Discussion in 'Wonder Weapons' started by Nathan S., Jul 8, 2003.
Is this for real?
Or how about this contraption? Wading trunk?
Yes, the Maus was supposed to be submersable to up to 8 Meters! It was because there was no bridge in Europe that could suport it at that time.
Now "she" looks good........from the rear. LOL
That's all fine and dandy if the river bottom was hard enough to support it's weight.
They found it hard enough getting decent crossing points for 'conventional' Tauchpanzers, imagine trying to find a riverbank that the Maus wouldn't just plummet down nose-first. I could envision a battalion of engineers being required to dig enormous ramps at every crossing they came to.
Yes, It's real
Entirely correct, that's a big problem indeed. No bridges to support the weight, climbable riverbanks with the correct slope and stable enough surface, ditto for the river bed, all that makes the concept impossible. I wonder what went in those bright minds (and they had to have great engineering brains to design and build that contraption).
Aside from all the mobility problems had the Maus gotten into service (and the war drug on into 1945 - 46) it would have been rendered even more irrelevant as the West, in particular, introduced more powerful AT guns and far more effective rounds like HVAP and APDS.
The US had in development 90mm, 105mm and 120mm guns for tanks that could drill a Maus from any angle at 1000 or more yards using such rounds. The British likewise were bringing on line the 20 pdr. Even the 17pdr with APDS could do something like this at 500 or more yards.
The Germans bet wrong on the gun - armor race. It was definitely swinging quickly back in favor of guns to a point where no tank was invulnerable to them.
Just imagine if a tank back then could make a explosion like this
I can't agree you're too direct. The Allies had already more than enough means to neutralise the Maus or any other tank. Nothing like a gaggle of P-47s or Typhoons to blast a fuel and ammo column, or a flight or B-25s or 26s over the appropriate marshalling yard. That would leave the Maus as an oversize paperweight, as it left the rest of the Panzer force.
If they had thought it out more, the back would have a ramp like our modern day Bradley fighting vehicle. Then it could carry troops or maybe a StuG inside.
The scary thing is, if someone had suggested that at the time, it's possible someone would have said:
"Nice idea! Maybe a Zug of Stugs... They will last for 1000 years!"
What source do you have for production? I've seen 350 bandied about as a wartime production, but I know it carried on after the war.
Also, IS-4 and T-10 are completely different beasts.
Zaloga's IS 2 Heavy Tank 1944 - 1973 et al. IS III production is given by Zaloga as a total of about 1800, which by Soviet standards of the time is tiny. The fact that this vehicle was readily exported and rarely used in frontline service speaks volumes about its utility.
And, yes, the IS 4 is not the T10 but, rather an early progenitor of the later. While about 8000 T-10 are built, they too do not prove that viable as a weapons system.
Just as in the West, the Soviets found that the heavy tank was an out dated idea and relegated to a subsidiary role in small numbers.
Its not about the Maus but something you guys may find interesting......
Well, happy reading.
Iv'e seen that before. It's huge! But where was the 180mm kanone supposed to be? I didn't see one in the picture.
I have what would have been the ultimate tank had it ever been built and worked............I want one!!!!