Jump to content


Another Maus restoration thread


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

AlasdhairM #1 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 17:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 579 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012
So it came up again on FTR, and I was thinking, why not a gas turbine for the drive system? They're reasonably compact, and pretty darn powerful, and the Ruasians have some experience with them (see T-80). What do you think?

AstrologicalPhenomena98 #2 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 4298 battles
  • 8,641
  • [16ADX] 16ADX
  • Member since:
    09-24-2012
Let's not give the Maus anything to give it gas...wait I misread

Meplat #3 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 18:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

So, you're proposing a museum in the "business" of restoration and preservation of historical armored vehicles, develop a completely new drivetrain based on a gas turbine for a vehicle that never ever mounted one?

 

Really?



Chopa #4 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 20:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 40926 battles
  • 491
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

A nuclear reactor with steam to the drive-train, the Russians are REALLY good at that!

 


 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vihv_cQBawo



Blackhorse_00_ #5 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 20:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 2554 battles
  • 327
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2012

View PostMeplat, on Nov 28 2014 - 12:54, said:

So, you're proposing a museum in the "business" of restoration and preservation of historical armored vehicles, develop a completely new drivetrain based on a gas turbine for a vehicle that never ever mounted one?

 

If the object is simply to make it driveable, why not?

 

How many other things on a "restored" Maus would have to be replaced by modern parts made to spec?



Blackhorse_Six_ #6 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 21:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 53537 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostBlackhorse_0_0, on Nov 28 2014 - 14:45, said:

If the object is simply to make it driveable, why not?

 

How many other things on a "restored" Maus would have to be replaced by modern parts made to spec?

 

You may have missed something here, ZZ ...

 

The drive was diesel-electric - a gas turbine might be a little over-blown in this case.

 

(+1) for thinkin' ... which is not always your forte :tongue:



Meplat #7 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 21:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostBlackhorse_0_0, on Nov 28 2014 - 12:45, said:

 

If the object is simply to make it driveable, why not?

 

How many other things on a "restored" Maus would have to be replaced by modern parts made to spec?

 

There is a huge difference between "restored with modern made reproductions" and "Stuffing in major components that were never there in the first place". Like a modern gas turbine powerplant.

 

Akin to "restoring" a M3 medium with a 12V71 Detroit, an Allison automatic and a L7A1 105 in the sponson. It's not a "restoration" at that point.



Anlushac11 #8 Posted Nov 28 2014 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 39219 battles
  • 2,359
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

Resto-mods are popular with cars, not so much priceless rare WW2 tanks.

 

May have to wait awhile for enough funding for "Pimp My Tank"



AlasdhairM #9 Posted Nov 30 2014 - 03:38

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 579 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012
I was thinking of a gas turbine because is powerful and compact, and is more available than the original engine.

Meplat #10 Posted Nov 30 2014 - 04:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostAlasdhairM, on Nov 29 2014 - 19:38, said:

I was thinking of a gas turbine because is powerful and compact, and is more available than the original engine.

 

And it defeats the purpose of "a restoration".

KrasnayaZvezda #11 Posted Nov 30 2014 - 15:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10239 battles
  • 2,629
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostMeplat, on Nov 29 2014 - 05:55, said:

Akin to "restoring" a M3 medium with a 12V71 Detroit, an Allison automatic and a L7A1 105 in the sponson. It's not a "restoration" at that point.

 

I'd definitely want to see that, though.



Meplat #12 Posted Nov 30 2014 - 18:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostKrasnayaZvezda, on Nov 30 2014 - 07:28, said:

 

I'd definitely want to see that, though.

 

Such contraptions used to turn up at car shows. usually a gun tractor chassis with a large V8 engine and far too much chrome.

AlasdhairM #13 Posted Dec 02 2014 - 23:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 579 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012

View PostMeplat, on Nov 30 2014 - 04:28, said:

 

And it defeats the purpose of "a restoration".

 

But it would get the darn thing moving again. I suppose if the good doctor had designed the tank with room for a properly sized engine, this wouldn't be a problem, though. 

Donward #14 Posted Dec 02 2014 - 23:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011
If you can't do it right, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Spector668 #15 Posted Dec 03 2014 - 06:06

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22745 battles
  • 113
  • [K-H] K-H
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

Looks at Maus,,"mid-1940's tech"...(innovative though through the use of combination of diesel/electric drive)

 

Looks at M1-family geared-turbine 'plant, "late 20th century tech".

 

Nope.



Conejo82 #16 Posted Dec 03 2014 - 07:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25543 battles
  • 376
  • [HARE] HARE
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012
to see it move again would be neat but the museum said they dont wanna restore Mausy cuz it would be "unpatriotic" :( one day maybe, but atleast it drives in WoT

IMA_RANDOM_BAD_PLAYER_GG #17 Posted Dec 03 2014 - 07:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 39617 battles
  • 6,564
  • Member since:
    07-22-2012
can it go under water?

Meplat #18 Posted Dec 05 2014 - 17:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostAlasdhairM, on Dec 02 2014 - 15:10, said:

 

But it would get the darn thing moving again. I suppose if the good doctor had designed the tank with room for a properly sized engine, this wouldn't be a problem, though. 

 

Installing an engine of the correct design vintage would be a far more appropriate course of action.. 

 

Stuffing a turboshaft into a vehicle that never mounted one and calling it a "restoration" however, is simply ridiculous.



Blackhorse_Six_ #19 Posted Dec 05 2014 - 23:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 53537 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostMeplat, on Dec 05 2014 - 11:38, said:

Installing an engine of the correct design vintage would be a far more appropriate course of action..

 

Stuffing a turboshaft into a vehicle that never mounted one and calling it a "restoration" however, is simply ridiculous.

 

I cannot recall that the Russians stated, specifically, that they intended to Restore the Maus as defined by the popular opinion being batted around in this thread. I too, understood that the goal was to make it self-propelled. That does not require an an original engine and the visiting general public probably wouldn't know, nor care if they did.



Meplat #20 Posted Dec 06 2014 - 00:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Dec 05 2014 - 15:18, said:

 

I cannot recall that the Russians stated, specifically, that they intended to Restore the Maus as defined by the popular opinion being batted around in this thread. I too, understood that the goal was to make it self-propelled. That does not require an an original engine and the visiting general public probably wouldn't know, nor care if they did.

 

because they were not going to restore it at all. 

And once more, putting a modern design or ahistorical design into a vehicle "in order to get it moving" is not what a museum in the business of historical preservation should be doing, regardless of the circumstances.

 

Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

It's akin to putting a modern interpretation of the Wright Flyer, propelled by a modern reciprocating engine and skinned in Ceconite because "the general public won't know nor care" in the NASM, and claiming it's correct.

That is not the job of a museum.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users