THE MOUSE!

I vaguely remembered reading a book where there was this project on a super tank called the mouse that was so big it got....cancelled.
Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

Do you mean this one ?

 

The Mouse is an amazing vehicle, with spectacular characteristics. The glacis plate up front is approximately 8 inches (200 mm) thick. Since it is sloped at 35 degrees to the vertical, the armor basis is therefore 14 inches. Side armor is 7 inches (180 mm) thick, with the rear protected by plates 6 1/4 inches (160 mm) thick. The front of the turret is protected by 9 1/2 inches (240 mm) of cast armor, while the 8-inch (200 mm) thick turret sides and rear were sloped so as to give the effect of 9 inches (230 mm) of armor.

ARMAMENT

For the main armament, a pea-shooter like an 88-mm gun was ignored. Selected instead was the powerful 128-mm tank and antitank gun, which was later to be replaced by a 150-mm piece 38 calibers in length. (The standard German medium field howitzer 15 cm s.F.H. 18 is only 29.5 calibers in length.) Instead of mounting a 7.9-mm machine gun coaxially, the Mouse was to have a 75-mm antitank gun 76 calibers in length next to the 128- or 150-mm gun. A machine cannon for antiaircraft was to be mounted in the turret roof, along with a smoke grenade projector.

In size, the Mouse was considerably larger than any German tank. Its length of 33 feet made it nearly 50 percent longer than the Royal Tiger. Because of rail transport considerations. its width was kept to 12 feet (that of the Royal Tiger and Tiger). A 12-foot height made it a considerable target.



Found this from a website ,http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/

 

Only two prototypes of the Maus were ever completed, one of which didn't have a turret. It was a huge gas guzzler (your article fails to mention a fuel usage of several dozen liters per km) and wholly impractical in transportation since virtually no bridge would support its gross weight of 188 tons. Assembled form parts of the destroyed prototypes, the only remaining example of this tank is at Kubinka.

That's pretty much all there is to say about it...

 

Having two cannons in one turret is an outdated concept. There were similar designs for every nation in WWII.

 

Kaiser
There were no plans to re-arm the Pz.Kpfw."Maus" with a 150 mm. gun (or any other gun, for that matter). A 15 cm Kw.K. L/38 had been discussed during the design phase, but the 12,8 cm Kw.K. L/55 was the gun chosen for the design. Furthermore, just like a 105 mm. gun was rejected for the Tiger II, is it most likely that any future suggestion of a 150 mm. gun for the Pz.Kpfw."Maus" would be rejected, because the shells would be larger, resulting in a lower loading time and a smaller ammunition storage capacity, with no recognisable difference in penetration results (plus, there were no existing tank guns in these calibers).

Besides, the 75 mm. tank gun was 36 calibers.

 

were the protypes running on diesel or gasoline?

 

Gasoline

 

christian , you forgot to mention that the engine was used for the generator not for moving the maus

 

wasn't the 128mm gun inferior in terms of anti-tank performance to the L/71 88mm?

 

88mm had slightly better penetration up to I believe 1,000 meters, then it began to drop off while the 128mm was still going strong.

 

Lol i bet u got like .5km/l on that thing.

 

Actually that is quite optimistic...

The Cheiftan can get as bad as .5 mile to a litre...

 

I believe it's corss country fuel usage was a stunning 67 liters per kilometer!

 

Which, Chieftain or Maus?

 

Well, Maus, of course. I doubt the British military would use anything that inefficient!

 

Didn't think it was a Chieftain, but couldn't be entirely sure with the way you'd phrased it...

 

I guess I have to be more explicit then. Re-post:

Re: Maus fuel usage - in response to the above by Gunter Viezenz about the amount of fuel the Maus used, I have the following remark, which is drawn entirely from memory and about which I have no sources at hand at the moment:
I believe it's cross-country fuel usage was a stunning 67 liters per kilometer!

Happy?

 

LOL to think thaty Germany had a shortage of gas and i head that they also used gasoline made out of coal. :smok:

 

The cross-country fuel usage was 41.94 l./km.

The Germans were also developing a supersonic aircraft powered by coal.

Cjrosyoam