Maus tank vs. HMS Inflexible

[Stuart Mackey]

Maus wins. The Germans have the first shot due to training.

And the Brit sailors are not trained?

Guessing the time of service entrance for the Maus, the Volksturm must have pretty impressive training!

*snigger, snort* Lol..yeah!

[Vympel]

The Maus was never actually built, except as a wooden mock up.

Actually, a prototype (V1) was completed on December 24th 1943, and put through extensive trials. It's enormous weight and low power ensured that the monster could barely move- it had a simulated weight (same weight) turret.

A second prototype (V2) was completed in March 1944- a real turret was produced by Krupp and was mounted and tested. The first prototype was also to be fitted with a turret, but it was never fitted, so the simulated one remained.

The V1 can be seen in Kubinka in Russia, with the V2's turret attached.

[Frank Hipper]

Thanks, Vympel. Knew a HAB member was going to chime in on this eventually, but that was quite a wait.

[Perinquus]

The Maus was never actually built, except as a wooden mock up.

Actually, a prototype (V1) was completed on December 24th 1943, and put through extensive trials. It's enormous weight and low power ensured that the monster could barely move- it had a simulated weight (same weight) turret.

A second prototype (V2) was completed in March 1944- a real turret was produced by Krupp and was mounted and tested. The first prototype was also to be fitted with a turret, but it was never fitted, so the simulated one remained.

The V1 can be seen in Kubinka in Russia, with the V2's turret attached.

Hmm... I stand corrected. Though in my own defense, the source I have (Tanks, by Richard Humble) gives this incorrect information. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that this monster would have been useless in combat. It was far too slow and unmaneuverable. It was so slow that a ship like the Invincible ought to be able to target it.

[Frank Hipper]

Hmm... I stand corrected. Though in my own defense, the source I have (Tanks, by Richard Humble) gives this incorrect information. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that this monster would have been useless in combat. It was far too slow and unmaneuverable. It was so slow that a ship like the Invincible ought to be able to target it.

I've made an ass of myself quoting bad material before, getting ship classes wrong in my case. But it's not like you made the mistake though, now is it.

A word to the wise, Squadron Signal publications are fantastic visual rescouces, but not so much on the textual content.

[Vympel]

I have no idea about 1870s ships- I can't imagine those guns would have a good effect on any tank.

[Perinquus]

Hmm... I stand corrected. Though in my own defense, the source I have (Tanks, by Richard Humble) gives this incorrect information. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that this monster would have been useless in combat. It was far too slow and unmaneuverable. It was so slow that a ship like the Invincible ought to be able to target it.

I've made an ass of myself quoting bad material before, getting ship classes wrong in my case. But it's not like you made the mistake though, now is it.

A word to the wise, Squadron Signal publications are fantastic visual rescouces, but not so much on the textual content.

This wasn't a sqaudron signal book. It's a hardcover book published in '77.

[Sea Skimmer]

I have no idea about 1870s ships- I can't imagine those guns would have a good effect on any tank.

How can you not learn about warships that where designed in an age when foretop mounted machine guns where an important weapon?

[Frank Hipper]

This wasn't a sqaudron signal book. It's a hardcover book published in '77.

I know. And neither was the bad, bad author's book I mentioned. That was a general warning to everyone.

[Ted]

I have no idea about 1870s ships- I can't imagine those guns would have a good effect on any tank.

4 16" shells landing next to the Maus will have a big effect on it.

[Howedar]

Thanks, Vympel. Knew a HAB member was going to chime in on this eventually, but that was quite a wait.

*cough*



In terms of 16" shells damaging a tank, I refer you all to the Soviet 127mm gun in the IS-2 and IS-3 (IIRC). It had fairly mediocre AP performance, but had enough power to blow the turret right off of a Panzer. This was apparently good enough for the Red Army.

[Frank Hipper]

Thanks, Vympel. Knew a HAB member was going to chime in on this eventually, but that was quite a wait.

*cough*



In terms of 16" shells damaging a tank, I refer you all to the Soviet 127mm gun in the IS-2 and IS-3 (IIRC). It had fairly mediocre AP performance, but had enough power to blow the turret right off of a Panzer. This was apparently good enough for the Red Army.

Caught a bug there Howedar?
I was talking about the mis-information Perinquus was laboring under. I was going to say something, but I was hoping someone else would come along.

[K. A. Pital]

Frank Hipper

Guessing the time of service entrance for the Maus, the Volksturm must have pretty impressive training!

Could you please explain WTF had the Volksturm to do with the Reich's "supertank" project? Or was there nothing left but the Volksturm to pilot it?