Why is Jow Forums so upset about the ''impossible'' ''stupid'' ''delusional'' idea of a 188 ton tank when at the time all great powers made 45000 ton war battleships that could be destroyed by one torpedo?
Why is Jow Forums so upset about the ''impossible'' ''stupid'' ''delusional'' idea of a 188 ton tank when at the time...
Nicholas Edwards
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Nathaniel Cruz
How many battleships were destroyed by one torpedo?
Jordan Richardson
Because it's German. If it was an American design, Jow Forums would claim it was the greatest thing ever.
Jose Lee
It was a laughable money sink that could have been put towards better equipment.
Zachary Powell
Because battleships don't get stuck in the water due to their weight.
Jack Foster
Because any period battleship hasn't been sunk by a single torpedo, and they had many design features and damage control arrangements incorporated into them to diminish the damage caused by torps?
Because battleships don't need the bridges they cross to carry their weight?
Adam Brooks
Could the Maus theoretically mount any proper anti-air weaponry that would deter air power from attacking it?
Could the Maus operate in tandem with other units that would deter air power from attacking it without also being a sheer liability to said units?
Did the Maus have the strategic and tactical mobility to evade air patrols and avoid becoming a massive target to enemy air patrols?
If the answer to any of these questions is “no” (which it is), that’s exactly why the Maus was considered a delusional pipe dream while battleships weren’t.
David Hughes
Have you ever tried to load a battleship on to a train or take it across a bridge?
Ian Evans
What 45k ton battleship could be sunk by a single torpedo?
Leo Jackson
So you are saying we should build the Ratte
I approve for this idea
Zachary Morales
>Build the Ratte
Think bigger, man.
Jaxson Price
Because battleships don't have to worry about crossing a bridge
Oliver Gray
Or ground.
Asher Clark
Because water isn’t land
Christopher Adams
Thats just because the attackers used multiple torpedoes at once to secure at least a single hit. USS Utah was sunk by 2 hits.
A case can be made Bismarck was doomed by the single torpedo hit.
Colton Ross
>One or two torpedoes, possibly fired by the destroyer Melvin, hit Fusō amidships on the starboard side at 03:09 on the 25th; she listed to starboard, slowed down, and fell out of formation.[47] Some Japanese and American eyewitnesses later claimed that Fusō broke in half, and that both halves remained afloat and burning for an hour, but they specifically mentioned only the size of the fire on the water, and not any details of the ship.[48] Historian John Toland agreed in 1970 that Fusō had broken in two
Ian King
>small city in a tank
>mfw its the Mauscross
Nolan Sullivan
>vehicles are fantastic but breakdown a lot
>"let's keep making them heavier."
>tfw
Parker Barnes
Fuso is a special case. She was plagued with issues from the beginning of her service life and is considered to be one of the unluckiest battleships ever put to sea.
Lucas Powell
>7 million population
>"small city"
Jose Thomas
because a battleship is atleast mildly useful while the Maus is 100% stupid and a waste of both money and material.
Lincoln Young
Well it could operate alongside spaa so yes that would work to deter air attack
The real problem would have been the enormous cost and terrible strategic mobility as well as lack of maintenance/fuel supplies to keep them running. I imagine more tanks would have been lost due to breakdowns or running out of fuel than anything else
Ayden Mitchell
Battleships were basically useless by the Second World War. While they were occasionally used effectively in battle, it had more to do with navies using what they had, rather than having what they needed. There's a reason the Montana class was cancelled, the Shinano wasn't finished as a battleship, and the Battle of Samar favored Taffy 3 and Taffy 6 instead of Kurita's Central Force. If the Germans had spent as much money figuring out how to bolt a Nebelwerfer to the back of a truck as they did developing the Maus, they would have had a fairly effective shoot and scoot artillery piece for blunting soviet advances.
Dylan Powell
you need to be above the age of 18 to post on this website
Benjamin Nguyen
How they got it out of there?
Daniel Adams
are you asking about torpedo tank kills?
Luke Walker
Lots and lots of digging.
Photos of the Maus trials are hilarious.
Carter Diaz
Post more pls
Sebastian Hernandez
Will do
Jordan Morgan
You and I both know that's a bullshit statement, buddy.
Wyatt Morales
>Mechanical failures account for 50% of German armored losses.
>What if we make changing a track harder then swapping a M4 suspension system?
Its so dumb.
Christopher Garcia
This got approved for production.
Dylan Cooper
Transport to Russia rather then trails but still shows its unique railway flatbed for moving the tank by rail. It could not go on standard German tank transporters.
Nicholas Ramirez
This was the actual plan for how to get around the problem of bridges not being able to support it.
Brandon Perez
At one point it was going to have anti-infantry flamethrowers.
Ryan Bell
Woah, it’s almost like white nationalist are an infantile bunch of incels with servers aversions to reality.
Easton Campbell
That tank is so sweet, is that Trump's "wall?"
Angel Richardson
you're comparing apples to oranges OP
Ryder Reed
what would have been more useful, 2 Maus tanks, or 50 StuGs?
Parker Brown
Ah yes the nebelwerfer, it werfs nebels
Henry Gonzalez
battleships actually float
that tank can't keep from getting bogged down and completely demobilized on a fucking tarmac road, let alone in a field or forest
Justin Kelly
50 stugs
Elijah Foster
Because a 188-ton tank looks like a big fucking bullseye for any enemy you lost aerial superiority to.
Hunter Jenkins
>45000 ton war battleships
Given the outcome of the war, and the nature of modern naval warfare since WWII, I'd say that they were just as stupid and delusional.
Robert Campbell
Because weapons and vehicles don't exist in a vacuum. Of the thing the Maus was designed for, which was to kill tanks while being invincible to anything on the ground, how would it actually accomplish this task when it ate fuel like a fat man at McDonalds whilst Germany had none to spare? It didn't mesh with Germany's logistics by the time it was introduced.
Blake Richardson
>servers
It's almost like you're a phoneposter
Jeremiah Phillips
Ok first of all Ships were the only real way to get across the ocean back then. Second of all you can't bog down in the ocean. Third, the Maus was going to operate against the Soviets, a power with MANY aircraft.
Chase Flores
>RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE-BLUBLUBLUB
Carson Nelson
>GOD SAVE THE BLRUBLR...
Kayden Garcia
No one knew man was going to split the atom* when the Montana, Lion, Alsace, H44 etc were being designed, so I can't be too hard on the Navy Brass of the time.
*in an uncontrolled manner, that is, fission was achieved long before the war by Enrico Fermi.
>hold my beer
Isaac Reyes
I'll give you two words.
Urban Warfare.
Figure it out the rest.
Isaiah Garcia
en.wikipedia.org
Urban warfare?
>As the German armies were approaching the Soviet capital in the Operation Typhoon in the autumn of 1941, Hitler determined that Moscow, like Leningrad and Kiev, would be levelled and its 4 million inhabitants killed, to destroy it as a potential center of Bolshevist resistance. For this purpose Moscow was to be covered by a large artificial lake which would permanently submerge it,[1][2] by opening the sluices of the Moscow-Volga Canal.[3] During the advance on Moscow Otto Skorzeny was tasked with capturing these dam structures.[3]
Jayden Perez
That cable going from its back is a electrical hookup... To another Maus, that is powering the the one playing submarine.
That's right, this monstrosity had a diesel - electric drive.Ironically because at the time there were no land vehicles that required close to 1000hp of power, the diesel engine they used was originally meant for a submarine.
Sebastian Davis
I know OP, I've had this argument with Jow Forums before, that it presents some logistical issues but 100+ tracked vehicles are not some "crazy impossible idea"
Cat D11 is 106 tons and the komatsu 575 is around 130 tons I think.
Transport is a big issue so some part of it would have to be made modular. Armor plates is probably the easiest idea, which are then attached by a crane at a staging area.
It could have some purpose as leading spearheads, but in WW2 especially with such scarce resources, lives are cheaper and it would of been better to have many fast lightly armored tanks with a big gun.
Henry Stewart
>How many battleships were destroyed by one torpedo?
A torpedo hit on your ship can result in broken bones in your legs. Thats serious business.
Jason Martinez
>WWI
HMS Triumph
HMS Majestic
SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm
SMS Pommern (possible)
French Suffren
French Gaulois
HMS Britannia
>WWII
HMS Royal Oak
IJN Fuso (possible)
Grayson Adams
All super heavy tanks are shit.
Owen Clark
Now that's what I call a giant fucking target.
Grayson Hughes
except big bib
Robert Reyes
*big bib
Daniel Wood
has anyone talked about this damn thing besides /thg/?
Colton Hernandez
*big bob, now i got it right
Jack Williams
A single modern torpedo could theoretically sink any ship by breaking its back if it manages to detonate in the perfect spot under the keel.
William Morgan
Except your argument is self-defeating. Battleships became essentially obsolete during WWII for exactly that reason. They were too vulnerable to a weapon they had no reasonable defense against compared to carriers, which can keep torpedo bombers away with their own aircraft.
Gotta love that asshurt yuroshit cope
Lucas Jackson
No because it actually worked....
James Young
Thank god that list doesn't count the Liberty class cargo ship because they could snap in 2 for literally no reason
Jayden Morales
While it's theoretically possible to sink a ship with a torpedo, normally the ship works fine, and the sinking is an unusual occurance. Generally speaking, the ship is a great asset, the risk of it being sunk is a minor concern.
The Maus--even if it were reliable--wouldn't really have any purpose. It's too heavy and too slow to be of any real value. You don't need to worry about it being "killed by a single explosive", instead you need to worry about it being actually useful in the first place?
Blake Ramirez
Because battleships were a valuable naval unit in the time they were developed and can freely move in the ocean, whereas the Maus cannot even cross a bridge and eats up fuel, you can actually use for useful tanks.
David Cruz
>Royal Oak
It took 4 torps. Not 1
Julian Sanders
I mean it weighed about half as much as the Maus, so even if it turned out the be the best superheavy tank ever (which is like being king of shit mountain) it still doesn't really set a precedent for making something like the Maus.
Logan Moore
>>Cat D11
You do realize those are a logistical nightmare to move, right? Yeah, they can drive around at the construction sites and mines where they work (places that have stone on the ground)...but they can't drive on normal ground without sinking and their range is abysmal. There's a reason they are dissasembled onto multiple semi trucks when they need to be moved even short distances.
Not to mention, comparing 1930's tech with 2000's tech is a bit unfair.
Justin Sanders
>>literally no reason
The reasons are well understood today: the steel alloys that were used in their construction became very brittle in cold seas. Combine that with not-yet-well understood newfangled welding tech and they snapped.
Nicholas Long
Wish Russia had made a three-turreted super-version of the BT series. Just because.
Julian Hughes
Same effort could of made six to eight good medium tanks that could actually cross difficult terrain and normal bridges.