Tanks/Vehicles Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus

[Master0M0Master 164]

and you'll just get outflanked and killed when you see an enemy.

 

This must not happen if you use the terain and work with your teammates as a team, and this can also happen to your KV-1 so...

And maybe you would have no fun driving this tank , but maybe others will.

 

Regards

Master-M-Master

[ItssLuBu 1,798]

If it's balanced then why not, would make for a cool event reward or something.

[Skygunner 110]

NO MAUS.

 

Why ?

 

Because if you accept the Maus, you have to accept the E 100.  And BAAAANG  you have the same idiotic rubbish like in WoT. Some of the used tank models in WT are already let me say hypothetical , and this should be enough.

 

the mause was tested only with a WEIGHT turret, without armament, never was wroking as a real acting tank, with firing on life range. so EVERYTHING about the characteristics of the mouse are hypothetical. and this is, what it has in common with any other blueprint tank . 

 

there are a lot of possibilities to make this game interesting for a long time without

I don't think you understand the point you're trying to make.

 

You do realize that WT has already accepted prototype units.   Units that were mechanically unsound,  and such.

 

Tiger P,   T-35,   examples of the former.

 

Having the maus does not in any way mean Gaijin has to include, or even consider the E-100.    That is literally a sort of rhetoric I'd expect to see from a mud slinging political campaign. 

 

No,  having the Maus simply gives Gaijin a iconic German tank that people would be able to recognize.  For bringing in WoT,  I'd gladly point out that Maus was the original German tier X tank in that game, and in its curent state simply represents Wargamings a major depression for many of its current, and former players.   By doing the Maus, and doing it right,  it only makes Gaijin shine that much more.

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

I don't think you understand the point you're trying to make.

 

You do realize that WT has already accepted prototype units.   Units that were mechanically unsound,  and such.

 

Tiger P,   T-35,   examples of the former.

 

Having the maus does not in any way mean Gaijin has to include, or even consider the E-100.    That is literally a sort of rhetoric I'd expect to see from a mud slinging political campaign. 

 

No,  having the Maus simply gives Gaijin a iconic German tank that people would be able to recognize.  For bringing in WoT,  I'd gladly point out that Maus was the original German tier X tank in that game, and in its curent state simply represents Wargamings a major depression for many of its current, and former players.   By doing the Maus, and doing it right,  it only makes Gaijin shine that much more.

 

T-35 was in serial produtcion... 71 built.

Tiger P, a few prototypes were sent to the front. Most notably a commando tank at Kursk. But most were converted to Ferdinand tank destroyers. Which again saw combat service.

Even the T-50 was maked 71 times.

As of yet we only have ONE prototype: The Premium gift T-34 prototype.

And two blueprints/make belief tanks: Tiger2 with KwK46 & Panther2 *cough*mostly*cough*43 *cough*BS*cough*

[Skygunner 110]

T-35 was in serial produtcion... 71 built.

Tiger P, a few prototypes were sent to the front. Most notably a commando tank at Kursk. But most were converted to Ferdinand tank destroyers. Which again saw combat service.

Even the T-50 was maked 71 times.

As of yet we only have ONE prototype: The Premium gift T-34 prototype.

And two blueprints/make belief tanks: Tiger2 with KwK46 & Panther2 *cough*mostly*cough*43 *cough*BS*cough*

 

So it's ok to break the rules as long as you make excuses for it?

 

The T-35 quip was more that the machine itself was mechanically unreliable,  not that it was produced in low numbers.  Similar to Maus which is questionably sound to how well it would have performed. 

 

But do please continue to tell me how the Tiger P is justified,  simply because a the useless chassis were converted into something slightly more useful (that ended up being crappy and unreliable).  Literally 1 prototype finished and sent to the front lines to watch over its mutant half brothers.  

 

That's half the number of Maus prototypes

[myfabi94 695]

We should have somewhat reliable data on mobility, since it couldn't be loaded on trains and was therefore driven to Kubinka for MONTHS and it was discovered that off-road speed of 12kph was realistic on ALL roads to Kubinka since the tracks would sink through all the roads. The 20kph were only possible on 50-80cm of concrete. It was mainly built as a satisifer for Hitler

But anyways it should be implemented as useless as it is.

You can't really destroy it by tank, but large HE rounds should disable the gun and a penetrating hit in the lower glacis should immobilze it. Track repair is impossible in the field.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

A couple of thoughts...:

 

You would have to have the battle start around the Maus (Lets face it, at probably an average of 3-5 mph, the Maus isn't going anywhere very fast.).

 

There would have to be other heavy tanks designed specifically to counter the Maus.

 

 

The HEAT shell from an M103 (T43E) has something like 330mm of pen.. Not sure how much the T-10 has... but my guess is probably quite a bit, And then there was the brit Conquerer. 

 

 

 

Having the Maus is definitely going to be bittersweet; It's going to be an epic tank, but it's never gonna be invincible. 

[Master0M0Master 164]

There would have to be other heavy tanks designed specifically to counter the Maus.

 

[....]

 

 

 

Having the Maus is definitely going to be bittersweet; It's going to be an epic tank, but it's never gonna be invincible. 

 

As long as you play as a team of tankers and pilots you dont need special tanks to counter the Maus.

 

And about the invicibility, I think no one in this comunity would want an invincible tank.

And even the Maus wouldnt be invincible not at the slightest. It would be hard to kill just by Ground Forces, sure, but not impossible. I think 1-3 IS-4 or 1-3 T-54's  (working together) would be enough.

Or you flee from the Maus (honestly even an KV-2 could outrun the Maus^^).

 

And not to speak about the planes, since they wouldnt have any problems to kill the Maus. (should be quite easy to get direct bomb hits on such a big tank)

 

Regards

Master-M-Master

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

So it's ok to break the rules as long as you make excuses for it?

 

The T-35 quip was more that the machine itself was mechanically unreliable,  not that it was produced in low numbers.  Similar to Maus which is questionably sound to how well it would have performed. 

 

But do please continue to tell me how the Tiger P is justified,  simply because a the useless chassis were converted into something slightly more useful (that ended up being crappy and unreliable).  Literally 1 prototype finished and sent to the front lines to watch over its mutant half brothers.  

 

That's half the number of Maus prototypes

I dont understand why you are so aggressive on this topic?

Neither do I understand why you are assuming I am for the Maus. You are reading things into spaces where there aint anything to read.

On the reliability thing I have to say, that it does not count or matter in a game & in the battlefield.

Jumo 004 was simply massproduced to outwheigh its deficits. You arent argueing against the Me262 or Me162 just because they were unreliable nightmares.

Ferdinands and Elefants were unreliable, yes. Still they were nightmares for its foes. And received their own identification names and kill-guides.

Inside a M4A3 Sherman: "Commander! Elefant at 11 o clock!" "Don't worry, its unriliable and will break down after it moved 5km." *BOOOM!* *WWROOOMMMS*

And any Infantry squad during the beginning of WW2 will curse itself facing a  multi-turret T-35.

And again: Neither the Ferdinand, nor the T-35 break any rules. Maybe your rules, but not the ones Gaijin set up.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

As long as you play as a team of tankers and pilots you dont need special tanks to counter the Maus.

 

And about the invicibility, I think no one in this comunity would want an invincible tank.

And even the Maus wouldnt be invincible not at the slightest. It would be hard to kill just by Ground Forces, sure, but not impossible. I think 1-3 IS-4 or 1-3 T-54's  (working together) would be enough.

Or you flee from the Maus (honestly even an KV-2 could outrun the Maus^^).

 

And not to speak about the planes, since they wouldnt have any problems to kill the Maus. (should be quite easy to get direct bomb hits on such a big tank)

 

Regards

Master-M-Master

 

They're not specially designed for the maus; the maus never saw combat and all of these tanks are from the 50's. The T43E was pre-production M103 heavy, and 300 were built in 1952-3 iirc. It just happens to shoot one hell of a shell :D

 

And I honestly dont know what people would want the Maus for... Aesthetics? just a Tier 5 fun-toy? 

 

 

Can I get a helicopter? It serves the same practicality.... They're both equally useless in the kind of warfare happening right now. Basically all you could do on maps like kursk is drive into the A zone an wait for them to kill you.... 

 

And The only real way to kill the maus is a very heavy bomb, or napalm. (Yes, napalm was used and developed in WW II.), or a very heavy tank.

[StaryZapomnij 214]

I dont want second WOT. No Maus plx :d

[Kocyra 5,742]

I say this should be added. It will be a strong competitor in the high tiers, But it will be very slow, Easily flankable and a primary target for bombers.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I say this should be added. It will be a strong competitor in the high tiers, But it will be very slow, Easily flankable and a primary target for bombers.

 

a STRONG competitor? I doubt it. If you know how to angle, MAYBE, and even then, the only thing it would have going for it would be the raw armor thickness. It has a range of 40 miles (There are no roads, and people will be redlining the engine even if there were roads...) It had a top speed of 8 mph (And I'll bet in off-road practice, it was closer to 4..). Power to weight was ballpark 6hp/ton. While the maus could probably see targets, swinging a 60 ton turret around would probably be another story... 

 

 

Then we have the M103: The entire tank weighs less than the turret of the Maus. It had a range of 80 miles, and a top speed of 20 mph. The M103 also had double the HP/Ton, making it FAR more maneuverable. 

 

 

 

As far as the guns are concerned, the 120mm M58 is more powerful than the PaK-44, and is more powerful than the 75mm by a long shot. 

 

IIRC, the PaK-44 puts out about 12.4 MJ with APCBC-HE (Pz.Gr. 43).

 

IIRC, the M58 puts out around 13.2 MJ with AP-T (M358). 

 

 

 

When you look at penetration for various shells you get a little something like this:

 

I'm not entirely sure all of the figures are correct, but they should be close. 

 

At most ranges, the T-43 could put one through the side(turret) of the Maus without much of a problem, could definitely put one through the back of the turret/hull, could probably put one through the front of the turret, and at the right angle, probably the upper plate as well. 

[Kocyra 5,742]

a STRONG competitor? I doubt it. If you know how to angle, MAYBE, and even then, the only thing it would have going for it would be the raw armor thickness. It has a range of 40 miles (There are no roads, and people will be redlining the engine even if there were roads...) It had a top speed of 8 mph (And I'll bet in off-road practice, it was closer to 4..). Power to weight was ballpark 6hp/ton. While the maus could probably see targets, swinging a 60 ton turret around would probably be another story... 

 

 

Then we have the M103: The entire tank weighs less than the turret of the Maus. It had a range of 80 miles, and a top speed of 20 mph. The M103 also had double the HP/Ton, making it FAR more maneuverable. 

 

 

 

As far as the guns are concerned, the 120mm M58 is more powerful than the PaK-44, and is more powerful than the 75mm by a long shot. 

 

IIRC, the PaK-44 puts out about 12.4 MJ with APCBC-HE (Pz.Gr. 43).

 

IIRC, the M58 puts out around 13.2 MJ with AP-T (M358). 

 

 

 

When you look at penetration for various shells you get a little something like this:

 

I'm not entirely sure all of the figures are correct, but they should be close. 

 

At most ranges, the T-43 could put one through the side(turret) of the Maus without much of a problem, could definitely put one through the back of the turret/hull, could probably put one through the front of the turret, and at the right angle, probably the upper plate as well. 

Yeah well then if the M103 is better that means the maus can easily be added.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Yeah well then if the M103 is better that means the maus can easily be added.

 

Not necessarily; if the T43E (Pre-Production M103..) is too good, it will not be added, and therefore there would be nothing to counter the Maus (Aside from some other tanks where they would have to be within something like 400m to get a good penetrating hit.).

 

 

 

Keep in mind, the T43E will fight more than just the Maus. It's going to fight the Panther II/Panther F, and possibly the KT II Mit 105(Unless they force the BR down and give Germany 1950's american M47's.), it's going to fight the IS8 and T-54. 

 

I'm pretty sure the regular AP of the M358 shell is something way over 300mm at close range; and even at 2km, it has 200mm of pen... That's enough to demolish most tanks with one shot. 

[Kocyra 5,742]

Not necessarily; if the T43E (Pre-Production M103..) is too good, it will not be added, and therefore there would be nothing to counter the Maus (Aside from some other tanks where they would have to be within something like 400m to get a good penetrating hit.).

 

 

 

Keep in mind, the T43E will fight more than just the Maus. It's going to fight the Panther II/Panther F, and possibly the KT II Mit 105(Unless they force the BR down and give Germany 1950's american M47's.), it's going to fight the IS8 and T-54. 

 

I'm pretty sure the regular AP of the M358 shell is something way over 300mm at close range; and even at 2km, it has 200mm of pen... That's enough to demolish most tanks with one shot. 

Anything can counter the maus, For example, A bunch of teenage girls managed to drive a hetzer ontop of a maus jamming its turret.

 

Back to reality, The maus is very slow and turns slow and has a snow turret traverse, It can be out-flanked by almost anything

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

The maus is very slow and turns slow and has a snow turret traverse, It can be out-flanked by almost anything

 

mmmm...... It still has a raw armor value of 220mm on the turret and 190mm on the rear plating. so you would need to be able to flank it with nothing less than a T-54 or M48. 

 

IIRC, at pt-blank, the T-54 wouldn't be able to pen the back of the turret. Not too familiar with the M48's gun. 

[Gahlok12 457]

My favourite pillbox.

With one weakpoint: No 8,8 Flak ;_;

btw: found another pic of it in action!

:Ps :Ps :Ps :Ps :Ps :Ps

Um a World War 1 tank you do know that only one of those things are still around right and the others were destoryed

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

Um a World War 1 tank you do know that only one of those things are still around right and the others were destoryed

Like the Maus. Should even be similar sizes.

[Skygunner 110]

I dont understand why you are so aggressive on this topic?

Neither do I understand why you are assuming I am for the Maus. You are reading things into spaces where there aint anything to read.

On the reliability thing I have to say, that it does not count or matter in a game & in the battlefield.

Jumo 004 was simply massproduced to outwheigh its deficits. You arent argueing against the Me262 or Me162 just because they were unreliable nightmares.

Ferdinands and Elefants were unreliable, yes. Still they were nightmares for its foes. And received their own identification names and kill-guides.

Inside a M4A3 Sherman: "Commander! Elefant at 11 o clock!" "Don't worry, its unriliable and will break down after it moved 5km." *BOOOM!* *WWROOOMMMS*

And any Infantry squad during the beginning of WW2 will curse itself facing a  multi-turret T-35.

And again: Neither the Ferdinand, nor the T-35 break any rules. Maybe your rules, but not the ones Gaijin set up.

Talk about assuming,  why on  earth would I think, that you want the Maus in game......

 

seriously.  Show me where I said that -it's in your mind-

 

Why so aggressive?  Simple, I like the Maus,  and I don't like that you're throwing a really crappy excuse around as justification for not having it in game.   A game that has already ignored your logic in the aircraft trees before this,   and will probably continue to ignore it in the future tank trees as well . (japan anyone?)

 

You seem to think it's all or nothing,  let one or two,  truly functioning prototypes in,  and suddenly there will be drunken napkin scribbles getting in as well.  That Gaijin will be making crap up, throwing in a very flimsy justification and then POOF Wargaming II Electric Boogaloo.   Though I would point out,  a large portion of the tanks people accuse wargaming of making up,  actually did exist to some degree,   there are still some that are pure fiction.

 

 

As for reliability.  Thank you for making my point for me.  Mechanical reliability doesn't matter in this game.   Maus' performance, and soundness is something often brought up -elsewhere-  when discussing it,  nipping that in the bud as it were. Glad to see we agree on that.

 

Ferdinands, IRL were only frightening due to their gun.  But that was only a threat to soviet armour,  which germany had many means of defeating.   The soviet infantry however was what brutalized the already unsound Elephant.  I can not recall an instance where Ferdinands really held sway, even after being upgraded. Fortunatly, germany married the pak 43 with a panther to make -arguably- one of the best TD's ever. 

 

I also find it funny how highly you speak of the T-35 (Which truthfully is another loved tank of mine, and I'm a bit miffed they were taken out of the patch notes).  When what you're saying is literally all speculation.  Few T-35's ever got to encounter enemy forces.  They were grossly underarmoured and could easily be disabled by infantry

Ferdinads and T-35's,  that whole issue is that they are a non-issue.  These tanks that really were not that great IRL,  are going to work out just fine in game.  Just as the faults of Maus.  Cumbersome,  potential unrelability,  and questionable off road capabilites,  wont hamper it in this game.

 

And Tiger P,  well, I guess I gotta repeat it...But Tiger P just proves that a prototype unit will be in game,  more over a Prototype unit that has characteristics its real life counterpart,  didn't have`.   And as stated above,  I like the Maus, want it in game.  And you just proved that your own argument for keeping it out of game, doesn't hold water.

 

What you should have said,  is that the Tiger P is a "slippery slope" and argue against that,  before it gets in.  Because once it is (and it will be) it opens the door for other tanks such as...well. Maus,  but also T-95,  Tortoise, etc.  

 

Why you seem to think that these fully designed prototypes will lead us to a WoT,    Waffletraktor - E100 scenario is beyond me.  As said before,  it's that doomsday rhetoric that you're spewing that irks me.  This prolific dennounciation of something in  every form as a harbinger of worse things to come.  Give gaijin some credit.

`

[Master0M0Master 164]

As it looks like for me, the Maus fullfills the needed expectations to be implemented.

So shouldnt it be implemented?

 

Regards

Master-M-Master

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Talk about assuming,  why on  earth would I think, that you want the Maus in game......

 

seriously.  Show me where I said that -it's in your mind-

 

Why so aggressive?  Simple, I like the Maus,  and I don't like that you're throwing a really crappy excuse around as justification for not having it in game.   A game that has already ignored your logic in the aircraft trees before this,   and will probably continue to ignore it in the future tank trees as well . (japan anyone?)

 

You seem to think it's all or nothing,  let one or two,  truly functioning prototypes in,  and suddenly there will be drunken napkin scribbles getting in as well.  That Gaijin will be making crap up, throwing in a very flimsy justification and then POOF Wargaming II Electric Boogaloo.   Though I would point out,  a large portion of the tanks people accuse wargaming of making up,  actually did exist to some degree,   there are still some that are pure fiction.

 

Why you seem to think that these fully designed prototypes will lead us to a WoT,    Waffletraktor - E100 scenario is beyond me.   Give gaijin some credit.

 

The Maus could be in the game, BUT, it needs something that can defeat more than just the raw armor value; iirc at its THINNEST is 190mm. Even the D-25T would have more than one or two problems penetrating that. 

 

What ends up happening is the need for the 1953-1954 tanks, like the M103, Conqueror(? not good with my brits here... I dont think it was the challenger... too many similar names.), the T-10, and then there's just japan... always left out. I'm just saying, there needs to be a REASONABLE way of killing a Maus in a tank-versus-tank engagement. (no air strikes or naval shells..). Seeing as the KwK-44 is one of the strongest ever production (direct fire) weapons built, It isn't going to have much of a problem killing things. The only gun it comes second to is the M103's 120mm M58. (12.2 MJ vs 13.4MJ). (So that they have a reasonable chance of penetrating one another at range, rather than have the maus be able to belt anything within 2km and everything else have to get within 400m for a penetrating hit.).

 

 

As for japan... If they wanted their own production tanks and be somewhat competitive, we're looking at a timeline extension for them to somewhere in the early 60's. (STA-1/2/3/4, and the Type 61)

 

If we were to suppress Japan to the timeframe limits, the best they could get is an M47 Patton. They received one for testing and decided they didn't like it. They also received M41 Walkers, but that was in 1961.

 

 

And yeah, i doubt that the whole paper napkin stuff is going to happen to WT.... the devs are smarter than that.. much smarter.

[Master0M0Master 164]

And yeah, i doubt that the whole paper napkin stuff is going to happen to WT.... the devs are smarter than that.. much smarter.

 

I know you are speaking about Japan, but when we are speaking about the Maus, there is no of this "paper-napkin" stuff like some say in this thread.

The Maus is/was a prototype tank and not a "paper tank" .

 

Regards

Master-M-Master

[myfabi94 695]

 

This is one of the two Prototypes that was driven over months to Kubinka. It is not a napkin tank as you can see. Reliability with the U-Boat engine wasn't as bad as you would think. It would only get stuck a lot, not pass bridges, destroy streets and wear down parts at abnormal speeds. It went through multiple sets of tracks on the way as well as brakes, Oil and Diesel.

And it would be indestructible, but not undefeatable. One penetrating hit in the lower glacis and the thing doesn't move anymore. Hits to the tracks do the same. Killing a Maus wasn't meant to be easy business, it shouldn't be in WT.

Edited May 18, 2014 by myfabi94

[Master0M0Master 164]

 and wear down parts at abnormal speeds. It went through multiple sets of tracks on the way as well as brakes, Oil and Diesel.

 

But the "does it break down or not" and "reliability" should not be a argument for implementing it, because for games like Warthunder there is the "always the best posibility" .

 

What I want to say is, Tigers do not have breakdowns ingame, neither get the Yak-9 oil leaks after using its main gun.

So this shouldn be a concern.

 

Regards

Master-M-Master :salute: