Talk:Panzer VIII Maus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

However, despite its drawbacks, the Maus could potentially have been a formidable weapon in certain defensive positions where extensive movement was not required, such as along the Atlantic Wall.

I would love to throw in at the end of that sentence "... if it could ever be transported into position." if it didn't sound so flippant... Krupo 00:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Whatever is wrong with being flippant!?! ;o) We shouldn't exaggerate its transportproblems though...

But what about the statement that Maus was the largest tank design ever? There are no known volume measurements of both the Char 2C and the K-Wagen. Arguably the French giant was somewhat smaller, as it was so narrow and its turret wasn't so gigantic. But surely the K-Wagen must have been larger?

MWAK--84.27.81.59 08:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weight tends to be the factor in determining which tank is the "largest". GreatGatsby 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The K-Wagen was approx 12mx6mx3m, while the Maus was 10mx3mx3m, so the K-Wagen probably had a larger volum, but is it appropriate to measure ACV's by their volume? The Maus sure was heavier. (PS. If we're talking sheer dimensions, the prize probably goes to the Tsar tank.)

Yes, but then the Tsar tank wasn't a tank :o).--MWAK 13:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Railway guns could be moved around in pieces. The Mörser Karl could be suspended between two bogies. Who's there to say the Maus's turret couldn't be lifted off and transported separately, not to mention other disassemble-and-assemble -transporting? 62.183.205.191 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This page needs more pictures. - Anonymous

It's worth noting that a Maus survived the war and is presently at the Kubinka Museum near Moscow. Basesurge 15:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fyi, a Maus didn't survive the war. The one currently at Kubinka is a "frankenmaus." Basically, it's comprised of a test bed chassis which never had a turret; and the turret removed from the Maus destroyed by Krupp to prevent capture. Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Who thought is was a good idea to put that picture in the article? --Adamrush 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

corrected typo 128 mm /L5 (changed to L55)

Typo?

In the article it stated: "Weighing about 500 tonnes (or about 575 short tons), the Maus's main armament..." In the specifications it is given as : Weight 188 tonnes.

Typo?--BorisFromStockdale|Discussion|Contributions 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

electric transmission

What is the advantage of having electrically driven tracks? It seems unnecessarily complex. Drutt (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To decouple the motor from the tracks. Otherwise the motor/transmissions/gear box could not cope with the high strengths involved.--Musaran (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for Canadian Rumor

There is no information online that suggests that there was even a rumor of Canadian Soldiers engaging a Maus in battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.127 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Page renamed - Maus is more common.

The name of the article has just been changed. WP:COMMONNAME says that the most common english name should be used for article names, not necessarily the technically correct one. I beleive that this tank is overwhelmigly known as the Maus. (Hohum ^@) 15:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll change it to Maus (tank). Oblivion Lost (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you could give me a hand here. That move requires the Requested moves. Oblivion Lost (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the same name man! What's up with that? You wanted the most common name for the article, right!? Change it to Maus (tank), as it once was. Oblivion Lost (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it was given the designation PzKfw VIII and usually called the Maus, the name that I reverted it back to still seemed appropriate. So I am reverting it again. Please discuss this and gain consensus before changing it again. (Hohum ^@) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hohum, is this the name of your section in the "Discussion" : Page renamed - Maus is more common. Because if it is, i think you should stick with what you want, right. If "Maus" is more common, and you don't like the "Panzerkampfwagen VIII V2", then what is this : "Panzer VIII Maus". And this : Since it was given the designation PzKfw VIII. If the given designation is "PzKfw VIII", then where it is in the article's name!? Because "Panzerkampfwagen VIII" is not the same as "Panzer VIII Maus". You want the common name (Maus), but you don't use it. You put in the article's name segments of the official designation, but you don't use the correct official one. I think you just want what you want, not what's right. Oblivion Lost (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If Denniss is right, we have only two options for a name of the article : the correct designation or the most common one. So, it's gotta be either Panzerkampfwagen VIII or Maus (tank). No mixing or shortening the names! Oblivion Lost (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The words you're putting in my mouth, and what I meant, are somewhat different. I think that Maus should be included in the article name, but not necessarily be the only word in the name. I have reverted it to the previous article name while we decide, rather than impetuously changing it to various preferences of the moment. It would probably make sense to ask what the other tank buffs of the Military History Project think is an appropriate name for the article.

Also; Panzer and PzKfw can be shortened versions of Panzerkampfwagen, the V2 almost certainly shouldn't be in the article name since it refers to only one of the models. (Hohum ^@) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on the talk pages of the WPMILHIST task forces for military land vehicles, WWII and the German military. Interested editors will hopefully give their opinions here. (Hohum ^@) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

About the "V2" i haven't said a thing, since Denniss explaned (if he's right) that the "V1", "V2" and so on were not a part of the official designation. What i'm saying is the name of the article, the most official part of the article itself, should have the most proper name. In this case this would be : Panzerkampfwagen VIII. And what possible shortening!!? Wasn't : "In Wikipedia we use full descriptions only" a Wikipedia credo!? Besides, the name isn't difficult or too long, for a name of the very subject of our article! If you think differently, we'll use the Maus (tank). Why should not be the only word in the name? What represents the name of the article! The tank or something else. If it's the tank, then we can't use any other thing but the name itself. What is difficult to understand here? The full official designation, or the simplest name used for this tank. The Panzerkampfwagen VIII, or the Maus (Maus (tank)).

(About this : "the V2 almost certainly shouldn't be in the article name since it refers to only one of the models" I think it's time to understand that there is only one variant, and other was to be variants (tanks). (According to the official version!))

(Who knows if Hitler haven't changed the designation to "Panzerkampfwagen Maus" as he did with the "Panzerkampfwagen VI" changed to "Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E" / "Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B")

Panzerkampfwagen VIII or Maus (tank). Nothing in between is appropriate! Oblivion Lost (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have problems with other articles, please address them there remove them from this page - it is an irrelevant distraction to this discussion.

Wasn't : "In Wikipedia we use full descriptions only" a Wikipedia credo! Where did you get this from? I have already pointed you to the relevant article naming policy. WP:COMMONNAME. (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The German article's name is even longer! (Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus) But i suppose they don't follow any rules, right! Oblivion Lost (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point you to WP:COMMONNAME. This is the English article. Hopefully someone from WPMILHIST will take interest. Also, you are being inconsistent, you just gave the only two names you would accept, yet suggest this third one is right. This is why I'd prefer you to not keep changing it to your current whim. (Hohum ^@) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Firs of all, i am not inconsistent because i'm not suggesting a third name at all! This : (Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus) was an example why we shouldn't consider "Panzerkampfwagen VIII" for a long name. You gotta pay attention!

Secondly, i don't have "whims" here! This is how things are : the article must be named correctly! Is this a whim! No, on the contrary. You though wasn't that interested in this article till i started fixing the flaws! Yet, i'm the one with the whims here, interesting! Oblivion Lost (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. You have already changed the article name twice, both different to your current suggestion. (Hohum ^@) 15:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Panzerkampfwagen VIII

Changing the article's name to Panzerkampfwagen VIII.

Any opinions?

Oblivion Lost (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should we do this? Current article name is fine. --Denniss (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The current name of the article is a mixture of colloquial semi-names, thus, inappropriate for a name of the article! The Panzerkampfwagen VIII, being the real name of this tank, is the appropriate name!

Any other opinions?

Oblivion Lost (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out (three times), WP:COMMONNAME gives the criteria for naming articles. It doesn't require the technical name, it requires the most common english name used. Provide some evidence to support your suggestion. Google searches reveal that Maus is the most common usage on the web, usually in concert with Panzer/Pz./Pz.Kfw./Panzerkampfwagen VIII, but hardly ever the latter by itself. (Hohum ^@) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to call BS on that: it's usually just called Maus, same as the two Tigers are usually just called "Tiger I" and "Tiger II." Neither of those articles have a needless "Panzer (number)" prefix, and such prefixes usually disappear around the Panther. You might as well shove the sonderkraftfahrzeug prefix into the article title as well; it should just be "Maus (tank)." Herr Gruber (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't possibly call it "Panzerkampfwagen VIII", because at least some sources call it "Panzerkampfwagen VII", so that would not be clear. The Tiger II is "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B)" There was another super-heavy design by Henschel that has also been called "Panzerkampfwagen VII", so that would not be clear either. There was a "Rat" preliminary design that was perhaps "Panzerkampfwagen VIII". IX and X were fictitious. David R. Ingham (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Armour

David Miller and Chrisopher Foss claim that the maximum armour thickness was 350 mm instead of 250. --Tim.vogt (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Weight

The article states a weight of 200 metric tons. German and Russian Wikipedia states a weight of 188 tons. Hexmaster (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• The prototype weighed 188 tons. The Guderian quote says he believed that with Hitler's specified changes (including a 150mm main gun) it would have ended up weighing 200 tons. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Armor Mixed up

On the Table it says it had 460 mm (18 in) (in the area of the mantlet) 250 mm (9.8 in) (mantlet) 240 mm (9.4 in) (turret front) 220 mm (8.7 in) (turret side and rear, and hull front) 210 mm (8.3 in) (turret front behind the mantlet) 190 mm (7.5 in) (hull side and rear) While the other part of the article says it had hull front was 220 millimetres (8.7 in). The sides and rear of the hull were up to 190 millimetres (7.5 in). The turret armour was even thicker, the turret front was up to 240 millimetres (9.4 in) and the sides and rear 220 millimetres (8.7 in). The mantlet was 250 millimetres (9.8 in), and combined with the turret armour behind, the protection level at that section was even higher.

Most are correct but the top number of 460 I have never heard of it having so much armor is there a source for this or should I change it back to 250 mm. Thank you for anyone who clears this up.--Marchbaby 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• The figure is in the numbers you quote: it's mantlet + armour behind the mantlet. 250mm + 210mm = 460mm. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up it was confusing me for a moment.--Marchbaby 15:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct designation?

Was the 'Panzer VIII' designation ever officially assigned, or is it just a matter of rather fanciful web pages enthusiasts? AFAIK Jentz&Doyle's "Panzer Tracts 6" only refers to "Panzerkampfwagen Maus", without further numerical designation. I tried to raise the issue, but sadly, some people here are having rather irresponsible fun removing the "Citation needed" tags without any explanation. 87.249.145.69 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If I have to specify further, why I suspect the reliability of the source given, I'd point to the fact that the anonymous author of the "article" does not state what his source was, and, on the other hand, abovementioned Panze Tracts (vol. 6) by Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle is based on original German wartime documentation, quoting from them generously, and generally they are very punctilious regarding the terminology - and they never mention alleged "Panzerkampfwagen VIII" designation of the "Maus" project. On the other hand, I certainly do not object to the name of the article, as the faux "Panzer VIII" designation apparently enjoys great popularity among the general public.87.249.145.69 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"This website was created by George Parada. It is owned and maintained by the Weider History Group." is at the introduction page of the site. I have no idea of George Parada's credentials. FWIW The Weider History Network is also behind http://www.historynet.com/ .

The Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII (Chamberlian, Doyle and Jentz) (p . 148) doesn't use the designation Pz VIII, only Panzerkampfwagen Maus and Porsche 205. Additionally, a google book search of maus tank -viii versus maus tank viii yields 20,000 versus 163. (Hohum ^@) 21:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry as for the author of the "Achtung Panzer" pages - I was searching, but failed to find his name. (There's also a general listing of sources he used, though none seems to be dealing with the Maus specifically.) (I'm going to upgrade the ref in the article) As for the designation "Panzer VIII" - I'd like to stress that my objection is concerned solely with the designation of the vehicle in the infobox, not with the name of article.87.249.145.69 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well - if there are no more objections against my proposal - shall I remove the designation "Panzerkampfwagen VIII" from the infobox? -87.249.145.69 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Maus "Folly"(?)

I object to several passages which seem to depict the development of the Maus as a folly catering to Hitler's madness. The worst offender is this:

Hitler's obsession with heavy tanks reached its zenith with the construction of the Panzer VIII "Maus". What is clear is that the time and energy spent on designing and producing these behemoths wasted a vast amount of precious design and production effort, which Nazi Germany could ill afford to spare. Guderian described the Maus as "this gigantic offspring of the fantasy of Hitler and his advisors."

Guderian did not like it, but some of his issues (lack of MGs) got addressed, and generally the development fit into the overall trend: tank armor, armaments and thereby weights increased rapidly during the early stages of the war, and the Maus was designed because Germany expected the allies to be developing their own superheavy tanks - which they did, see the American T28/T95 and the British Tortoise. Yes, machines that heavy then turned out to be impractical, but that conclusion could only be drawn because of the experiences with the development of superheavy prototypes like the Maus. And the Maus was quickly canceled due to these experiences, so it is not like Germany kept pressing it into mass production against all reason.

This also means that the conclusion drawn in the opinionated sentence "What is clear..." is not clear at all. Mass production would have been a waste of resources, but that never happened. The annual German steel output during WW2 was around 28 million tons, so 400 tons spent on two Maus prototypes were hardly significant. And Germany had no lack of designers, they were constantly churning out new prototypes - if anything, they had excessive design capabilities.

Finally, the Germans actually got some use out of the Maus project: the gun developed for the Maus was then used in the Jagdtiger, a machine that certainly had its flaws, but which remained in production as a high-priority vehicle right until the end of the war.

Thus I have shortened the passage I quoted above to make it more neutral.Elanguescence (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wanne?

In section 1 Development, just above the start of subsection 1.1 V1, the term "Wanne" is used twice. Can anyone clarify this term - I know it's a general German word for "tub", but aren't confident enough that there's no better English term for whatever part of a tank is meant: "Hull" appearing to be the nearest in parts of a tank.Graham.Fountain | Talk 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wanne or Panzerwanne is the hull of a tank/armored vehicle. --Denniss (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got that already. But is it the correct term in this context as opposed to, e.g., "hull", and if so why shouldn't it be clarified, at least at first use, to avoid a too technical tag? I can't comment for everybody, but, personally, ich spreche kein Deutsch.Graham.Fountain | Talk 16:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I just changed wanne to hull(s), and then actually read the paragraph fully. This led me to copyedit it somewhat, tag it for referencing, and remove the part about 6-7 hulls with turrets, which I don't believe without a reference. (Hohum ^@) 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Restoration of the Maus by The Kubinka tank museum and Wargaming.net

The restoration of the Maus has already started so it's not predicting the future. I also don't see the problem with the source as it's from the Company doing it and employees of said companies have confirmed it.Pharoahjared (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it has already started - in which case you will need WP:RS that says so. A very cheaply made YouTube video saying it is about to is not such a source.

• Such a reconstruction project is barely credible. It is an enormously expensive project and would require serious funding. Compare WWI tanks, for which there is a substantial demand over the next few years, and they're relatively simple to construct. Yet how few of those are there? Reconstruction of a Maus would require at the bare minimum about $100k to make a steel bathtub with sprockets turning on the corners - and that's assuming it's using modern dump truck engines. Then it would need tracks and suspension - gargantuan tracks, either made to order or else something faked up from a half dozen T-55s. The budget is $200k at a Scrapyard Challenge level, probably more like $500k for anything that could even begin to appear on TV. I would seriously expect any of the established recreators to be looking at $1M.
• The YouTube video is a few gloomy, atmospheric shots in Kubinka, with a voiceover that appears to be have been produced with a Speak'n'Spell. If they had Natalia Poklonskaya voicing it, it would be a bit more credible. That video shows evidence for a budget of $10 and a couple of film students. It conveys no convincing indication that anyone associated with this project has been let loose with any sort of money, even for a promo trailer.
• There is nothing in that trailer showing anyone building a Maus. There is not even anyone standing on a scrap pile of useful looking Cummins or Tatra engines, or anyone sketching up CAD of a new hull punt. There is no indication that any work, or even thoughts about work, has started yet.
• There is a shortage of workable Tigers and late-war German armour in running condition. Places like Kubinka have quite a few of such things, yet how few are running? Maybach HL230 engines in running order are like hen's teeth. Yet the demand for a workable Tiger is immense, much greater than a Maus. Bovington's Tiger is kept very busy with appearances and film work. Clearly there is little budget or inclination for these high-budget armour restoration projects, or else we'd have a lot more working heavy armour, long before we start with these pie in the sky super-heavy projects.

That video fails as a source on two counts: it is not a credible RS for anything (the video is too cheaply made to be credible as anything) and most importantly, it is not a source for a project having credibly started as we would need to meet WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also the various accounts adding this seem confused between reconstruction (i.e. new build allowing budget-saving simplifications) and restoration (even more expensive!). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the video is cheaply "made"

• Wargaming.net earned 218 million euros in 2012 and if anyone can fund this it's them.
• They are not building a Maus they are restoring it. And in the video it shows people standing over blue prints. I don't see why they would need to make new blue prints when they can use the original blue prints.
• I don't see the how the demand of such thing is relevant. And Again Wargamning.net has the money to do this.
• Whether or not the video was cheaply made is a subjective and not a valid tool for concluding the reliability of the video.

The only one confused here is you. Pharoahjared (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

An announcement on the official World of Tanks youtube channel by Wargaming seems like an RS source to me. I don't see how the production values of the video are relevant, a textual notification costs almost nothing and we don't disregard those. Whether this should be included in the article yet is another matter - it's probably WP:RECENTISM, then again, a single sentence about it is hardly WP:UNDUE, and a resoration effort, even in it's announcement stages would be of interest to people reading the article. The rest of the article needs far more attention than this sentence. (Hohum ^@) 15:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

An announcement by them not only raises the other issues above, but also fails as WP:SPS. This is precisely the sort of source that is not RS because it's such an SPS. This is a cheap and shoddy video that raises the profile of wargaming.net amongst the gullible audience for their product without needing the budget spent on it that serious tank restoration (their video calls it reconstruction) would do. And why does it appear to be using the Lernout & Hauspie speech synth for the English voiceover? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why the quality of the video is relevant. But here's two more sources if you care that much about it. http://www.gamepolitics.com/2014/04/11/wargaming-teams-russian-kubinka-tank-museum-restore-wwii-era-tank http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133665-World-of-Tanks-Is-Building-The-Maus Pharoahjared (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Since when was an announcement by a company not a reliable source on a what they have announced? WP:SPS is not relevant to that. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement from the Kubinka Tank Museum

• Read Kubinka Museum says “Fuck You” to Maus Restoration Hype - seems like the restoration did not begun, it's still in a phase of negotiations and it's uncertain whatever it'll even begin in a first place as there is no approval. Then there's lot of talk about lack of patriotism and how they're not honoured by it while they're proud of restoring legendary T-35. o_O SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The various translations I've seen are rather shoddy. They seems to be annoyed at the misreporting of the (potential) restoration, and whether the (potential) deal/funding from Wargaming is "exclusive" or not. I have cut back the amount of coverage in the wiki article, pending clarification. (Hohum ^@) 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional authority

Dr. F.M. von Senger und Etterlin's book, German Tanks of World War II, the English translation of Die deutschen Panzer 1926-45, ISBN: 0-89104-008-0 should be considered as a source, particularly with respect to the development of the drive system.

Dr. Senger und Etterlin's section discussing the Maus also helps clarify the reason why there were two hulls but only one turret made as a Daimler-Benz DB 603-based MB 509 petrol engine was fitted to one and an MB 507 diesel engine was fitted to the other.

Hdwhit (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect turret armor?

Krupp stated in their design reports on the Maus, that the turret's forward armor was comprised of a bent plate of 220mm thick. They went on to note that when the plate was bent, it would (due to stretching) ultimately be only 205mm thick. Furthermore, design reports found by Hilary Louis Doyle, and subsequently published in his book "Panzer Tracts No 6-3, Schwere Panzerkampfwagen Maus and E100 development and production from 1942 to 1945" further reinforce the 220mm forward thickness of the turret. Doyle and Lentz (his co author) are quite clear that no German records support the 240mm thickness, with such measurements having originated post war due to either Soviet Propaganda, or improper measurement. This thickness has further been reinforced with the introduction of the Maus in games like "World of Tanks" which use the incorrect 240mm thickness; while ignoring the research materials found in the Lentz/Doyle publication. With a wealth of evidence that the thicker measurement is incorrect, I propose using the thickness of 220mm, which is both supported by Krupp's own design notes, and post war investigation. Kitsunedawn (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maus top speed of 22 km/h

Link to JPEG excerpt from the book German Tanks of World War Two in action page 144:

http://s28.postimg.org/4bllphpjh/image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.143.67 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 1955 edit.

Recently a user edited the page to state that the vehicle was completed in 1955. There is actually some truth in this, though not in the sense of when the original vehicles were built. By all accounts, the one currently at the Kubinka museum was cobbled together from a turret from an incomplete Maus, and a hull from a damaged one. The museum notes that this was after extensive testing had been done on the parts which the soviets captured, and happened sometime in 1955 after it was determined that nothing else could be learned from the vehicle. (Some anecdotal stories from the time suggest that the Soviets had stored the parts and were considering cutting them up for scrap when it was suggested putting them together into one vehicle and preserving them at the museum.) With that in mind, it might be advisable to note that the current 'survivor' came about sometime after 1945, and before 1955 as a result of the Soviet tests and construction. Kitsunedawn (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Turret armour Part 2

These pages are from Walter J. Spielbergers Spezial-Panzerfahrzeuge des Deutschen Heeres, Spielberger is for the most part considered THE source on german Tanks of WWII.. https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/32903078/Maus1.jpg https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/32903077/Maus2.jpg Spielberger used as source D Prüf Nr. 13 from the first of July 1944 for the Versuchsgerät 1 (Testing Hull 1, which explains the 1080 PS)... the turret clearly is stated to have a turret front of 240mms (i guess the mock up turret, being only a dummy was ignored for the chart and therefore it only lists the actual turret, considering that the Guns are listed aswell) Also, this is a page from the Book Panzerkampfwagen Maus: Der überschwere Panzer Porsche Typ 205 by Michael Fröhlich http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161216/a6bum3yf.jpg it gives thickness of the turret as precisely 236 mm together with teh steel composition (from what i've read 240mm Bend would resulte in roughly 236mm effective turret armour)

--2003:62:4666:4100:B0CE:45D7:512F:E51C (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a photo on War Thunder Forums of someone physically measuring the turret armour on the Maus, which measured to 240 mm thick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.16.64 (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Need Translation help please

Can someone translate this?:

https://i.imgur.com/SlbpVLk.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMMEL 34 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll try. It's obviously a report on how the welding went on a mock up of the turret for ballistic tests:

Assignment 41/2592: firing model turret "Maus"

The welding plan is laid out in drawings 2 AKF 24638 sheet 1+2. The furtherly attached compilation contains information on brands, analysis and quality values for the metal sheets used. As supplement to these files, the following has to be mentioned:

1.) welding data:

a) For welding, the Krupp electrode Zeus V 10 A, 5mm dioameter and NCT 3, 4.5 and 6 mm diameter was used. The application of the various electrodes is evident from teh welding plan.

b) It was welded at the + pole with the following currents: 4/5/6mm diameter with 120/150/190 Ampere

c) The welding sequence and the number of welding layers are evident from the supplied welding plan, drawings 2 AKF 24638 sheet 1,2.

2.) sheet thickness

    item    | description | set strength in mmm | actual strength in mm
    24638/1 | front face  | 250                 | 232-241.5
         /2 | side face   | 200                 | 204.4-205.4
         /2 | side face   | 200                 | 205.5-205.8
         /3 | back face   | 200                 | 203.5-204.3
         /5 | bottom      | 60                  | 61.5
         /6 | bottom      | 60                  | 61.6-62
         /4 | ceiling     | 90                  | 90.8-91.5

3.) assembly

Between the side boards, the front bottom and back bottom, two wedge-shaped 18 mm strong fitting piece were put in and welded in place.

4.) pre-heating

It was worked with a pre-heating of 60-70 °C, not relieved after welding.

5.) welding problems

During cool-down, the cracks as laid out in the welding plan had appeared. These were commonly about 10 mm deep and were removed by sanding, and in not accesible spots, with melting with a steel electrode. The appearing gaps have been welded up with a 4 V A electrode.

From the above files one can see that the welding was mainly done with two electrodes, the standard electrode V 10 A and the Krupp special electrode NCT 3. Teh attempt to do with only the standard electrode V10A failed, because at the border of welding seam and sheet, cracks apepared, and closing them with the V10A did not yield success. The repair succeeded after the application of [page break]

--91.41.36.149 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Link deleted

Earlier today, I had added a link to a youtube video were a bunch of Maus photos and several pages from the Maus user manual technical drawings are shown. Hard to find this very interesting and detailed info elsewhere, as the file shown there is yet to be scanned and made available online. Unfortunately, a bot came up with the idea that I was putting in copyrighted stuff and therefore deleted it. Maybe someone who enjoys the trust of the bot could look into this matter and restore the link? Thank you for your attention.--91.41.36.149 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

MAUS MYTH

NO MAUS WAS EVER FIELDED. FOR SOME REASON THERE IS A COMMON MISCONCEPTION THAT IT WAS OR THAT IT WAS AT LEAST A GOOD TANK. THE MAUS TANK HAD MANY DRAWBACKS THAT MADE IT, IN THE END, A FAILURE FOR GERMANY IN WWII. THIS WAS DUE TO MANY FACTORS SUCH AS A LACK OF MACHINE GUNS, RELIABILITY ISSUES, VERY SLOW SPEED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE ANYWHERE BY TRAIN OR OTHER TRANSPORT, AND WAS VERY VERY EXPENSIVE(THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER FACTORS). VIDEO GAMES MAKE THIS TANK SEEM A LOT BETTER THAN IT WAS. Blamazon (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Literally who asked? 49.188.23.43 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)