[DS] Tank designs was Re: [ds] Ogres

-
> Two Maus' fought in defense of their factory, so they did see SOME

Really? May I ask what your sources are? I'm just curious, as everything I've
ever read has stated they never did anything more than drive around a
proving ground w/ dummy turrets attached. And I believe the Russians
blew one up that they captured intact after overrunning a proving ground..

Howdy!

> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:

> Never seen any of them side by side except T55 and Lepard II.
The Question
> then is how much smaller? I'm not using any dimensions here I'm just

The Tiger is smaller, but it may still be the same size class (4?). Each size
class has a range of variation; maybe the M1 is on the high end of 4, and the
tiger on the low end.

> As for size 5 tanks, its all relative. You can safely ignore the

Two Maus' fought in defense of their factory, so they did see SOME combat.:)

You can be broad and generic and still have flavour and detail. I understand
what you are saying, though.

Laterish,

        Ken

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

> Two Maus' fought in defense of their factory, so they did see

Military Folklore. There is no evidence that either of them saw combat, and
only one was in a state that it could have seen combat.

But of course you CAN by a 5 pack of Maus in micro armor scale (GHQ)

In a message dated 98-11-14 22:46:47 EST, you write:

<<
Really? May I ask what your sources are? I'm just curious, as everything I've
ever read has stated they never did anything more than drive around a
 proving ground w/ dummy turrets attached. And I believe the Russians
blew one up that they captured intact after overrunning a proving ground..
> [quoted text omitted]
Noted armor author Steve Zolaga mentions the rumors of at least one of the
Maus seeing combat but I don't remember the source. I'll see if I can find it
and post it.

Perry

> PERRYG1@aol.com wrote:

> Noted armor author Steve Zolaga mentions the rumors of at least one of

IIRC, Only two chassis were ever built. One of these had a concrete
mock-up instead of a turret.  The other never left the proving grounds,
but may (God and a bunch of Russians only know) have been used to defend them
when the Russkies overran it. Any claims one way or the other are really
speculation.

Greetings!

> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Mike Looney IONet wrote:

> Military Folklore. There is no evidence that either of them saw

Two Maus tanks were completed by war's end, and three others were under
construction. Two Maus' did defend Boeblingen, according to the Bundesarchiv,
Sawondy and Bracher, and some Soviet acounts.

One Maus was complete, the other had its turrt and "some" weaponry. Both did
not have much of a chance to put up a serious fight.

> But of course you CAN by a 5 pack of Maus in micro armor scale (GHQ)

GHQ makes the Maus? Geez, that's a waste, albeit cool for
"what-if" scenarios... :)

        Ken

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

Heh. It's a two pack.. and I've got one!

One of these days we want to run the Russian player up against it as a special
surprise package.

Howdy!

> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Buji Kern wrote:

> Really? May I ask what your sources are? I'm just curious, as

Two Maus tanks were completed at Boeblingen. One was complete in the full
sense of the word (turret, guns, etc.), the other has been called complete (at
least the turret and "some" weaponry). One was destroyed by the Russians upon
seizing the base, the other now resides at Kubinka. If you are really nice and
the museum is not crowded, they will let you go inside it...

There is some good info on the Maus at the Bundesarchiv (Stuttgart?), as well
as the book by Sawondy and another by Feist.

There were three other Maus under construction elsewhere. None of those were
anywhere near completed. The maus was really neat; noothing like the "white
elephant" that some detractors have labeled it. However, the "defense" of the
factory was nothing like a ful armoured engagement. If I remeber correctly, a
few shots were exchanged, and that was about it (time to brush up on my German
again).

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 PERRYG1@aol.com wrote:

> Really? May I ask what your sources are? I'm just curious, as

I've read the same thing. A few sources have both Maus defending the factory,
but I have never been able to find exactly how far the second was completed.
It *did* have a turret, but weaponry was vague.

The completed one was captured by the Russians and is now at Kubinka. The
other was destroyed... I think...:)

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Barry Cadwgan wrote:

> > GHQ makes the Maus? Geez, that's a waste, albeit cool for

Neat! I had NO idea that they put the Maus out.

> One of these days we want to run the Russian player up against it as a

Hehehehehe!

        Ken

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

> There were three other Maus under construction elsewhere.
None of
> those were anywhere near completed. The maus was really neat;
noothing
> like the "white elephant" that some detractors have labeled it.
However,

Uhh... yeah, it's a brilliant idea.

If you assume you'll never have to cross a bridge. No bridge in the world in
1945 could have supported it's weight, and most of them today won't.

Howdy!

> On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Uhh. . . yeah, it's a brilliant idea.

The best direct fire weapon on he best armoured tank?

> If you assume you'll never have to cross a bridge. No bridge in the

Wrong. Many rail bridges would be able to carry it. The Maus was to be carried
by rail to most areas. This thing was NOT meant to truck under its own power
to various engagements. Check out Jentz's "Panzerkampfwagon MAUS" and Sawondy
and Bracher's "MAUS and other German Armored Projects". German engineers were
NOT idiots....:)

Laterish!

        Ken

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:55:47 -0500 (EST), Kenneth Winland
> <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Wrong. Many rail bridges would be able to carry it. The Maus

However, that doesn't escape the fact that the Maus was probably the WORST
tank of the war.

Oh sure, great anti-armour capability and almost impregnable armour on
its own.

However, it was SLOWWWWWW. Far, far too easy for infantry to disable it. No
matter the armour, those treads are just too easy to disable. The thing was
too slow to be used in a breakout. It was highly susceptible to over runs.
And, with tactical air support coming into its own, the Maus just SCREAMED
"bomb me". They might as well have painted concentric circles on the top.

Basically, it was a slightly mobile bunker, but required far more resources to
build. For the resource cost, particularly in fuel, machined parts, and metal,
you'd be far, FAR better fielding a few Panthers.

If I had to do a one-on-one gunnery duel with any Soviet vehicle, I'd
probably pick the Maus. If I was in charge of a Panzergruppe, I'd leave the
white elephants behind...

Oh, and DS2 and SG2 wise, it shows the problem with the whole Ogre/Bolo
thing. Ground pressure. I'd be tempted to add house rules for vehicles of size
5 and greater for certain terrain types. John A. can probably verify this, but
I heard that the Abrams had problems with ground pressure in parts of the
desert.

I'd throw in scenario rules for vehicles bogging down in certain places of the
battlefield if they are too big. Proper recon would be necessary or the tank
risks finding a soft spot on its own and bogging down (basically, a mobility
kill).

How about a Predator style scenario? It`s night, you have Shermans and I have
a Jagdtiger?

> Barry Cadwgan wrote:

> > But of course you CAN by a 5 pack of Maus in micro armor scale

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

> > Uhh. . . yeah, it's a brilliant idea.

OK, let's compare resource investment.  If you can kill a JS-II with an
88mm gun, then why do you need anything bigger?  How many JS-IIs can
USSR build for cost of one Maus. Ever hear of diminishing returns? Maus went
past that line. Long way past that line. Of course, IMHO, building more
Panthers would have been best way to use all the resources that went into
Tigers, King Tigers, Mauses, other "Supertanks", et al.

> > If you assume you'll never have to cross a bridge. No bridge in the

Yes, they were. Or rather, Porche was an idiot, and Hitler a bigger one. You
have to cross bridges during COMBAT operations. Remember Battle of Bulge? Lead
German Kampfgruppe was stopped because stupid commander left his bridging unit
behind (Would have "slowed down" offensive) and the US Army's "Damned
Engineers" dropped the bridges in front of him. Ooops. Now, let's imagine he
had his bridging unit, and a company of Mauses. He's still stopped dead
because it requires a rail bridge. Ooops again. Maus is fine idea if you
assume there are working railheads from your country to enemy capital, with an
agreement not to destory or damage rails at all, and not to shoot at trains as
they unload this Maus. How long does it take to unload? Of course, much
cheaper and easier to drop 5 inch rocket off P-47, but that applies to
all tanks. Except that if I drop a 5 inch rocket on a force of Pz IVs, there
are some left. I drop on Maus, and the only one you got is dead. Mass
production is good thing.

> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

ever hear of economies of scale? this is why ten million pounds sterling of
battleship will beat ten million pounds sterling of destroyers.

> Maus went past that line. Long way past that line.

true, but in the future, the story may be different. your point still stands.

> > > If you assume you'll never have to cross a bridge. No bridge in

> You have to cross bridges during COMBAT operations.

not if it's a static defence, or a defence of a prepared area. i don't think
the maus would have been any good in assaults, where mobility is paramount,
but in defence it would have been a mobile bunker. i wouldn't want a defensive
force composed of nothing but, as you still need mobility to maneuver, but a
few would be a nice complement to the cavalry tanks.

> Remember

otoh, an AVLB conversion of a maus might be able to carry a bridge big enough
to carry another maus.

> Ooops again. Maus is fine idea if you assume there are working

or if you can repair railways a bit, and as long as you never use a maus as an
assault tank; send in the light forces (by which i mean tigers
etc),
capture a railway, then ship in your mauses (maice?) to hold it, or to carry
the assault from there into the town. you can get maice off a stopped train
outside the town, with some ingenuity.

> How long does it take to unload? Of course, much

ratios are not that extreme; 3:1 at the very most. so, air attack on 3 maice
or 9 pz4s: maybe you're left with 3 pz4s or 1 maus. same difference, roughly.

Tom

> At 12:47 AM 11/17/98 -0800, John Atkinson wrote:

> German engineers were NOT idiots.... :)

I would argue that Dr.Porsche did as good a job of executing one of Der
Fuhrer's stupid ideas as anyone could have.

Constructive criticism was _not_ considered a virtue at that time.

> You have to cross bridges during COMBAT operations.

You have to cross RIVERS during combat operations.

"Another problem that emerged from its weight, was that simply there were no
bridges able to take the its weight. To overcome this problem Maus had to be
provided with a "snorkel" arrangement which allowed it to submerse to the
maximum depth of 8 meters."
<http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm#maus>

> OK, let's compare resource investment. If you can kill a JS-II with an

and

> Except that if I drop a 5 inch rocket on a force of Pz IVs, there are

The old "quality vs. quantity" debate. In concept, the Maus or an OGRE or any
flavor of supertank (attempting desperately to wrench the thread back
on-topic) is only sound PROVIDED that its size somehow confers virtual
invulnerability to the weapons of smaller, mass-produced vehicles.

At that point, no number of smaller, cheaper units can be considered
cost-effective, because they will always lose due to being outclassed.
In practice, however, this rarely happens; especially given the level of
technology available at the time of the Maus.

Historically, the realities of physics, technology and
cost-effectiveness
have tended to favor anti-tank weaponry over armor.  It would probably
take a major shift in paradigms to change that. For example, something like
BPC from the OGRE universe; light enough to mount a lot of it, strong enough
to resist the most commonly available battlefield weapons.

> Jeff Lyon wrote:

> The old "quality vs. quantity" debate. In concept, the Maus or an

In the OGRE universe, the OGRE player will tend to lose, and lose big, if the
"human" player takes a force of all GEV as his tanks.

They run up, shoot, then run away, staying out of the OGRE's range.

"Fuzzy Wuzzy Tactics", to quote SJG on the subject.

> At 12:38 PM 11/17/98 -0600, Mike Looney wrote:

The article of that name refers to an earlier edition of OGRE, in which this
was true. When the game was first published by Metagaming, the GEVs had a
slightly higher movement factor, thus enabling them to move in, attack and
move away again without ever coming under attack.

The stats of the GEV in the later editions were better balanced, by reducing
the second phase movement rate. While GEVs are still a viable weapon, they are
no longer invulnerable to an OGRE. Because of this, one really needs more of a
combined arms approach to take one down.

Another problem with that tactic is that larger numbers of GEVs tend to get in
one another's way. A well played OGRE can generally pounce on at least one GEV
per turn until it loses some guns or mobility. It's generally a pretty close
match.

> Thomas Anderson wrote:

> ever hear of economies of scale? this is why ten million pounds

Not nowdays. How many destroyers firing how many SSMs do we get for that? That
might be why nobody has battleships anymore, but everyone
from the RN and USN down to thrid-world countries with 6 feet of
coastline and a military budget measured in quarters has destroyers.

> > You have to cross bridges during COMBAT operations.

You don't win wars fighting static defenses. You delay defeat and nothing
more.

> otoh, an AVLB conversion of a maus might be able to carry a bridge big

No AVLBs in WWII, and no, it wouldn't. Do you know what a MLC 120 (I think
that's what the website listed earlier said it weighed) bridge looks like?

> > How long does it take to unload? Of course, much

3 Mauses, 9 Pz-IVs.  You loose 3 Mauses, or 3 Pz-IVs.  So you're left
with either 6 Pz-IVs, or a train.  I know what wins.

> On 17 Nov 98, at 0:47, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

Although I basically agree with you here, an advantage of the gun was that it
penetrated almost everything you would want to fire it at, at very long
ranges... of course, actually scoring a hit is a bit tricky at 3500m

As to building more panthers, the germans were running low on crews, and
becoming less and less able to mount mobile attacks against the overwhelming
allied superiority. The battle of the bulge marking the last serious attempt.
So in a fixed position where you are unable to keep falling back, the Jagd*
tanks and heavies were probably the best option, or surrendering to the
western allies.

[snip]

> Yes, they were. Or rather, Porche was an idiot, and Hitler a bigger

<chuckle> I think the advance would also have been a little bit
slowed by the Maus's enormous 13km/h top speed ;)
Which lead kampfgruppe btw? The Southerly one (with 2nd Panzer) made almost
all of it's objectives, but the northerly one with the SS got less than
halfway IIRC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Richard Slattery <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Kampfgruppe Peiper.

Howdy!

> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:55:47 -0500 (EST), Kenneth Winland

How can one measure this? One (probably two) fought in last ditch defense of
Boebingen. Hardly enough to base a tactical analysis...:) In theory, it
fulfilled a role. Hence the US and British drive to build
their 100-ton tanks (T-100 and Tortiose).

> Oh sure, great anti-armour capability and almost impregnable armour on

The genesis of the MAUS began when Germany owned the skies. Sadly, those days
were numbered... (Actually, why am *I* saying
-sadly-?)

Yes, the MAUS drove at a heady 20KPH (weee!), but speed was not in its design
philosophy. It was a support tank, able to fire devastating 12.8cm rounds at
*long* ranges. This is not a tank for "blitzkrieg", whose time had passed in
'42. Also, this tank was NOT meant to operate alone and unsupported. Really,
what tank *was*?

> Basically, it was a slightly mobile bunker, but required far more

The MAUS and the E100 were test beds, affording a chance to try out concepts
that a number of nations needed to see (hence the Allies'
interest in super-heavy tanks).  They did not suck about that much in
attention and materials. Although Panthers *were* a safer investment.
<g>

> If I had to do a one-on-one gunnery duel with any Soviet vehicle, I'd

	:)

> Oh, and DS2 and SG2 wise, it shows the problem with the whole

The MAUS had *no* problem with ground pressure, but that is a popular myth.
The first prototype did sink in mud almost to its *turret* in March of '44 in
Boebingen. This was do to a particularly treacherous part of the course that
even light tanks avoided. With some wooden planks, the vehicle was able to
free itself under its own power...

The Abrams had little trouble with ground pressure in the desert; it had
problems in New York City! Bush insisted on a bunch of M1s at the victory
parade after the Gulf War in NYC. The tanks were so heavy and the asphalt so
maleable that the tanks f**cked up their treads and NYC had
6-12 inch deep furrows through most major roads....  That was a
nightmare!

> I'd throw in scenario rules for vehicles bogging down in certain

The MAUS is nothing (its manueverability was actually very good);
Hitler gave orders for a 1000-ton tank!  I kid you not; it was discussed
in one of Uwe Feist's book (another noted armour historian). It was to be
1000-tons and be powered by 4 U-Boat engines.  We've scoured the
Bundesarchiv system to find significant references conerning this, but have
found precious little. No doubt Der Furhrer was in one of his rants as an
"expert" and the engineers nodded their heads and did little.

Laterish!

        Ken

Howdy!

> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:

> OK, let's compare resource investment. If you can kill a JS-II with

The 12.5cm is one hell of a mobile support weapon. Good against
tanks, fortifications, etc.  Ever hear of test-bed prototypes?  We are,
after all, talking about a vehicle where only two were completed (the second
one arguably so). Boebingen was in no way a waste of resources, as they had
damn little to work with.

> Maus went past that line. Long way past that line. Of course, IMHO,

The MAUS was an excellent test bed for ideas. The Allies were investing
materials into this area as well. Armour was still coming out of its infancy.

> Yes, they were. Or rather, Porche was an idiot, and Hitler a bigger

The MAUS was NOT designed for operation in the West. Most of the terrain that
was fought over *had* no bridges, and the MAUS was able to ford most small
rivers (small being the active word here). The MAUS was a support vehicle
designed with the realities of the Eastern theatre, i.e. bad terrain, long
range, etc.

Armoured trains (check out both of Sawodny's books) often had cars that would
carry tanks. The trains did NOT drive into combat and unload
the tanks.  The tanks off-loaded behind friendly lines and moved up to
the combat lines.

For Porche's ideas behind his designs, check out Jentz's book (mentioned
previously). As for Hitler, well he WAS an idiot...

Laterish!

        Ken

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Kenneth Winland wrote:
<<major major snippage>>
> The MAUS is nothing (its manueverability was actually very

The something-1000 and the something-1500 (a 1500 _ton_ tank) are both
mentioned in that excellent Panzer website some nice person posted a couple
days ago. I've got the URL around somewhere, but it's late...

That short Austrian corporal was the best war-winning tool the Allies
had...God knows where a 1500ton tank would have been useful, outside his
head...

> Brian wrote:

Andrew Martin
-------------
Shared email: Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz
Web Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/
Blind See-Saw Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/SEE-SAW/
Dirtside II Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/
Dirtside II FAQ: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/
GZG E-Mail FAQ:
 http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/DSII/FAQ/Ettiquette.html
FUDGE GM Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/FUDGE/
Usagi Yoyimbo Site: http://members.xoom.com/AndrewMartin/UY/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
         1         2         3         4         5         6         7
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[quoted original message omitted]

Greetings!

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:

> The something-1000 and the something-1500 (a 1500 _ton_ tank) are both

PLEASE send me the URL!:)

We have found precious little in English or in German on the
1000-ton tank.  A *1500* ton tank as well!?!

> That short Austrian corporal was the best war-winning tool the Allies

There was an allied intel officer assigned to do a feasibility study on the
assassination of Hitler. He said that it would be foolish to kill him, as he
was worth innumerable divisions in assets.... (Adrian Johnson can post the
actual quote)

Laterish!

        Ken

> John M. Atkinson wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Andrew & Alex wrote:

this mentions that the tracks were to be modelled on those used by mine
excavators. this reminds me of something i saw on the telly a while back;
channel 4 in the uk ran a series called 'classic plant' which was all about
huge bits of industrial machinery and how great they are. they covered
dragline diggers, which are basically gigantic mobile cranes.
mobility was provided by the whole damn thing - 1000 tonnes i think -
walking on two very big and stumpy legs. it was electrically powered by a 25
kV line direct from the national grid!

i remember thinking that, given a fusion plant to replace the power line, and
a big gun to replace the crane, and some armour, it would make a bloody
terrifying war machine. absolutely no use at all for anything, of course, but
worth it just because it'd look so coo (until it got bombed).

Tom

Greetings!

> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:

> this mentions that the tracks were to be modelled on those used by

That would be a great idea for a scenario; a monster tank defending a town,
trailing a cable hooked up to the power grid...!

> i remember thinking that, given a fusion plant to replace the power

That's great!

        Ken

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

Heh. Sounds like Evangelion.

> > i remember thinking that, given a fusion plant to replace the power

(chuckle)

Greetings!

> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Barry Cadwgan wrote:

> > That would be a great idea for a scenario; a monster tank

What episode? I only saw the first 4 or so. Are the rest worth it?

Actually, a goofy "supertank" design like that would be *great* for a
convention game of SGII.

Laterish!

        Ken

> Kenneth Winland wrote:

Well, the mecha (EVAs) do run off extension cords, with about 5 minutes (IIRC)
internal power at combat rates. Rather limits their deployment.

> Actually, a goofy "supertank" design like that would be

(chuckle) Yup...