Maus' reliability

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Maus' reliability

#1

Post by tracks031 » 01 Aug 2020, 18:12

I'm curious about the Maus' reliability. Was any information obtained about the distance they could drive before needing a mechanical overhaul? Or anecdotes about their reliability during the tests, mechanical components breaking down, showing fast wear-and-tear, etc?

I've heard online that the technology didn't exist to make 70+ tonne tanks really reliable in the 40s, so it seems unlikely or even impossible for a 188 tonne tank to be able to drive any reasonable distance before suffering some sort of break down. I know that Maus was technologically very advanced though, so I'm curious if anyone knows anything about this. :P

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Maus' reliability

#2

Post by tracks031 » 02 Aug 2020, 20:24

So far I've read that there were issues with the internal rubber in the wheels not being able to cope with the weight and being destroyed after a 14 km drive (which was fixed with a new type of wheel) and some motor issues, possibly due to poor production. Other than that it had no mechanical failures during its driving trials. Still I don't know how many km's it did during the tests.
Last edited by tracks031 on 02 Aug 2020, 22:41, edited 1 time in total.


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Maus' reliability

#3

Post by Michael Kenny » 02 Aug 2020, 21:07

Given only 2 hulls were completed any testing would be of limited value. In effect the Maus was cancelled before the two hulls were delivered so it was a pointless exercise.

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Maus' reliability

#4

Post by tracks031 » 02 Aug 2020, 22:36

Michael Kenny wrote:
02 Aug 2020, 21:07
Given only 2 hulls were completed any testing would be of limited value. In effect the Maus was cancelled before the two hulls were delivered so it was a pointless exercise.
Maybe this meant it wasn't tested as rigorously as a tank that would be produced, which in my understanding would involve pushing the tank to its limits.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Maus' reliability

#5

Post by Yoozername » 03 Aug 2020, 00:08

The whole program was a response to the Soviets supposedly having a super-heavy tank program. A German engineer that had worked in the Soviet Union pre-war was the source along with prisoners. This was in 1942. As the war dragged on, and it became apparent that medium tanks were the focus of most armies, and the program became a waste of time/resources. One running test bed had just 50 hours running time by mid 1944. They did run as designed, and unlike the Elephant TD, they had batteries as well as generators. That is, they could run quiet like a submarine.

Hilary Doyle claims the program was stopped because of bombing. He also says that many turrets were made and tried to be installed as fortifications. Not sure about that.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Maus' reliability

#6

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Aug 2020, 00:21

A bombing raid on the only factory able to manufacture the Maus armour plate destroyed much of the machinery and all the blueprints. It was expected to take 6 months just to get back on track and basically it was cancelled in late 1943..

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Maus' reliability

#7

Post by tracks031 » 03 Aug 2020, 14:01

Yoozername wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 00:08
One running test bed had just 50 hours running time by mid 1944.
My apologies, but does "running test bed" refer to the amount of hours one Maus was being driven?
Yoozername wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 00:08
That is, they could run quiet like a submarine.
Or quiet like a... mouse?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Maus' reliability

#8

Post by Yoozername » 03 Aug 2020, 19:41

The Maus program was testing into Spring of 1944. This seems odd if the contract was cancelled that they would continue testing.

Third report on official driving tests carried out between 25.2.44 and 17.3.44 with the first prototype of 'Maus' (vehicle 205/1) as well as the arrival of the second prototype (vehicle 205/2), written by Porsche KG and aimed at the Panzerkomission, the WaPrüf 6 as well as the VersKraft Kümmersdorf.
Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen on 03/20/1944

Dr.Ing..hoF Porsche KG

Addressed to :
Panzerkommission
OKH WaPrüf 6
Vers.Kraft Kümmersdorf
Major Hoffmann
Porsche KG

3. Report on the tests carried out with model 205/1 in Böblingen between 25.2. and on 17.3.1944

25.2.1944

On-site walk of approximately 5 km to carry out measurements (total engine service hours 24.5 hours)

Control of the electrical system during turns and running in a straight line on inclined and flat surface with the help of electrical instruments measuring instruments incorporated in the vehicle. The measured values ​​serve as the basis for future regulation of the electrical system as well as for the calculation of the required power.



29.2.1944

March of approximately 0.4 km (total service hours of the engine 25 hours)

The mountain march with the 16 mm diameter pistons in the secondary area has shown during the march, in addition to the already known high lever force, a irregular coupling of the change jaws on the gears. The company Teves performs tests with an improved system in its test bench that could be supplied until 25.3.44.



1.3.1944

March on the ground of approximately 4.1 Kmfor measurements (total engine service hours 27 h)
Gears with a 25% slope were carried out with the road gear.


Temperatures :

Left generator: 15 ° C
Right generator: 15 ° C
Left side drive: 90 ° C (oil pan)
Right side drive: 70 ° C (after oil pump)
Left planet gear: 40 ° C
Right planet gear: 40 ° C
Outside temperature: 2 ° C


2.3.44 - 8.3.44

For the preliminary tests, the following instruments were incorporated into a panel inside the test tower, which during the march could be by means of continuously registered photographic equipment (see image number F 2759/25):

Ammeter for the main current on the right side and another for the left side

Voltmeter for the main current on the right side and another for the left side

Ammeter for the induced current of the generators

Ammeter for the induced current of the motors

Ammeter for charging current

Engine rev counter

Tachometer for right and left chain speed

Clock

Inclination meter

Direction indicator

Intake pressure gauge

The recorded images allow evaluating the measured values ​​during turns, running on flat ground and inclines. The measured values ​​also show the power required in each situation.

The indication of the lever position has been improved by adding a scale with figures according to the position of the two driving switches.

The hydraulic system of the mountain gear has been disconnected and until the new parts of the Teves company are supplied, temporarily replaced by a lever through the rear grilles.



9.3.1944

On- site march of approximately 5.2 km to carry out measurements (total engine service hours 31 h) in the presence of Major März, OKH / WaPrüf 6

To calculate the required power, images of the instrument panel have been continuously recorded in the following situations:

One chain in motion - the other chain stopped but no brake

One chain in motion - the other chain stopped and braked

One chain in motion - the other chain moving in the opposite direction

Different changes of direction, turn on the vehicle's own axis

25% slope

Slope of 43%

In situations a) - d) measurements of the turning diameter have been taken. The 25% slope has been covered in the road gear, the 43% slope in the mountain gear without overloading the motor or the electrical system and without slipping the chains.

Measurement analysis will be released in a separate report.



10.3.1944

Unloading of the second vehicle 205/2. Tow the 'Panzerersatzabteilung 7' industrial warehouse at the Hindenburg Barracks next to 205/1 (approximately 8.3 km, total engine service hours 36 h).


Transfer of vehicle 205/1 at four in the morning to the Böblingen airfield. Vehicle 205/2 had been assembled at the Alkett company in Spandau so that its chassis with tread system, chains and handbrake could be towed.


Unloading at the Böblingen airfield :

Vehicle 205/2 was unloaded from the special transport through the unloading ramp by vehicle 205/1 with the support of a long steel cable, the changes of direction were supported by the towed vehicle acting its brakes (see the images with number F 2758-3-8-15). During the unloading, the short towing system was not used, as as it could be verified during the unloading of the first vehicle on 14.1.1944, when changing direction, the unloading ramp moves and is partially damaged.

When towing vehicle 205/2 the interlock under the special transport tilted, causing the shock absorbers of the unloading ramp to bend (see images number F 2758/20 and F 2758/26) despite the fact that a locomotive in the opposite zone exerted a tensing force.


Towing attempt with vehicle 205/1 :

As can be seen in image number F 2757/69, the longitudinal cross members under the discharge path are too fragile and bend. When the vehicle passes from the inclined area to the longitudinal axis of the unloading path, these elements, which are nested with each other without being fixed, move and break.


Tow to the barracks :

The second vehicle was coupled with the rear towing system of the first vehicle. The connection was made in a provisional way by means of a pin and cable (see images with number F 2757/49 and F 2757/59) since the planned articulation was not yet available. Transport from the Böblingen airfield to the barracks was carried out overnight and occurred, also at rectangular street crossings, without incident. The route through the forest with a 12% slope and completely snowy could be overcome without any problem.



11.3.1944

Transfer of vehicle 205/2 to the warehouse (engine service hours 2 hours and 38 total hours)

Vehicle 205/2 was towed without incident by vehicle 205/1 to the industrial warehouse where the assembly of the second vehicle.



14.3.1944

March on the ground of approximately 10 km to carry out measurements (total engine service hours 42.5 h)

43% slope in the mountain walk, over water (1 meter deep) with soft soil and a 45% slope.


Temperatures :

Outside temperature: 3 ° C
Engine cooling water: 65 ° C
Gas exhaust system cooling water: 80 ° C
Engine oil: 50 ° C
Left planet gear: 30 ° C
Right planet gear: 30 ° C
Left side drive: 140 ° C (oil pan )
Right side drive: 90 ° C (after oil pump)
Left generator: 30 ° C
Right generator: 30 ° C
Left electric motor: 30 ° C
Right electric motor: 60 ° C



15.3.44 - 17.3.44

March on the ground of approximately 4 km (total engine service hours 49.5 hours). Soft ground.


Different marches on streams, on water (1 meter deep) and slopes of 45%. During a journey over a swampy area and due to the driver's ignorance of the area, the vehicle sank (see image F 2762/15). As it became known later, this area is avoided even by the light training vehicles of the Panzer-Ersatz-Abteilung 7 in Böblingen.

After removing the mud masses that had formed at the rear and placing wooden planks between the chains, the vehicle was recovered (see image number F 2762/17).



The new tread wheels are to be mounted, drive aggregates such as motor, generators, electric motors, side drives, brakes and planet gears will be disassembled for examination.
Last edited by Yoozername on 03 Aug 2020, 20:05, edited 1 time in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Maus' reliability

#9

Post by Yoozername » 03 Aug 2020, 19:48

tracks031 wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 14:01

My apologies, but does "running test bed" refer to the amount of hours one Maus was being driven?
It is accumulated engine hours. Clearly the testing and improvements were going on in 1944. Porsche seems to have been heading the project.

I don't know what type of organization they envisioned for these super heavy tanks. I would assume something along the lines of Tiger battalions with support companies. Just recovering them or removing a turret for repair would be a challenge. I would assume they might operate in pairs, so that one could help the other if broken down. It might have been possible to 'jump' a Maus with engine failure with electrical cables so that it could move itself with the aid of another Maus helping it run it's electrical drive.

In any case, I think the axe must have fallen sometime in 1944. perhaps after this memo...clearly Porsche wants this to go forward...
Conference with the Führer on 03/27/1944 (Annex 3, Part B)

Addressed to : Inspector General of Armored Troops.

Subject : Maus

According to Prof. Porsche's indications, the Führer has ordered to accelerate the driving tests as well as the development of the Maus.

A new priority level must be granted.

Porsche also demands from the Krupp company the immediate delivery of a new turret for Roman Maus No. I and the delivery of a first turret for Roman Maus No. II.

An order is requested to clarify whether the decision made at the time to build only two chassis, one of them with a turret, has been canceled.

OKH / WaPrüf 6
Signed: Holzhäuer

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Maus' reliability

#10

Post by Yoozername » 03 Aug 2020, 20:57

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi ... r_maus.php

This source says that no Maus turrets were completed as Turm ‘Maus’ für ortsfesten Einsatz (Maus Turmstellung)

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Maus' reliability

#11

Post by tracks031 » 04 Aug 2020, 20:11

Yoozername wrote:
03 Aug 2020, 19:48
I don't know what type of organization they envisioned for these super heavy tanks. I would assume something along the lines of Tiger battalions with support companies. Just recovering them or removing a turret for repair would be a challenge. I would assume they might operate in pairs, so that one could help the other if broken down. It might have been possible to 'jump' a Maus with engine failure with electrical cables so that it could move itself with the aid of another Maus helping it run it's electrical drive.
Don't know if it's accurate, but I recall reading somewhere on forums that the Maus was intended to being used in a role similar the British "infantry tank" concept, so it was not intended to be a replacement for the Tiger II.

The Löwe on the other hand I read was meant as a support tank for the Tiger II, so it had to have a similar speed to keep up with them, while having more firepower incase they needed it. The idea was for each Tiger battalion to have a small number of them mixed in.

Thanks for the data on the Maus, I appreciate it.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Maus' reliability

#12

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Aug 2020, 20:59

Maus canc l   e.jpg

tracks031
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 29 Feb 2020, 15:32
Location: Sweden

Re: Maus' reliability

#13

Post by tracks031 » 04 Aug 2020, 23:14

Ive read that it was perhaps never fully cancelled though, as the hulls and turrets that had already been produced were never scrapped, but that this might've been due to lack of manpower. Porsche never gave up trying to restart the program though and seemed to have believed Maus would make an impact on the war, so I've read speculation that the factory took his side when the stuff wasn't scrapped. In the "Operation think tank" video lectures on Youtube at Bovington, Hilary Doyle makes it sound like the only reason Maus was stopped was because of the factory bombing, so maybe that's what he believes.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Maus' reliability

#14

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Aug 2020, 23:27

tracks031 wrote:
04 Aug 2020, 23:14
Ive read that it was perhaps never fully cancelled though, as the hulls and turrets that had already been produced were never scrapped,
Yes a number of hulls and turret were still in the factory when they were captured in 1945. All that means is they were shoved into storage. There were still lots of Pz I/II/III parts/hulls around in 1945 and they were all cancelled years earlier.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Maus' reliability

#15

Post by Michael Kenny » 04 Aug 2020, 23:31

tracks031 wrote:
04 Aug 2020, 23:14
Hilary Doyle makes it sound like the only reason Maus was stopped was because of the factory bombing, so maybe that's what he believes.
Perhaps he was confused by the paperwork that said the damage done to the only plant capable of assembling the Maus was so serious that it would take 6-8 months just to get back to where they were before the bombing?
Perhaps the October 1943 cancel order might be a forgery?

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”