Dead Metal

[sbt]

Currently this thang is Dead Metal:



And yes, it IS as big as it looks. The Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus is all of 3.63 German Metres (11ft 11in) high, 10.2 Riechmeters (33ft 6in) long and 188 Franco-Tonnes in weight.

The two examples constructed (only one which had a turret) didn't spend all that much of their time moving around (at a maximum of 8 mph) before they were captured, one blown up, patched up into a composite vehicle and put on display in Russias Kubinka Tank Museam at the end of the war. And there V1/V2 has sat bar an occaional occasional around (so they could dust under it) by multiple heavy tractors, ever since.

And then along comes Wargaming, a very rich Belorussian maker of Tank Video Games and all of the sudden the idea is to fix the beast. So there will be much cutting and welding to fix the damage to 55 Tonne turret caused when V2 was blown up to the extent that it went flying for quite some distance, adapt things to fit it to a hull that never had the fixings for one and get the Motors, Generators and Engines on the go. Checkies Russian equivalents will be heavily involved as this is a 1943 Diesel Electric monster...

You wanna job (after the Ivans de-annex somebody elses country and start playing like modern human beings) Richie?

"It'll Fix"

[jondavidvox]

As I have said on threads relating to my own project, you will never please everybody.

Anyone who has taken even the barest amount of time reading the epic story of the resurrection of Blue Bird K-7 would realize that there can be no intelligent, logical, or even sensible critical assessment of this project.

K-7 Seven has never been this close to matching the very DNA of her existence. Those who would find this project wanting for any reason should slink slowly away....and silently too.

J-D
DFW-USA

[rob565uk]

Checkies Russian equivalents will be heavily involved as this is a 1943 Diesel Electric monster...

That'll be my Cousin - Checkov

[Richie]

Ah the Maus... Hitlers machine that demonstrated just how mad he was...

They were supposed to operate in pairs, as they were so heavy they could not cross any bridge at all, as a result the lead tank would run ahead of its mate and river crossings were made by driving along the bottom of the river bed ! The lead tank had an umbilical which plugged into the second tank which provided air for the crew, then the roles would be reversed..,

Hitler, like Napoleon had a fixation with size !

People often rave on for example that the tiger was Germany's greatest tank... Load of crap ! The stug 3G was it's greatest most effective killer ! And a little less than half the size of the tiger.

The best tank of the war goes to the T34...

But yeah I digress, send it down and I will have a look hahaha

[sbt]

Actually the umbilical carried electrical power rather than air. Mice being Diesel-Electric the 'Tank on the Bank' could power the traction motors of the submerged Panzer. A very tall Snorkel was provided to enable the crew to survive the crossing.

The issue of the 'Best' tank is something of a hot-button topic for me. This has probably got something to do with the fact I spend my days answering questions like 'what is the best mix of equipment for the UK Armed Forces'. First define what you mean by 'best' - the 'best; tank for one nation may be completely different from that for another. This is all quite apart from the fact that most proponents of various tanks ignore small issues like reliability and logistical tail.

The T34 has earned its place in history but a great tank the early models were not. Its one massive advantage was that it was there, it was 'just good enough' and it could be produced in sufficient numbers that it kept being there even after horrific losses. For a nation already hurting for manpower like the Germans it would have been totally unsuitable - they couldn't have replaced the crews they would have lost. In fact they DID run out of people by the wars end.

Similar arguments apply to the UKs tank choice. The Cromwell and Comet were arguably much better tanks once on the battlefield than the Sherman but the UK couldn't produce enough. So the less good Sherman was used, with and without modification, as the US COULD produce them. And that Sherman gun didn't matter as much as people think - most tank rounds are fired at things other than tanks, the Tiger was rare and usually sight lines meant it couldn't use its powerful gun at long range, it was often engaged at shorter ranges where the ordinary Sherman could damage it.

Beware of 'facts' taken out of context. For example its often quoted that it took 5 US Shermans to kill one Panther. When you look more closely you will find that this is an interpretation drawn from the fact that for every Panther killed by a Sherman 5 Shermans were killed by Panthers - which is different in an important way. For every Panther killed by a Sherman something else, like Artillery or Airpower killed several more. The Germans were, at this stage, fielding their armour without effective support so a Panther unit had only Panthers with which to kill Shermans, so the Panthers got a lot of Sherman kills. The Sherman unit, on the other hand had friends available who 'stole' their kills - they didn't kill many Panthers because they didn't have to. Finally a generally accepted loss ratio for the attack is three attackers lost per defender. Guess who was generally attacking when Shermans met Panthers... Suddenly 5 to 1 doesn't look that bad.

It also pays to be careful about on the exact model you are talking about, for example the early T34s are arguably not even Tanks at all, they were Turreted Tank Destroyers along the lines of the US M10. The ammunition was stowed under the crews feet and neither rotated with the turret, making fighting, especially rapid fire, from anything but static positions almost impossible.

In my opinion there was no overall 'best' tank of World War Two because the meaning of 'best' varies with your viewpoint, time and the situation.

And yes, the Stug III was a very important weapon that most 'Tank' enthusiasts ignore.

----
PS: Napoleon was 5ft 2in tall - in French Feet and Inches. In English Feet and Inches he was around 5ft 7in, around average for a man of his time.

[Richie]

Only my opinion matey....

[Renegadenemo]

I like all this tank stuff - it's a class of vehicle I know absolutely nothing about and I'm enjoying learning about them so keep yakking, you two...

[Dominic Owen]

I like all this tank stuff - it's a class of vehicle I know absolutely nothing about and I'm enjoying learning about them so keep yakking, you two...

They're big, noisy, hard as nails and blow s*** up: What's not to love?

[Richie]

missile catchers these days though.... going from what i have seen in the news and heard from friends serving... the day of the MBT has perhaps been and gone.


best get saving up as I have a long list of must have toys !

[sbt]

'They' have been saying that the day of the Tank has gone since around 1917.

And the MBT has had its day, 'nowt but a missile catcher' since the advent of the Sagger ATGW in 1962.

The truth is that the Tank started out as an 'Artillery Shell Catcher' - they have never been invulnerable, even the Maus could have been killed by artillery, especially as it was so obvious a target and so slow to get out of the way. What they are is harder to kill than other systems whilst at the same time offering more mobility and delivering more firepower. All that the advent of bigger and better ATGWs has done is upped the risk - but missiles (gets cagey) can be protected against in various ways and more and better ways are in development. Don't write off the Tank just yet.