Guest Big Time Software Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see one problem with the Maus: It makes a great target for ground attack planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or battleships 40 miles away. Cripes, you wouldn't even need binoculars to see this sucker coming Oh... and knock off the sniping. If it is real, it isn't apreciated. If it is some sort of Cesspool drivel, you know where to go Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jock Abroad Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Don't quote me but I think it's referred to as a really bad sweater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Or battleships 40 miles away. Cripes, you wouldn't even need binoculars to see this sucker coming Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it would have taken practically nothing short of a direct hit to knock it out. Kitty Excluding immobilization, gun hits, weak spots, etc etc etc hahaha ------------------ Hamsters at War! Chicks With Tanks Lorak's FTX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Pattison Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Hmmmmm... According to the rules of thumb for armor design on capital ships of that time, the main armor should be proof against shell hits of up to 9in at over 20000 yds. I wonder what thickness the deck armor was? There was also a larger tank on the drawing board called the E100. Imagine what an OGRE that would have been? YoHoHo and a bottle of rum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Got a book back home that made mention on other German tanks that were on the drawing board. The E-75 if memory served me right was basically an improved version of the Tiger II. Maybe with even the 128mm main gun. They wanted to put the 128mm on the Tiger II(holy $h!T)but technical problems I guess prevented that. Then there was the E-50 which seemed to more closely resemble the Panther with the 88mm gun and what looked like a smaller turret. The main thing with the E-50/E-75 designs were to finally cut out all other tank models/variants with these two. The E-75 being the heavy such as the Tiger II naturally. Also key to help the logistical nightmare of Nazi Germany was to have as many standardized parts as possible between them. There were supposed to be more technical advancements between the E-series but can't remember... gonna have my folks send my box of WWII related books sometime. But I've never seen even a sketch of the E-100. Heard of it, but I too can imagine the monstrosity. And cringe when you realize how many tanks a single E-100 could have made. ------------------ "Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 don't want to ruin your party or metaphorically piss on your pullover, warphead, nut I think your URL "www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de" quite a bit misleading. According to your own description, "If you are looking for statistics, technical details or historical pictures you are wrong here. This page solely contains pictures from still existing WWII battlegear with an emphasis on vehicles. " Specifically, it does not contain anything on the Nahvert.waffe. Guessing from your URL I would expect something like RMC's and Desert Fox's excellent work on said device. http://home.t-online.de/home/rcunningham/nahvert/nah.htm (you have it linked from your links section) don't get me wrong, apart from that irreführing name, it's a very interesting and enjoyable site. MfG M.Hofbauer ------------------ "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Pattison: There was also a larger tank on the drawing board called the E100. Imagine what an OGRE that would have been? YoHoHo and a bottle of rum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hee hee hee I'd like to think they were going to eventually call it the OGRE too. =) Kittyogre ------------------ Hamsters at War! Chicks With Tanks Lorak's FTX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty: Hee hee hee I'd like to think they were going to eventually call it the OGRE too. =) Kittyogre <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How do you say Infinite Repeater and Hellbore in German? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 One question: will we see Maus super heavy tank in CM2? First answer: yes, certanly! What a great thing to use as german player the heaviest vehicle of the entire war of the entire world! Second answer (I think that this will be): no you should know that there were only two protoypes: the first was unfinished in the factory where it grow without doing anything, the second was armed and fueled and sended right away from Kummeldorf tryng to engage some enemy tanks approaching, unfortunatley (for the Germans) and fortunately (for the Russians) it remained without any more fuel and it was disabled by its crew without shooting only one shot! Battlefront could insert it in CM2 but it should be placed in only one scenario in the quantity of only one, so it don't is useful to build up an entire 3D model to place it in only one quantity in only one scenario, or not...... Bye! Francesco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Hei! I've taken a bit particular look at that Maus and it seems to have the co-axial gun (75mm) shorter than it should be! Bye! Francesco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Warphead- Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 M. Hofbauer: The www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de is more of a joke. It is much too long for a domain name, most foreign people like those very long German words and the Nahverteidigungswaffe was very overestimated for a long time (and still is). And should somebody really search for infos about the Nahverteidigungswaffe at my site I provided the link to this excellent site with all the technical details. So just take it as a joke and do not waste another thought about it The mouse was transported to Russia by train. Totally disassembled. It could not be transported as a whole and every bridge would just have collapsed. It had a snorkel device to drive through rivers. To even bring this thing to the front would have been a total nightmare... ------------------ http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de "Haben die Krupp-Werke Betriebsausflug? Da rollt ja halb Deutschland auf mich zu..." (Vincent)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 The maus was an interesting development. I have one source that indicated that it was far from being immobile. John F. Milsom wrote a section in Arco's Armored Fighting Vehicles of Germany. In it he writes "...on January 10th 1944 the tank (Maus I) was sent to Böblingen near Stuttgart for extensive trials on the tank-testing ground there. Herr Zadnik was the driver on these trials. The trials were very trouble-free excpet for several cases of spring failure and it is stated that these would have been stiffened slightly had the tank gone into production. There was also a bearing failure in the auxiliary gearbox which could not be accounted for, as no trouble had been experienced with this assembly on the test-rig. The tracks gave no trouble nor did the two-stage epicyclic reduction - about both of which [Dr.]Porsche had expressed concern earlier. Herr zadnik reported that the steering was excellent, it being possible to turn the tank on its own axis, with, of course, contra-rotation of the tracks. Manoeuverability and cross-country performance were tested on snow, ice, grass, mud and hard surfaces, and independent observers, who had witnessed earlier tests of different vehicles, are reputd to have told Zadnik that the Mouse did everything that the Panther did. This indicates very exceptional resistance to bellying and is explained by the phenomenally high ratio of track width to belly width. The maximum speed was 13 kph and on weakening the field to a minimum a speed of 22 kph was recorded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts