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

German "Maus" Tank

Discussion in 'Wonder Weapons' started by Nathan S., Jul 8, 2003.

  1. Vince Noir

    Vince Noir Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    11
    There is a photo that is suggested to be of a Maus destroyed by Soviet gunfire.

    It is on a road near residential housing. It is certainly a Maus, but looks to have been destroyed by an internal explosion.

    I am undecided as to the fate of the Maus prototypes. From what I have been able to ascertain, from people far better informed than me, it seems likely that only one turret was fitted with armament during the war.

    The main theory seems to be that the one in the photo I mention above was being sent to fight the Russians and either broke down or ran out of fuel and was destroyed by the crew.

    The Kubinka variant is a post-war hybrid of several proto-types. It was used for weapons tests by the Soviets and was built by them after the war.

    I guess we will never really know what went on in the last days of the Reich...
     
  2. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
  3. Vince Noir

    Vince Noir Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    11
    But the JS-III never saw action in Europe in WW2 either... Despite the comments of some so-called experts in their books!

    Ugly looking tank!
     
  4. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    If im not mistaken, only a hand full of JS-3 were completed in 1945. Also from what I have read, regiment of JS-3's may have been deployed to Manchuria in 1945...

    Which one??
     
  5. Vince Noir

    Vince Noir Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    11
    Some did go to the Far East... What they did there is open to debate.

    Not alot that the Japanese had would have stopped one of those beasties though...

    Both are equally ugly!!! :)
     
  6. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    Agreed, both werent exactly the prettiest of designs, but the JS-III just seems more practical, my opinion at least. :D
     
  7. Vince Noir

    Vince Noir Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    11
    I think you are right! The JS-III at least looks like it can move!
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    1,826
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    How dare you impugn such a fine old lady!
    She may be a little wide in the beam and have strangely sloping shoulders but she's a fine, purposeful looking old thing... almost curvy.:cloud9:
    [​IMG]
    Maus however, is definitely a shed on tracks.
    Cheers,
    Adam.
     
  9. FramerT

    FramerT Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    37
    No,no,no. This 'lil beauty makes your JS-III look like a cyclops.
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    At least my cyclops can turn her head :D
     
  11. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    371
    Location:
    Portugal
    :D :D :clap:
     
  12. Hawkerace

    Hawkerace Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    28
    I've always been a fan of Russian and German tanks.
     
  13. Joe

    Joe Ace

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,948
    Likes Received:
    124
    I'd love to have a model of a maus
    The name is bad. Why name a massive tank after a mouse!
     
  14. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    762
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The Is III? A parade boat if you ask me. As a battle tank it just has so many flaws......
     
  15. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    Might very well be far from perfect, it is however considered the mother of all modern battle tanks.
     
  16. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    762
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I always thought of the IS series as a technological dead end with the IS IIm being the pinnacle of its development, much as the US M103 and British Conqueror were technological dead ends. By Soviet standards, the IS III was produced in just tiny numbers (a few hundred).
    Its flaws included:
    *Problems with weakness of the hull resulting in split welds in the early production models.
    *The tiny ammunition supply of 28 rounds. This is compounded by its two-part ammunition and low rate of fire.
    *The vehicle is very cramped making crew efficency difficult. This and the ammunition supply were addressed in the follow-on T-10 (IS IV) by lengthening the vehicle to a degree.
    *The lack of a commander's cuploa and the small number of vision devices provided mean that the vehicle is almost blind in a mobile battle.
    *The forward opening hatches for the commander and gunner are a perpetuated mistake. They make it more difficult for the commander to operate in an unbuttoned state in combat without unnecessarily exposing himself to fire.
    *The slack track system is prone to failure.

    The usually cited beginings of the MBT are found in the US M26, British Centurian, or Soviet T44 /T54.
     
  17. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    T.A. it seems that you hit it right on the dot and I agree. Some ofcourse are minor but the 28 round supply and the splitting hull would be a little more then an inconvenience in battle :D

    But I must still pick the Is III over the Maus :D

    And even with all of its flaws, in comparison to other WWII tanks I would pick this cyclops :D over most.
     
  18. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    1,826
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Oooerr, did someone say Conqueror?
    Pretty much obsolete from day one with yet another failed attempt at auto-loading but an absolutely beautiful vehicle aesthetically, and the first ever tank to get a gas turbine engine treatment... The wide-skirted hang of the thing!
    A firm favourite, and the noise of one trundling past at Duxford is just unforgettable.
    [​IMG]

    Centurion wins it hands down for me as the primary evolutionary step into the next generation. The short flowering of the ww2 German designs appears to me to be a blip in those evolutionary terms that was running down all sorts of atavistic routes by the end of the war, the Maus is kind of a full stop in their strange gene-pool. Traces remain, some important concepts survive, but the family would have died out eventually from inbreeding.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    I've never minded girls with splitting hulls.
     
  19. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    762
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona

    Yes, the Maus was simply a waste of materials. It probably would have made a good anchor for the Queen Mary though......
     
  20. Seadog

    Seadog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    11
    I have always considered both of the heavies to be too much. I favor the smaller, faster, with a hard hitting gun. The Maus and III always seem to be better suited for defensive purposes that would not require a lot of manuevering. What bother me is that against other tanks, they may do fine, but the opposition would be more likely to counter with artillery and aircraft.

    I suspose where you had air superiority and used a mixed of superheavies for punch and medium heavies as manuever units, they could work out. The problem is that if during a push, the tide turns, the superheavies become sacrificial targets during the retreat.
     

Share This Page