Supertanks - Maus

[Little Pete]

The only thing that bugged me slightly was that it was slated to be in the game but outcry on the forum caused the developers to relent and remove it.

[Sergei]

So you mean, when CMBB was ready and about to go gold, Steve just happened to mention "oh by the way, we have included Maus in the game" and then all the Grogs started such an uproar that the BBS went down and BFC quickly deleted all traces of Maus? I'd like to see that thread...

Really, if you think about it, it's pretty simple to see why Maus didn't make it. There are several reasons.

1) It never saw combat and thus is not within interest of Combat Mission. You have to draw the line somewhere.

2) Other real AFV's such as T-28 were omitted, so if more units were to be added, Maus would have had a low priority

3) It would have required research. Finding useful information for a vehicle that only existed as two unfinished prototypes isn't that easy, and it would have been more important to ensure that some real AFV's turned out correctly (some are still debated).

4) It would have required graphics, something that KwazyDog couldn't just pull out of his arse and would have required room on the cd (which was also a problem). There are many AFV's substituted with the model of something else, for instance PzKpfw I is shown as PzKpfw II, IS-3 is shown as IS-2 (which is probably the main reason for the inclusion of this tank in the game), BT-42 uses the model of an ordinary BT, and Romanian TACAM's use the same model. These are passable compromises. But what could Maus have been shown as? Königstiger?

[Little Pete]

I HEARD that prior to the release, there was a list of vehicles 'leaked' by the developers and Maus was on the list.Apparently that caused the outcry against and the development team removed it.

If it was omitted to make room for genuine units that would otherwise not have featured then i am all for leaving it out.I would have liked to see the T28 included as much as Maus and other experimental units but i mentioned Maus because it intrigued me more than the other units.

As for the research, yes it would have been based to some degree on guesswork but im sure it could have been done (armour thickness and angles were recorded by the builders, the gun was similar to the Jagdtiger's, speed and weight recorded etc).

In the end though,i would have liked to have had it in the game.....but it isnt, full stop.im just expressing a slight disappointment at this.

[Soddball]

I'd rather have the Centurion than the Maus any day.

[stikkypixie]

Look you don't need the MAUS to have fun, besides what is fun about putting a 1000 ton beast on a hill a watch it fire some rounds killing hordes of Russkies, Americano's?? CM is cool because you get to try to use real tactic, strategy whatever. Besides after two games you would get bored of it, i know i would!

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Little Pete

I would also have liked it if they had included the Maus.

As for historical accuracy: It was build during WW II and thus could have been included in CM. There must be a line drawn to define which vehicles to include and which not, true, but I don't see a reason why that has to exclude the Maus when other vehicles like the Stalin III are included that most likely never seen combat in WW II as well.

Doing the graphics and making the research neccessary won't be that big deal either.

It would have been nice to see how the Maus would have worked in some fictional scenarios.

Thatis also why I hate that BF did not include the Königstiger and the better American tanks in CMAK. They might have never seen action during the Italian campain but yet it would have been possible if the decisions would have been made.

Feldtrompeter

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Feldtrompeter:

Hi Little Pete

I would also have liked it if they had included the Maus.

As for historical accuracy: It was build during WW II and thus could have been included in CM. There must be a line drawn to define which vehicles to include and which not, true, but I don't see a reason why that has to exclude the Maus when other vehicles like the Stalin III are included that most likely never seen combat in WW II as well.

Doing the graphics and making the research neccessary won't be that big deal either.

Feldtrompeter

So says someone who has never had to do research.

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Soddball

Little Pete answered your post already some posts above. Don't think I should comment it any further.

Feldtrompeter

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Little Pete

Since the Maus is one of the Panzer that caught the interest of many involved in German tank development there are many who already found the answeres to the questions arising when thinking of including that tank in CM.

On

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

for instance there is a detailed technical description of the tank.

I agree to your statement that the basical research on the Maus would have been not too much of a task compared to other WW II vehicles.

Feldtrompeter

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Feldtrompeter:

Hi Little Pete

I would also have liked it if they had included the Maus.

As for historical accuracy: It was build during WW II and thus could have been included in CM. There must be a line drawn to define which vehicles to include and which not, true, but I don't see a reason why that has to exclude the Maus when other vehicles like the Stalin III are included that most likely never seen combat in WW II as well.

Doing the graphics and making the research neccessary won't be that big deal either.

It would have been nice to see how the Maus would have worked in some fictional scenarios.

Thatis also why I hate that BF did not include the Königstiger and the better American tanks in CMAK. They might have never seen action during the Italian campain but yet it would have been possible if the decisions would have been made.

Feldtrompeter

Could you tell me if the Maus ever really worked?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Feldtrompeter:

Hi Soddball

Little Pete answered your post already some posts above. Don't think I should comment it any further.

Feldtrompeter

So on the basis of the say-so of someone you don't know who's claiming something that they're not sure they remember, you're stating that the research would be easy?

As for the website you've quoted - who's to say that's accurate? What about a second source to corroborate it? What about the original documents? Penetration tests to show the thickness of the armour and its angles? How would you expect the CM:BB engine to handle the Maus' two different heavy weapons when it can't handle any other tank with multiple weapons - only CM:AK can do that?

How much ammo did the tank carry? What was its ground pressure?

I don't think you should comment any further either.

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Stikkypixie

Yes, I can.

There where two prototyps made and tested during Fall 1944. The Wehrmacht got one of them already in Juni 1944. They tried the tank in open country. It worked better than they had expected.

However, the tank was more a rolling bunker than a tank ...

Other prototypes where in the process of construction when the war endet.

There are sayings that the two Maus that where fully build saw combat when defending the test territorium whereon they where stationed before they where destroyed by the crew.

The Russians took the hull of one Maus placed the turret of the other on top and send the full tank to a Museum in Moskau.

Feldtrompeter

[Bone_Vulture]

Oh, boohoo.

Maus would only have very marginal novelty value in CM. Just like the Sturmtiger and T-44: on some rare occasions I see them in the unit menu, just to notice that they cost way too much. Unless both unit rarity factors and purchase limits are turned off, the chances of seeing any of these odd tanks on the field in CM is nil.

And what sort of a price would the Maus had to have to make it balanced? 800 points with a +1500% rarity factor?

[YankeeDog]

Just to set the historical record straight:

It's stretching to to say that the Maus "Was built during the Second World War." It is true that nine different prototypes, in various stages of completion, were built before Germany surrendered in 1945. However, none of these prototypes was a finished, battle-ready tank. Even the later prototypes had considerable technical problems that had not yet been solved.

In contrast, all of the other 'borderline' weapons that BFC has chosen to include in CM, like the IS-3 and the Super Pershing, were at least in full production by war's end, even if it may be unclear how much they participated in actual combat.

To me, it is very unclear if the Maus ever could have been made into a working combat system. The turret alone weighed 50 tons - about the same as many period medium tanks. The whole tank weighed a massive 188 tons - more than double the weight of modern MBTs! The prototypes also had extremely high ground pressure (around 20 psi, IIRC), and substantial engine and drivetrain problems still had not been worked out by the end of the war.

How do you expect BFC to model an unproven weapon system like this? It's unclear whether period engine and drivetrain technology could have even gotten the darn thing any significant distance on a good concrete road, let alone worked well enough to be useful in a combat situation as anything more than a well-armed pillbox.

If you're going to include the Maus, there are all sorts of prototype tanks and other weapons on the Allied side that were actually closer to bona fide, combat-ready production.

I'm not necessarily against "might have, could have" weapons systems in CM, but I think it would be better to start with the ones that have been proven to actually work. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Sailor Malan]

What is it with some people and the overweight abortion school of tanks? Some facts about the Maus:

There were 2 prototypes with a further 9 under construction. Whilst there was (briefly) a production order for 150, this was cancelled in October 1943, before the first prototype ran. This occurred in Dec 1943, with a simulated turret. The full tank ran in June 1944. The second ran turretless in Sept 1944, and blew up its engine in an accident shortly after. The engine was replaced just in time for the prototypes to be blown up at the end of the way. There was no way the Maus was going to be a production vehicle - or at least not in ww2!

A statistic: weight 188 tons. Question: what is the weight of the largest production AFV a) in WW2, ever? Conclusions please.

If the Maus is relevant to a game of CM, I want an ATAT, and X-wings as air support!

Oh yes, and this holds for the E100, Tortoise, TOG1 and 2, and the Tribal class destroyer on wheels!

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Soddball:

I don't think you should comment any further either.

You raised good questions to prove your point, but this was uncalled for.

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Soddball

You sure - in contrast to me - are not capable of the German language. Otherwise you would not have stated most of your superfluous comments after I gave the link. Or you refused to give the link a try ...

The Maus is a WELL recorded vehicle due to the dimension of the project and the curiousity that sparkles anyone when in deeper study about German tanks in WW II.

The gun was the same that was mounted on the Jagdtiger and thus penetration values won't be that hard to gather ...

The groundpressure is known also the amount of amo. For further questions we could even make a trip to Moskau and make the ultimate test.

Sure, CMBB can't handle multiple guns. And that may be the only reason I see so far to exclude the Maus - but since BF did plan to include the Maus first, maybe we would have seen multiple guns in CMBB already had some forum user not persuaded them to drop the tank.

As for your advise to not comment any further on this topic - that reveals more your character and attitude than my contributions to the topic discussed.

Feldtrompeter

[Sergei]

The reasoning seems to be, "since it never existed, it can have whatever kind of specs in the game." You have to remember, Maus never entered serial production. What a serial production Maus would have been like, we will never know. How it would have fared in action, we will never know. Kinda hard to do research on.

IS-3's shouldn't have been included in the game, but the inclusion probably was so easy that they did it anyway (same graphics, the tank actually entered serial production before the war ended). They MIGHT have seen combat against Japanese in Manchuria, though. The presence of IS-3 doesn't add any value to the game for me, but I guess some people just couldn't live without it. Can you imagine the amount of moans and tears if it hadn't been included? :eek:

[Kozure]

I think this falls into the "love it or hate it" category.

Ideally, every AFV and every variant thereof would be nice to have; maybe one day in the distant, distant future. For now, graphic, size and research limitations, not to mention the inevitable historical/non-historical arguments, render the issue mostly moot.

For your reading pleasure, I offer a link to a great site on Panzers.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm#maus

[Hawtin]

Although the tone of this thread is taking turns into somewhat more negative side, a few more comments.

stikkypixie wrote:

...besides what is fun about putting a 1000 ton beast on a hill a watch it fire some rounds killing hordes of Russkies, Americano's??

Don't know about you, but I find that amusing sometimes. Can't explain it really

Sailor Malan wrote:

What is it with some people and the overweight abortion school of tanks?

For some weird reason, at least I get the kicks out of it sometimes. Now, don't get me wrong - I absolutely love historical battles and usually play with pz IIIs and IIs rather than sturmmörsers. But occasionally, i like the change.

I know it's a slippery slope demanding sorts like Maus in the game solely on the basis that I happen to like that certain type. Even though CM is historically very accurate an detailed game, it wouldn't take anything out of the credibility of the game if for example mouse was in. If you don't like a unit, you're not required to play with it, methinks.

Again, I know there were some real world constraints like fitting the game on cd, KwazyDog not having time to model even some of the more common models and so on. That I can live with. What's slightly annoying, is some CM afficionados who don't want an unit in just because it is not historically correct. If I want to watch my maus slowly sink and dissappear in a mudpit then I should be allowed to do that, even though no maus was actually ever lost in a mud pit...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Feldtrompeter:

There are sayings that the two Maus that where fully build saw combat when defending the test territorium whereon they where stationed before they where destroyed by the crew.

There are rumours that one of them saw combat. According to www.panzerlexikon.de, the other one's engine burned out and it was never finished. The rumours are qualified as 'unlikely' on the site. I do not think they have been corroborated by the Soviets either.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Little Pete:

The only thing that bugged me slightly was that it was slated to be in the game but outcry on the forum caused the developers to relent and remove it.

You are grossly distorting the record.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Little Pete:

The only thing that bugged me slightly was that it was slated to be in the game but outcry on the forum caused the developers to relent and remove it.

You are grossly distorting the record. </font>

[Feldtrompeter]

Hi Andreas

You are correct that only one of the Maus perhaps saw combat but I don't think that this detail will either prove or disprove what I say: the prototype of the Maus may have seen combat.

The side you mentioned says that one was in so much ready that it could have participate in combat.

Quote from Panzerlexikon:

"Bis zum Kriegsende wurden 11 Prototypen gebaut. Einer befand sich sogar in einsatzfähigem Zustand. Gerüchten zufolge, soll 1945 gegen die Sowjets gekämpft haben. Dies ist aber eher unwahrscheinlich. Die Prototypen wurden gesprengt als sowjetische Truppen das Versuchsgelände erreichten. Nach Versuchsprotokollen schlug sich der Maus bei Versuchsfahrten überraschend gut. Die sowjetischen Streitkräfte fanden schließlich auch die beiden funktionierenden Prototypen - zerstört von den eigenen Besatzungen."

While this source says that the Maus did most likely never see combat there are other sources that leave it more open:

Quote from Achtung Panzer:

"The popular version states that V2 prototype was blown up by the personnel at proving grounds in Kummersdorf, while some sources state that actually V2 saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf."

Quote from www.panzer-archiv.de:

"Die beiden fertigen Panzer wurden nie offiziell in das Kriegsgeschehen beordert, obwohl es interessant gewesen wäre zu sehen, wie der Koloss sich bewährt hätte. Beide Panzer wurden auf dem Testgelände zerstört, bevor sie den voranstürmenden Rotarmisten in die Hände fallen konnten. Allerdings ist nicht sicher ob sie zerstört wurden oder erst noch gegen den Gegner kämpften."

I think you miss my point. I never said that BF SHOULD have included the Maus, I said they COULD have done so. And that I would have apreciated it (for the same reasons Hawtin mentioned).

Nothing more and nothing less.

I also claim that it would not have been too difficult to gather the facts neccessary to feed the CM engine with accurate values for ground pressure, penetration stats, etc. Because I don't go for the "serial produced" Maus but for the prototype. The prototype is known and that I would have liked (Not demanded!) to see.

I don't see how that sharing of opinion and wish could have caused the commotion it turned into.

Feldtrompeter

[Grey Hunter]

I though that the Maus seeing combat was a rumour sparked by dents in the armour of the prototype captured, which then turned out to be from the russians who captured it, testing the armour with their guns incase they ever ran into a working one.