Military Review

Wunderwaffe for Pantservaffe. Description of the design of the tank "Mouse"



The heavy mouse tank was a tracked combat vehicle with powerful artillery weapons. The crew consisted of six people - the commander tank, gun commander, two loaders, driver and radio operator.

The body of the car was divided by transverse partitions into four sections: control, engine, combat and transmission. Office management located in the bow of the hull. It housed the driver's seat (left) and the radio operator (right), control drives, control and measuring instruments, switching equipment, a radio station and fire extinguisher cylinders. In front of the radio operator's seat, in the bottom of the hull, there was a hatch for emergency exit from the tank. In the niches of the boards were installed two fuel tanks with a total capacity of 1560 l. In the roof of the hull above the driver and radio operator seats there was a hatch that can be closed with an armored cover, as well as the driver’s viewing device (left) and the periscopic device of circular rotation of the radio operator (right).

Directly behind the control compartment was the engine compartment, which housed the engine (in the central well), water and oil coolers of the engine cooling system (in the niches of the sides), exhaust manifolds and oil tank.

Behind the engine compartment in the middle part of the tank hull was a fighting compartment. It housed a large part of the ammunition, as well as a unit for recharging the batteries and powering the turret turning motor. In the central well, under the floor of the fighting compartment, a single-stage gearbox and a block of main and auxiliary generators were mounted. The rotation from the engine located in the engine compartment was transmitted to the generator through a single-stage gearbox.

\ A rotating turret with weapons was installed above the fighting compartment of the corps on roller bearings. It contained the seats of the tank commander, the gun commander and loader, a twin gun installation and a separate machine gun, observation and aiming devices, turret mechanisms with electromechanical and manual drives, and the rest of the ammunition set. There were two manholes in the roof of the tower, covered with armored covers.

Traction motors, intermediate gearboxes, brakes and final drives were installed in the transmission compartment (in the aft part of the tank hull).

General view of the engine compartment. Visible is the installation of the carburetor engine, water radiator, oil radiators, radiator for cooling the right exhaust pipe, fans, right fuel tank and air filter. In the photo on the right: placement of generators in the combat and engine compartments

Department of management (visible driver's door), engine compartment (right and left fuel tanks, engine); tower and a number of units dismantled

The personnel of the unit that evacuated the tanks on the 205 / 1 Tour case with the dismantled load turret. This photo gives an idea of ​​the size of the diameter of the tower

The layout of the super heavy tank "Mouse"


The armament of the tank consisted of an 128-mm tank gun of the 1944 model, model KwK.44 (PAK.44), an 75-mm tank gun KwK.40 paired with it and a separate MG.42 machine gun of 7,92 mm caliber.

In the turret of the tank, the twin installation was mounted on a special machine. The reservation of the rocking part of the mask of twin guns — cast; fastening to the common cradle of the guns was carried out with the help of seven bolts. The placement of two tank guns in a common mask was intended to increase the firepower of the tank and expand the range of targets hit. The installation design made it possible to use each gun separately, depending on the combat situation, but did not give an opportunity to conduct aimed fire with a volley.

The 128-mm KwK.44 rifled tank gun was the most powerful among the German tank artillery weapons. The length of the rifled part of the gun was 50 calibers, the full length of the barrel - 55 calibers. The gun had a wedge horizontal shutter that opened manually to the right. The recoil devices were located on top of the sides of the barrel. Shot production was carried out using an electric trigger device.

The KwK.40 cannon's ammunition consisted of a 61 shot, a separate-cartridge loading (25 shots were placed in the turret, 36 - in the tank hull). Two types of shells were used - armor-piercing tracer and high-explosive fragmentation.

The 75-mm KwK.40 gun was mounted in a common mask with the 128-mm gun to the right of it. The main differences of this gun from the existing artillery systems were the increase in the barrel length to the 36,6 gauges and the lower placement of the recoil brake, due to the layout of the tower. KwK.40 had a vertical wedge gate that opened automatically. The trigger device is electromechanical. Ammunition for the gun consisted of 200 unitary shots with armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation shells (50 shots were placed in the turret, 150 — in the tank hull).

Aiming guns at the target was made by the commander of the guns using an optical periscope sight of the TWZF type, mounted to the left of the 128-mm gun. The head of the sight was located in a fixed armored cap, protruding above the roof of the tower. The connection of the sight with the left axle of the 128-mm gun was carried out using the thrust parallelogram mechanism. Vertical guidance angles ranged from -T to + 23 '. To guide the paired installation on the horizon served as an electromechanical mechanism for turning the tower.

The tank commander determined the distance to the target using a horizontal stereoscopic rangefinder with the 1,2 m base mounted in the turret roof. In addition, to monitor the battlefield, the commander had an observational periscope device. According to Soviet experts, despite the traditionally good qualities of German aiming and observation devices, the firepower of the super-heavy Mysh tank was clearly insufficient for a machine of this class.

Combat for 128-mm shots

Anti-recoil devices 128-mm guns and breech of 75-mm guns. The 75-mm round is visible in the right corner of the tower.

Workplace commander guns

Ammunition separate charging caliber 128 mm. The 88-mm KwK unitary projectile is shown alongside a comparison. 43 L / 71 tank "Tiger II". Periscope sight TWZF-1

Armor protection

The armored hull of the tank "Mouse" was a welded structure made of rolled armor plates of thickness from 40 to 200 mm, machined to medium hardness.

Unlike other German tanks, the 205 Tour did not have hatches or crevices in frontal and stern sheets that reduced its counter-load resistance. Front and aft rolled sheets of the hull were located with rational angles of inclination, and side sheets - vertically. The thickness of the side sheet was not identical: the upper side belt had a thickness of 185 mm, and the lower part of the side sheet was cut at a width of 780 mm to a thickness of 105 mm. Reducing the thickness of the lower part of the board did not lead to a decrease in the level of armor protection of units and assemblies of the tank, located in the lower part of the hull, as they were additionally protected by the side armor plate of the inner well 80 mm thick. These armor plates formed a well with a width of 1000 mm and a depth of 600 mm along the axis of the tank, in which the control compartment, power plant, generators and other units were located.

Armor armor protection scheme for the Mouse (205 / 2 Tour)

General view of the tower of the exploded tank "Mouse" (Tour 205 / 2)

Elements of the tank undercarriage were mounted between the outer hull side sheet and the side sheet of the inner well. Thus, the lower part of the outer side sheet 105 mm thick formed the armor protection of the chassis. The front chassis was protected by armor plates in the form of visors with a thickness of 100 mm with a tilt angle of 10 °.

For ease of installation of components and assemblies, the roof of the case was removable. It consisted of individual armor plates with a thickness from 50 mm (in the turret zone) to 105 mm (above the control compartment). The thickness of the armor of the sheet sheet reached 55 mm. In order to protect the tower from seizure during shell firing, triangular reflective kerchiefs of armor 60 mm thick and 250 mm high were welded on the middle sheet of the engine floor. The remaining two sheets of an over-engine roof housed armored air intake grilles. Unlike the first prototype, the second tank had two more armored reflectors.

The inner side of the hull of the tank. Its lower part is well visible.

Sub-sheet of the tank hull with welded triangular reflective scarves. Pictured below: frontal armor sheet and studded joint

Armored tank hull

Tower tank "Mouse"

To protect against anti-tank mines, the bottom of the hull in the front was 105 mm thick, and the rest was made of 55-mm armor plate. The fences and inner sides had a thickness of armor, respectively, 40 and 80 mm. Such a distribution of the thicknesses of the main armor parts of the hull indicated the desire of designers to create an equally strong projectile-resistant hull. Strengthening the front of the bottom and roof also significantly increased the rigidity of the hull structure as a whole. If the German tanks had armor hulls the ratio between the thicknesses of the frontal and side parts armor was equal to 0,5-0,6, then the ratio for the armor of the Mouse tank was 0,925, i.e. side armor plates in their thickness approaching the frontal.

All connections of the main body armor parts were made in the spike. To increase the structural strength of spiked joints of armor plates in the joints of the joints, cylindrical keys of the type of dowels used in the connections of the SAD Ferdinand were installed.

The key was a steel roller with a diameter of 50 or 80 mm, inserted into the hole, drilled in the joints of the joined sheets after assembly for welding. The hole was made so that the axis of drilling was located in the plane of the faces of the spike connecting armor plates. If without a key, the spike connection (before welding) was detachable, then after installing the key into the hole, the spike connection in the direction perpendicular to the axis of the key could not be separated. The use of two perpendicularly spaced keys made the connection indivisible even before the final welding. The tabs were inserted flush with the surface of the joined armor plates and welded to them along the base perimeter.

In addition to connecting the upper frontal hull sheet with the lower, the keys were also used in connecting the hull sides with the upper frontal, stern sheets and the bottom. The connection between the feeding sheets between them was carried out into an oblique thorn without a key, the remaining connections of the armor parts of the hull (part of the roof, bottom, fences and others) were quarter-flush or overlapped using double-sided welding.

The tank turret was also welded, from rolled armor plates and cast parts from homogeneous medium-hard armor. The frontal part — cast, cylindrical, had the thickness of armor 200 mm. The side and stern sheets are flat, rolled, 210 mm thick, the tower roof sheet is 65 mm thick. Thus, the tower, as well as the hull, was designed taking into account the equal strength of all its armor parts. The connection of parts of the tower was carried out in the spike using keys, slightly different from the keys in the case connections.

All armor parts of the hull and turret had a different hardness. Armor parts with thickness up to 50 mm were heat treated for high hardness, and parts with thickness 160 mm were machined for medium and low hardness (HB = 3,7-3,8 kgf / mm2). Only the armor of the inner sides of the hull, which had a thickness of 80 mm, was heat treated to a low hardness. Armor parts 185-210 mm thick had a low hardness.

For the manufacture of armor parts of the hull and turret six different grades of steel were used, the main of which were chromium-nickel, chromium-manganese and chromium-nickel-molybdenum steel. It should be noted that in all steel grades the carbon content was increased and was within 0,3-0,45%. In addition, as in the production of armor for other tanks, there was a tendency to replace the deficient alloying elements, nickel and molybdenum, with other elements — chromium, manganese, and silicon. In assessing the armor protection of the Mysh tank, Soviet experts noted: “... The hull design does not maximize the advantage of large structural angles, and the use of vertically spaced side plates drastically reduces their counter-durability and makes the tank vulnerable in certain conditions when shells are fired at home 100 mm guns. The large dimensions of the hull and turret, their considerable mass, negatively affect the mobility of the tank. "

Power point

In the first prototype of the tank Tour 205 / 1 installed a twelve-cylinder V-shaped pre-chamber tank water-cooled diesel engine company "Daimler-Benz" - an upgraded version of the 507 MB engine 720 HP (530 kW) developed in 1942 for the prototype tank Pz.Kpfw.V Ausf.D "Panther". With such power plants made five experienced "Panther", but in mass production, these engines were not taken.

In 1944, for use in the Mouse tank, the engine power of the MB 507 engine was boosted by boost to 1100-1200 hp. (812-884 kW). A tank with such a power plant was discovered in May 1945 by Soviet troops in the territory of the Stamers Camp of the Kumersdorf test site. The car was badly damaged, the engine was disassembled, and its parts were scattered around the tank. It was possible to assemble only a few basic engine components: the head of the block, the shirt of the block with cylinders, the crankcase and some other elements. No technical documentation for this modification of an experienced tank diesel engine could be found.

The second model of the tank Tour 205/2 was equipped aviation four-stroke carburetor engine DB-603A2, designed for the Fokke-Wulf fighter Ta-152C and adapted by Daimler-Benz to work in the tank. The company’s specialists installed a new gearbox with a drive for cooling system fans and excluded a high-speed fluid coupling regulator with an automatic pressure regulator, instead of which a centrifugal regulator to limit the number of maximum engine speeds was introduced. In addition, a water pump for cooling the exhaust manifolds and a plunger radial pump for the tank control system were introduced. To start the engine, instead of the starter, an auxiliary electric generator was used, which was switched on to the starter mode when the engine was started.

Experienced tank diesel MB 507 power 1100 — HP 1200 (812 — 884 kW) and its cross-section

DB-603A2 carburetor engine and its cross section

The DB-603A2 (with direct fuel injection into the cylinders, electric ignition and supercharging) worked similarly to a carburetor engine. The difference was only in the formation of a combustible mixture in the cylinders, and not in the carburetor. Fuel injection was performed under pressure 90 — 100 kg / cm2 at the intake stroke.

The main advantages of this engine compared with carburetor engines were as follows:

“- due to the high filling ratio of the engine, its liter capacity increased by an average of 20% (relatively low hydraulic resistance in the engine’s air paths due to a lack of carburetors, improved cleaning of the cylinders, without loss of fuel during purging, and weight gain, contributed to the increase in engine filling) charge on the amount of fuel portion injected into the cylinders);
- increased engine efficiency due to accurate metering of fuel through the cylinders; - lower fire risk and the ability to work on heavier and less scarce types of fuel. "

Compared with diesel engines noted:

“- higher liter capacity due to lower values ​​of the excess air coefficient α = 0,9-1,1 (for diesel engines α> 1,2);
- smaller mass and volume. The reduction in specific engine size was particularly important for tank power plants;
- reduced dynamic cycle intensity, which contributed to an increase in the service life of the crank connecting rod group;
- the fuel pump of the engine with direct fuel injection and electric ignition was subject to less wear, as it worked with less fuel supply pressure (90-100kg / cm2 instead of 180-200 kg / cm2) and had forced lubrication of friction couples of the plunger-sleeve;
- the engine start is relatively easy: its compression ratio (6-7,5) was 2 times lower than that of the diesel engine (14-18);
“the nozzle was simpler to manufacture, and the quality of its work did not have a big impact on the engine’s performance compared to a diesel engine.”

The advantages of this system, despite the absence of instruments for regulating the composition of the mixture depending on the engine load, contributed to the intensive transfer of all aircraft engines to direct fuel injection in Germany by the end of the war. In the tank engine HL 230 also introduced direct fuel injection. At the same time, the engine power with a constant cylinder size was increased from the HP 680. (504 kW) to 900 HP (667 kW). The fuel was injected into the cylinders under pressure 90-100 kgf / cm2 through six holes.

Fuel tanks (main) were installed in the engine compartment along the sides and occupied part of the volume of the control compartment. The total capacity of the fuel tanks was 1560 l. An additional fuel tank was installed on the aft of the hull, which was connected to the fuel supply system. If necessary, he could be dropped without leaving the crew of the car.

Purification of air entering the engine cylinders was carried out in a combined air cleaner, located in the immediate vicinity of the supercharger inlet. The air cleaner provided preliminary dry inertial cleaning and had a dust collecting bin. Thin air purification took place in the oil bath and in the filter elements of the air cleaner.

Engine cooling system - liquid, closed type, with forced circulation, was performed separately from the exhaust manifold cooling system. The capacity of the engine cooling system was 110 l. A mixture of ethylene glycol and water in equal proportions was used as a coolant. The engine cooling system consisted of two radiators, two steam separators, a water pump, a compensation tank with a steam valve, pipelines and four fans with a drive.

The exhaust manifold cooling system included four radiators, a water pump and a steam valve. Radiators were installed near the engine cooling system radiators.

Engine fuel system

Engine cooling system

Cooling fans

Engine control circuit

Two-stage axial-type fans were installed in pairs along the sides of the tank. They were equipped with guide vanes and were driven into rotation by a gear drive. The maximum fan speed was 4212 rpm. The cooling air was sucked in by the fans through the armored grill of the roof of the engine compartment, and was ejected through the side grilles. The intensity of the engine cooling was regulated with the help of blinds installed under the side grilles.

The circulation of oil in the engine lubrication system was ensured by the work of ten pumps: the main injection, three high-pressure pumps and six suction pumps. Part of the oil went to lubricate the rubbing surfaces of the parts, and part to power the hydraulic clutch and servo-control of engine control. To cool the oil served as a wire-slot radiator with mechanical surface cleaning. The oil filter was located in the injection line behind the pump.

The engine ignition system included a magneto made by Bosch (Boch) and two glow plugs for each cylinder. Ignition advance - mechanical, depending on the load. The timing mechanism had a device that was controlled from the driver’s seat and allowed periodic cleaning of the spark plugs when the engine was running.

The layout of the power plant of the tank was, in fact, a further development of the layout used on the ACS Ferdinand. Good access to the engine units was provided by placing them on the crankcase cover. The inverted position of the engine created more favorable conditions for cooling the cylinder heads and excluded the possibility of air and steam plugs in them. However, this placement of the engine had drawbacks.

So, to reduce the axis of the drive shaft, it was necessary to install a special gearbox, which increased the length of the engine and complicated its design. Access to the units located in the collapse of the cylinder block was difficult. The lack of friction devices in the fan drive made it difficult to operate.

The width and height of the DB 603A-2 were within the values ​​of the existing structures and did not affect the overall dimensions of the tank hull. The engine length exceeded the length of all other tank engines, which, as noted above, was caused by the installation of a gearbox that extended the engine by 250 mm.

The specific engine displacement of the DB 603A-2 was equal to 1,4 dm3 / hp. and was the smallest compared to other carburetor engines of this power. The relatively small amount occupied by the DB 603A-2, was due to the use of supercharging and direct fuel injection, which significantly increased the liter engine power. Liquid high-temperature cooling of the exhaust manifolds, isolated from the main system, has allowed to increase the reliability of the engine and make its operation less dangerous in terms of fire. As is known, the air cooling of exhaust manifolds used on Maybach HL 210 and HL 230 engines turned out to be ineffective. Overheating of the exhaust manifolds often led to a fire in the tanks.


One of the most interesting features of the super-heavy tank “Mouse” was the electromechanical transmission, which made it possible to significantly ease the control of the machine and increase the durability of the engine due to the absence of a rigid kinematic connection with driving wheels.

The electromechanical transmission consisted of two independent systems, each of which included a generator and a traction motor powered by it and consisted of the following basic elements:
- block of main generators with auxiliary generator and fan;
- two traction motors;
- generator-pathogen;
- two controller-rheostats;
- switching unit and other control equipment;
- rechargeable batteries.

Two main generators that fed the traction motors were housed in a special generator room behind the piston engine. They were installed on a single basis and, due to the direct rigid connection of the armature shafts, formed the generating unit. In the block with the main generators there was a third auxiliary generator, the anchor of which was mounted on the same shaft with the rear generator.

Winding independent excitation, in which the current could be changed by the driver from zero to maximum, allowed to change the voltage taken from the generator, from zero to nominal and, therefore, adjust the speed of rotation of the traction engine and the speed of movement of the tank.

Scheme of electromechanical transmission

The auxiliary DC generator with the piston engine running fed the windings of the independent excitation of both the main generators and the traction motors, and also charged the battery. At the time of starting the piston engine, it was used as a normal electric starter. In this case, its electric power was supplied from the battery. The winding of the independent excitation of the auxiliary generator was powered by a special excitation generator driven by a piston engine.

Of interest was the scheme of air cooling of electric transmission machines implemented in the tank Tour 205. The air taken in by the fan from the drive side came through the rectifying apparatus into the generator shaft and, flowing around the case from the outside, reached the grille located between the front and rear generator main cases. Here the air flow was divided: part of the air moved further along the mine to the aft compartment, where, diverging to the right and left, it came to the traction motors and, cooling them, was emitted into the atmosphere through the holes in the roof of the aft hull. Another part of the air flow came through the grid inside the generator housings, blew the frontal parts of the anchors of both generators and, separating, sent through the ventilation channels of the anchors to the headers and brushes. From there, the air flow into the air collection pipes and was released into the atmosphere through the middle holes in the roof of the aft hull.

General view of the super-heavy tank "Mouse"

Cross-section of the tank in the transmission compartment

Traction DC motors with independent excitation were placed in the aft compartment, one motor per track. The torque of the shaft of each electric motor through a two-stage intermediate gearbox was transmitted to the drive shaft of the onboard transmission and then to the drive wheels. An independent motor winding was powered by an auxiliary generator.

Regulation of the speed of rotation of the traction motors of both tracks was carried out according to the Leonardo scheme, which gave the following advantages:
- wide and smooth regulation of the speed of rotation of the electric motor was made without loss in starting rheostats;
-Easy control of starting and braking provided by the reversal of the electric motor.

The generator-pathogen type LK1000 / 12 R26 company "Bosch" was located on the primary engine and fed the winding of the independent excitation of the auxiliary generator. He worked in a block with a special relay-regulator, which ensured a constant voltage at the terminals of the auxiliary generator in the speed range from 600 to 2600 rpm at the maximum current delivered to the network, 70 A. The presence of the activator generator allowed traction motors from the rotation speed of the armature of the auxiliary generator, and consequently from the rotation speed of the crankshaft of the internal combustion engine.

For the electromechanical transmission of the tank, the following modes of operation were characteristic: engine start, forward and reverse drive, turning, braking and special cases of using an electromechanical transmission.

The start of the internal combustion engine was carried out electrically using an auxiliary generator as a starter, which was then transferred to the generator mode.

Longitudinal section and general view of the generator unit

For a smooth start of movement of the tank, the handles of both controllers were simultaneously moved by the driver from the neutral position forward. The increase in speed was achieved by increasing the voltage of the main generators, for which the handles moved further from the neutral position forward. In this case, the traction motors developed power proportional to their speed.

If necessary, to turn the tank with a large radius turned off the traction engine, in the direction of which they were going to make a turn.

To reduce the turning radius, the electric motor of the lagging track was slowed down, transferring it to the generator mode. The electric power received from it was realized by reducing the excitation current of the corresponding main generator, including it in the electric motor mode. At the same time, the torque of the traction motor was opposite in direction, and a normal force was applied to the track. At the same time, the generator, operating in the electric motor mode, facilitated the operation of the piston engine, and the rotation of the tank could be carried out with incomplete power extraction from the piston engine.

To rotate the tank around its axis, both traction motors were given a command to the opposite rotation. In this case, the handles of one controller were moved from the neutral in the “forward” position, and the other in the “back” position. The farther from the neutral were the handles of the controllers, the steeper the turn was.

The tank was braked by transferring the traction motors to the generator mode and using the main generators as electric motors that rotate the engine crankshaft. To do this, it was enough to reduce the voltage of the main generators, making it less than the voltage generated by the electric motors, and reset the gas with the fuel pedal of the piston engine. However, this braking power developed by electric motors was relatively small, and for more effective braking it was necessary to use mechanical brakes with hydraulic control, mounted on intermediate gearboxes.

The scheme of the electromechanical transmission of the “Mouse” tank made it possible to use the electric power of the tank generators not only to power its electric motors, but also the electric motors of another tank (for example, during underwater driving). In this case, the transmission of electricity was provided for using a connecting cable. The control of the movement of the tank, which received energy, was carried out from the tank that supplied it, and was limited by the change in the speed of movement.

The significant power of the Mouse's internal combustion engine made it difficult to repeat the scheme used on the Ferdinand self-propelled guns (that is, with automatic use of the power of the piston engine in the entire speed range and traction effort). And although this scheme was not automatic, with a certain qualification of the driver, the tank could be conducted with a sufficiently full use of the power of the piston engine.

The use of an intermediate gearbox between the shaft of the electric motor and the onboard gearbox facilitated the work of the electrical equipment and made it possible to reduce its weight and dimensions. It should also be noted the successful design of electric transmission machines and especially their ventilation system.

The electromechanical transmission of the tank, in addition to the electrical part, had on each side and two mechanical units - an intermediate gearbox with a side brake and a side gearbox. In the power circuit, they were connected in series behind the traction motors. In addition, a single-stage gearbox with an 1,05 gear ratio, mounted for layout considerations, was mounted in the crankcase.

To expand the range of gear ratios implemented in the electromechanical transmission, the intermediate gear set between the electric motor and the onboard gearbox was performed in the form of a guitar consisting of cylindrical gears and having two gears. The shift control was hydraulic.

The side gearboxes were housed inside the drive wheel housings. The main elements of the transmission were constructively worked out and carefully communicated. The designers paid special attention to improving the reliability of the units, making it easier for the main parts to work. In addition, it was possible to achieve a significant compactness of the units.

At the same time, the design of individual transmission units was traditional and did not represent technical novelty. However, it should be noted that the improvement of components and parts allowed German specialists to increase the reliability of such units as the guitar and brake, while at the same time creating more intense working conditions of the onboard gearbox.


All nodes in the tank's undercarriage were located between the main hull side plates and the bulwarks. The latter were the armor protection of the undercarriage and the second pillar for mounting the crawler propulsion and suspension units,

Each tank caterpillar consisted of solid 56 and 56 composite tracks alternating with each other. The solid truck was a casting with a smooth inner racetrack, which had a guide ridge. On each side of the truck there were seven symmetrically arranged lugs. The composite truck consisted of three molded parts, the two extreme parts being interchangeable.

The use of composite tracks, alternating with solid tracks, provided (in addition to reducing the mass of the track) less wear on the rubbing surfaces by increasing the number of hinges.

Transmission compartment. Well visible boring of the tank hull roof under the shoulder strap tower

Electric motor left side. In the middle of the hull is an intermediate left side gearbox with brake

Installing the drive wheel and side-mounted gearbox starboard. Top is the starboard motor

Chassis "Mouse"

The tracks were connected by fingers, which were kept from axial displacement by spring rings. Manganese-cast steel tracks were heat treated - quenched and tempered. The track finger was made of rolled medium carbon steel, followed by surface hardening by high-frequency currents. The mass of the integral and composite track with a finger was 127,7 kg, the total mass of the tank tracks - 14302 kg.

Gearing with driving wheels - pin. Driving wheels were mounted between two stages of a planetary onboard gearbox. The housing of the drive wheel consisted of two halves, interconnected by four bolts. This design greatly facilitates the installation of the drive wheel. Removable toothed rims fastened to the flanges of the drive wheel housing with bolts. Each crown had 17 teeth. The casing of the drive wheel was carried out by two labyrinth felt seals.

The body of the guide wheel was a hollow shaped casting, made in one piece with two rims. At the ends of the axis of the guide wheel, the planes were cut off and radial through-holes were made with semicircular cutting, into which the tension mechanism screws were screwed. When the screws of the plane rotated, the axes moved in the guides of the onboard hull sheet and the bulwark, due to which the track was tensioned.

It should be noted that the absence of a crank mechanism has significantly simplified the design of the guide wheel. At the same time, the weight of the guide wheel assembly with the track tensioning mechanism was 1750 kg, which complicated the assembly and disassembly work during their replacement or repair.

Suspension of the tank hull was carried out using 24 carts of the same design, placed in two rows along its sides.

The trolleys of both rows were fastened in pairs to one (common for them) cast bracket, which was fixed from one side to the hull side plate, and from the other side - to the bulwark.

The two-row arrangement of carts was due to the desire to increase the number of track rollers and thereby reduce the load on them. The elastic elements of each carriage were a conical buffer spring of rectangular cross section and a rubber pad.

The schematic diagram and the design of the individual components of the chassis were also partially borrowed from the ACS Ferdinand. As already mentioned, in Germany, in designing the 205 Tours, they were forced to abandon the torsion bar suspension used on all other types of heavy tanks. Documents show that the factories in the assembly of tanks experienced considerable difficulties with torsion hangers, since their use required a large number of openings in the tank hull. These difficulties were especially aggravated after the Allied bomber aircraft destroyed a special tank hull processing plant. In this regard, the Germans, starting with 1943, carried out the design and testing of other types of suspensions, in particular, suspensions with buffer springs and leaf springs. Despite the fact that when testing the suspension of the Mouse tank, lower results were obtained than with the torsion suspensions of other heavy tanks, they still focused on buffer springs as elastic elements.

Trolley undercarriage tank

Details of the planetary gear. In the photo on the right: the details of the planetary gears are laid in the order they are installed on the tank: the left (first) planetary gear, the drive wheel, the right (second) planetary gear

Each trolley had two track rollers connected by a lower balance bar. The design of the road wheels was the same. The mounting of the track roller on the hub with a key and nut, in addition to the simplicity of the design, ensured ease of assembly and disassembly work. Internal cushioning of the track roller was provided by two rubber rings, sandwiched between the cast rim of the T-shaped section, and two steel discs. The mass of each roller was 110 kg.

When hitting an obstacle, the rim of the roller moved upwards, causing deformation of the rubber rings and thus quenching the vibrations going to the body. Rubber in this case worked on the shift. The use of internal depreciation of road wheels for 180-t of a low-speed machine was a rational solution, since external tires under conditions of high specific pressures did not ensure their reliable operation. The use of small-diameter rollers made it possible to install a large number of carts, however, this resulted in an overvoltage of the rubber rings of the road wheels. However, the internal depreciation of the road wheels (with a small diameter) ensured less stress in the tires compared with the outer tires and significant savings in scarce rubber.

Install the drive wheel. Crown shot

Removable drive wheel rim

Wunderwaffe for Pantservaffe. Description of the design of the tank "Mouse"
Guide wheel design

Drive wheel design

The design of one-piece and composite track tracks

It should be noted that the attachment of the rubber cushion to the balancer with the help of two bolts vulcanized into rubber proved to be unreliable. Most of the rubber pads after a short test was lost. Assessing the chassis design, the Soviet experts made the following conclusions:

“- the placement of the undercarriage units between the bulwark and the hull side sheet made it possible to have two supports for the caterpillar propulsion and suspension units, which ensured greater strength for the entire undercarriage;
- the use of a single non-demountable bulwark made it difficult to access the undercarriage units and complicated installation and dismantling;
- the two-row arrangement of the suspension carts allowed to increase the number of track rollers and reduce the load on them;
- the use of a suspension with buffer springs was a forced solution, because with equal volumes of elastic elements, the spiral buffer springs had a lower working capacity and provided lower driving performance compared to torsion hangers. ”

Underwater driving equipment

The significant mass of the Mouse tank created serious difficulties in overcoming water obstacles, given the low probability of the presence of bridges capable of withstanding this machine (and even more so their safety in wartime conditions). Therefore, in its design, the possibility of underwater driving was initially laid down: it was ensured that water leveling across the bottom of water barriers to a depth of 8 m was ensured, with a duration of being under water to 45 minutes.

To ensure the tightness of the tank when moving to a depth of 10 m, all openings, dampers, joints and hatches had gaskets capable of withstanding water pressure up to 1 kgf / cmg. The tightness of the joint between the swinging mask of twin guns and the turret was achieved due to the additional tightening of the seven armored fastening bolts and a rubber gasket installed along the perimeter of its inner side. When the bolts were unscrewed, the mask was reordered due to two cylindrical springs, dressed on gun barrels between the cradles and the mask, and returned to its original position.

The tightness of the hull and turret interface was provided by the original construction of the tower support. Instead of the traditional ball bearing, two carriage systems were used. Three vertical carts served to support the tower on a horizontal treadmill, and six horizontal trolleys to center the tower in a horizontal plane. When overcoming the water barrier, the tank tower using worm gears, lifting vertical carts, lowered onto the epaulet and, due to its large mass, tightly pressed the rubber gasket installed around the perimeter of the epaulet, and this ensured a sufficient tightness of the joint.

The combat and technical characteristics of the tank "Mouse"

Combat weight, t .............................................. ..188
Crew, cel ............................................... ........... 6
Power density, hp / t ................................ 9,6
Average ground pressure, kgf / cm2 .................. 1,6

Main dimensions, mm Length with a gun:
forward................................................. ........ 10200
back ................................................. .......... 12500
Height................................................. ........... 3710
Width................................................. .......... 3630
Support Surface Length ........................... 5860
Ground floor clearance .......................... 500

The gun, brand ................ KWK-44 (PaK-44); KWK-40
caliber, mm ............................................... .128; Xnumx
ammunition, shots ................................... 68; Xnumx
Machine guns, quantity, make ................... 1xMG.42
caliber, mm ............................................... ..... 7,92
Ammunition, ammo ................................... 1000

Armor protection, mm / tilt, hail
Body Forehead .................................... 200 / 52; 200 / 35
Chassis board ....................................... 185 / 0; 105 / 0
Feed ............................................. 160 / 38: 160 / 30
Roof................................................. ..105; 55; Xnumx
Bottom................................................. ........ 105; Xnumx
Forehead Tower ................................................ ....... 210
Airborne turret ................................................ .210 / 30
The roof of the tower ................................................ ..... 65

Maximum speed on the highway, km / h ............. 20
Cruising on the highway, km .................................. 186

Power point
Engine, make, type ........................... DB-603 А2, aviation, carburetor
Maximum power, hp .......................... 1750

Means of communication
Radio station, brand, type ........ 10WSC / UKWE, VHF

Communication range
(telephone / telegraph), km ............... 2 — 3 / 3 — 4

Special equipment
PPO system, type ....................................... Manual
number of cylinders (fire extinguishers) ....................... 2

Underwater driving equipment ...................................... OPVT kit
The depth of the overcome water obstacles, m ............................................ ............. 8
Duration of crew stay under water, min ................................ To 45

A metal air tube, intended for the operation of the power plant under water, was mounted on the driver's hatch and was fastened with steel braces. Additional pipe, giving the opportunity to evacuate the crew, located on the tower. The composite design of the air supply pipes made it possible to overcome water barriers of various depths. Exhaust fumes through check valves installed on the exhaust pipes were thrown into the water.

To overcome the deep ford, it was possible to transfer the electric power of a tank moving under water from a tank located onshore by cable.

Equipment for underwater driving tank

General assessment of tank design by domestic experts

According to domestic tank builders, a number of fundamental flaws (the main of them was insufficient firepower with significant dimensions and weight) did not allow to count on any effective use of the 205 Tour tank on the battlefield. Nevertheless, this machine was of interest as the first practical experience in creating a super-heavy tank with maximum allowable levels of armor protection and firepower. In its design, the Germans used interesting technical solutions, which were even recommended for use in the domestic tank building.

Of undoubted interest was a constructive solution for connecting armor parts of large thickness and dimensions, as well as the execution of individual units to ensure the reliability of the systems and the tank as a whole, the compactness of the nodes in order to reduce weight and dimensions.

It was noted that the compactness of the engine and transmission cooling system was achieved by using high-pressure two-stage fans and high-temperature liquid cooling of exhaust manifolds, which increased the reliability of the engine.

In the systems servicing the engine, a system of high-quality control of the working mixture was used, taking into account the barometric pressure and temperature conditions, the steam separator and the air separator of the fuel system.

In the transmission of the tank, noteworthy was the constructive design of electric motors and electric generators. The use of an intermediate reducer between the shaft of the traction motor and the on-board transmission made it possible to reduce the intensity of operation of electric machines and reduce their weight and dimensions. The German designers paid special attention to ensuring the reliability of transmission units while ensuring their compactness.

In general, the constructive ideology implemented in the German super-heavy tank "Mouse", given the combat experience of the Great Patriotic War, was assessed as unacceptable and leading to a dead end.

The fighting at the final stage of the war was characterized by deep raids of tank formations, their forced transfers (up to 300 km), caused by tactical necessity, as well as fierce street battles with massive use of anti-tank cumulative melee weapons (faustpatrons). Under these conditions, Soviet heavy tanks, acting together with the medium T-34 (not limiting the latter in terms of speed), moved forward and successfully solved the whole range of tasks assigned to them in breaking through the defenses.

On this basis, as the main directions for the further development of domestic heavy tanks, priority was given to strengthening armor protection (within reasonable values ​​of the tank’s combat mass), improving observation and fire control devices, and increasing the power and rate of fire of the main tank. weapons. To combat enemy aircraft, it was necessary to develop a remote-controlled anti-aircraft gun for heavy tanks, providing ground-based fire for a heavy tank.

These and many other technical solutions were envisaged for implementation in the design of the first post-war experienced heavy tank "Object 260" (EC-7).

1. Tactical and technical characteristics of the German super-heavy tank "Maus" (Mouse). - GBTU VS, 1946. -30 with.
2. Super heavy German tank "Maus" (Mouse): description and review of the design. - GBTU VS, 1946. -176 with.
3. The cooling system of units of the German super-heavy tank "Mouse": a constructive-technical analysis. -NIIBTPoligon, Ukbti MB VS USSR, 1948. - 76 with.
4. The power plant of the German super-heavy tank “Mouse-. Report NIBTpolygon GBTU VS. - M .: NIBTpolygon, 1946.-49 with.
5. Organization and management of the German tank industry. Report of the scientific tank committee of the armored and mechanized troops of the Armed Forces. -M..TBTU, 1946.-212 with.
6. Bulletin of the tank industry. - M .: NKPT, №7,8, 10,11 / 1945, №1, 5,6 / 1946, №4 / 1947.
7. Different works on tank building. The report of the technical department MinTransMash in Germany. - 1947. - 289 with.
8. Kruger R. Tanks. - M., 1922. - 109c.
9. Fleischer W. Die Heeresversuchsstelle Kummersdorf. -Podzun-Pallas, 1995. -200 c.
10. Schneider W., Strashein ft. Deutsche kamptwagen im 1 weltkrieg. - Podzun-Pallas, 1988. -50 c.
11. Spielberger W. Spezialpanzerfahrzeuge Des Deutschen Heeres. - Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart, 1987.-154 c.
12. Spielberger W. Der Panzerkampfwagen Tiger und seine Abarten. - Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart, 1991. - 154 c.
Articles from this series:
Wunderwaffe for Pantservaffe, "Mouse"
Wunderwaffe for Pantservaffe. Description of the design of the tank "Mouse"
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis_SF
    Denis_SF 5 March 2013 08: 58
    Prior to his release, still on paper, he was a dead-born monster ..
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 5 March 2013 10: 31
      The review is excellent, many did not believe that such a tank existed. My first tank is lvl 10 in the "World of Tanks".
    2. Dmitry_2013
      Dmitry_2013 5 March 2013 11: 59
      But having absorbed the most modern technological solutions, it became the basis and proof of the use of new technologies.
      In our tank building, there were also enough prototypes that did not go into series, but the developments were used later. smile :
      It was not for nothing that our people studied it with interest, so there was something to see. wink
      1. Uruska
        Uruska 5 March 2013 14: 55
        Yes, the tank is very interesting!
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 5 March 2013 15: 56
        In fairness, it must be said that the USSR had its own experimental monster - a four-track tank.
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 5 March 2013 16: 08
          If you are talking about the 279 object, then it was designed much later - in 1957. wink

          And the mouse has nothing to do with the story of the story. The design features of the tank and its chassis had purely utilitarian purposes.
  2. Dmitry_2013
    Dmitry_2013 5 March 2013 09: 02
    Mouse is a long history and experience that is dangerous to forget!
    Thanks to the author for the article! wink
  3. Iraclius
    Iraclius 5 March 2013 09: 08
    What an ugly awkward car. A real Teutonic freak!
    This vehicle certainly does not qualify for the title "Land battleship". A "mobile fort" is possible, but not a battleship. No.
    And how would he force the rivers - that’s scary! And modern tanks, they happen to be stuck or cannot climb onto the clay coast.
    The designers of Hitler at the end of the war are completely crazy, such a feeling. lol
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 5 March 2013 10: 08
      And ours managed to make a beautiful and efficient heavy tank ...

      Of course he is a little less neo performance characteristics impressive.

      Weight, t 45,8
      Crew, pers. Xnumx
      Overall dimensions, mm:
      9850 Length
      3200 Width
      2440 Height
      435 clearance
      Armament 122-mm gun D-25T model 1943 of the year
      7,62-mm machine gun DT
      12,7-mm DShK machine gun
      Ammunition 28 Shots
      1000X7,62 mm rounds
      945X12,7 mm rounds
      Armor protection, mm:
      12 forehead
      Board 90
      60 feed
      Roof 20
      Bottom xnumx
      75-230 Tower
      Engine B-2-IC
      12 Cylinder V-Shaped Diesel
      liquid cooling
      Engine power, hp Xnumx
      Maximum speed, km / h 40
      Cruising on highway, km 190
      Obstacle obstacles:
      wall height, m ​​1
      pit width, m 2,5
      ford depth, m 1,1
      rise, hail. Xnumx
      1. zao74
        zao74 5 March 2013 10: 25
        Uh, forehead, probably 120 mm.?
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 5 March 2013 10: 31
          Yes, yes, of course 120, I forgot the toe. hi
        2. laurbalaur
          laurbalaur 5 March 2013 10: 58
          zao74: actually, the article says, if you carefully read-
          Armor protection, mm / tilt, hail
          Body Forehead .................................... 200 / 52; 200 / 35
          Chassis board ....................................... 185 / 0; 105 / 0
          Feed ............................................. 160 / 38: 160 / 30
          Roof................................................. ..105; 55; Xnumx
          Bottom................................................. ........ 105; Xnumx
          Forehead Tower ................................................ ....... 210
          Airborne turret ................................................ .210 / 30
          The roof of the tower ................................................ ..... 65
      2. newnutella
        newnutella 5 March 2013 11: 42
        It became effective only when the end of its release was approaching! When numerous design flaws and the like have been eliminated. Early cars were generally terrible! as I said in the comments in yesterday's article - I advise you to read such a publication as "The report of the commission for the elimination of defects and design flaws." As for me, the rush to make it was unnecessary. I think the parade would look spectacular without it!
      3. During
        During 5 March 2013 11: 54
        Well, at the expense of effectiveness, it’s a very controversial statement ... the combat use of this IS is very unsuccessful ... well, beauty, of course ... ours can combine beauty and military power ...
        1. newnutella
          newnutella 5 March 2013 12: 48
          Regarding efficiency, I’ll add ... as far as I remember it was used by the Arabs against Israel ... but then the poor crew training played a significant role. Correct if not right
        2. klimpopov
          klimpopov 5 March 2013 13: 05
          Well, obviously more effective than Mouse. Well, in the end, the sense came out. I read for him. I don’t know at all, maybe we should return to the concept of a heavy tank?
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 5 March 2013 13: 27
            Quote: klimpopov
            I don’t know at all, maybe we should return to the concept of a heavy tank?

            What for? The tank will be more expensive, more complex and at the same time vulnerable to VET means. It was previously understood that the race was on: the thicker the armor, the greater the caliber of anti-tank guns. Now, with the development of ATGMs and aircraft, a heavy tank is an expensive toy that does not represent practical value. IMHO. Honestly, I will express an seditious thought: are tanks in general not an archaic type of weapons? In which conflict after WWII did tanks play a decisive role?
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 5 March 2013 15: 08
              Well, I do not presume to argue for it is not an expert in the field of armored forces. And yet, to get to the end of the tank will not work. What was the T-34 in fact? After all, he was to support the infantry. Is there any chance of getting rid of infantry? That is, in fact, this is an infantry fighting vehicle only without a compartment for an amphibious assault (the amphibious assault was sitting on the armor, is it clear where the roots of what we now have are from?) IMHO of course. But the heavy tank is just for fighting tanks and fortified points, that is, for breaking into the defense (well, not only of course). Now everything is mixed up, again, in my opinion, there is a tank, what is it for? To support the infantry? Why then do they need powerful protection from infantry fighting vehicles? In general, it is not clear. There are experts explain. But a heavy tank is a caliber and armor. Rather, if it’s completely cromolious, can it abandon the so-called light and medium (although there is no such division now)? By the way, Israel and its tanks are not moving in the direction of weighting (at the same time, I understand all the disadvantages of this path, and I understand that this is not in the spirit of our tank school), but what is the area of ​​application of the tank now? Infantry support? Then why BMPT? Hacking defense with a tank and BMPT? Then the BMP is valid only for delivery to the front edge. In general, completely confused))) Again, you can not replace one force with another. They must interact (kind of troops) and not compete. All the above said IMHO and just the modest thoughts of an office rat that does not understand anything in technology ....
          2. Iraclius
            Iraclius 5 March 2013 15: 23
            Guys, maybe that's enough already? Are you seriously comparing the capabilities of the Mouse and the IS-3 - a serial tank? I am begging you! If we draw an analogy with the war in the Pacific Ocean, then the firepower, size and armor protection of the super-battleships "Yamato" had no effect on its course.
            If the Mouse one on one collided with IS or ISU-152, then the outcome of the battle would be simply unpredictable! A simple hit of a shell from a gun, say, ISU-152 could stupidly deprive the crew of the Mouse of eardrums.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 5 March 2013 15: 29
              No, we are not talking about that. We are about tanks in principle)
              If the Mouse one on one collided with IS or ISU-152, then the outcome of the battle would be simply unpredictable! A simple hit of a shell from a gun, say, ISU-152 could stupidly deprive the crew of the Mouse of eardrums.

              Or intestinal contents ...
              1. Iraclius
                Iraclius 5 March 2013 15: 46
                klimpopov, I mean, a number of comrades reproach that the Mouse, they say, is underestimated and in general - the gloomy German genius again defeated everyone. Like, this car was supposed to be a mobile bunker, not a tank, etc. etc.
                The point is something. If you would like to make a bunker, then you had to do a bunker, although their effectiveness in conditions of maneuver war had already been repeatedly refuted. If you make a heavy tank, then you had to make a heavy tank.
                A Porsche & Co. created a completely non-viable cross between a bulldog and a rhino. If we really rely on the power of mobile fortifications, it is better to have small-sized mass self-propelled guns with powerful frontal armor and artillery.

                Here, you say that the strands need to be restored. And for what, can you explain? Without any performance characteristics and calibers - I myself am simply a military engineer, not a tanker. What is the point?
                1. klimpopov
                  klimpopov 6 March 2013 00: 32
                  Here, you say that the strands need to be restored. And for what, can you explain? Without any performance characteristics and calibers - I myself am simply a military engineer, not a tanker. What is the point?

                  But the heavy tank is just for fighting tanks and fortified points, that is, for breaking into the defense (well, not only of course).

                  Abrams intend Ahzarits and the like precisely for this.
                  This is all IMHO !!!
        3. carbofo
          carbofo 5 March 2013 18: 46
          Quote: Durant
          Well, at the expense of effectiveness, it’s a very controversial statement ... the combat use of this IS is very unsuccessful ... well, beauty, of course ... ours can combine beauty and military power ...

          Despite the shortcomings that may have occurred, it was difficult to find opponents on the battlefield.
          And when Stalin ordered a parade to be held on September 6, 1945 in Berlin, and the Allies saw 52 IS-3s, they could have a bite to eat a steel bar.
          You can’t even imagine what panic was in the ranks of the allies, and they knew firsthand about the combat effectiveness of our army at the end of the war.
          And quite seriously preparing for the fact that we will go further, to the west.
          But we are not British or American, we are not greedy.
          On this topic, I recall the "Caucasian campaign" of the end of the 30-year war with Shamil for the Caucasus. Then the local residents, after the defeat of the Shamil, expected robbery, violence and robbery, usual in their midst, from the victors, but not that we would sit in the fortress and take little interest in the local population. This is me about the Grozny fortress.
          How Eastern troops such as Turkey or Britain would have behaved, we know enough from the example of many countries.
          1. klimpopov
            klimpopov 6 March 2013 00: 44
            The same thing .....
          2. During
            During 6 March 2013 12: 18
            If you didn’t understand exactly the IS-3 in the photo (I wrote about it) and he didn’t participate in battles (at least for the USSR), therefore he didn’t get on the battlefield at all .. not to mention the absence of rivals on it .
            Well, about the real military use after the goode in the Middle East ... I already wrote that it was unsuccessful ... and that’s why its effectiveness is not correctly assessed ... and this is a fact in which for some reason you tried to convince me ... or you just do not understand what I wrote.
  4. datur
    datur 5 March 2013 09: 19
    Iraclius, well, yes you're right, rather a mobile kind of super dot! wink at least a child prodigy she is in Africa a child prodigy !!!!! wink laughing
  5. DAGESTAN333
    DAGESTAN333 5 March 2013 09: 44
    German engineers have always been brave people.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 5 March 2013 10: 03
      Courage bordering on meaning. lol
      Probably, they thought something like this: "I wish it would all be over! Let's help the Soviets defeat us a little!" lol
      1. family tree
        family tree 5 March 2013 19: 53
        At the top. Real anti-fascists did this tank! Etozh how many grooves did not rivet because of him, how many of our fighters saved their lives! It is necessary to give them a medal, as the home front workers. laughing
  6. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 5 March 2013 09: 51
    For a large cupboard - falls loudly.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 5 March 2013 10: 10
      German tank designers were carried away and completely forgot that the enemies of tanks are not only enemy tanks and self-propelled guns, but also the increasing power of aviation.
      The great tank ace of the 2nd World Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittmann did not die in a glorious tank duel, but from a banal hit by an attack aircraft missile in his famous Tiger tank # 213, launched from a Hawker "Typhoon" MkIB.
      And what a tidbit would be from the Mouse! lol
      Typically, the Germans themselves understood this, because they wanted to put anti-aircraft guns of a monstrous caliber for the tank on these machines. belay
      1. Ch0sen1
        Ch0sen1 5 March 2013 11: 59
        128 mm monstrous caliber for the tank? And then what about 152 mm on the KV-2?
        Yes, and 122 mm on the IS-2 and beyond is not much behind. repeat
        1. During
          During 5 March 2013 12: 08
          The KV-2 actually had a 152 mm howitzer ... and ammunition only with a high-explosive fragmentation shell ... something like that ...
          1. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 15 July 2013 14: 12
            Not only that, there were also concrete-piercing shells equipped with fuses with a long delay, so that the shell could enter deeper. Heard or read roofing felts a bike, roofing felts that they shot at tanks in the absence of others. When a third groove hit the tower, it struck right through and exploded 50 meters away. True or not, I don’t know, but there were such shells.
      2. Sirozha
        Sirozha 5 March 2013 12: 11
        They were going to put anti-aircraft guns of monstrous caliber on the tank not to shoot at attack aircraft, but because of their excellent shooting characteristics.
        And the guns themselves were made of a large caliber due to the constantly increasing flight altitude and the spread of fragments, which actually affect larger aircraft.
        1. Iraclius
          Iraclius 5 March 2013 15: 10
          No no no. You misunderstood me, no, I'm talking about the tank’s defensive anti-aircraft guns.
          The main armament of the Type 205 "Mouse" tank was the 12.8 cm KwK 44 L / 55 128 mm caliber gun, 68 rounds of separate loading (25 rounds were placed in the turret and 43 in the hull). Also in the turret was a 7.5 cm KwK L / 36 75 mm gun, 200 rounds of ammunition (125 in the turret and 75 in the hull). Additional armament - two machine guns Rheinmetall-Borzig MG 34 caliber 7.92 mm, 1000 rounds of ammunition in four cartridge boxes.

          A space was provided for the installation of anti-aircraft weapons, consisting of guns Mauser MG 141 / 15 caliber 15 mm or Mauser MG 151 / 20 caliber 20 mm.

  7. zao74
    zao74 5 March 2013 10: 35
    He recalled the English tanks of the 1st World War, the same huge and slow.
  8. I627z
    I627z 5 March 2013 10: 41
    Somewhere in 2001, I was in a museum in Kubinka, where in the German pavilion there is the only surviving copy (assembled from 2).
    It is striking that the Germans were generally able to collect this sample of equipment.
    Visually (when you are standing next to) the car simply shakes with its dimensions. The thickness of the armor plates is visually visible at the joints (spike in spike is welded) just fantastic for a tank. The traces of the shelling are impressive (he is exhibited with them). There are open rectangular "hatches" in the turret and on the hull. The insides (at least for that period) were completely absent. I think they did not survive after the explosion, or maybe they just did not exist initially. Standing on the "bottom" of the tank, I did not reach the ceiling of the tower with a height of 185 cm. Strongly rusty inside. I highly recommend looking at it with your own eyes. And in general, the exposition in the Kubinka is super past the "mouse" there is a lot of things.
    Conclusion on the product: Germans crumbling to solve complex technical issues, even to the detriment of common sense. (And what kind of new waffle should we give in to? A tank for 188 tons? And please!) They were clearly not interested in the practical benefits of this model, but rather in ideology. Why, with a practically lost war, such experiments are certainly a mystery.
    SPIRITofFREEDOM 5 March 2013 10: 45
    Do not sweep Mouse fascists vseravno!
    Our craftsmen would make it easy
    So not agile and slow
    I love to punch him in WoT
    I don’t understand the people who drive fascist technology there
    Himself only in the Soviet !!!
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 5 March 2013 16: 04
      You see, having in WoT all the top Soviet tanks (except for PT), I was forced to transfer to tanks of other parties. In addition, the last two patches steer the medium tanks, tear the strands to pieces, at least on the global map.
      1. carbofo
        carbofo 6 March 2013 07: 51
        In a real battle, our tanks are precisely the most effective, as they have equal anti-projectile armor, in a frontal projection,
        While any other tanks had problems with this, certain assumptions were made in the game.
        Yes, the fight is conducted at distances at which the effectiveness of the low and smooth silhouette of the is-3 does not give him advantages.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 6 March 2013 20: 53
          Quote: carbofo
          While any other tanks had problems with this, certain assumptions were made in the game.

          This is just a game, no comparisons, the performance characteristics of tanks are changed very much to please the balance. The battle of tanks with tanks - the failure of intelligence and command.
          1. carbofo
            carbofo 6 March 2013 21: 27
            as far as I can tell, in reality our tanks are more than good, all talk about their flaws, exaggeration.
            According to the technical specifications, our tanks are not inferior to anyone, in reality, equals did not enter into combat contact, or it is carefully hushed up.
            Judging by the field tests and assessment, with equal training of crews and equal tactical conditions, our tanks have advantages, but only with proper use.
            Otherwise, it will turn out as it will.
            As for the game HERE, try firing an IS3 from a long range with a projectile well, for example, from 200 meters into the forehead, few people will hit it from classmates, so they didn’t make it a very powerful weapon, so that it would not be a mouse on the battlefield.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 7 March 2013 00: 38
              This is a game, the MC-1 killed the mouse with one shot, hit the driver’s hatch, the mouse burned out completely.
              There are topics where the advantages and disadvantages of tanks of different countries are discussed.
              1. carbofo
                carbofo 7 March 2013 02: 09
                You will exaggerate, our tanks are one of the most protected, and tenacious on the battlefield, so believe us there was something to check in due time.
                Only we have such a powerful weapon, if we still use the American subcaliber, then in general everything will break through. :).
  10. zmey
    zmey 5 March 2013 10: 56
    Well, our stops on time did not begin to build tanks according to Grotte's designs.
    As all the same, our T-34 and IL-2 got panzervaffe !! it’s necessary to think of such a whopper !!!
    I wonder how the German engineers planned to camouflage the "mouse" on the ground or bury it along the tower (or to the middle of the side, the thickness of the armor allows) ???
  11. anip
    anip 5 March 2013 11: 04
    Many criticize "Mouse", forgetting about the time period in which it (the tank) was created. The Germans planned to use it as a mobile bunker in a complex of buildings for defensive lines to plug holes in the threatened defense sectors closest to the "Mouse", despite even the insufficient firepower for such a tank (although 128 mm guns and powerful armor are quite enough to solve almost all tasks in defense). In this case, this tank does not need to cross rivers and overcome any difficult terrain. Another thing is that even with such an idea, the "Mouse" turned out to be useless.
  12. Shesternyack
    Shesternyack 5 March 2013 11: 11
    Quote: Iraclius
    Probably, they thought something like this: "I wish it would all be over! Let's help the Soviets defeat us a little!"

    I agree, even if this monster were to be adopted, Germany had neither time nor industrial capacities for mass production.
    P / S / German designers are so German - even the task with the installation on "unhook" was carried out with all meticulousness
  13. Volkhov
    Volkhov 5 March 2013 12: 37
    For some reason, nobody is interested in the details of the design, although an article about them:
    - the shape of the track "frame" is convenient for installing a rubber cushion - this is for the 4th Reich tunnels, the escort armored personnel carriers were also with asphalt tracks, there is even a photo on the Internet
    - tunnel dimension, like a carriage
    - the electric drive is important underground, where mice can ride like a trolley without poisoning the air
    - power cable allows you to exit the underwater gate or landing submarine
    This is a specialized technique, in Kummersdorf just passed sea trials, do not drive the tanks around secret bases.
    1. Iraclius
      Iraclius 5 March 2013 15: 14
      Quote: Volkhov
      the electric drive is important underground, where mice can ride like a trolley without poisoning the air

      Uh ... I didn’t catch up a bit. There is evidence that this weapon of retaliation should have been used as an armored car?
      It's just that I personally understood this epic venture with an electric transmission in a purely utilitarian way - electric motors stupidly provided better traction capabilities for such a "pig" than the internal combustion engine that Germany had at that time.
      Explain if not difficult. hi
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 5 March 2013 20: 54
        Electric transmission is not used on field tanks (for maneuver warfare), because the generator / electric motor efficiency is always about half lower than a manual transmission and takes up a lot of space compared to a cardan and gearbox and costs a lot and less mileage.
        But to start a tank motor in a tunnel is unpleasant and dangerous, so the electric drive (like in the subway) is better, and the mileage from the outside is small - it came out of the gate, shot at the landing and burrow until it was bombed.
        The first such experience - Elephant / Ferdinand - drove very poorly on the ground, but did not break through the front and if the sides and the roof are protected by a rock, then it is difficult to offend him.
        Fidel Castro on the Playa Giron used the Su-100 and T-34 in the anti-airborne defense quite successfully, but if he had been seriously bombed, only tanks in the tunnels would have survived.
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 15 July 2013 14: 39
          Electric transmission was applied on this miracle of German technology because of the impossibility at that technical level, materials, etc. provide sufficient mechanical reliability for such a heavy machine. What fully manifested itself earlier, on the much lighter heavy tanks Tiger B. (sorry for the pun hi ) The electric transmission of the Elephant ACS, on the other hand, demonstrated quite acceptable reliability. And here the tunnels ?? The generator block is turned by the same smoking internal combustion engine. soldier
    TROLLFACE 5 March 2013 19: 33
    The authors are well done, the article is famous.
    If the mice were designed and built a little earlier, who knows what would have happened ...
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 5 March 2013 19: 39
      [quote = TROLLFACE] If the mice were constructed early and built more, who knows what would happen ..
      Yes, there wouldn’t be anything, just then it’s hard to pull scrap metal out of the swamps laughing .
    2. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 15 July 2013 14: 41
      There would be more scrap metal on the basis of bully
  15. 77bor1973
    77bor1973 5 March 2013 21: 43
    One-on-one drive control scheme for the traction generator as on modern diesel locomotives.
  16. Selevc
    Selevc 5 March 2013 23: 48
    Yes, the article is very informative !!!

    The Germans have always been world leaders in metalworking !!! Even now, if you search the old Soviet factories, you can still find captured German machines ... And many of them are still in service !!!
  17. b-612
    b-612 6 March 2013 01: 20
    I heard that in Europe there was not a single bridge capable of withstanding this mouse ....
  18. ildar335
    ildar335 6 March 2013 07: 21
    mouse cool guys !!!)
  19. Tatar-in
    Tatar-in 7 March 2013 08: 28
    The creation of such a tank was only a purely Hitler venture. He dreamed of creating a super weapon that would change the course of the war. Although the design itself had a lot of technical solutions that could be called innovative. Also, with such large dimensions and weight, the tank was quite passable
  20. Mohomax
    Mohomax 21 March 2013 13: 13
    the tank itself is a dangerous sort of Goliath only in body armor and a helmet, but he would not have a chance to turn the tide of the war, of course there are a lot of 200 mm in the forehead but our heavy tanks had good characteristics while the mobility of the mice was inferior to them