Maus and Russians

[carman1877]

the maus was one of germanys best tanks. the t-34 was one of russias.
i think the maus is bgetter but has limited production. is there any beeter russian tanks if so what are they? what do u think the better tank is

 

[kato]

Gee, 2 unfinished Maus vs 50,000 T-34...

 

[eckherl]

the maus was one of germanys best tanks. the t-34 was one of russias.
i think the maus is bgetter but has limited production. is there any beeter russian tanks if so what are they? what do u think the better tank is

Why was the Maus the best German tank, did it see any combat.:unknown please broaden my mind with your knowledge on this mother of all beasts.

 

[carman1877]

I tell u why I think it was the best.
1)no allied tank could pierce its armor
2)had 128mm and 75mm-awesome firepower
3)biggest tank

If it was mass produced than it could have hurt us badly

 

[eckherl]

I tell u why I think it was the best.
1)no allied tank could pierce its armor
2)had 128mm and 75mm-awesome firepower
3)biggest tank

If it was mass produced than it could have hurt us badly

Okay - you brought up two important aspects for a main battle tank, good armor and firepower, but what about the mobility aspect of it, this is something that the Germans finally realized when they produced the Tiger 2 tank but Hitler said build it anyways, you have to have good mobility to have a chance for survival on a battle field something that the Tiger 2 did not have besides a over stressed suspension system to boot, they were either out flanked or ambushed by faster tanks and destroyed or found abandoned on the Eastern or Western fronts due to mechanical breakdown or out of fuel.

With the Maus this was nothing more than another bad desperate move with the hopes of coming up with something to stem the onslaught of allied armor. You could of had 1000 of them and they would not of made a difference, I would go as far to state that Germany at that time did not have the manufacturing structure or resources to even build 10 of them.

The best tanks during WW2 by far would have to go to the T-34/85 and Panther G model.

 

[Feanor]

I tell u why I think it was the best.
1)no allied tank could pierce its armor

You mean the ISU-152 couldn't? I doubt that.

2)had 128mm and 75mm-awesome firepower

But what about rate of fire and turret rotation?

3)biggest tank

If it was mass produced than it could have hurt us badly

What does size have to do with it? If anything being large is a bad thing. Higher silhouette is easier to hit and larger size means logistical problems. Not to mention it was impossible to mass produce.

 

[DefConGuru]

The lessons learned in WW2 tank combat still apply today. Clearly firepower/size alone can never win, unless of course stealth is involved in some way. Then you have yourself a problem.

 

[rossfrb_1]

I tell u why I think it was the best.
1)no allied tank could pierce its armor
2)had 128mm and 75mm-awesome firepower
3)biggest tank

If it was mass produced than it could have hurt us badly

Wasn't that the tank that had no machine gun and consequently 'lots' were destroyed by anti-tank infantry from really close range?

Or am I thinking of the elephant?
Dang, now I've got to look it up.

rb

 

[DefConGuru]

Wasn't that the tank that had no machine gun and consequently 'lots' were destroyed by anti-tank infantry from really close range?

Or am I thinking of the elephant?
Dang, now I've got to look it up.

rb

Yep, here's one blown up by us naughty Canadians.

 

[eckherl]

You mean the ISU-152 couldn't? I doubt that.



But what about rate of fire and turret rotation?



What does size have to do with it? If anything being large is a bad thing. Higher silhouette is easier to hit and larger size means logistical problems. Not to mention it was impossible to mass produce.

I would not even use that model, a IS3 (Pike) which was making it`s debut towards the end of the war scared the sh_t out of everyone, it had all three aspects for a successful tank design, protection, big gun and mobility.

 

[eckherl]

Wasn't that the tank that had no machine gun and consequently 'lots' were destroyed by anti-tank infantry from really close range?

Or am I thinking of the elephant?
Dang, now I've got to look it up.

rb

They were not even produced, all that Germany had was a few prototypes.

 

[Chrom]

I heard reinforced bunker is a best tank. No other tank can pierce such armor.

 

[Todjaeger]

Wasn't that the tank that had no machine gun and consequently 'lots' were destroyed by anti-tank infantry from really close range?

Or am I thinking of the elephant?
Dang, now I've got to look it up.

rb

I am pretty sure you were thinking of the Sd Kfz 184 "Elephant" or "Ferdinand". Not really sure they were ever destroyed in significant numbers though, as only around ~100 were constructed. You might be thinking of the similarly styled Marder-series, which was a Czech 38(t) chassis mounting a 7.5 or 7.62 cm gun. Another possibility would be the Sd Kfz 164 "Nashorn" or "Hornisse" which had an 8.8 cm gun mounted on an open topped chassis with designed with elements of the PzKw III and IV.

-Cheers

 

[eckherl]

I am pretty sure you were thinking of the Sd Kfz 184 "Elephant" or "Ferdinand". Not really sure they were ever destroyed in significant numbers though, as only around ~100 were constructed. You might be thinking of the similarly styled Marder-series, which was a Czech 38(t) chassis mounting a 7.5 or 7.62 cm gun. Another possibility would be the Sd Kfz 164 "Nashorn" or "Hornisse" which had an 8.8 cm gun mounted on an open topped chassis with designed with elements of the PzKw III and IV.

-Cheers

The early designed Ferdinands, around the battle of Kusk time frame did not have a bow machine gun which resulted in Russian sappers and anti tank squads having a field day with them. The ones built after this time frame *1943* did in fact get this short coming fixed.

 

[Todjaeger]

The early designed Ferdinands, around the battle of Kusk time frame did not have a bow machine gun which resulted in Russian sappers and anti tank squads having a field day with them. The ones built after this time frame *1943* did in fact get this short coming fixed.

Agreed. Though with only around 100 built, not sure they could accurately be described as being destroyed in "numbers." Since it would seem that there were never a large number ever on hand.

-Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

Agreed. Though with only around 100 built, not sure they could accurately be described as being destroyed in "numbers." Since it would seem that there were never a large number ever on hand.

-Cheers

My post was badly worded. I should have written something to the effect.
"Of those fielded, a large number were demolished by...."
And it sounds like it was the Elephant
Here is one account of the situation
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

rb

 

[heavyaslead]

The Maus was irrelevant as it never entered service. The Panther II was a more promising design as 'super tanks' go. All still vulnerable to aircraft.

Modern armor depends more on mobility and protection with active defense, which WWII technology did not have.

Heavily armored has been replaced with highly protected tanks.

 

[o4r]

German don't need Maus or Panther II. Their Panther I is already far superviour than anything the Russian or American can field.

Well the problem in late World War II is how do you move your armour to engage the enemy when your are out of fuel and ammo. Anything even a bicycle are being target by the air power of the Allied.

Maus is a very unrealistic tank. No matter how you armoured your tank, with such a big surface area, a 500 lbs bomb on top or near miss it will over turn it. A heavy shell from a Russian 152 mm HE on the turret not necessary destroyed it but can disable its gun.

By far the highest number to kill ratio remains Tiger I then Panther I. Tiger I is a massive defensive tanks, so is King Tiger.

The greatest failure of German tank that has too many variant, this is a waste of resource.

All heavy tanks is a tactical advantage but a strategy loser. German built approx 1500 Tiger I (I think) and about the same number of Panther. Do you expect them to stop 35 000 shermans and 50000 T-34.

 

[heavyaslead]

Their Panther I is already far superviour than anything the Russian or American can field.

Really... How do you qualify that statement?

I am thinking Pershing, Js-1, Firefly were quite capable against the Panther.

 

[Feanor]

The German tank failure was to go for large heavy tanks, instead of an easily mass produced medium tank (essentially the precursor of the MBT concept).