Tanks/Vehicles Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus

[MalagVonBaul 661]

They made 2 prototypes - thats more then Tigers II with 10.5 KwK which they made 0 :) Edited June 12, 2014 by MalagVonBaul

[Emperor_Tiberius 4,493]

 

(Removed)

 

We all know what a prototype is, and there is still no reason to add a prototype in game.

If it was never mass produced and it never fought a battle, it's a nonsense to have it.

 

You are good only for WoT, if you think adding these kind of prototypes it's something that makes this game an historically correct simulator. Maus IS a fantasy tank because it never became a real tank, it was only a damn prototype.

 

you must be new here. we have tons of prototypes in-game already. the Maus meets just about every criteria for inclusion. it existed, it went through trials, there are documents on it, AND best of all, there is a surviving example IRL. on the other hand, it WOULD be bomber bait in AB and to an extent, RB. BUT, in sim battles it would absolutely dominate (especially once we get more kursk like maps where everything is at range)

 

"only a damn prototype"? we love those here, adds variety to the game

[Xyrothryu 301]

Again, there is a bug with the IS-4 frontal armour. Even my 20mm Panzer2 can penetrate it.

Also it was the advantage of the IS4M to have 140mm of 35° armour (30° equal a factor of 2x).

And to repeat myself again: The trapshot is ultra small on the IS-4 aka the lower turret. Which after the bounce still needs to go through 140mm @ 70°

Not unlike the 50mm on Maus, with its massive turret.

The IS-4M is the better Maus and more difficult to kill.

 

EDIT: I just killed it with my Aufklärungspanzer 38t

The IS-4 does have better sloped armour, im not denying it. However the armour still has the drivers hatch weak point. And its simply not very thick.

The shot trap bounce only has to make it through the drivers hatch roof, which as i said is 30mm, thinner then the Maus. And "ultra small" is certanly smaller then the maus's, however this isn't WoT if you aim for the lower turret or drivers hatch, you will hit. The high tier German guns are very accurate. As they should be, 

 

However there are two things people seem to be forgetting. Shot normalization, and angle of fire. See most German tanks are quiet tall, so when they shoot at most USSR tanks they are shooting downwards, reducing the angle of the armour on the tank they are shooting at. The closer to the target the more this is enhanced.

 

The same with longer range due to shell ark.

 

The other thing is shell normalization, which is the design of an AP shell, the top is soft metal to squish and "stick" to the target. Reducing the chance of a shell to shatter rather then penetrate. Below this the shell has a square tip, which grabs the armour and changes the angle of impact by up to 10degs. It helps pull the shell in line.

 

APCBC shell.

 

 

 

So the 140mm (160 on the drivers hatch, to make up for lack of slope) of sloped armour on the IS-4M is reduced from 280mm to 197.989mm. This is reduced farther, if your shooting down towards it.

 

The maus on the other hand has 200mm, it can't ever be any thinner then 200mm. 253.803 flat on, reduced to 222.509 with normalization.

 

 

So the big issue here is with 215mm of penetration at over 1km the maus can knock out the heaviest Russian tank. At upto 1km. Taking into account normalization, and shot arc. Through the upper hull or sides.Not saying this will happen often, but a lucky hit is possible.

Where as the IS-4 has to be less then 100m to pen it flat on the sides. And even though the IS-4 is quicker then the maus, the maus would still get 5 or 6 shots at the IS-4 before it closed to a distance to properly fight it, and the closer it gets the more likely it is to pen. And a point blank range, it can put a shell through the turret front.

 

 

Again the russians just need something like the ISU-130 to take it on, or something with a BL-10 (if any takes existed)

 

 

EDIT**

 

I supposed that a possible way to balance it, would be that if you lose tracks or the engine, they either take forever to fix, or a very long time. A tank this large isn't something the 6 man crew could fix in 30 seconds. That being said, at over 1m wide, the tracks should be able to take a pounding, the engine of course protected within the tank.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Xyrothryu

[The_Akula 100]

Only about two of these tanks were ever made, and only one of them had a turret.

I do not see this as being very useful to the German line, since it is 188T, it would have a very difficult time driving away from arty. They specifically stated that they will not add the "Mammoth". They want to divert away from using prototype and blueprint tanks that were not combat ready and did not have enough for it to be effective. It would not make much sense to have a full team full of Mice when only one of them had a gun on it. It would look kinda silly. The tank would be used as a troll most of the time with people saying "OP" due to the extra 75mm below the main gun.

 

We are lucky enough to even get the Ho 229.

[The_Akula 100]

There is no bug with the drivers hatch on the IS4, it was a weakpoint. Its not as sloped, its almost flat all things considered. As for the shot trap, its pretty big. If a shot hits anywhere on the lower half of the turret, it will rioche into the drivers hatch which is 20mm (Soon™™™™ to be 30mm in patch) thick on top, or into the turret ring. Hit the hull, and it bounces into the turret bottom. However the turret bottom is rather thick.

 

 

As for those guns, yes they can pen it. But at point blank range, perfectly flat on. if the tank is angled at all it will bounce.

 

Edit**

 

Not saying i don't want the maus added, being i play germans tanks in this and WoT, I just can see it being hugely op verse the current tanks its facing

IS-3 does have problems, but still trying to get a game in my IS-4M.

 

Ive had my gun knocked out multiple times by King Tigers and Panters over 800M away. The IS-3 was designed to fight against the deadly german 88mm.

 

The IS-3 could still be killed because of the shot trap, but when you see that even the AI from Kursk can damage your cannon from the side and away from the shot trap then you got a problem.

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

The IS-4 does have better sloped armour, im not denying it. However the armour still has the drivers hatch weak point. And its simply not very thick.

The shot trap bounce only has to make it through the drivers hatch roof, which as i said is 30mm, thinner then the Maus. And "ultra small" is certanly smaller then the maus's, however this isn't WoT if you aim for the lower turret or drivers hatch, you will hit. The high tier German guns are very accurate. As they should be, 

However there are two things people seem to be forgetting. Shot normalization, and angle of fire. See most German tanks are quiet tall, so when they shoot at most USSR tanks they are shooting downwards, reducing the angle of the armour on the tank they are shooting at. The closer to the target the more this is enhanced.

The same with longer range due to shell ark.

The other thing is shell normalization, which is the design of an AP shell, the top is soft metal to squish and "stick" to the target. Reducing the chance of a shell to shatter rather then penetrate. Below this the shell has a square tip, which grabs the armour and changes the angle of impact by up to 10degs. It helps pull the shell in line.

APCBC shell.

So the 140mm (160 on the drivers hatch, to make up for lack of slope) of sloped armour on the IS-4M is reduced from 280mm to 197.989mm. This is reduced farther, if your shooting down towards it.

The maus on the other hand has 200mm, it can't ever be any thinner then 200mm. 253.803 flat on, reduced to 222.509 with normalization.

So the big issue here is with 215mm of penetration at over 1km the maus can knock out the heaviest Russian tank. At upto 1km. Taking into account normalization, and shot arc. Through the upper hull or sides.Not saying this will happen often, but a lucky hit is possible.

Where as the IS-4 has to be less then 100m to pen it flat on the sides. And even though the IS-4 is quicker then the maus, the maus would still get 5 or 6 shots at the IS-4 before it closed to a distance to properly fight it, and the closer it gets the more likely it is to pen. And a point blank range, it can put a shell through the turret front.

Again the russians just need something like the ISU-130 to take it on, or something with a BL-10 (if any takes existed)

EDIT**

I supposed that a possible way to balance it, would be that if you lose tracks or the engine, they either take forever to fix, or a very long time. A tank this large isn't something the 6 man crew could fix in 30 seconds. That being said, at over 1m wide, the tracks should be able to take a pounding, the engine of course protected within the tank.

Your logic has a few flaws.

 

Height advantage:

First of all the height of German tanks and its advantage it is granting for decreasing angle of armour.

UWOT? *in a funny tone*

Maus' gun sits @ 3m, if we would now aim at a IS-4 300m away we have GK/AK=3m/300m=0,03 ; arctan(0,03)=1,71°

-1,71° to the armour slope....wow

The biggest factor would be shell trajectory at longer distances. But mostly neglectible due the 122mm & 120mm high projectile speed.

Even more so for the 105mm & 88mm.

 

Shell normalization:

Works AGAINST the shell. It does not decrease, but increase armour slope.

This article sums it up nicely http://ftr-wot.blogspot.de/2013/04/digging-deeper-1-shell-normalization.html

"The IS-2 had problems penetrating the Panthers glacis on distance (with AP), or the 8,8cm L/71 of the Kingtiger was unable to penetrate the 100mm frontalarmor of the postwar T-54."

Thats just great for the 105 Tiger & Panther2's 8,8

 

Drivers hatch:

I think your are talking about the drivers view port. Because ther is no hatch.

It's hidden beneath the gun (poor driver, gonna die in that tank fire, there is a Jingles video about that issue).

The Advantage of the IS-4M compared to its normal version was: No drivers view slit & more armour for the driver.

It is an armour strong point. Which again is bugged in our version.

 

Maus approach:

Yeah, you could drive towards the Maus with your IS-4M, or you could duke it out until on of you hits the enemies trapshot.

And given the Maus' size, I know where to place my bet.

Also 5-6 shots? A 3min approach? Are you driving a KV-2?

And no, it cannot shoot through the IS-4M turret front. It is angled and protected with a gun mantlet.

The only point of attack would be the turrets roof with its 30mm.

But at the distances where the IS-4 would be vulnerable to that, the Maus also would be.

 

This is basicly a duel of the TigerB vs IS-2M. Just that no one can pen each other.

.....

We should delete the IS-4M from the game.

Problem solved

[Mhtsos 725]

Didn't they said no to Maus?

Also NOES 'cause it's prototype and we have enough of them,and no I don't like the napkins/situation we have either.

Better to put the effort to good use and add some Marders and some jap planes than use their time creating silly self-moving bunkers.

[Kempston 342]

The ideas popular! by over half! I think there's a chance here!

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

The ideas popular! by over half! I think there's a chance here!

Not really.

I personally think the chance is higher that Germany continuesly gets clubbed until the USArmy enters the ring and IS-3 & IS-4 receive BR 8.0 & 8.7

Or that the IS-4M even gets deleted from ingame entirely.

[Xyrothryu 301]

Your logic has a few flaws.

 

Height advantage:

First of all the height of German tanks and its advantage it is granting for decreasing angle of armour.

UWOT? *in a funny tone*

Maus' gun sits @ 3m, if we would now aim at a IS-4 300m away we have GK/AK=3m/300m=0,03 ; arctan(0,03)=1,71°

-1,71° to the armour slope....wow

The biggest factor would be shell trajectory at longer distances. But mostly neglectible due the 122mm & 120mm high projectile speed.

Even more so for the 105mm & 88mm.

 

Shell normalization:

Works AGAINST the shell. It does not decrease, but increase armour slope.

This article sums it up nicely http://ftr-wot.blogspot.de/2013/04/digging-deeper-1-shell-normalization.html

"The IS-2 had problems penetrating the Panthers glacis on distance (with AP), or the 8,8cm L/71 of the Kingtiger was unable to penetrate the 100mm frontalarmor of the postwar T-54."

Thats just great for the 105 Tiger & Panther2's 8,8

 

Drivers hatch:

I think your are talking about the drivers view port. Because ther is no hatch.

It's hidden beneath the gun (poor driver, gonna die in that tank fire, there is a Jingles video about that issue).

The Advantage of the IS-4M compared to its normal version was: No drivers view slit & more armour for the driver.

It is an armour strong point. Which again is bugged in our version.

 

Maus approach:

Yeah, you could drive towards the Maus with your IS-4M, or you could duke it out until on of you hits the enemies trapshot.

And given the Maus' size, I know where to place my bet.

Also 5-6 shots? A 3min approach? Are you driving a KV-2?

And no, it cannot shoot through the IS-4M turret front. It is angled and protected with a gun mantlet.

The only point of attack would be the turrets roof with its 30mm.

But at the distances where the IS-4 would be vulnerable to that, the Maus also would be.

 

This is basicly a duel of the TigerB vs IS-2M. Just that no one can pen each other.

.....

We should delete the IS-4M from the game.

Problem solved

 

Firstly, the 122 and 120? not sure what tank thats on. Does have a fair bit of shell drop due to the weight of the shell. Same with the Jagdtiger which has a higher velocity, but also more drop due to the shell size.

 

As for normalisation, I honestly can't argue about it. You could be right or I could. Saddly there is so much misinformation with the WoT spam that I can't say for sure. If anyone has a proper history book that would be good.

 

As for the drivers hatch, I do mean the giant chunk of amour, im aware its not all a hatch, however it is the weak point, since the extra 20mm of armour certainly doesn't make up for the lack of slope. And its that hatch below the gun that im talking about. If you aim for the frontal weakpoint where the driver sits, and miss you will either hit below it on the hull, or right about it, ricocheting off the gun or turret shot trap and into that 30mm thick hatch.

 

As for the turret not being able to take a hit, im basing it purely on whats in the game atm since I kinda doubt il find any info of real IS-4 vs Jagdtiger battles. And currently iv managed to kill IS-4's through the front of the turret, just aim for the turret cheeks next to the mantle.

 

As for that approach, a few mins is a bit long. Doing 40kmh what the is4 has listed as its top speed, it would take exactly 1:30 to close a 1km distance. Which is enough time to reload 3.90 shells at the 24 second reload rate the jagdtiger currently has with crew. Being that you'd already have one shell loaded, thats roughly 5 shells fired before the distance is closed. As im sure the .1 of a shell could be loaded due to terrain or bumps.

 

Not really.

I personally think the chance is higher that Germany continuesly gets clubbed until the USArmy enters the ring and IS-3 & IS-4 receive BR 8.0 & 8.7

Or that the IS-4M even gets deleted from ingame entirely.

 

The IS-4M is not the reason german is losing at all. For all purposes that tank is balanced, heavy armour and mobility vs its average gun.

 

The main reason is how medium tanks are treated.

 http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/150356-rank-5-medium-tanks-completely-unbalanced/

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

Firstly, the 122 and 120? not sure what tank thats on. Does have a fair bit of shell drop due to the weight of the shell. Same with the Jagdtiger which has a higher velocity, but also more drop due to the shell size.

As for normalisation, I honestly can't argue about it. You could be right or I could. Saddly there is so much misinformation with the WoT spam that I can't say for sure. If anyone has a proper history book that would be good.

As for the drivers hatch, I do mean the giant chunk of amour, im aware its not all a hatch, however it is the weak point, since the extra 20mm of armour certainly doesn't make up for the lack of slope. And its that hatch below the gun that im talking about. If you aim for the frontal weakpoint where the driver sits, and miss you will either hit below it on the hull, or right about it, ricocheting off the gun or turret shot trap and into that 30mm thick hatch.

As for the turret not being able to take a hit, im basing it purely on whats in the game atm since I kinda doubt il find any info of real IS-4 vs Jagdtiger battles. And currently iv managed to kill IS-4's through the front of the turret, just aim for the turret cheeks next to the mantle.

As for that approach, a few mins is a bit long. Doing 40kmh what the is4 has listed as its top speed, it would take exactly 1:30 to close a 1km distance. Which is enough time to reload 3.90 shells at the 24 second reload rate the jagdtiger currently has with crew. Being that you'd already have one shell loaded, thats roughly 5 shells fired before the distance is closed. As im sure the .1 of a shell could be loaded due to terrain or bumps.

 

The IS-4M is not the reason german is losing at all. For all purposes that tank is balanced, heavy armour and mobility vs its average gun.

The main reason is how medium tanks are treated.

 http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/150356-rank-5-medium-tanks-completely-unbalanced/

 

100% agree on the T-54. The IS-4M does play a role there to though. While indeed in the current Meta a minor one.

 

120mm, lol, was thinking of the Rheinmetall smoothbore for some reason :-D Jagdtigers 128 of course.

 

Turret cheeks? Interesting idea, never thought due the angle how to get through there. Then again everything is possible in WT.

Even Sabres over Berlin!

 

IS-4M balanced? Thin ice. The 122mm was the counter for the TigerB. So it is more then enough in the current game.

While the 128 & 105mm was simply yet another German power dream. With IS-2s in mind though.

Also consider the Allied Tank development. US/GB went down the Panther way. Fast and yet protective.

M46, M48 & Centurion arent real heavy tanks. The 122mm will be more then enough against them.

However, the US&GB get modern guns with modern APDS, HEAT & HESH. Something Germany is missing,

and thus misses the balancing power of a gun.

It remains that sofar only Jagdtigers have a slight chance, via small weakspots, to kill IS-4s.

Panther 2 & TigerB 105 however suffer. And then get kicked to dust via T-54. GAWD THAT 100mm IS GUD!

[Mhtsos 725]

100% agree on the T-54. The IS-4M does play a role there to though. While indeed in the current Meta a minor one.

 

120mm, lol, was thinking of the Rheinmetall smoothbore for some reason :-D Jagdtigers 128 of course.

 

Turret cheeks? Interesting idea, never thought due the angle how to get through there. Then again everything is possible in WT.

Even Sabres over Berlin!

 

IS-4M balanced? Thin ice. The 122mm was the counter for the TigerB. So it is more then enough in the current game.

While the 128 & 105mm was simply yet another German power dream. With IS-2s in mind though.

Also consider the Allied Tank development. US/GB went down the Panther way. Fast and yet protective.

M46, M48 & Centurion arent real heavy tanks. The 122mm will be more then enough against them.

However, the US&GB get modern guns with modern APDS, HEAT & HESH. Something Germany is missing,

and thus misses the balancing power of a gun.

It remains that sofar only Jagdtigers have a slight chance, via small weakspots, to kill IS-4s.

Panther 2 & TigerB 105 however suffer. And then get kicked to dust via T-54. GAWD THAT 100mm IS GUD!

The M46/47/48 and Centurion were never considered heavies(except the M-26 in war for non-tactical reasons),the heavies were the M-103s(and it's ancestors, the T29 line) and the Conquerors.

[SupermarioPS 5,374]

The M46/47/48 and Centurion were never considered heavies(except the M-26 in war for non-tactical reasons),the heavies were the M-103s(and it's ancestors, the T29 line) and the Conquerors.

Depends in the definition.

America & GB did classify their tanks after the gun mounted in them 75 light, 90medium, 120 heavy.

They are for me however still heavy tanks. Heavy in the meaning of/like the Panther ;-) As I typed aswell.

[HyJetV 3,063]

Yes, i dont see why it shouldnt, and you have a well constructed opening post, compared to the majority of other suggestions that appear.

[Mhtsos 725]

Depends in the definition.

America & GB did classify their tanks after the gun mounted in them 75 light, 90medium, 120 heavy.

They are for me however still heavy tanks. Heavy in the meaning of/like the Panther ;-) As I typed aswell.

The change to gun was iirc in the 1950,for the US at least.Before that was a matter of weight for the US and the infantry-cruiser for the GB.

[Kempston 342]

well technically it is popular by over half. If you look at the votes, out of 114 people 66 say yes and 20 say yes but... which still counts as a yes so that's 86 people. I think its popular...

[The_Akula 100]

Not really.

I personally think the chance is higher that Germany continuesly gets clubbed until the USArmy enters the ring and IS-3 & IS-4 receive BR 8.0 & 8.7

Or that the IS-4M even gets deleted from ingame entirely.

I kinda agree on the IS-4M getting deleted, but the IS-3 should get a frontal armor buff and have the gun fixed before that happens. (Not including the shot trap)

[Xyrothryu 301]

I kinda agree on the IS-4M getting deleted, but the IS-3 should get a frontal armor buff and have the gun fixed before that happens. (Not including the shot trap)

 

does the gun break often?

 

As for it being the 122, and the hull armour is correct. If your referring to the WoT version, its not historically accurate. Not even close, it used to be till they changed the hull.

[The_Akula 100]

does the gun break often?

 

As for it being the 122, and the hull armour is correct. If your referring to the WoT version, its not historically accurate. Not even close, it used to be till they changed the hull.

It breaks very often, even though the IS-2 and IS-4M have the same guns, it is always that IS-3's version of the gun that is sensitive to anything that even shoots near it. i even recall a time when the AI anti-tank team was able to just shoot near it and the gun indicated damage. It does not even have to hit above or below the shot trap to disable it,just shooting near it can KO it.

 

And the frontal plate and turret was made to fight directly against the 88mm from the German Tiger and King Tiger tanks. I understand the current T5 King tiger can fight well against the IS-3 but the armor does not seem to bounce as well as it should against the guns it is made to fight against. (Does not include shots below the beak or angled shots since the IS-3 is a really bad tank to angle in)

Edited June 15, 2014 by The_Akula

[FWD13 508]

The maus tanks should added because one was made and tested and one was almost finished and it would not be overpowered because the jadetiger could pen it from the front and the su-152 and isu-152 could do external damage to the front and every other tier 4 and 5 could pen it from the side and rear aslo i did not see this on the suggested list and this tanks is the only tank i know of that fits with the 1953 end of the korean war i also posted links for infomation

 

Just why the Germans wanted to try out such a monstrosity as the Mouse is a question to be answered by political and propaganda experts. Whereas such a heavy tank might conceivably have had some limited military usefulness in breakthrough operations, it was no project for Nazi Germany experimentation in 1943, 1944, and 1945. For not only did German authorities waste time of engineers and production facilities on the two test models, but they even went so far as to construct a special flat car for rail transport.

The drawbacks inherent in such a heavy tank are patent. Weigh not only denies practically every bridge in existence to the Mouse, but it impedes rail movement unless railways are properly reinforced at bridges, culverts, and other weak points.

Fording to 45-foot depths would have solved many of the stream-crossing problems in Europe, but it seems that the Mouse could actually cross in water no deeper than 26 feet.

Though sitting in a rolling fortress, the six men of the Mouse crew are practically as blind as in any tank. Because of low speed and high silhouette their vehicle would be most vulnerable to hits. Since it is reasonable to suppose that heavily fortified, static positions suitable for attack by a Mouse would also be fitted with very heavy, high-velocity guns capable of antitank fire, the even occasional combat value of the Mouse comes into question.

 

 This German drawing shows a sectionalized elevation of the Mouse hull. The following salient features may be distinguished:
driver's seat (20) and periscope (14 and 18); radio operator's seat (12) and radio (21); radio antenna (28); air intakes for main engine (30); main engine (3); generator (4); the right motor of the two electric motors driving the sprockets (9); auxiliary fuel tank (29). The coaxial 75-mm gun is on the right of the turret; its position relative to the 128-mm gun is shown in dotted outline.
 

 

A sectionalized plan view of the Mouse hull gives another view of many of the features shown in the first illustration. The driver's and radio operator's seats (left) are flanked by the main fuel tanks. Just to their rear is the main engine, flanked by air pumps and radiators. Further to the rear is the generator, with ammunition stowage in the sponsons on either side. In the sponson on the front right of the generator is the auxiliary engine, with storage batteries to its rear. To the rear of the hull, also in the sponsons, are the motors furnishing the electric drive. The actual transmission is in the deep part of hull between the motors, behind generator.

 

 

 

The Mouse was as vulnerable to close-in attack as any other tank, if not more so. The large hull openings were a particular disadvantage. Note their extent: the grills of the engine access hatch, the grilled air vents which flank it, and the grills under the rear of the turret, which cool the electric motors. The auxiliary fuel tank on the rear was a considerable fire hazard..

 

 

 The size and weight of the Mouse made necessary extremely wide tracks in relation to hull width. This view also shows half of the engine air-cooling system (left), and rear of right fuel tank, with an oil tank just to its left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VIII%20MAUS.htm

http://www.panzer-archiv.de/prototypen/deutschland/maus/maus.htm

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/index.html

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-viii-maus-porsche-typ-205-tiger-iip.htm

[Xyrothryu 301]

The maus tanks should added because one was made and tested and one was almost finished and it would not be overpowered because the jadetiger could pen it from the front and the su-152 and isu-152 could do external damage to the front and every other tier 4 and 5 could pen it from the side and rear aslo i did not see this on the suggested list and this tanks is the only tank i know of that fits with the 1953 end of the korean war i also posted links for infomation

 

Just why the Germans wanted to try out such a monstrosity as the Mouse is a question to be answered by political and propaganda experts. Whereas such a heavy tank might conceivably have had some limited military usefulness in breakthrough operations, it was no project for Nazi Germany experimentation in 1943, 1944, and 1945. For not only did German authorities waste time of engineers and production facilities on the two test models, but they even went so far as to construct a special flat car for rail transport.

The drawbacks inherent in such a heavy tank are patent. Weigh not only denies practically every bridge in existence to the Mouse, but it impedes rail movement unless railways are properly reinforced at bridges, culverts, and other weak points.

Fording to 45-foot depths would have solved many of the stream-crossing problems in Europe, but it seems that the Mouse could actually cross in water no deeper than 26 feet.

Though sitting in a rolling fortress, the six men of the Mouse crew are practically as blind as in any tank. Because of low speed and high silhouette their vehicle would be most vulnerable to hits. Since it is reasonable to suppose that heavily fortified, static positions suitable for attack by a Mouse would also be fitted with very heavy, high-velocity guns capable of antitank fire, the even occasional combat value of the Mouse comes into question.

 

 This German drawing shows a sectionalized elevation of the Mouse hull. The following salient features may be distinguished:
driver's seat (20) and periscope (14 and 18); radio operator's seat (12) and radio (21); radio antenna (28); air intakes for main engine (30); main engine (3); generator (4); the right motor of the two electric motors driving the sprockets (9); auxiliary fuel tank (29). The coaxial 75-mm gun is on the right of the turret; its position relative to the 128-mm gun is shown in dotted outline.
 

 

A sectionalized plan view of the Mouse hull gives another view of many of the features shown in the first illustration. The driver's and radio operator's seats (left) are flanked by the main fuel tanks. Just to their rear is the main engine, flanked by air pumps and radiators. Further to the rear is the generator, with ammunition stowage in the sponsons on either side. In the sponson on the front right of the generator is the auxiliary engine, with storage batteries to its rear. To the rear of the hull, also in the sponsons, are the motors furnishing the electric drive. The actual transmission is in the deep part of hull between the motors, behind generator.

 

 

 

The Mouse was as vulnerable to close-in attack as any other tank, if not more so. The large hull openings were a particular disadvantage. Note their extent: the grills of the engine access hatch, the grilled air vents which flank it, and the grills under the rear of the turret, which cool the electric motors. The auxiliary fuel tank on the rear was a considerable fire hazard..

 

 

 The size and weight of the Mouse made necessary extremely wide tracks in relation to hull width. This view also shows half of the engine air-cooling system (left), and rear of right fuel tank, with an oil tank just to its left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VIII%20MAUS.htm

http://www.panzer-archiv.de/prototypen/deutschland/maus/maus.htm

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/maus/index.html

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-viii-maus-porsche-typ-205-tiger-iip.htm

 

It was stated in the last dev Q&A that it would never be added. They also said if it was it would have a top speed of around 4-6kmh on flat ground so it would never even make it to a base before the round ended.

[FWD13 508]

It was stated in the last dev Q&A that it would never be added. They also said if it was it would have a top speed of around 4-6kmh on flat ground so it would never even make it to a base before the round ended.

well if Germany doesn't get late 1945 tanks or postwar tanks than the Russians shouldn't either if there not going to add the maus than the IS-4M and the T-54 can't be in the game they either need to find a postwar tank for for the Germans or add the maus or take out the postwar Russian tanks till they do   

[Master0M0Master 164]

It was stated in the last dev Q&A that it would never be added. They also said if it was it would have a top speed of around 4-6kmh on flat ground so it would never even make it to a base before the round ended.

 

That is not completly true, i was in the Q&A on with the DEV's teamspeak, and they said the Maus would not be implemented in the moment. " ATM it would be to unbalanced" - was what they said.

They do not said it would never get implemented but right at this moment it would not be balanced, so they wouldnt do it atm.

 

So I have hope they change theire mind and that the Maus get implemented in future, like every new content, so Soon™ .

 

Regards

Master-M-Master

[Querulous1 3,276]

Like Il28 and B29, it would be unbalanced apparently. But these will come .........

[pesymistik 1,163]

well if Germany doesn't get late 1945 tanks or postwar tanks than the Russians shouldn't either if there not going to add the maus than the IS-4M and the T-54 can't be in the game they either need to find a postwar tank for for the Germans or add the maus or take out the postwar Russian tanks till they do   

thats way germans shuld get their t-54 and patton (east west germany) and forget about heavy tank as a top tank