Maus Tank

As I mentioned above, it was possible to transport the Tiger for very long distances without changing the tracks, and it was in fact recommended by s.Pz.Abt.506, while stationed near Arnhem, that the Tiger II be transported with its combat tracks on. This report was included as an appendix to a reportmade by Speer, so it wasn't just a casual statement.

 

well , let's assume than the maus was "transportable " and was fully fit
and set to go , air camouflage or whatever keep those planes aways
the real problem remain , what conceivable task would it serve in 1944
a lone giant smitting all comers.. or the cherry at the top of a panzer
armee.
what could it have been used for ,

 

I assume it would be used as a defensive unit only as it would be too easy to hit if its moving, not to mention spot. Personally if I was in command of one I would onlyh use it for ambush purposes.

 

It is harder to hit something that is moving than something that is standing still, usually.

 

I assume this is a replica of what it was suppost to look like?http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p6.html

 

No, that's an amalgamated vehicle of the V1 hull and the V2 turret.

 

To late...

 

it was put togheter by the russians when the overrun kommersdorf, after finding the remains of the mauses

 

What was its speed?

It would be fairly pointless in a war of manouver if it was much slower thamn everything else on the battlefield (with the possible exception od the Elefant), especialy given its inability to cross most bridges without them falling down.

Actually, the Elefant is a good parallel - a big, heavily armoured, slow vehicle with a good gun that is best used defensively.

 

I believe its speed would have been comparable to the Churchill - 20km/h on road and much less in rough terrain. In other words, it would have been useful as infantry support but a burden in mobile warfare. However, I remember reading somewhere that since no actual doctrine for using the Maus was ever devised, and hence had one been sent into action it could have been used as anything the local commander saw fit.

 

Thinking a lot on an hypotical
I'm a german army commander in late summer 44, asking for a couple of
infantry divisions and some panthers to go with it .
I'm informed of the good will of the fuhrer who granted me my
reinforcments ,my good fortune turn sour when two companies of clerks
and kids turn up (789 th division "pencil "and "790th division "nappies" )
with them is a maus ,two truck-loads of petrol and order for an immediate
counterattack against one of rokosowsky tank army who has just broken
the line to my right .

how would I use those forces , jumping on the maus and heading for
sweden is not allowed , I though of it first !

 

Well, as you have been ordered to counter-attack, off you go. Almost certainly the 'pencils' and 'nappies' will be cut to ribbons by the Soviet tank army. Your Maus - providing it makes it that far - will go down fighting, taking quite a few T-34s with it, until one gets close enough to knock it out. Or until enough of its supporting infantry have been killed to allow Soviet anti-tank infantry to get close enough.

If you are smart & very brave, you will make yourself a defensive position based on the Maus and go down fighting.

 

I think it was able to wade through rivers like a diving tank?!

 

It can wade up to a certain depth, like all tanks can. Presumably the Maus can wade deeper than most as it is taller than most. However, if the river does not have nice, relatively shallow-sloping banks then the Maus is stuck in the river. Which is not helpful.

 

I believe it was indeed supposed to be used as a submersible tank; the problem of it sinking into muddy riverbottoms was solved by having two Maus tanks cooperate when crossing waterways, one pulling the other out. Though I'm not sure how the first one should have gotten across...

 

Maus transportble, please show me a country stone bridge (picture please) that can bear its massive weight, or a muddy road that will allow for its unbelievable ground pressure dispersment? Not, this was tank a waste of time and consumed desperately needed manufacturing materials, effort, and support.

What was it going to do fight on rail cars and roads only?

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/

Oh, and before anyone sends a picture of the Arnhem bridge please don't.

 

since the maus was powered by electric transmission, (basically the engine drove an anternator which drove electrical motors) the idea was to hook the Maus that was crossing up by electrical wire to a Maus on the shore which provided the current for the engines. When the first one had crossed, the second one would hook up to this one. In this way two tanks (and more ) could make the crossing. Note that the tank didn't need to have a connection to the surface while driving under water since only electrical engines were driving the tank. The Maus could "dive" up to 8 meters deep and needed 45 minutes to make it ready to dive.

all in all feasible in theory but highly unpractical.
How many embankments of canals/rivers have a profile gentle enough for a tank to cross? Not many imho.

Aglooka
[/quote]

 

If I understand you correctly, they would need to re-start their engine after crossing the river?

 

yes, but that would be the least of the worries. Think of removing all waterthight plugs, hatches, fittings, grease etc. Definitively not to be done under combat conditions.

Aglooka

 

I agree with Aglooka ,
" great concept , let's forget it " type of idea
a niggling detail is it would need a minimum of 2 maus in working order.
at the same place at the same time ,
the electrical lead would be a dozzie to trundle along , 50 ,80 yards of
large current ,low voltage lead would need a truck to carry it and the
damn things are pretty fragile as well .if the lead snag , break or loose it's
isolation the maus is lost with small hope of rescue . the pilote would have
to bail out from underwater. a chilling prospect.