This German drawing shows a sectionalized elevation of the Mouse hull.The following salient features may be distinguished: driver's seat and periscope; radio operator's seat and radio; radio antenna; air intakes for main engine); main engine; generator; the right motor of the two electric motors driving the sprockets; auxiliary fuel tank. The coaxial 75-mm gun is on the right of the turret; its position relative to the 128-mm gun is shown in dotted outline.
A sectionalized plan view of the Mouse hull gives another view of many of the features shown in the first illustration. The driver's and radio operator's seats (left) are flanked by the main fuel tanks. Just to their rear is the main engine, flanked by air pumps and radiators. Further to the rear is the generator, with ammunition stowage in the sponsons on either side. In the sponson on the front right of the generator is the auxiliary engine, with storage batteries to its rear. To the rear of the hull, also in the sponsons, are the motors furnishing the electric drive. The actual transmission is in the deep part of hull between the motors, behind the generator.
The Mouse was as vulnerable to close-in attack as any other tank, if not more so. The large hull openings were a particular disadvantage. Note their extent: the grills of the engine access hatch, the grilled air vents which flank it, and the grills under the rear of the turret, which cool the electric motors. The auxiliary fuel tank on the rear was a considerable fire hazard.
The size and weight of the Mouse made necessary extremely wide tracks in relation to hull width. This view also shows half of the engine air-cooling system (left), and rear of right fuel tank, with an oil tank just to its left.
Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus
The development of super heavy tanks started as early as 1941, when Krupp started the studies of superheavy Soviet tanks.
In early 1942, Krupp produced designs of Tiger-Maus (VK7001) and PzKpfw VII Löwe (VK7201), but on March 5/6th of 1942, an order for a heavier tank was placed. Löwe never reached the prototype stage but paved the way for their successor's development. On March 21/22nd of 1942, Porsche received the contract for new 100-ton Panzer - VK10001 / Porsche Typ 205. On April 14/15th, it specified that new 100-ton tank must carry at least 100 rounds of ammunition. VK10001 was to be developed by Professor Ferdinand Porsche and Dr.Müller (Krupp) at the personal demand of Adolf Hitler made in May of 1942. He demanded a 120-ton "indestructible" super-heavy tank armed with high performance L/60 or L/72 gun.
The task of producing hulls, turrets and armament was given to Krupp, while Alkett was responsible for the assembly. First specifications demanded that armament should consist of a 150mm L/40 gun and 20mm MG151/20 heavy machine gun, while usage of a 128mm L/50 was under consideration. It was stated that a prototype should be operational before the Spring of 1943. On 23 June of 1942, Porsche provided its design for an improved VK10001 armed with turret mounted 150mm L/37 and 105mm L/70 guns. Porsche promised that the first prototype wpould be ready in May of 1943. In December of 1942, new armaments such as 150mm gun, 127mm naval gun, 128mm Flak and the longest version of 128mm were considered. Also in the same month, it was restated that the first vehicle was to be ready in Summer of 1943, followed by the production of 5 per month. The first official names VK10001 and Porsche Typ 205 Mammut ("Mammoth") were used in April of 1942, followed by Mäuschen (Mousy) in December of 1942 and Maus (Mouse) in February of 1943. In January of 1943, Hitler decided that the Mäuschen was to be fitted with a turret mounted with 128mm and 75mm guns, while a turret mounted with 150mm KwK 44 L/38 or 170mm KwK 44 gun was to be designed for future use. Specification for ammunition storage space were never met and decreased by further modifications.
From the designs emerged a 188 tonnes heavy monster. On 1 May 1943, a wooden mockup of the Maus was presented to Adolf Hitler, who agreed on production and ordered series of 150 to be produced. On 4 November 1943, development of Maus was to be ceased and only one was to be completed for evaluation. In October of 1943, the original order placed by Hitler for 150 vehicles was cancelled.
On 24 December 1943, the first turretless prototype was completed by Alkett and was put toextensive tests. During the tests, the Maus could hardly move due to its enormous weight and power/weight ratio. The first prototype V1 (Maus I), was powered by a modified Daimler-Benz MB 509 (developed from the DB 603 aircraft engine), which could not provide the planned speed of 20km/h but only 13km/h in ideal conditions. Also problems arouse with the suspension system which had to be modified in order to take the weight of the vehicle. Another problem that emerged from its weight, there were simply no bridges able to take the its weight. To overcome this problem Maus had to be provided with a "Schnorchel" arrangement which allowed it to submerge to a maximum depth of 8 meters. In December of 1943, V1 was fitted with a (Belastungsgewicht) simulated turret (representing the weight of the turret) and was tested. Maus I was applied with camouflage paint and marked with red star and hammer and sickle disguised as a captured Russian vehicle.
In March of 1944, the second prototype V2 (Maus II) which differed in numerous details from V1 was produced. V2 lacked the powerplant, which was fitted in mid 1944. On 9 April 1944, Krupp produced the turret, which in June of 1944, was delivered and then mounted on V2 and tested. Krupp produced a turret mounted with 128mm KwK 44 L/55 gun with coaxial 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5 gun and 7.92mm MG34, providing the Maus with an enormous firepower. Maus' main gun could penetrate front, side and rear armor (at 30 degrees from vertical) of Sherman, Cromwell, Churchill, T-34/85 and JS-2 tanks at ranges of 3500+ meters. The turret included mounts for rangefinder (by Zeiss), but was not fully finished and some of the missing components were shipped later on.
Maus I was to be fitted with Krupp's second turret but it was never delivered and it remained fitted with the simulated turret. On 25 July 1944, Krupp reported that two hulls would be available soon and two more later on. On 27 July 1944, Krupp was ordered to scrap those four hulls. On 19 August 1944, Krupp informed Porsche that it was ordered to stop further work on Maus. In September of 1944, the second prototype started its tests. It was installed with a Daimler-Benz MB 517 diesel engine that made little difference in comparison with the previously used engine. An advanced electric steering system was used to steer the vehicle. Its running gear, designed by Skoda, consisted of double-wheeled trucks supported by twelve return rollers with 1100mm wide tracks. The crew had to be provided with oxygen supplied by built-in fans/ventilators when all the hatches were closed.
In order to transport the Maus, a special 14-axle railroad transport car (Verladewagon) was produced by Graz-Simmering-Pauker Works in Vienna. From mid January to early October of 1944, trials took place at the armored vehicle proving grounds in Kummersdorf (near Berlin) and then at the Porsche proving grounds at Boblingen. Tests were long, delayed by engine failures and production delays caused by Allied bomber attacks on German factories. During the tests, it was determined that in case of any failure each Maus would have to be towed by two other Maus tanks. It is also reported that Germans worked on Flakzwilling 8.8cm auf Maus, which was to be Maus mounted with a modified turret housing two 88mm Flak 43 guns and used as a heavy Flakpanzer.
Some sources state that according to Porsche, Hitler's aim for the Maus was to plug holes in the Atlantic coastal defenses on the Western Front, where its limited range and mobility wouldn't have been too much of a hindrance. The popular version states that V2 prototype was blown up by the personnel at proving grounds in Kummersdorf, while some sources state that actually V2 saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf. When war ended, the almost finished V1 turret and third hull were found at Krupp facilities in Essen.
Overall, Maus was an interesting design but it would be of limited combat value because of its poor mobility and heavy weight making it more of a mobile fortification rather than a super tank. One fully assembled example (V2 turret mounted on V1 hull) was tested at Kubinka in 1951/52 and can be seen today in the Museum of Armored Forces in Kubinka (near Moscow) in Russia.
A report on the German Maus super-heavy tank, from the Intelligence Bulletin, March 1946
The German Mouse Super-Heavy Tank Became Hitler's White Elephant
One of the subjects of liveliest controversy during the Allied invasion of France was the heavy tank—the 50-ton Pershing, the 62-ton Tiger, the 75-ton Royal Tiger. Were these worth their weight? Did they gain—in protection and fire power—as much as they sacrificed in mobility? Adolf Hitler's mind was presumably made up on this point. A pet project of his, which few were aware of, appears to have been a superheavy tank that would have dwarfed even the Royal Tiger. Dubbed the Mouse, this behemoth of doubtful military value was to weigh 207 tons, combat loaded. Two were actually built, although they were never equipped with their armament.
The Mouse is an amazing vehicle, with spectacular characteristics. The glacis plate up front is approximately 8 inches (200 mm) thick. Since it is sloped at 35 degrees to the vertical, the armor basis is therefore 14 inches. Side armor is 7 inches (180 mm) thick, with the rear protected by plates 6 1/4 inches (160 mm) thick. The front of the turret is protected by 9 1/2 inches (240 mm) of cast armor, while the 8-inch (200 mm) thick turret sides and rear were sloped so as to give the effect of 9 inches (230 mm) of armor.
For the main armament, a pea-shooter like an 88-mm gun was ignored. Selected instead was the powerful 128-mm tank and antitank gun, which was later to be replaced by a 150-mm piece 38 calibers in length. (The standard German medium field howitzer 15 cm s.F.H. 18 is only 29.5 calibers in length.) Instead of mounting a 7.9-mm machine gun coaxially, the Mouse was to have a 75-mm antitank gun 76 calibers in length next to the 128- or 150-mm gun. A machine cannon for antiaircraft was to be mounted in the turret roof, along with a smoke grenade projector.
In size, the Mouse was considerably larger than any German tank. Its length of 33 feet made it nearly 50 percent longer than the Royal Tiger. Because of rail transport considerations. its width was kept to 12 feet (that of the Royal Tiger and Tiger). A 12-foot height made it a considerable target.
In order to reduce the ground pressure so that the tank could have some mobility, the tracks had to be made very wide—all of 43.3 inches. With the tracks taking up over 7 of its 12 feet of width, the Mouse presents a very strange appearance indeed from either a front or rear view. With such a track width, and a ground contact of 19 feet 3 inches, the Mouse keeps its ground pressure down to about 20 pounds per square inch—about twice that of the original Tiger.
Designing an engine sufficiently powerful to provide motive power for the mammoth fighting vehicle was a serious problem. Though the Germans tried two engines, both around 1,200 horsepower (as compared to the Royal Tiger's 590), neither could be expected to provide a speed of more than 10 to 12 miles an hour. The Mouse can, however, cross a 14-foot trench and climb a 2-foot 4-inch step.
Whatever the military possibilities of the Mouse might be, it certainly gave designers space in which to run hog wild on various features which they had always been anxious to install in tanks. One of these gadgets was an auxiliary power plant. This plant permitted pressurizing of the crew compartment, which in turn meant better submersion qualities when fording, and good anti-gas protection. Auxiliary power also permitted heating and battery recharging.
One of the fancy installations was equipment designed for fording in water 45 feet deep—a characteristic made necessary by weight limits of bridges. Besides sealing of hatches and vents, aided by pressurizing, submersion was to be made possible by the installation of a giant cylindrical chimney or trunk, so large that it could serve as a crew escape passage if need be. The tanks were intended to ford in pairs, one powering the electric transmission of the other by cable.
The electric transmission was in itself an engineering experiment of some magnitude. This type of transmission had first been used on the big Elefant assault gun-tank destroyer in 1943, and was considered by some eminent German designers as the best type of transmission—if perfected—for heavy tanks.
Another interesting feature of the Mouse from the engineering point of view was the return from torsion bar suspension—such as was used in the Pz. Kpfw. III, the Panther, the Tiger, and the Royal Tiger—to a spring suspension. An improved torsion bar design had been considered for the Mouse, but was abandoned in favor of a volute spring type suspension.
Why the Mouse?
Just why the Germans wanted to try out such a monstrosity as the Mouse is a question to be answered by political and propaganda experts. Whereas such a heavy tank might conceivably have had some limited military usefulness in breakthrough operations, it was no project for Nazi Germany experimentation in 1943, 1944, and 1945. For not only did German authorities waste time of engineers and production facilities on the two test models, but they even went so far as to construct a special flat car for rail transport.
The drawbacks inherent in such a heavy tank are patent. Weigh not only denies practically every bridge in existence to the Mouse, but it impedes rail movement unless railways are properly reinforced at bridges, culverts, and other weak points.
Fording to 45-foot depths would have solved many of the stream-crossing problems in Europe, but it seems that the Mouse could actually cross in water no deeper than 26 feet.
Though sitting in a rolling fortress, the six men of the Mouse crew are practically as blind as in any tank. Because of low speed and high silhouette their vehicle would be most vulnerable to hits. Since it is reasonable to suppose that heavily fortified, static positions suitable for attack by a Mouse would also be fitted with very heavy, high-velocity guns capable of antitank fire, the even occasional combat value of the Mouse comes into question.
The German 128-mm Pak 44 (also known in modified forms as the 12.8 cm Pak 80) is reputed to be able to penetrate 7 inches of armor at 2,000 yards. Since the Germans actually had their Pak 44 in service in 1945, when the Mouse was not yet in the production stage, it would appear that the Germans had the antidote before the giant tanks were ready. Moreover, in the later days of the war, a rolling colossus like a Mouse would have been almost impossible to conceal, and would have fallen an easy prey to air power.
The psychological factor thus appears to have played a large part in the demand for construction of the Mouse. The German Army would never have desired such a tank, especially in 1942 when its design was apparently initiated. On the other hand, it would have made lurid headlines and Sunday supplement copy in both Allied and German press circles. But whatever the public reaction might have been, it seems questionable that the Mouse could have exerted any psychological effect on Russian, British, or American front-line troops unless the Germans possessed almost overwhelming strength, as they did when they crushed the Maginot Line in 1940. In 1944-45 it would have been too easy a mark for Allied gun and planes the first instant it appeared.
Mice of the Future
The appearance of such a vehicle in the opening phases of a future war is not to be entirely discounted. When Red Army armored units counterattacked German forces advancing northward toward Leningrad in 1941, the Soviets effected a substantial surprise and just missed obtaining a considerable victory by throwing in for the first time heavy 46-ton KV tanks backed by 57-ton modified KV's mounting 152-mm tank guns in their turrets.
KV1 as Pz 756(r)
KV2 as Pz 754 (r)
The first days of a war are a time of uncertainty. This is a period when peacetime armies are proving themselves, when their personnel are still anxious to determine the validity of their matériel and tactical doctrines, when they are anxious to discover what the enemy is like. Rumors grow fast, and untried men are likely to be impressed with the mere report of the size and gun power of a superheavy tank. Officers and noncoms should therefore be aware of the possibility of encountering such colossal tanks. They should see that their men know the deficiencies and real purpose of outlandish vehicles of the class of the German Mouse, and that they do not attribute to these vehicles capabilities out of all proportion to their actual battle value.
Panzerkampfwagen VII 'Löwe'
Panzerkampfwagen VIII 'Maus'
Panzer IX and Panzer X were meant as disinformation designs published in 1944 in “Signal” magazine to fool the Allies, but by the end of the war similar “rounded” German tank designs were being evaluated. PzKpfw X was to be wider but lower than Maus and was to be armed with the German 88mm or even 128mm gun. Both designs were very advanced and modern including many features which can be found in modern tanks of today.
The E 100 project was the Heereswaffenamt rival to the Maus, as there was considerable opposition to Porsche and his unconventional mechanical ideas. Under Heydekampf at the Panzer Commission (Porsche was removed as head of this commission) a long-term plan was drawn up to produce a rationalized series of Entwicklung-typen (development-types) or E series. This range of tanks were to use standardized parts and were to be built in classes of varying sizes to replace existing vehicles. The types had a designation with a number indicating their weight in tons: E 10, E 25, E 50 (Panther replacement), E 75 (Tiger replacement) and E 100. Of these, only the E 100 project was actually started, as an attempt to rival Porsche's work. When Porsche started work on the Maus, an initial order was placed with Henschel, builders of the Tiger II, for a much enlarged, super-heavy version of the Tiger II. This project was known as the Tiger-Maus or VK 7001 PzKpfw VII Löwe (Lion). The armament was to be the same 128mm gun as the Jagdtiger. With the Entwicklung-typen programme, the VK 7001 order was replaced by the E 100. Road wheels, sprockets and idlers were to be similar to those used on the Tiger II. Armored covers were proposed for the tracks, which were one meter wide.
The E 100 was authorized in June, 1943 and work in earnest continued until 1944 when Hitler officially ended development of super heavy tanks. After Hitler's announcement, only three Adler employees were allowed to continue assembly of the prototype, and the work was given lowest priority. Even with these handicaps, the three workers were able to virtually complete the prototype by war's end at a small Henschel facility near Paderborn. The prototype lacked only a turret (which was to be identical to the Maus turret save in armament).
For its initial tests, a Tiger II Maybach HL230P30 engine had been fitted. This engine, of course, was far too weak to properly power the 140 ton E-100. The production engine was to be the Maybach HL234. The HL234 developed 800hp, which is only 100hp better than the HL230P30. Some sources indicate that a Daimler-Benz diesel which developed 1000hp would have ultimately been used.
The Maus mounted the 12.8cm KwK 44 L/55 found in the Jagdtiger. Using the same turret, the E 100 was initially slated to use the 15cm KwK44 L38, but provision was made to eventually up-gun the vehicle with a 17cm KwK 44.
The E 100 was very conventional in its architecture. The standard rear-engine/front-drive layout was maintained. The engine deck of the Tiger II was also carried over into this design (rather than the updated design of the E 50/75). The suspension was characteristic of the E-series, however, in that it was of the externally-mounted Belleville Washer type. While the engine-deck layout of the prototype was taken directly from the Tiger II, it is entirely possible that it would have been changed to match the E 50/75 had production of the E-series actually began to allow for maximum commonality of components.
The armor on the E 100 was designed to withstand hits from just about any anti-tank round of the day. Armor on the turret ranged from 200mm on the sides and rear to 240mm on the front. The turret roof was protected by a seemingly paltry 40mm of armor. Unfortunately, the round shape of the turret front could have deflected shots downward into the top of the superstructure. Armor protection on the superstructure varried from 200mm on the front to a total of 180mm on the sides and 150mm on the rear. The top of the superstructure was protected by the same 40mm of armor found on the turret. The hull had 150mm of armor on the front and rear and 120mm on the sides behind the suspension. Protection on the bottom of the hull was good at 80mm.
Given the armored protection of the E-100, most tanks would have needed a shot to deflect into the top of the superstructure from the turret front to knock it out. The vehicle would have, however, been highly vunerable to air attack as the angles presented to dive bombers or fighter/bombers would have been protected to only 40mm. This protection is comparable to the Tiger II in the same areas.