Yeah hull from Maus with fake turret and turret from destroyed Maus.
Its just regular turret with some shit on top, also there is no big hatch in rear.
3 Likes
I want.
1 Like
Also also there was a lot of armored shells of hulls and turrets and fun fact, hulls from 8 onwards were cut for Maus II turm and had better hull ventilation (only two were worked on when war ended).
Hulls from 7 onwards also have somewhat different side armor and suspension.
2 Likes
1 Like
yeah. because of this, we can technically suggest the Maus II. and it would be in line with War Thunders Suggestion standards
3 Likes
I’d love to see this added alongside the 155mm Gun Tank T58 and IS-7 model 1946. That’s three very unique heavy tanks for the upper-mid BRs!
5 Likes
I found another document, for the L/36,5 gun, when fireing the 5,83-5,84 kg K.Gr. (pre round to Sprgr.34)
It reached 470m/s, the lighter 5,74kg Sprgr.34 would reach a higher velocity.
2 Likes
i see zero reason for it to not be added if they gonna give russia 15inch guns they never had this is fine
1 Like
+1 for more maus
1 Like
+1 I would love to see this in-game!
2 Likes
+1 but with the E 100 turret and not the Maus II turret. The Maus turret was deemed too heavy for E 100 and that applied to both the original Maus turret and the Maus II turret which is why the lighter E 100 turret exists in the first place.
2 Likes
The Maybach HL234 was the intended replacement engine for the E-100. It had been promised by Maybach that the HL234 with supercharging and higher grade fuel would be able to achieve 1,200 hp. However, even with these modifications, the engine was only able to achieve 900 hp.
There’s an error here, the Maybach HL 234 only utilized fuel injection and not both fuel injection and supercharging. Supercharging the engine was abandoned for the HL 234 as it increased the output to 1000 which was not seen enough of an improvement to pursue. Not only this, while the HL 234 was capable of 900 horsepower the production version of the Maybach HL 234 ran at 850 horsepower as per waffenamt requirements as it was unstable at 900 horsepower.
The most important changes to the HL 234 to achieve this power were the fuel injection system, improved volumetric efficiency and an increased compression ratio from 6.4:1 on the 230 to 7:1 on the 234. There are a lot of small changes that also factor into the increased output, but those are the 3 most important.
Going back to the engine horsepower out, 5 Maybach HL 234 engines were constructed with 2 representing the final model, the French were able to seize all HL 234 engines and even installed the HL 234 onto the Char 40t What do the French have to say about the output of the engine?
The French list the Maybach HL 234 having an output of 850 horsepower, backing up the claim for 850 horsepower and not 900.
4 Likes
E-100 in-game is based on this model. Just with the 128mm.
Here’s an early diagram with a Maus turret. Sadly it’s incredibly faded, but if you zoom in you can see the curve on the turret front.
2 Likes
+1
I’d prefer a more plausible paper design that came close to being built over the current version incorrectly combining actual built components in an ahistorical manner.
But can you please correct the table to reflect the thinner armor of the E 100’s variant of this turret. You did state it elsewhere in the post, but a lot of people will just skip to the numbers section for a TD;LR, which could give them a false impression of the vehicle.
4 Likes
Not a Maus turret but rather the “Tiger-Maus” turret. You can see he difference of the two in the front profile as the Tiger-Maus turret has a more asymmetrical mantlet. In the side profile it’s more flat rather than “pig-nosed”. From what I remember it has different armor values therefore weight values.
IIRC. The Maus Turm 1 was never considered for the E-100 as it was supposed to be lighter, not so much the same weight. The idea was the make it easier to transport, better mobility, better reliability. I’m sure they were working with the Tiger II Transmission on top of that. So a fully on Maus turret would’ve been out of the question.
3 Likes
I understand your concern with the table but this was the result of a compromise with the forum moderators. The original version of this post had side by side stat comparisons in those tables between the Maus II turm and and the E-100 turm. However, that was technically considered “bundling” and could get the entire post removed. So I was required to focus the proposal on either the Maus II turm or the E-100 turm. I ended up focusing it on the Maus II turm for two reasons.
I: The Maus II turm was much more likely to be built. Maus II production was a serious effort undertaken by Krupp and Porsche to restart the Maus program and resurrect the contract for 135 vehicles. At minimum Maus hulls 8-20 could be completed from stock already delivered giving a minimum production run of 13 turrets. If the full production order was reinstated that would be a production run of 128 turrets. Appending an extra Maus II turm to the production order for the E-100 program would be a much more sound and expedient approach from an engineering perspective. The alternative would be the E-100 turm which would require separate toolings and welding equipment be produced to handle the different armor thicknesses for a single one off turret. As a result despite this being the intended turret, it would be far more likely that an extra Maus II would be delivered to Alkett to complete the vehicle despite the excess weight.
II. Quite frankly, and this was the more subjective reason, the E-100 turm would be an immense balancing nightmare. It is way too thinly armored on the sides to effectively angle, and the turret face is not thick enough to resist fire unangled. This would leave the vehicle with super heavy mobility, an immensely armored hull, weak turret, and heavy firepower. It would be a balancing nightmare that would make the Maus look a straight forward affair. The Maus II turm at least evens out the armor protection and gives it a clear position a br step above the Maus/E-100 in game.
2 Likes
+1. I have learned to not take this game too seriously, especially when it already has so many inaccuracies.
I usually don’t like these WOT (adding the name of the other arcadey tank game because stona has already wiped this name whenever i mention it. the name of the unrealistic tank battle game)type paper tanks, but I think this one has enough basis to be somewhat grounded in reality. (I’m jealous I don’t have an E100.)
Also, obligatory cough cough: Ho-ri production/prototype, F16J, Sovetsky Soyuz mention, certain AAMs on top-tier planes, etc.
It’s just a game. Almost all of 8.0 already runs HEAT, so I don’t think it would be very powerful either.
5 Likes
Wasn’t this turret also planned for the Maus at one stage?
Is this not the same?
Though, my point being. Gaijin likely assumed the turret was simply the production Maus one. When in reality it is different. So there’s likely a bug report to correct the current E-100 turret, and then there’s this suggestion for the new turret.
Isnt that the Tiger-Maus?