landscape features, like hills and wetlands, or weather conditions, like spring and autumn rains.

The Maus is a freak tank which comes from a twisted mind, it is not fit for military deployment at all.

 

despite been so heavy , turning circle was on the spot.
but yeap we could say it was an aberration but i would not call a freak mind, it was developed by the not less famous dr ferdinand porsche.
what surprice me is that they could design, test and produce a tank in such short time, today it will take at least 10-15 year to do so

 

the wehrmacht were getting slightly more daily experience and testing than the our current RTR boys. they also had an industry geared up to make a lot of tanks and quickly.

FNG

 

Maus.

FNG, I can't understand your post re. development, experience and testing.
We didn't do too badly with the Cent, development started in 44 and six tanks on trials in before the war ended but too late to see combat.
That's not bad timing and the Cent WAS a good tank which is more than anyone can say about the Maus!
Mind you, there was a Maus hull at Portnam Down that the lads used to have their tea breaks in, so I suppose it wasn't a complete waste!

 

no, I mean compared to our troops now, not then.

It takes us 10 to 15 to years to put one tank on the testing field toady.

The Maus was done in less than 2 years

FNG

 

That is probably because there is no major governmental push to develop new arms so progress is slow, and there really is no urgent need for new tanks unless there is a major conflict I'm unaware of.

 

Maus.

FNG, two years in development?so was the Cent.
The Maus was even less use than the Tortoise, at least we got about half a dozen finished, there is one at Bovvy. Likewise the 'Black Prince', I think Vauxhall finished six of them, I've got a soft spot for the Prince, actually fired it.
What makes you think that todays Tank Troops (not just RTR, there are one or two of us 'Donkey Walloppers' regiments left) don't get expierience and training?
Having visited em I see they get a bloody sight more than we did!
and they didn't do bad in the Gulf!

 

bloody ell,

I was just saying in response to why can't we build tanks that quickly anymore that there is neither the rush nor the will power to do it.

I wasn't having a pop at either the RTR, army, industry or designers.

Yes we designed and built tanks just as quick as the germans from 35 to 45 as probably did the ruskies and US.

To be honest I've always felt that the germans reliance upon heavy and later super heavy tanks was missfounded and drained their limited resouces with little gain.

Better use of the panther and mark IV's would have been better than the tiger, king tiger and the likes of the maus as they were just as good, cheaper and quicker to build and more importantly easier to field maintain and more fuel effiecent.

I also think that people over rate these tanks and their impact/significance on the war.

WW2 was fought by medium tanks and they were the work horses that filled the majority of the regiments with little gratitude or publicity.

But people are awed by the sheer magnitude of the heavy tanks and thus they get all the attention.

I reckon that if german put the maus into service they would have to abandon 75% in the field either without fuel or broken down as they are just to difficult to maintain and recover. The balance would have been taken out by heavy at weapons at close range as they struggled to pull back or were led into close range ambushes.

FNG

 

MAUS

PASS!

 

I totaly agree

 

But what if it would be used on eastern front like some kind of secrect weapon(like Kacusa in some way)?There were great tank battles,and Maus would be a BIG + for Werchmacht soldiers there.Use it,hide it,use it,...Wirbelwind(also very rare,but excellent for anti-Il-2 Shturmovik use) could be AA escort.We can only imagine,as Adolf Hitler did...

 

And how do you propose to get something like that off the battlefeild and hide it?
It would be a sitting duck for hordes of T-34s and IS-2s as well as stormivics(No A-A defence is inpregnable) and artillary

 

Special purpose vechile that could carry Maus.Yes it would be extremly difficult ti build it.But...Maus could be used only in high priority battles that wolud give him a better air cover and AA protection.Wirbelwind could easily take down several low-flying airplanes in short time.