Prev: Re: GEV capabilities, was RE:Tank Riders {SG2] Next: Re: GEV capabilities

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

From: Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:44:30 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [DS] Tank designs was Re: [ds] Ogres

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
> > > Uhh. . . yeah, it's a brilliant idea.
> >	    The best direct fire weapon on he best armoured tank?
> OK, let's compare resource investment.  If you can kill a JS-II with
> 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?

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

> > > If you assume you'll never have to cross a bridge.  No bridge in
> > > world in 1945 could have supported it's weight, and most of them
> > > won't.
> >	    Wrong.  Many rail bridges would be able to carry it.  The
> > was to be carried  by rail to most areas.

> 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
to maneuver, but a few would be a nice complement to the cavalry tanks.

> 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,
> a company of Mauses.	He's still stopped dead because it requires a
> bridge.

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
> 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.

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
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
> 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
> there are some left.	I drop on Maus, and the only one you got is

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


Prev: Re: GEV capabilities, was RE:Tank Riders {SG2] Next: Re: GEV capabilities