German "Maus" Tank - Page 3

Za Rodinu · #51 (**permalink**) May 26th, 2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

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.

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.

FramerT · #52 (**permalink**) May 26th, 2007, 01:12 PM

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.

Von Poop · #53 (**permalink**) May 26th, 2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FramerT

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!"

FLOZi · #54 (**permalink**) May 28th, 2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

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.

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.

T. A. Gardner · #55 (**permalink**) May 28th, 2007, 12:26 AM

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.

von_noobie · #56 (**permalink**) June 3rd, 2007, 04:24 AM

Its not about the Maus but something you guys may find interesting......

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm#1000

Well, happy reading.

Cheers

Joe · #57 (**permalink**) June 3rd, 2007, 10:47 AM

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.

von_noobie · #58 (**permalink**) June 4th, 2007, 05:20 AM

I have what would have been the ultimate tank had it ever been built and worked............I want one!!!!

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaver.../emidgard.html

FramerT · #59 (**permalink**) June 19th, 2007, 03:40 PM

http://www.amazing-planet.net/maus.html