Tanks/Vehicles Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus

[myfabi94 695]

^^ Edit ^^

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

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

 

I wasn't talking about the Maus. I know the maus had something like 1 1/2 tanks built (very nearly two, iirc), and something like five more hulls built... It was far from napkin design. I was talking about the waffletraktor and arguably the E-100. I think the E-100 had a hull built and that was it. It was half way between paper and prototype. 

 

Tigers do not have breakdowns ingame, 

 

 

Just FYI; most all of german heavy armor had serious issues, most of them due to being too complex. 

 

If Adolf decided to take a route similar to the Sherman or T-34 for his tanks of choice instead of trying to find some wonderweapon that would rule the world for him, he might have been able to win if America didn't get involved, and he didn't try storming russia during the winter.

[Master0M0Master 164]

I know you are speaking about Japan

 

I knew you where speaking about Japan and/or the E-100 ;)s

------------------Begin of quote from BlitzkriegWulf

If Adolf decided to take a route similar to the Sherman or T-34 for his tanks of choice instead of trying to find some wonderweapon that would rule the world for him, he might have been able to win if America didn't get involved, and he didn't try storming russia during the winter.

 

------------------ End of quote (i broke the quote function 0.o    ^^)

 

As I said in my first post, i wont start anything too off-topic and i will leave this to the historians to discuss it ;)s

 

But as I also said, there hasnt (until now) been anyone convincing me that there are "meaningfull" reasons to notinclude the Maus (I am speaking about well placed ideas not about post like " No do not want the Maus, cuz want no WoT .." )

The only one could maybe be, other tanks could have a hard time to kill the Maus, but that is what it should be, and I dont think you need a special "Counter" tank for the Maus to kill it, I mean WT is no Cardgame where every card needs it Counter....

 

What does the others think?

 

Regards

Master-M-Master :salute:

Edited May 18, 2014 by Master0M0Master

[Kempston 342]

The thing is, the one at Kubinka is BOTH prototypes, the turret on one was destroyed and the hull was destroyed on the other so technically the things a frankenstein

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

The thing is, the one at Kubinka is BOTH prototypes, the turret on one was destroyed and the hull was destroyed on the other so technically the things a frankenstein

 

... it's half and half; it's not 100% of both prototypes. At best it's part of both prototypes, if you saw the chiefs vid of the inside. 

 

The turret is basically just the metal turret; the inside was blown away and/or gutted out. The inside of the hull, iirc, is about the same or has not been looked after.

[Guest]

The only one could maybe be, other tanks could have a hard time to kill the Maus, but that is what it should be, and I dont think you need a special "Counter" tank for the Maus to kill it, I mean WT is no Cardgame where every card needs it Counter....

Regards
Master-M-Master :salute:

It seems like people like to forget about spalling from AP round hitting a metal plate, might not penatrate mind you, but still will spall; not to mention as it has been mentioned before armour plating is "destroyable" in a sense that every time a shell hits [insert plate location] it becomes more weakened. Reducung protection. Then we have have HE shells that everyone seemed to have forgotten about seeming how we have almost no use for them unless it has above 6kg or more of shell weight/explosive which creates even more spalling, not to mention ruduces an armour "reliabilaty" at a faster rate then AP rounds.

Now apply this to the back of the turret od the Maus where some ammo might be stored on racks (check me if i'm wrong) and shoot with a HE round were spalling may damage the ammo and start a cook-off. Or could possibly wound the comander/gunner/loader. All that due to spalling.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Now apply this to the back of the turret od the Maus where some ammo might be stored on racks (check me if i'm wrong) and shoot with a HE round were spalling may damage the ammo and start a cook-off. Or could possibly wound the comander/gunner/loader. All that due to spalling.

 

eeeehhh. It might or it might not. depends on how hard you hit it.

[Nerdwaffen 10]

Add an oponent to le~ Maus... The IS-7 with your 130mm gun.

[Guest]

eeeehhh. It might or it might not. depends on how hard you hit it.

Look for the key words "may" and "possibly" :)

And yes your right it does depend on hard you hit it, bigger the explosive, bigger the boom (and chances off getting an even bigger "boom").

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Look for the key words "may" and "possibly" :)

And yes your right it does depend on hard you hit it, bigger the explosive, bigger the boom (and chances off getting an even bigger "boom").

 

Well the M103 can pen the maus at any range with the M469(IIRC) heat round. It has something like 330mm of pen at all ranges. Pot one of those into the back half of the side of the turret or into the rear of it.... Bye-bye Maus. But heat would pretty much be useless against the side of the hull due to the large tracks and the strip where it would be effective would be pretty small at range.

[Skygunner 110]

[Kempston 342]

Face it, people are going to love the maus, people are going to hate it. It's the marmite tank! you should start a poll on this topic see what the majority think. ;)s

[AdmiralFishHead 1,520]

I think it will be a good marketing move to get this thing. It actually existed and is a very famous tank. It's not like it's invincible, the artillery and planes in the game can pick it apart. But people will play the game just to have it.

[Kempston 342]

As above, it will give something for players to strive towards, it'll make something for playability that's different from the Tiger II Kwk. Also, it won't be that undefeatable pillar box of a monstrosity that everyone is pointing it out to be. It has weak spots, so does every tank. Don't you think that you could knock out the turret traverse drive? destroy the barrel? get it's tracks? let aircraft have a go? It's not an invincible tank and it existed. It would be like saying 'I don't want the Tiger II because it's OP!' ok, it may look OP it may be slightly the death star of all tanks, but at the end of the day if you don't like this completely historic tank in battle against tanks it was really against, don't play the game. Either that or stick at low tier games where the maus can't get to you, or get the maus! Simple.

[NachtJagerX 10,074]

Why not. In the end, no one is forced to play it. If you want to drive around a bunker with a huge gun, then so be it. I suspect that even if added, most people will still prefer more manoeuvrable/faster tanks, so it won't be 'game-breaking' or anything.

[Major_Shaker 2,633]

I voted for no. That tank required a lot of fuel, very slow and heavy. Yes it has great armor and maybe big gun but It couldn't cross the bridge. The tank is disaster. However, if you choose to implement this tank please make repair times at least 5 and more minutes and cost for maintanaince highest. So it wouldn't flood the battles.

[myfabi94 695]

I voted for no. That tank required a lot of fuel, very slow and heavy. Yes it has great armor and maybe big gun but It couldn't cross the bridge. The tank is disaster. However, if you choose to implement this tank please make repair times at least 5 and more minutes and cost for maintanaince highest. So it wouldn't flood the battles.

So ask for an option for additional nerfs. The T-28 and T-35 were completely useless too, but still they are in the game.

[Master0M0Master 164]

I voted for no. That tank required a lot of fuel, very slow and heavy. Yes it has great armor and maybe big gun but It couldn't cross the bridge. The tank is disaster. However, if you choose to implement this tank please make repair times at least 5 and more minutes and cost for maintanaince highest. So it wouldn't flood the battles.

 

To be honest your "disagreement" is not quite logical because:

 

1.Fuel and being able to cross bridges is absolute no fact for implemting a tank atm , because it has no ingame influence.

2.How would you know the tank is a disaster? And even if it was in reallife it dont have to be ingame.

3. 5 minutes + and highest mainanaince cost would make this tank a disaster. So you say, it is bad, and then suggest to make a tank that would not be played , because it is bad, even worse so it will be played even less? I dont get your arguing.

And having so high repcosts and times for 1 vehicle ingame would be completly against the balancing and would make the Maus FUBAR.

 

Regards

Master-M-Master :salute:

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

And having so high repcosts and times for 1 vehicle ingame would be completly against the balancing and would make the Maus FUBAR.

 

 

To be fair, the Maus was ridiculously expensive to produce.

 

If a Tiger was 250K RM, I can only imagine a Maus would be something like 2M RM.... because you had to pay the full development of it for one vehicle, and then some. So basically you could get 25+ Panthers's for one Maus... What do you think would be more practical for waging a war....?  And for the same cost as for what the Panthers cost Hitler, Stalin was buying T-34's for about $4K instead of 40K a piece.

 

 

So that means for the same price as a Maus, Stalin could get something like 300 T-34's. 

 

What do you think is more effective, a Maus or an army of 300 T-34's? That was the difference between their thought processes.

[Master0M0Master 164]

To be fair, the Maus was ridiculously expensive to produce.

 

If a Tiger was 250K RM, I can only imagine a Maus would be something like 2M RM.... because you had to pay the full development of it for one vehicle, and then some. So basically you could get 25+ Panthers's for one Maus... What do you think would be more practical for waging a war....?  And for the same cost as for what the Panthers cost Hitler, Stalin was buying T-34's for about $4K instead of 40K a piece.

 

 

So that means for the same price as a Maus, Stalin could get something like 300 T-34's. 

 

What do you think is more effective, a Maus or an army of 300 T-34's? That was the difference between their thought processes.

 

 

Yeah maybe you are right, but the reallife times for repaires and the production cost have also atm a very low influence.

Because IIRC the Me262 was build so modular that you where abled to change both engines in about 1h when you needed for an P-47 more than 1 day to change just 1 (cause it just had 1 ^^) engine.

So by that you should have way shorter repair times in a 262 than in the P-47 , but it does not depend much on the plane, mostly on the crew skill when it comes to the atm game status.

 

Regards

Master-M-Master :salute:

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Yeah maybe you are right, but the reallife times for repaires and the production cost have also atm a very low influence.

Because IIRC the Me262 was build so modular that you where abled to change both engines in about 1h when you needed for an P-47 more than 1 day to change just 1 (cause it just had 1 ^^) engine.

So by that you should have way shorter repair times in a 262 than in the P-47 , but it does not depend much on the plane, mostly on the crew skill when it comes to the atm game status.

 

With the way people slam the throttles around in german WW jets, it's amazing that they dont either flame out or blow up.

[NachtJagerX 10,074]

With the way people slam the throttles around in german WW jets, it's amazing that they dont either flame out or blow up.

I don't see cannon Sabres flaming out when firing their guns either, let's not start these stupid arguments.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I don't see cannon Sabres flaming out when firing their guns either, let's not start these stupid arguments.

 

That was only a problem with the thin air above 35-40,0000 ft. Below that, it was never a problem.

 

 

I also believe this problem was corrected during the production of the F2 (Only 10 units, but still).

[Kempston 342]

Slightly going off topic here aren't we?

[Major_Shaker 2,633]

I agree with BlitzkriegWulf. If Maus was in the game it would not have any counterpart tank from WW2. It is nonsense to put him in battles with tanks from 70's. As I read somewhere armor of the MAUS was not penetrated until 70's.