The Maus

I think it's called 'agreeing'

 

Maus was just big and powerfull as hell. Shame that they never saw a battle. Of course, they were at the time just prototypes, but still...

 

Welcome to the forum Brummbär!

I think it's a myth that the Maus could have made any difference on the battlefield if it was used. For one thing, it had no tactical purpose, so all it could do was stand there and shoot. It couldn't drive very far and while doing so used as much fuel as a whole lot of other tanks. So there we have a sitting bunker with a huge gun - but it's not impenetrable. It's not a real bunker, covered in meters and meters of concrete; it's all steel plating. Either the enemy will just withdraw for a bit and let their tactical air force clean up the beast, or they move around to the back or sides and fire at that until it is penetrated. The Allies by this time had some quite efficient TDs able to handle such a job.

 

Roel, flanking it will be a good thing, but now your talking like it is on its own against lots of enemy forces, if it was ever fielded it probably will have support of other (heavy) tanks and /or tank destroyers, so flanking it would not have worked I guess...

And because its vulnerable from aircrafts it will probably have been supported by armored AA vehicles.


''So there we have a sitting bunker with a huge gun''

No, i don't think that would have been the case, t wasn't VERY VERY slow, it could still drive, it could even drive under water and no need for it to drive very fast as it is almost unpenetrable by enemy fire.

If it had the change to be mass-produced it will have made a huge difference.

 

The Allies at first couldn't kill Tigers, but they figured out how to get into its sides and rearto take it out. I can't see why this wouldn't work for the Maus too.

 

Maybe because the Maus costs a million times more than a Tiger, takes longer to produce, takes more fuel, is an extremely effective weapon when used properly, and wanted by Allied aircrafts, so it needs alot of protection and i'm sure the Germans would have made a big defensive circle of tanks, tanks destroyers, artillery, Anti-aircraft and infantry around it, maybe even some of there last aircrafts... :roll:

 

That would mean the support force could have completed a very effective action even without the Maus.

 

NO, if I where the leading commander I whould put about 6 Tigers in front f the spearhead with some Tigers or Tiger II's at the left/rght side and the rest behind it, so I would use the Maus tanks to break the defensive line of the enemy and when we reach a town I would put the Maus tanks in a circle around the town and use them as effective pillboxes and than when a second force arrives to defend the town the Maus with its supporting force would move on to the next town

 

Nice, but consider that you would be a German commander late in the war; you have about a third of the tanks you're supposed to have, and the crew have about a quarter of the required experience.

 

"If" the Maus would have been put into service abit sooner, there would nonetheless be very few of them, and they would require 4-6 times the fuel of a Tiger Ausf.B ! They would require alot of support and they would undoubtetly have some mechanical problems pretty often.

Sure the Maus would have been a VERY lethal tank when engaged with allied AFV's and it would have made the Pershing look like an M3 Stuart. But if the Allies incountered this giant, wich was slow and in very few numbers, they would simply let fighter-bombers do the job.
And im telling you, eventhough you've got AA covering your Maus, it will be taken out, and so will the AA's. The Allies could assemble a much larger force of planes than the Germans could assemble a force of AA's !

The first armored clash with the Maus, would undoubtetly mean a bitter surprise for the Allies as their tankgun's would have no impact on it. But the Allies had airsuperiority, and they would use it to the fullest in such a scenario !

The story would be much the same as when Allies encountered the KingTiger wich dwarfed even the Pershing in everything, except in cross- country-range

KBO

 

''Nice, but consider that you would be a German commander late in the war; you have about a third of the tanks you're supposed to have, and the crew have about a quarter of the required experience.''

Thats why Hitler should have put an order of this in 1939
I'm not sure of this is right, but didn't the Germans had very few armored or motorised brigades in the beginning of the war? They where still pulling artiller pieces with horse right?


''The Allies could assemble a much larger force of planes than the Germans could assemble a force of AA's!''

But how many bullets does an AA vehicle have with it?
If I was the commander I would bring so much AA vehicles with it that when attacked by aircrafts it was litterally raining with AA bullets in the opposite direction of the rain ofcourse

 

Imagine that, Maus tanks in use at the Battle of Civitate in 1053!
:lol:

 

Yes, the germans always had problems with mechanised transport. They used thousands of horses and had a tendancy to steal every truck they could get there hands on.

Most of the ideas and myths around German tactics and their equipment are simply not true in the cold light of day. There stuff was not exceptionally ahead of everyone else. It's just that everyone else was really bad at a lot of things.

FNG

 

No offense, but that made no sense at all !

KBO

 

Back to the topic though a Maus would just be a big slow target for the flyboys. They might as well have painted big bullseyes on the roof to make it more interesting for the pilots.

That and this tactic of gathering togethor 15 Tigers and a load of AA guns to surround the Maus would also be impractical due to the lack of equipment and a god send for the allied pilots. They wouldn't need to roam the fields looking for targets, they would all be nicely grouped togethor for them!

FNG

 

LOL, first a said the Leopard2 was uncomfortable and crampt and now i'm talking about a Maus in 1039...

Edited

 

Hmm, not to grouped ofcourse, :roll:

All in all, this is a clear sign that Hitler and his Generals have done a bad job, going to war unprepared, if he had done it correctly they didn't have any inconveniance with enemy Aircrafts, but i'm sure if Hitler did it correctly at the beginning of the war it will have turned out very different!

And thats a fine thing, he messed up big time, thas a good thing for us


About that horses and very few mechanical brigade, other countries did have armored/mechanised brigades already at the beginning of the war, but how is it possible that they still got ahead of the Allies when they started with less?

 

Allied tactics generally led to a spread of resouces across many units along the battle front. This is especially true of tanks but also AT guns and artillery.

German tactics focused resources on particular units at a particular point of the line to force a breakthrough. The Germans were always able to bring enough material togethor with these tactics to break the line even as late as Dec 44.

Anyway, what do you class as not being grouped togethor? To be close enough to provide mutual fire support they would be close enough to be heavily targetted. If they are spread they are no longer a single fighting force but two seperate attacks.

FNG

 

=Better German tactics. Had the Germans only had the tactics and training of the Allied troops, then they wouldnt have hold on for as long at Normandy as they did.
And about resources, the Allies had 10 times the resources of Germans army in 44, so don't even go there.

KBO

 

Talking about offensive battles, not defensive actions.

FNG