_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Pzkpfw. Maus - what would it have looked like
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 09:27 PM UTC
Now that we have a decent Maus in the pipeline, I wonder how the tanks design have progressed if the war had continued.
Some ideas.
- Replacing the gasoline-electric propulsion with a ships
diesel engine
- Bigger and armored fuel tanks
- Night vision equipment
- Close-in defense weapon based on 2 cm Flak
- Smoke grenade launchers
- Cameras for situational awareness
Cheers
H.-H.
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 09:37 PM UTC
More possible Maus versions;
- Armored carrier for V-2
- Flak Maus with twin 12,8 cm Flak
- Armored carrier for Rheintochter missile
- Armored Radar carrier for AA missiles
- "lightweight" Maus for possible Korea scenario.
Chuck4
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 13, 2013
KitMaker: 403 posts
Armorama: 401 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 10:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

More possible Maus versions;
- Armored carrier for V-2
- Flak Maus with twin 12,8 cm Flak
- Armored carrier for Rheintochter missile
- Armored Radar carrier for AA missiles
- "lightweight" Maus for possible Korea scenario.


Which of these can't be done with a much smaller, cheaper, and logistically less demanding modification to the tiger ii chassis?
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 10:21 PM UTC

Quoted Text

More possible Maus versions;
- Armored carrier for V-2
- Flak Maus with twin 12,8 cm Flak
- Armored carrier for Rheintochter missile
- Armored Radar carrier for AA missiles


That'd be a huge mis-use of an armored vehicle. All of those four items are to defend your heartland -- you'd use common military tractors. How could you envision any advantage in having an impregnable armored tractor (your Maus) in hauling a V-2 rocket which will be aimed at targets 100s of miles away? Think tactically.
Roshindow
Visit this Community
Trento, Italy
Joined: May 10, 2014
KitMaker: 34 posts
Armorama: 32 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 11:05 PM UTC

Quoted Text

- Replacing the gasoline-electric propulsion with a ships
diesel engine


I think I remember having read that was the only way to reliably move a 188 tons vehicle, because of transmission stress or torque at low rpm, can't remember the details thpugh. Also it was Porsche's fixation, so probably wouldn't have changed.

The Maus II turret was designed, eliminating the shot trap, so that's likely.
davidg
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: December 28, 2007
KitMaker: 47 posts
Armorama: 44 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 11:25 PM UTC
What I have always wondered is if a ladder would have been part of the standard issue of equipment for this tank. Along with your pioneer tools you get a ladder. Perhaps further development would have included hand and foot rails on hull and turret.
Dave
PzDave
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: November 28, 2012
KitMaker: 319 posts
Armorama: 285 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 12:13 AM UTC
Korea?
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 12:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Korea?


Hans-Hermann funny self-reference to his previous what-if idea:
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/255019&page=1
Shermania
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 08:26 PM UTC
Germany was completely overwhelmed even before 44' ended, it's hard to imagine how they could've keptfighting. But for the sake of answering the question, perhaps several mushroom clouds over Germany would've been the end result of prolonging the war? Atleast that's what happened in Japan.
ninjrk
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 08:58 PM UTC

Quoted Text

What I have always wondered is if a ladder would have been part of the standard issue of equipment for this tank. Along with your pioneer tools you get a ladder. Perhaps further development would have included hand and foot rails on hull and turret.
Dave


I've always assumed that they would have added hand holds or even cut-outs for hand and toe holds in the side armor. In the field on a rainy night I don't see how you could get in and out of the bloody thing otherwise.
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 10:41 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

- Replacing the gasoline-electric propulsion with a ships diesel engine


I think I remember having read that was the only way to reliably move a 188 tons vehicle, because of transmission stress or torque at low rpm, can't remember the details though.


Exactly. The diesel electric set-up is needed to move the d@mned thing. There wasn't a transmission in the world that can move something that heavy with a gear train. Even today, big mine haul trucks (in the 120-300 ton range) use diesel electric set-ups to move because transmissions are impractical.
tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 10:44 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Now that we have a decent Maus in the pipeline, I wonder how the tanks design have progressed if the war had continued.


If, somehow, the war had progressed longer, the 2 or 3 Maus built before they came to their senses would have been emplaced as panzerturms guarding some strategic choke points while being protected by E75s.

They were just too darned big, heavy and unwieldy to actually be of any use whatsoever as a combat vehicle.
Vicious
Visit this Community
Queensland, Australia
Joined: September 04, 2015
KitMaker: 1,517 posts
Armorama: 1,109 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 01:33 AM UTC

Quoted Text

If, somehow, the war had progressed longer, the 2 or 3 Maus built before they came to their senses would have been emplaced as panzerturms guarding some strategic choke points while being protected by E75s.

They were just too darned big, heavy and unwieldy to actually be of any use whatsoever as a combat vehicle.


I totaly agree,after they try to use that Dino cupple of time end up to be set like a Bunker on trak,decide were you need for a strong hold,a strategic point and set there,if is still ok after the battle move to the next point if you can!
hugohuertas
Visit this Community
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 03:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Germany was completely overwhelmed even before 44' ended, it's hard to imagine how they could've keptfighting. But for the sake of answering the question, perhaps several mushroom clouds over Germany would've been the end result of prolonging the war? Atleast that's what happened in Japan.


Hans-Hermann's scenario starts with a "what-if" alliance between Germany and the Western allies, to put a stop to the communist advance from the East.
So, no overwhelming of the still functional German industry, but a gradual re-growth of its capacity.
The possibility of "nuclear mushrooms" over Germany is also unlikely at that point, since the USSR still had not developed its nuke capacity. And once it has it, we would be again in a Cold-War scenario...
As already said before in other posts, this should be a very complex scenario, since a lot of things would be very different to the real history..

BTT, I'm with those who believe that the Maus concept would've been abandoned for other more reasonable/sensible designs like the E-50/75 ones.
I may even think on an E-100 in reduced numbers, going back to the early war German concept of a "main" tank -a la Pz III- with a lower quantity of "support" heavier tanks -a la Pz IV-.
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 03:43 AM UTC
The Maus was a dead design from it's conception. Not because it was under powered but because of it's weight. The t-28 and Tortise were at the max limit of practical weight due to bridge and road limits. It wasn't maneuverable nor fast so it would be a sitting target for aircraft and artillery. If a tank as heavy as the Maus went off road and got stuck the logistics need to get it out would be ridicules, you would need a Maus based ARV. Not to mention the support system required to keep one of those running. You could field several lighter tanks that were more capable than a Maus easier and for less money than one of those things. Had such a scenario as you suggest developed the allies would take the best of the german tank features and developed their own. And using it as some sort of fixed fighting position would just be a waste of money and resources.
bige69
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: June 15, 2009
KitMaker: 43 posts
Armorama: 39 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 04:33 AM UTC
To answer the original question
I would think a larger temporary fuel tank, a retractable ladder.
Thought somewhere I saw a pic of a maus raised by a jack... so a jack of sort.
Just my 2 cents
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, January 30, 2017 - 06:03 AM UTC

Quoted Text

To answer the original question
I would think a larger temporary fuel tank, a retractable ladder.
Thought somewhere I saw a pic of a maus raised by a jack... so a jack of sort.
Just my 2 cents


Instead of a ladder, maybe they'd put on hand holds like are on the side of a U-boat conning tower.

How about a full array of artillery range finding equipment, full size infrared searchlight and an auxiliary anti aircraft turret.

The best way to use it would be mobile armored artillery. There may even have been some weight saving by cutting back on the thickness of the armor or at least cutting away the skirts and fenders over the chassis.

However about a scrapper blade so it could dig itself in?

But honestly the best thing to do with it would have been to scrap it and use the metal for smaller tanks. Or just forgetting the engines and suspension and digging it in. It was only ever a tactically useless exercise in excess.
 _GOTOTOP