Re: German Maus?

Is it a good game and easy to get into?
This is a bit off topic, but I figure it's close enough since it involves a
> technical question. Yesterday I was playing a fun WW II computer strategy game
> called Blitzkrieg. In the last Allied mission, set in the Battle of the Bulge,
> I was enduring an onslaught of German armor and artillery when all of a sudden
> a giant Maus tank appeared and proceeded to decimate my entire army because I
> couldn't penetrate its armor. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only a
> couple of these beasts were ever made, they were never used in combat, and the
> Soviets captured them at some sort of proving ground. If nothing else, I'd
> practically bet my life that none were ever used during the Battle of the > Bulge.
>
> I shouldn't complain too much, however, because upon replaying the mission I
> discovered that I had at my disposal some huge fictional tank that could take
> out the Maus. Still, it was kind of sad to see this departure from reality even
> if it is just a game.
Reply to
Julian Hales
Loading thread data ...
: : I was enduring an onslaught of German armor and artillery when all of a sudden : a giant Maus tank appeared and proceeded to decimate my entire army because I : couldn't penetrate its armor. : You don't have to penetrate its armor. AT mines will do for a track, and how the designers thought the damn thing would navigate the roads and expecially the BRIDGES in the Ardennes is beyond me. Oh well, when dealing with fantasy... : : couple of these beasts were ever made, they were never used in combat, and the : Two were made. The Maus book Schiffer published clearly shows hull #3 only partially assembled. Only one hull had the war turret mounted. : : Soviets captured them at some sort of proving ground. If nothing else, I'd : There seems to be some evidence that it was used against the Sovs. I expect they did the smart thing - stay out the way, and wait for it to run out of gas... The crew probably set demo charges off inside of it, give the destruction. The Maus at Kubinka would seem to be hull #1 with turret #1 (salvaged from hull #2).
Nazi propaganda is clearly alive and well.
Bruce
Reply to
Bruce Burden
It was never expected that it be able to use the bridges. In a typically German overengineered solution, the Maus had two submarine diesels driving generators, which fed electricity to electric motors driving the sprocket wheels, and the fighting compartment could be completely sealed. When it became necessary to cross a river, a cable would connect it to a second Maus, which would use _its_ generators to power the first Maus' drive motors, allowing the Maus to drive into and across the river underwater, after which the roles would be reversed and the first tank would provide power for the second while it crossed.
Never mind that this would require that the crew exit the vehicle to set up the cable arrangement (not a practical consideration when advancing or retreating under fire), or the ability of the _riverbeds_ to take the weight without the tank bogging down, or that if you don't have at least _two_ of the tanks, you can't cross a river; this was the solution the German engineers came up with.
Reply to
Sean Malloy
That Russian Object 279 Super Heavy Tank is a hoot. A pancake on treads. aAny hiistory on that design choice?
Craig
Reply to
Craig
Others will have more details (it's not my subject) but, AFAIK, it was designed to withstand a nuclear blast - hence the 'aerodynamic' shape.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast Flankers Website -
formatting link

Reply to
Ken Duffey

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.