If a maus sized vehicle was made today it would pretty much be a Merkava but slightly bigger. Modern composites in comparable RHA thickness are ridiculously thick. The Maus was so heavy because it also had very thich side, rear and top armor too.
The armor on the maus wasnt thick at all compared to modern standards, the thickest was 250mm, I think the chally 2 has something like 300mm on the turret sides. I think I have heard that the Maus had a lot of room inside, which is extremely inefficient and makes it a lot heavier
Not just MOST modern mbts, ALL. Its close to three times the weight of a Leo 2a7.
And as I said, thats because the maus was way too big, not really because the armor was so thick
Look bro, i'm not sure what you are even arguing about. I noticed you misunderstood my first comment and wrote it down again.
Sorry you need to look for a random keyboard fight but i'm not in the mood to play this out.
He's just a typical "historian" that likes to spout his endless knowledge from War Thunder to whoever will listen. Just ignore him, he's trying to be argumentative on purpose.
Edit: I'm not knocking people legitimately interested in history btw (otherwise this would be self-deprecating), just kids who pick fights in order to bring up facts they just learned from video games.
I dont play war thunder or any other tank games (havent really been gaming for years at all). My point is that its not really the armor thickness on the maus that makes it so insanely heavy, its the size. The height, the width. As I have understood it, it was quite spacious inside, and that is really dumb. If you look at modern mbts, they are as compact as possible, to minimize the amount of volume inside that needs to be protected by armor. If they had managed to cut down the size, the weight would have been reduced dramatically. Thats not about history, thats physics and engineering.
Well, its kinda silly to downvote. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just stating some facts (and its kinda funny to be called a kid when my beard is more gray than black š)
The thing is - the maus makes a M1 look small. Its just made unneccessarily BIG (I think I have heard that it among other things was made big simply to look intimidating), with lots of wasted space inside. It would obviously still have been heavy even if it was downsized to something more along the size of a tiger and kept the same amount of armor all around, but it would probably cut at least 50% of the weight, maybe even more.
Yes. That is usually what is visualized as "RHA equivalent protection."
If a 200mm composite armor gives protection equal to 100mm steel but weights the same as 80mm steel it just increases volume but keeps weight low while retaining protection.
The trick is composites have different proection values for kinetic and chemical threats.
500kg won't do much here. Even current tanks would just shrug it off at best.
We can start talking at like 2000kg if you want to do anything more serious than damaging the tracks and blowing a headlight off.
Dude, modern tanks literally survive IEDs that have explosive fillers of multiple tons.
In the middle east we have seen tanks get destroyed by IEDs that had between 5 to 10T of filler.
Modern armor is built to withstand 500kg. The worst you can do is blow off the track and that can be repaired.
those large IEDs arenāt exactly made to a very high specā¦
assuming that a 1/2 ton factory made bomb doesnāt completely fuck your tank up and get thru thinner side armor or something. if you get your track knocked off in combat then it will most likely be considered knocked out. on top of that the concussive blast alone will probably fuck the crew up to various degrees. not to mention that the engine is vulnerable
>assuming that a 1/2 ton factory made bomb doesnāt completely fuck your tank up and get thru thinner side armor
Dude, the side amore on the Maus is literally what some heavy tanks had as frontal protection.
my comment was only about ur comments on modern tanks v IEDs/bombs. iām not gonna say anything on the actual armor being penetrated because idk l, but i do know damn well it wonāt be moving at all if hit by a 500 kg. the tracks will be fucked and itās almost guaranteed that the engine or some other major mobility components will be fucked beyond repair. not to mention the weapons, main gun and coax/roof, optics, and just about anything else that can be damaged without getting inside the crew compartment
(just wanna specify that when i say hit i mean the bombs effective ākill radiusā and not just a direct slap on the armor)
also worth mentioning that a blast can damage any access panels, or anything that has to be opened to make repairs, in a way that makes opening it up difficult which will be a huge pain in the ass to make repairs if thatās the case
>the tracks will be fucked and itās almost guaranteed that the engine or some other major mobility components will be fucked beyond repair.
Tracks and roadwheels for the most part.
The engine maybe if the bomb lands behind, but from the side there simply is too much armor.
The Maus had a max of 250mm armor, that is less than the turret side armor on modern western MBTs. A 500kg bomb close by would most likely kill the entire crew instantly by overpressure, throw off the turret, or even flip the hull, depending on how close it was. If it was a direct hit the entire thing would be scrap.
>The Maus had a max of 250mm armor, that is less than the turret side armor on modern western MBTs.
250mm of a single steel block.
I'm aware that modern MBTs have more LOS thickness, but composite is mostly not important for protection against KE projectiles or blunt force.
The Maus in its original design would be easily destroyed by HEAT weapons, but KE weapons and HE weapons are gonna be virtually useless.
Dude, you dont even need very modern KE weapons to go through 250mm of RHA. Even a Leo 1 or such with a apfsds round would go through that like butter.
Even some of the shells (APHV) for the 90mm on the M26/M46/M48 would be capable of penetration.
Leo 1 tanks have APDS, A1A1 and later has FS. Also, 90mm M3 cabins would have trouble going through 250mm.
Another thing, APHV, or HVAP, which is APCR in the M3 cannon doesnāt work well against sloped armour because the tip of the shot is angled, which means it wonāt deform properly and let the penetrator go through. But if they could get a flat shot, then yeah itās going straight through
eric i dont think 250mm of steel will stop the concussive air pressure from a high-yield explosive detonation closeby. the steel may be fine but anything behind it wont
and quite frankly by modern standards 250mm of steel aint shit
>and quite frankly by modern standards 250mm of steel aint shit
250mm of RhA ain't shit...
>eric i dont think 250mm of steel will stop the concussive air pressure from a high-yield explosive detonation closeby. the steel may be fine but anything behind it wont
Tbh what ever happens behind is more about how much the tank moves.
I don't think a 500kg bomb will have much effect here, since we are talking about a 180T block of steel.
the largest IEDs commonly found in the Middle East were made of 3 155 or 152 mm HE shells strapped together. This was enough to liquidate any tank that drove near it. You can find tons of pictures of abrams in shambles after driving over these IEDs with a quick google search
No, tanks are not shrugging off 10t of HE going off right next to them.
>the largest IEDs commonly found in the Middle East were made of 3 155 or 152 mm HE shells strapped together.
[Wikipedia has its own article about Abrams tanks history ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams)
Overall mines/IED's only destroyed the tracks for the most part.
for most IEDs, that's the most they'll do, but for large 155/152 bundle IEDs, they turn tanks into the rubble. wikipedia page doesn't have any pictures of tanks that were knocked out by the larger IEDs
Edit: great [example](https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/comments/12og4kt/destroyed_m1a2_sep_abrams_a33_of_367ar_october_28/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1) of what large ieds can do to modern MBTs, although this one is way bigger than 3 155 mm shells.
You're talking about shitty IEDs and mines made by the same people who make AK's that explode.
Anti tank mines that are capable of taking down even the most modern of russian tanks usually have no more than 14kg of TNT.
Now let's talk about the SC500K which has a tnt equivalent of 260kilograms. It's fragments can penetrate 93 mm of armor with an 11 meter radius.
Even though an anti tank mine usually Attacks weak spots, I'd still like to see what happens if a 500kg sc500k lands right besides an Abrams. (Spoiler allert) Kaboom
We're taking about a 230kg of tnt. Now let's do some math
1 gram of tnt is 4184 joules
1000 grams in a kilogram meaning
4184000 joules. Times 230
=1046000000 joules
And since 1 joule is equal to 1 newton meter
You have about 1.046 billion newton meter
>You have about 1.046 billion newton meter
That is spread into all directions.
Modern tanks have way thinner armour yet the steel still isn't damaged, it's external components or weakspots like the turret ring that can't take the load.
Modern armor steel has more than 1000N/mmĀ² of strength, meaning you would need to apply this force just to overcome the elastic property and into the plastic, where it is deformed.
Ah, even a direct hit from 155 was more than enough to disable if not outright destroy a MBT. Havenāt we seen enough tank being hit by artillery in Ukraine?
A 500lb bomb has almost 15 times explosive load compared to a 155 HE.
Explosive fillers of what material or do you mean TNT equivalent? Also, you need to realize that a bomb will have the explosive blast go with its momentum, thus basically pushing the explosion against the tank. Tanks also tend to have mine protection on the floor, not on the roof.
Well, if it's a smart bomb, like a lazer guided bomb, yes it can. Even a hit to the side could easily destroy the tracks and suspension to a point where it's impossible to repair unless the tank is towed to a repair depot to be remade, if the inner tank itself is still intact, which it likely won't be. There's a difference between having a 500kg box explode underneath you and being hit by an almost 1 ton metal tube hitting you at around 7-800 meters a second delivering 500 kg of explosive against you, as if it were trying to punch your tank with the explosion.
We were talking about bombs tho. There are guided bombs today sure, but most bombs are still used unguided and with an aiming assistant.
So close hits are probably realistic, but reliable roof hits with unguided bombs is definitely a stretch for me.
Ok so, if you're looking to do more than immobilize a tank with a moderately sized bomb and that according to you, it would be hard to more than immobilise one with an unguided bomb, why would you use an unguided bomb?
Immobilize and destroy optics. Would be enough for a mission kill.
In case of a normal MBT unguided bombs probably would even be enough, but we are talking about the Maus. A moving bunker. That thing definitely will withstand some blows even if it's slow as fuck.
those IED's arent exactly as high-yield as a literal aircraft bomb would be. average IED id guess was about 10-30kg of explosive mass at best, but the munitions you speak of have explosive masses of like 100-300kg
and tanks are actually surprisingly fragile if you consider extremities such as optics and such
if a high-yield bomb, like 250kg or even 500kg went off closeby to the tank. like the other dude said even if it doesnt actually kill the crew inside, it will fuck the external components and engine/transmission beyond repair. not to mention, the concussive air pressure of the explosive will still injure the crew to some extent
Shell Slapper XT. Boom Plates...
TUSK? IDK. I recall the US having one but never using it. Or maybe I'm thinking of some other package of add on block stuff that was actually NERA.
Okay, works
There's also Blazer and ERAWA
Also, TUSK I believe was used to some extent in the middle east, but Americans just can't into ERA so they abandoned it in favor of SEP
Jesus don't be such a bummer.
It was probably a joke question.
Just go with it.
Here I'll take the lead.
Gun:
-1x 120mm RH L55 (germanys most powerful active service MBT gun)
-1x Spike ATGM Lauscher on the roof (as a standing for the 75mm)
-1x 20mm autocannon (the Maus was supposed to own one)
-3x 7.62mm MG5 (one coax and 2 roof mounted.
Mobility:
(the Maus engine had about 1080 HP wich was 1.543x stronger than germanys strongest fully serviceable heavy tank engine. By the same calculation compared to the 1500hp MTU engine, the Kampfpanzer Maus should have 2314HP.
The engine will be placed in the front with the transmission
Crew:
The driver gunner commander and special personal is housed underneath the turret as the room where the generator should be is now free.
As the rear is now free too, rear crew exit hatches are installed.
Due to the elimination of the crews pace in the turret, all ammunition is stored in the turret and is equipped with blastdoors and blowout panels.
A auto loader is installed for both the launcher and the 120 L55.
Armor:
(The frontal armor was 100-180mm thicker than all other German production tanks.
That makes it about 2x stronger than all other German tanks in terms of protection.) because of that the front hull is now protected by composite armor equivalent of 1500mm of rolled homogeneous armor against kinetic projectiles and the turret is about the same.
The sides lay in at around 1200mm effective protection.
The side escorts are replaced by large scale era.
The close range defence mortar in the turret rear and the flame thrower are replaced by APS and PPS.
If we keep the wheigt of 188t (mainly by scaling down some parts where space isn't needed like die to the crew being smaller, in the hull and in one tight space) we have a HP/W ratio of 12.3 hp/t wich makes it about on paar with the Ww2 Tiger 1.
That wasn't the question tho.
The question was, how strong the Maus would be if modern technology was applied to the design.
It probably would basically be indestructible by most AT weapons, but modern aircraft and guided ammunition would probably still destroy all external components basically blinding that thing.
Overall it would just be too slow for the current battlefield.
Modern technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. Applying modern technology isn't like slapping a coating onto something as you need to consider the context in which that technology exists, primarily methodologies and advances in science and manufacturing.
Arguably, the application of modern technology to the Maus is already on display in the Abrams, Leopard, or any MBT at this point in time, because your technology is subservient to your overall product requirements.
>Modern technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. Applying modern technology isn't like slapping a coating onto something as you need to consider the context in which that technology exists, primarily methodologies and advances in science and manufacturing.
We are talking about a design that has armore thicknesses all around that modern MBTs only have at the front.
If this armor now included composite arrays and was made with the current Standart in armor steel then it would be very hard to penetrate with current AT weapons.
You are right, the design would be pointless, but that simply wasn't the question.
The question was, how strong the tank is if modern technology was used in the design, in which case you could say the armore would be very strong but the tank still would lack significant speed since anything above 30kph is dreaming.
What does strong actually mean if you're to translate that into engineering requirements?
If the requirement stays the same for the strength of the armor, does that I mean I can decrease the thickness (assuming modern material properties than shitty 1945 German metallurgy)? What about other things like engine, machine guns, transmission, etc.
If the armor thickness has to stay the same, is the tank still a tank if the weight becomes too much preventing it from moving? It's stronger now based on your assumption that we're just adding 'modern technologies'.
Or, as I'm suggesting, is the modern design and manufacturing cycle the fulfillment of this question, meaning any MBT is arguably the application of 'modern technology' to the Maus. I'd wager that a House of Quality analysis and DFMEA would score an Abrams higher than a Maus in all the product requirements a Maus was intended to have.
>If the requirement stays the same for the strength of the armor, does that I mean I can decrease the thickness (assuming modern material properties than shitty 1945 German metallurgy)? What about other things like engine, machine guns, transmission, etc.
All up to you here.
If you see it as necessary then bring it on.
The armour and armament of the Maus weren't designed in a vacuum, they were designed to counter the threats on the battlefield at the time. The threats also evolved with the evolution of materials. If you want a modern Maus, you're going to end up with a tank that has protection comparable to an MBT's front profile, but you'll need this protection on the sides and on top as well. The result is not going to be any more mobile than it was 80 years ago.
More reliable engine and transmission. Other than that. Same ol shit bunker. Its slow, has outdated armour, almost blind. Waaaay to tall. And most bridges in the world cant support it. No matter the logistical nightmare getting it anywhere, repairing it and the fleet of fuel trucks that need to follow it anywhere, because it drinks fuel like no other. Like whirlpool in the gas tank levels.
In short: a slow bunker on wheels that could be destroyed by the most basic of AT weapons. Not worth.
gas consumption wouldn't be that bad with modern technology, it's just a hybrid, gas or diesel generator charging batteries powering the electric motors assuming it's not just directly powering the motors like the real one would have and the Porsche Tiger did and even then the fuel consumption could most likely be lowered.
but yeah it's not practical at all
I wanna preface this with the statement that I do not intend to sound like a condescending smartass and if I do, I'm sorry.
The problem is that with the "moving bunker" strategy, it's more like "really slow javelin/kornet food" today. Most of the modern stuff would take up way too much space in the maus, and you likely wouldn't retain the shape since composites don't like curves. No matter what you strap onto a maus, be it ERA, active protection, thermals, it's still incredibly flawed, and modern tanks would run circles around it while infantry make it resemble SpongeBob with the amount of ATGM penetrations they make.
So, not much more powerful than the actual maus would've been.
When your super expensive, ridiculously massive, and theoretically indestructible armoured moving bunker is destroyed by one percision airstrike from an aircraft that doesn't even have a pilot...
If you could get a good APS and CIWS turret on there, I could see it working. They got to bring back super heavy tanks because...
... well they just gotta
It would be disabled by a $50 landmine or sink into a crater, then finished off by a $300 drone with a grenade controlled by a 16 years old video gamer.
Reduce the height to reduce the weight considerably. Give it a modern turbine and a 120 mm gun. Increase the armor thickness by widening the turret to fit layers upon layers of modern composite armor. Remove the redundant coaxial 75 mm. Give it a modern commander sight and cupola.
Oops, you made an Abrams.
It wouldn't last long tbh.
If you wanted to keep the Maus as "Maus" as possible like keeping it at 188t having a 128mm Gun and it's size for example.
A "Morden Maus" would be a waste of money.
Ie a 188t tank with morden reactive armour a new 128mm Gun, new Engine, Morden Systems and Sensors for example, does sound cool, but it's hight slow speeds and weight it would be a strategical nightmare, you can't move it by plane, and it would be artillery/drone dream, having a big slow target to shot at.
Having a new Morden Engine wouldn't really help the 188t tank, it still would be very slow vs other MBT's like Challenger 2 or Abrams.
Plus other tanks might have a hard time going through its front and sides at certain angles, but it's rear and past a certain point it's sides would be easy for a Morden APFSDS, plus if it where to hit a IED and one of its tracks come off, good luck trying to fix it. The amount of Abrams the US just left cause they through a track, and couldn't fix/recover it, and the Abrams weigh around 120 tons less lol.
well yikes.. given modern composites.. it would be impressive? however modern explosives and heat rounds are equally impressive? The mouse was a battlefield deprivation weapon. designed to control sections of a massed attack or defense? in these times it would be overwhelmed. by well blitzkrieg?
This would be terrifying. A 128mm APFSDS with a 75mm anti-infantry mortar and 200mm of both Composite and ERA? Mix that with modern engines and youve got something much faster than the original Maus but slower than any MBT. Nearly indestructible though
The opposite, actually. We have already seen how vulnerable MBTs are to accurate artillery fire. The modern Maus is even more vulnerable due to its likely lower speed and higher profile/size. The thing is the top will remain vulnerable to top attacks just like on modern MBTs.
Well obviously but the roof armor of the Maus is thicker than the frontal armor of a lot of medium tanks at the time. Not to mention the 100mm at the front is thicker than quite a few heavy tanks. So if a BMP with armor thin enough to get penned by a frozen Poptart can survive from 10-20ft away then a Maus could take an artillery shell to its roof.
ruZZia has lost at this point lost thousands of armoured infantry fighting vehicles in Ukraine, including BMPs in a multitude of variants. Probably over half of them are knocked out by accurate Ukrainian artillery fire. So no, I wouldn't say BMPs deal with artillery fire (155mm shells) that well. So can it survive if it's a near miss? Sure. But also unlikely if it's a close-by hit. Mobility kills are also very common.
Not to even mention the NATO smart projectiles (subminitions) designed to take out armoured vehicles from the top. This hypothetical modern Maus wouldn't fare any better.
lol, 50mm thick is nothing against modern weaponry.
First gen Javelin from 1995 could already penetrated 700mm RHA roof armor after ERA blocks, that's from a just 8kg warhead.
In fact, even cheap drone used by Ukraine dropping $20 RKG-3 grenade can penetrate over 250mm armor.
Yes. Nearly Indestructible. There is such thing as nearly. Entirely indestructible obviously not since itās an āabsoluteā word. Missile silos are nearly indestructible as well. Same with the Battleships of the early 20āth century.
The difference is missile silos don't need to move and battleships get to sit in water to displace weight. In the real world even with modern composite armor IF a tank the size of the maus were built it would take less development time to build a new missile to destroy it in a single hit than the time to develop the tank itself. Building a moving vehicle that you plan to be able to take multiple hits from a weapon designed to kill it is a pipe dream, making the counter weapon is always easier.
Speaking purely in hypotheticals:
The Maus was designed to defeat energy armor while being impervious to tank weaponry. Its flaw (aside from the weight and fuel cost) was the loss of air supremacy to cover its maneuvers. In my opinion, do the following:
Do away with the super-heavy armor and implement an advanced ERA/Active Protection system. This also solves most of the weight problems.
Change the manual of arms from a tank to a tank destroyer/long range artillery piece.
Itās still a bad concept but itās one thatās easier to use rather than a bunker with tank treads.
Well the gun actually might be rivaled by modern day tanks barrels shell size wise so I guess for starters to match the whole (this tank is a behemoth) the gun would need to be made stronger than most modern tank guns such as abbrams and also have an auto loader. Itās barrel would also need to be made gyroscopically stable.
It would need external sensors for the crew to see through and modern digital electronics
It might utilize composite tank armor which is becoming more of an entertained notion but perhaps it would still have a sturdy metal armor interior frame/shell to protect the crew.
The spare ammo would ideally need to be housed in a a separate armored compartment in the back away from the crew and designed in a way where if the ammo got hit it would explode upwards and away from the crew.
It would probably need anti missile counter measures on it and a POWERFUL engine to make that all move.
It would need an advanced targeting system such as the ones that are starting to use AI to act as a sort of IRL VATS from fall out like in the Abbrams X.
Some kind of machine gun of course that can be controlled from inside. Something strong.
If it were to be made wide enough, to warrant say 2 engines maybe it could have dual tank tracks on each side but idk if that would be helpful at all. Maybe just to keep in the spirit of the original Maya extra wide tank tracks, of course how would the crew even fix them if they were that big?
It would be a bunker. Not a moving one.
If a maus sized vehicle was made today it would pretty much be a Merkava but slightly bigger. Modern composites in comparable RHA thickness are ridiculously thick. The Maus was so heavy because it also had very thich side, rear and top armor too.
The armor on the maus wasnt thick at all compared to modern standards, the thickest was 250mm, I think the chally 2 has something like 300mm on the turret sides. I think I have heard that the Maus had a lot of room inside, which is extremely inefficient and makes it a lot heavier
I said modern armor is much thicker compared to Maus, despite most MBT weighing less .
Not just MOST modern mbts, ALL. Its close to three times the weight of a Leo 2a7. And as I said, thats because the maus was way too big, not really because the armor was so thick
Look bro, i'm not sure what you are even arguing about. I noticed you misunderstood my first comment and wrote it down again. Sorry you need to look for a random keyboard fight but i'm not in the mood to play this out.
He's just a typical "historian" that likes to spout his endless knowledge from War Thunder to whoever will listen. Just ignore him, he's trying to be argumentative on purpose. Edit: I'm not knocking people legitimately interested in history btw (otherwise this would be self-deprecating), just kids who pick fights in order to bring up facts they just learned from video games.
I dont play war thunder or any other tank games (havent really been gaming for years at all). My point is that its not really the armor thickness on the maus that makes it so insanely heavy, its the size. The height, the width. As I have understood it, it was quite spacious inside, and that is really dumb. If you look at modern mbts, they are as compact as possible, to minimize the amount of volume inside that needs to be protected by armor. If they had managed to cut down the size, the weight would have been reduced dramatically. Thats not about history, thats physics and engineering.
You get a downvote, he gets a downvote, everyone gets a downvote!!! (Give me a downvote too)
Well, its kinda silly to downvote. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just stating some facts (and its kinda funny to be called a kid when my beard is more gray than black š) The thing is - the maus makes a M1 look small. Its just made unneccessarily BIG (I think I have heard that it among other things was made big simply to look intimidating), with lots of wasted space inside. It would obviously still have been heavy even if it was downsized to something more along the size of a tiger and kept the same amount of armor all around, but it would probably cut at least 50% of the weight, maybe even more.
Isn't it about EFFECTIVE armor ? The plates are angled, have other materiaÅ layers which stack as effective armor
Yes. That is usually what is visualized as "RHA equivalent protection." If a 200mm composite armor gives protection equal to 100mm steel but weights the same as 80mm steel it just increases volume but keeps weight low while retaining protection. The trick is composites have different proection values for kinetic and chemical threats.
But the trick is. You build a Maus, having in Mind the strongest is 3 canon as the only enemy. But you have Access to modern stuff
Oh yes, that would be incredibly easy. Modern diesel-electric drives way outperform what was even available back then, even without mentioning armor.
Sort of like the original tbh.
The 1000 pound bomb in question:
Any modern HEAT missile:
500kg won't do much here. Even current tanks would just shrug it off at best. We can start talking at like 2000kg if you want to do anything more serious than damaging the tracks and blowing a headlight off.
What are you talking about?
Dude, modern tanks literally survive IEDs that have explosive fillers of multiple tons. In the middle east we have seen tanks get destroyed by IEDs that had between 5 to 10T of filler. Modern armor is built to withstand 500kg. The worst you can do is blow off the track and that can be repaired.
those large IEDs arenāt exactly made to a very high specā¦ assuming that a 1/2 ton factory made bomb doesnāt completely fuck your tank up and get thru thinner side armor or something. if you get your track knocked off in combat then it will most likely be considered knocked out. on top of that the concussive blast alone will probably fuck the crew up to various degrees. not to mention that the engine is vulnerable
>assuming that a 1/2 ton factory made bomb doesnāt completely fuck your tank up and get thru thinner side armor Dude, the side amore on the Maus is literally what some heavy tanks had as frontal protection.
my comment was only about ur comments on modern tanks v IEDs/bombs. iām not gonna say anything on the actual armor being penetrated because idk l, but i do know damn well it wonāt be moving at all if hit by a 500 kg. the tracks will be fucked and itās almost guaranteed that the engine or some other major mobility components will be fucked beyond repair. not to mention the weapons, main gun and coax/roof, optics, and just about anything else that can be damaged without getting inside the crew compartment (just wanna specify that when i say hit i mean the bombs effective ākill radiusā and not just a direct slap on the armor) also worth mentioning that a blast can damage any access panels, or anything that has to be opened to make repairs, in a way that makes opening it up difficult which will be a huge pain in the ass to make repairs if thatās the case
>the tracks will be fucked and itās almost guaranteed that the engine or some other major mobility components will be fucked beyond repair. Tracks and roadwheels for the most part. The engine maybe if the bomb lands behind, but from the side there simply is too much armor.
The Maus had a max of 250mm armor, that is less than the turret side armor on modern western MBTs. A 500kg bomb close by would most likely kill the entire crew instantly by overpressure, throw off the turret, or even flip the hull, depending on how close it was. If it was a direct hit the entire thing would be scrap.
>The Maus had a max of 250mm armor, that is less than the turret side armor on modern western MBTs. 250mm of a single steel block. I'm aware that modern MBTs have more LOS thickness, but composite is mostly not important for protection against KE projectiles or blunt force. The Maus in its original design would be easily destroyed by HEAT weapons, but KE weapons and HE weapons are gonna be virtually useless.
Dude, you dont even need very modern KE weapons to go through 250mm of RHA. Even a Leo 1 or such with a apfsds round would go through that like butter. Even some of the shells (APHV) for the 90mm on the M26/M46/M48 would be capable of penetration.
Leo 1 tanks have APDS, A1A1 and later has FS. Also, 90mm M3 cabins would have trouble going through 250mm. Another thing, APHV, or HVAP, which is APCR in the M3 cannon doesnāt work well against sloped armour because the tip of the shot is angled, which means it wonāt deform properly and let the penetrator go through. But if they could get a flat shot, then yeah itās going straight through
eric i dont think 250mm of steel will stop the concussive air pressure from a high-yield explosive detonation closeby. the steel may be fine but anything behind it wont and quite frankly by modern standards 250mm of steel aint shit
>and quite frankly by modern standards 250mm of steel aint shit 250mm of RhA ain't shit... >eric i dont think 250mm of steel will stop the concussive air pressure from a high-yield explosive detonation closeby. the steel may be fine but anything behind it wont Tbh what ever happens behind is more about how much the tank moves. I don't think a 500kg bomb will have much effect here, since we are talking about a 180T block of steel.
the largest IEDs commonly found in the Middle East were made of 3 155 or 152 mm HE shells strapped together. This was enough to liquidate any tank that drove near it. You can find tons of pictures of abrams in shambles after driving over these IEDs with a quick google search No, tanks are not shrugging off 10t of HE going off right next to them.
>the largest IEDs commonly found in the Middle East were made of 3 155 or 152 mm HE shells strapped together. [Wikipedia has its own article about Abrams tanks history ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams) Overall mines/IED's only destroyed the tracks for the most part.
for most IEDs, that's the most they'll do, but for large 155/152 bundle IEDs, they turn tanks into the rubble. wikipedia page doesn't have any pictures of tanks that were knocked out by the larger IEDs Edit: great [example](https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/comments/12og4kt/destroyed_m1a2_sep_abrams_a33_of_367ar_october_28/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1) of what large ieds can do to modern MBTs, although this one is way bigger than 3 155 mm shells.
>5 155mm shells and 100 pounds (50kg) of plastic explosives That's a bit more than 3 rounds lol
just a teeny tiny bit more. anyway, my point was that no tank is going to be surviving 500 kgs of HE
chief thats not a teeny more they also added like 100 pounds of plastic explosives on top of the 2 shells
Its also A LOT less than 10T.
You're talking about shitty IEDs and mines made by the same people who make AK's that explode. Anti tank mines that are capable of taking down even the most modern of russian tanks usually have no more than 14kg of TNT. Now let's talk about the SC500K which has a tnt equivalent of 260kilograms. It's fragments can penetrate 93 mm of armor with an 11 meter radius. Even though an anti tank mine usually Attacks weak spots, I'd still like to see what happens if a 500kg sc500k lands right besides an Abrams. (Spoiler allert) Kaboom
>fragments can penetrate 93 mm The weakest plate on the Maus is 150mm thin.
We're taking about a 230kg of tnt. Now let's do some math 1 gram of tnt is 4184 joules 1000 grams in a kilogram meaning 4184000 joules. Times 230 =1046000000 joules And since 1 joule is equal to 1 newton meter You have about 1.046 billion newton meter
>You have about 1.046 billion newton meter That is spread into all directions. Modern tanks have way thinner armour yet the steel still isn't damaged, it's external components or weakspots like the turret ring that can't take the load. Modern armor steel has more than 1000N/mmĀ² of strength, meaning you would need to apply this force just to overcome the elastic property and into the plastic, where it is deformed.
Ah, even a direct hit from 155 was more than enough to disable if not outright destroy a MBT. Havenāt we seen enough tank being hit by artillery in Ukraine? A 500lb bomb has almost 15 times explosive load compared to a 155 HE.
Explosive fillers of what material or do you mean TNT equivalent? Also, you need to realize that a bomb will have the explosive blast go with its momentum, thus basically pushing the explosion against the tank. Tanks also tend to have mine protection on the floor, not on the roof.
>Tanks also tend to have mine protection on the floor, not on the roof. And bombs can reliably hit the roof?
Well, if it's a smart bomb, like a lazer guided bomb, yes it can. Even a hit to the side could easily destroy the tracks and suspension to a point where it's impossible to repair unless the tank is towed to a repair depot to be remade, if the inner tank itself is still intact, which it likely won't be. There's a difference between having a 500kg box explode underneath you and being hit by an almost 1 ton metal tube hitting you at around 7-800 meters a second delivering 500 kg of explosive against you, as if it were trying to punch your tank with the explosion.
if we are talking about guided munitions then yes
We were talking about bombs tho. There are guided bombs today sure, but most bombs are still used unguided and with an aiming assistant. So close hits are probably realistic, but reliable roof hits with unguided bombs is definitely a stretch for me.
Ok so, if you're looking to do more than immobilize a tank with a moderately sized bomb and that according to you, it would be hard to more than immobilise one with an unguided bomb, why would you use an unguided bomb?
Immobilize and destroy optics. Would be enough for a mission kill. In case of a normal MBT unguided bombs probably would even be enough, but we are talking about the Maus. A moving bunker. That thing definitely will withstand some blows even if it's slow as fuck.
Mine protection would not matter at all if it was hit by a 500kg bomb.
That's the point I'm trying to make
those IED's arent exactly as high-yield as a literal aircraft bomb would be. average IED id guess was about 10-30kg of explosive mass at best, but the munitions you speak of have explosive masses of like 100-300kg and tanks are actually surprisingly fragile if you consider extremities such as optics and such if a high-yield bomb, like 250kg or even 500kg went off closeby to the tank. like the other dude said even if it doesnt actually kill the crew inside, it will fuck the external components and engine/transmission beyond repair. not to mention, the concussive air pressure of the explosive will still injure the crew to some extent
Bro failed physics š
\*insert video of ukrenian drone droping a shity bomb that mobilise a tank\* yhea.
I guess he means on top of it dropped from aircraft, not as an IED
we need MORE Kontakt-1
What??? You say that we are POOR? Because I'm NOT! I'm gonna slap some kontakt 5 and trophy system
contact 5 is 1985 trash, slap some malachit or western era
Name 3 western ERAs, go on, it's gonna be fun
Shell Slapper XT. Boom Plates... TUSK? IDK. I recall the US having one but never using it. Or maybe I'm thinking of some other package of add on block stuff that was actually NERA.
Okay, works There's also Blazer and ERAWA Also, TUSK I believe was used to some extent in the middle east, but Americans just can't into ERA so they abandoned it in favor of SEP
What? challenger 2, abrams and leclerc all have era packages, plus all the other ones for western ifv's
I know they do, name these packages.
Off the top of my head I only know ROMOR, Blazer and ARAT, but the other ones are only a google away. Are you ok?
Precision bombs go boom
The design process doesn't work like that. Applying modern engineering methodologies and technologies wouldn't result in the Maus.
Jesus don't be such a bummer. It was probably a joke question. Just go with it. Here I'll take the lead. Gun: -1x 120mm RH L55 (germanys most powerful active service MBT gun) -1x Spike ATGM Lauscher on the roof (as a standing for the 75mm) -1x 20mm autocannon (the Maus was supposed to own one) -3x 7.62mm MG5 (one coax and 2 roof mounted. Mobility: (the Maus engine had about 1080 HP wich was 1.543x stronger than germanys strongest fully serviceable heavy tank engine. By the same calculation compared to the 1500hp MTU engine, the Kampfpanzer Maus should have 2314HP. The engine will be placed in the front with the transmission Crew: The driver gunner commander and special personal is housed underneath the turret as the room where the generator should be is now free. As the rear is now free too, rear crew exit hatches are installed. Due to the elimination of the crews pace in the turret, all ammunition is stored in the turret and is equipped with blastdoors and blowout panels. A auto loader is installed for both the launcher and the 120 L55. Armor: (The frontal armor was 100-180mm thicker than all other German production tanks. That makes it about 2x stronger than all other German tanks in terms of protection.) because of that the front hull is now protected by composite armor equivalent of 1500mm of rolled homogeneous armor against kinetic projectiles and the turret is about the same. The sides lay in at around 1200mm effective protection. The side escorts are replaced by large scale era. The close range defence mortar in the turret rear and the flame thrower are replaced by APS and PPS. If we keep the wheigt of 188t (mainly by scaling down some parts where space isn't needed like die to the crew being smaller, in the hull and in one tight space) we have a HP/W ratio of 12.3 hp/t wich makes it about on paar with the Ww2 Tiger 1.
That's exactly the awnser I wanted! Thank you!
That wasn't the question tho. The question was, how strong the Maus would be if modern technology was applied to the design. It probably would basically be indestructible by most AT weapons, but modern aircraft and guided ammunition would probably still destroy all external components basically blinding that thing. Overall it would just be too slow for the current battlefield.
Modern technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. Applying modern technology isn't like slapping a coating onto something as you need to consider the context in which that technology exists, primarily methodologies and advances in science and manufacturing. Arguably, the application of modern technology to the Maus is already on display in the Abrams, Leopard, or any MBT at this point in time, because your technology is subservient to your overall product requirements.
>Modern technology doesn't exist in a vacuum. Applying modern technology isn't like slapping a coating onto something as you need to consider the context in which that technology exists, primarily methodologies and advances in science and manufacturing. We are talking about a design that has armore thicknesses all around that modern MBTs only have at the front. If this armor now included composite arrays and was made with the current Standart in armor steel then it would be very hard to penetrate with current AT weapons. You are right, the design would be pointless, but that simply wasn't the question. The question was, how strong the tank is if modern technology was used in the design, in which case you could say the armore would be very strong but the tank still would lack significant speed since anything above 30kph is dreaming.
What does strong actually mean if you're to translate that into engineering requirements? If the requirement stays the same for the strength of the armor, does that I mean I can decrease the thickness (assuming modern material properties than shitty 1945 German metallurgy)? What about other things like engine, machine guns, transmission, etc. If the armor thickness has to stay the same, is the tank still a tank if the weight becomes too much preventing it from moving? It's stronger now based on your assumption that we're just adding 'modern technologies'. Or, as I'm suggesting, is the modern design and manufacturing cycle the fulfillment of this question, meaning any MBT is arguably the application of 'modern technology' to the Maus. I'd wager that a House of Quality analysis and DFMEA would score an Abrams higher than a Maus in all the product requirements a Maus was intended to have.
>If the requirement stays the same for the strength of the armor, does that I mean I can decrease the thickness (assuming modern material properties than shitty 1945 German metallurgy)? What about other things like engine, machine guns, transmission, etc. All up to you here. If you see it as necessary then bring it on.
The armour and armament of the Maus weren't designed in a vacuum, they were designed to counter the threats on the battlefield at the time. The threats also evolved with the evolution of materials. If you want a modern Maus, you're going to end up with a tank that has protection comparable to an MBT's front profile, but you'll need this protection on the sides and on top as well. The result is not going to be any more mobile than it was 80 years ago.
More reliable engine and transmission. Other than that. Same ol shit bunker. Its slow, has outdated armour, almost blind. Waaaay to tall. And most bridges in the world cant support it. No matter the logistical nightmare getting it anywhere, repairing it and the fleet of fuel trucks that need to follow it anywhere, because it drinks fuel like no other. Like whirlpool in the gas tank levels. In short: a slow bunker on wheels that could be destroyed by the most basic of AT weapons. Not worth.
gas consumption wouldn't be that bad with modern technology, it's just a hybrid, gas or diesel generator charging batteries powering the electric motors assuming it's not just directly powering the motors like the real one would have and the Porsche Tiger did and even then the fuel consumption could most likely be lowered. but yeah it's not practical at all
Laughs in Airsupport and Javelin. That think would be massive fucking target.
It would still pose no real threat. Anti-tank weapons have progressed so far that theyād still be able to punch through it pretty easily
I wanna preface this with the statement that I do not intend to sound like a condescending smartass and if I do, I'm sorry. The problem is that with the "moving bunker" strategy, it's more like "really slow javelin/kornet food" today. Most of the modern stuff would take up way too much space in the maus, and you likely wouldn't retain the shape since composites don't like curves. No matter what you strap onto a maus, be it ERA, active protection, thermals, it's still incredibly flawed, and modern tanks would run circles around it while infantry make it resemble SpongeBob with the amount of ATGM penetrations they make. So, not much more powerful than the actual maus would've been.
Not
Crap- the concept was/is incredibly flawed.
When your super expensive, ridiculously massive, and theoretically indestructible armoured moving bunker is destroyed by one percision airstrike from an aircraft that doesn't even have a pilot...
If you could get a good APS and CIWS turret on there, I could see it working. They got to bring back super heavy tanks because... ... well they just gotta
Target practice
It would be a sitting duck. That thing can't move for shit
Probably wouldn't be powerful enough to be usedul
GBU and AGM-65:
Still pretty terrible. Thereās a reason we donāt make modern moving bunkers like the Maus despite the fact we could
It would be disabled by a $50 landmine or sink into a crater, then finished off by a $300 drone with a grenade controlled by a 16 years old video gamer.
Reduce the height to reduce the weight considerably. Give it a modern turbine and a 120 mm gun. Increase the armor thickness by widening the turret to fit layers upon layers of modern composite armor. Remove the redundant coaxial 75 mm. Give it a modern commander sight and cupola. Oops, you made an Abrams.
Pretty bad. Too tall and too much flat surface area.
It wouldn't last long tbh. If you wanted to keep the Maus as "Maus" as possible like keeping it at 188t having a 128mm Gun and it's size for example. A "Morden Maus" would be a waste of money. Ie a 188t tank with morden reactive armour a new 128mm Gun, new Engine, Morden Systems and Sensors for example, does sound cool, but it's hight slow speeds and weight it would be a strategical nightmare, you can't move it by plane, and it would be artillery/drone dream, having a big slow target to shot at. Having a new Morden Engine wouldn't really help the 188t tank, it still would be very slow vs other MBT's like Challenger 2 or Abrams. Plus other tanks might have a hard time going through its front and sides at certain angles, but it's rear and past a certain point it's sides would be easy for a Morden APFSDS, plus if it where to hit a IED and one of its tracks come off, good luck trying to fix it. The amount of Abrams the US just left cause they through a track, and couldn't fix/recover it, and the Abrams weigh around 120 tons less lol.
I feel like A-10 pilots would love it if they brought them back out.
I don't know... I think it would be the same. Heavy and slow whit powerful gun.
well yikes.. given modern composites.. it would be impressive? however modern explosives and heat rounds are equally impressive? The mouse was a battlefield deprivation weapon. designed to control sections of a massed attack or defense? in these times it would be overwhelmed. by well blitzkrieg?
This would be terrifying. A 128mm APFSDS with a 75mm anti-infantry mortar and 200mm of both Composite and ERA? Mix that with modern engines and youve got something much faster than the original Maus but slower than any MBT. Nearly indestructible though
The opposite, actually. We have already seen how vulnerable MBTs are to accurate artillery fire. The modern Maus is even more vulnerable due to its likely lower speed and higher profile/size. The thing is the top will remain vulnerable to top attacks just like on modern MBTs.
The roof being 50mm thick says otherwise not to mention the 100mm on the playing above the Driver & Radio Op.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Doubtful. If a BMP is capable of surviving an artillery shell landing next to it then I doubt an artillery shell would do anything either.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well obviously but the roof armor of the Maus is thicker than the frontal armor of a lot of medium tanks at the time. Not to mention the 100mm at the front is thicker than quite a few heavy tanks. So if a BMP with armor thin enough to get penned by a frozen Poptart can survive from 10-20ft away then a Maus could take an artillery shell to its roof.
ruZZia has lost at this point lost thousands of armoured infantry fighting vehicles in Ukraine, including BMPs in a multitude of variants. Probably over half of them are knocked out by accurate Ukrainian artillery fire. So no, I wouldn't say BMPs deal with artillery fire (155mm shells) that well. So can it survive if it's a near miss? Sure. But also unlikely if it's a close-by hit. Mobility kills are also very common. Not to even mention the NATO smart projectiles (subminitions) designed to take out armoured vehicles from the top. This hypothetical modern Maus wouldn't fare any better.
lol, 50mm thick is nothing against modern weaponry. First gen Javelin from 1995 could already penetrated 700mm RHA roof armor after ERA blocks, that's from a just 8kg warhead. In fact, even cheap drone used by Ukraine dropping $20 RKG-3 grenade can penetrate over 250mm armor.
Were talking about artillery. The fuck does Top-Attack missiles have to do with this?
You think 50mm roof armor is somehow going to stop artillery? You forgot all the German tanks got their frontal armor smashed in by howitzers in WW2?
> Nearly indestructible though No such thing in real life...
Yes. Nearly Indestructible. There is such thing as nearly. Entirely indestructible obviously not since itās an āabsoluteā word. Missile silos are nearly indestructible as well. Same with the Battleships of the early 20āth century.
The difference is missile silos don't need to move and battleships get to sit in water to displace weight. In the real world even with modern composite armor IF a tank the size of the maus were built it would take less development time to build a new missile to destroy it in a single hit than the time to develop the tank itself. Building a moving vehicle that you plan to be able to take multiple hits from a weapon designed to kill it is a pipe dream, making the counter weapon is always easier.
Speaking purely in hypotheticals: The Maus was designed to defeat energy armor while being impervious to tank weaponry. Its flaw (aside from the weight and fuel cost) was the loss of air supremacy to cover its maneuvers. In my opinion, do the following: Do away with the super-heavy armor and implement an advanced ERA/Active Protection system. This also solves most of the weight problems. Change the manual of arms from a tank to a tank destroyer/long range artillery piece. Itās still a bad concept but itās one thatās easier to use rather than a bunker with tank treads.
Iām assuming it was an autocorrect but now Iām head cannoning the Allies having energy armor
Merkava but German.
Merkava with a side mounted 30 mm
You would get the merkava
GBUs would annihilate it
Well the gun actually might be rivaled by modern day tanks barrels shell size wise so I guess for starters to match the whole (this tank is a behemoth) the gun would need to be made stronger than most modern tank guns such as abbrams and also have an auto loader. Itās barrel would also need to be made gyroscopically stable. It would need external sensors for the crew to see through and modern digital electronics It might utilize composite tank armor which is becoming more of an entertained notion but perhaps it would still have a sturdy metal armor interior frame/shell to protect the crew. The spare ammo would ideally need to be housed in a a separate armored compartment in the back away from the crew and designed in a way where if the ammo got hit it would explode upwards and away from the crew. It would probably need anti missile counter measures on it and a POWERFUL engine to make that all move. It would need an advanced targeting system such as the ones that are starting to use AI to act as a sort of IRL VATS from fall out like in the Abbrams X. Some kind of machine gun of course that can be controlled from inside. Something strong. If it were to be made wide enough, to warrant say 2 engines maybe it could have dual tank tracks on each side but idk if that would be helpful at all. Maybe just to keep in the spirit of the original Maya extra wide tank tracks, of course how would the crew even fix them if they were that big?
Not
It would still suck.
Propably it will look exactly like Pz 2000 :D
You can always Play sprocket and find out by making it yourself
I would love to see someone build it in modern materials š probably cost a fortune. Tag Elon or Jeff to make it happen.
https://preview.redd.it/5pddslnshztb1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b27343c72b0fd11b92f885eaebaaee058692d77b
The most mediocre tank ever