bro. KV-2 is a heavy tank not a medium plus the speed one is inaccurate Maus has 20.8 km/h Kv-2 has 28 km/h, no shit that maus is 188 tons. Plus, @Cody_hun123 literally said that the kv-2 has bigger barrel size. Saying maus is stronger is accurate except the "best tank" ofc there's many german or other nation tanks better than that.
@@Dogeawviwi274 The KV-2, initially designed as a heavy artillery tank, was not intended for direct tank combat. In contrast, the German Maus tank was technologically advanced, boasting superior firepower and significantly enhanced armor protection.
Still the KV-2 gun has too many drawbacks when it comes to fighting tanks, range, accuracy, reload time, etc. only thing it has is damage, but the Maus has 200+mm of armor almost everywhere so good luck. The 128mm was the best anti tank gun of ww2, yes it was kind of overkill but still, it could probably kill the KV-2 outside the 152mm range
These categories lack coherence and relevance. "Sovit" seems to be a misspelling of "Soviet," but it's significance regardless remains arbitrary. Mentioning a Porsche engine and labeling the tank as a "super tank" without substantiation only adds to the confusion. Terms like "Diesel fuel," "weakness," "second cannon," "medium," and "super tank" are arbitrarily included without proper context or comparative analysis. These ambiguous categories don't contribute to assessing the vehicle's effectiveness accurately. In particular, the inclusion of a second cannon as a merit for the Maus is perplexing and indicative of a misunderstanding of tank design principles. Each category must provide clear criteria to evaluate the superiority of one tank over another. Firstly, the criterion of diesel fuel is inadequately assessed. While diesel may offer advantages in certain contexts, its drawbacks must also be considered, precluding it from being a decisive factor. Similarly, terms like "weakness" and "medium" lack specificity and should not serve as criteria for comparison. The KV-2, for instance, is categorically a heavy tank, not medium as erroneously suggested. Furthermore, the notion of "stronger" remains ambiguous and requires specification-whether referring to firepower, armor, or another attribute-to be relevant in a comparative analysis. As for labeling the Maus a "super tank," it is crucial to note that such classifications, if valid, necessitate an assessment of the inherent advantages and disadvantages specific to super heavy tanks. Regarding the Maus's secondary cannon, while it provides backup capability, it compromises crew space, mechanical reliability, and adds unnecessary weight and logistical challenges. The allocation of points for secondary armament should rightfully favor the Maus, given the effectiveness and longevity of its Mg34 and auxiliary cannon. The Maus's substantial weight, totaling 188 tons, primarily poses logistical challenges rather than tactical advantages. This weight not only limits transportability and cross-terrain mobility but also strains the vehicle's mechanical components and infrastructure, rendering it impractical for any combat scenarios. Lastly, the notion of a "best tank" is subjective and lacks objective criteria for evaluation. Without defining what constitutes the "best" in concrete terms-such as absolute invulnerability, unmatched firepower, or unprecedented mobility-it remains an arbitrary judgment, unsuitable for objective comparison. In conclusion, while the Maus may emerge as a preferred choice, the evaluation criteria must be substantiated and streamlined to avoid arbitrary judgments. Many of the current categories lack relevance and should be reassessed to provide a more informed comparison between competing vehicles.
Jeez, so many "experts" here. KV-2 obviously more speed here, the cannon caliber is bigger, they can LITERALLY overpressure the Maus crew, or penetrate the turret crew (cheeks are weak spot of the maus.) They could also trap shot it. KV-2 wins, no-diff.
Your comment is quite amusing, but it seems there's some misinformation that needs addressing. First, while you criticize others for acting like experts, your own assertions also carry a similar tone, which could be considered hypocritical. While the KV-2 does indeed have a larger caliber and slightly more speed, its armor-piercing capability is inadequate against the Maus. The Maus's roof armor is exceptionally thick, even by heavy tank standards, making overpressure damage highly unlikely. Moreover, the KV-2's gun cannot penetrate the Maus's armor, even at its weak spots or through shot trapping. The weak spots of the Maus, the cheeks of the turret, are vulnerable only to very powerful anti-tank weapons, which the KV-2 does not possess. During that era, very few, if any, tanks could penetrate the Maus's armor, often requiring specialized equipment or its own class of heavy tanks. In a direct engagement, the Maus would overwhelmingly prevail. The only realistic threat to the Maus would be an intervention by a third party, such as air support, which could target it effectively. Furthermore, Soviet tank crews were often less trained compared to their German counterparts, especially those operating a vehicle like the KV-2, which was primarily designed for bunker busting rather than tank combat. Soviet sights were notoriously inaccurate, and maintenance issues were common. In contrast, the Maus's crew would receive superior training and support due to the German military's practices at the time, and its targeting systems were far more reliable. Not saying the vehicle itself was more reliable as a whole, just the sights. In conclusion, the KV-2 stands no chance against the Maus in a head-to-head confrontation. The notion that a KV-2 could penetrate 250mm of rolled, hardened steel is purely fictional.
@@thegamingrex5566 Hello, I have sincerely read your comment. I was clearly annoyed at the creator and commentators, the creator stated that MAUS SOMEHOW has more speed than KV-2, then i thought "How does that even make A SENSE!?", Thats why i wrote this. The trap shot and cheek part pen is possible, i already tested it out on the simulator, the maus had this little tank flaw which causes the turret crew be destroyed. Yes, the battle is completely fictional, the air support would entirely destroy the maus, i do agree with this statement, neverless if the soviet crew were trained less, they could have chance to win, the battle depends on the mobilty of gunner and loader, the driver must be tricky against Maus/KV-2. The maus' turret weights like 60-70 tons, which is why it can be outmaneuvered. The winerate would 80% for KV-2 crew, while the Maus crew would have 20%. Its kill or be killed.
@@Your_Local_J_fan Thank you for reading my comment! I put a lot of effort into it. I still don’t think the KV-2 could win by out maneuvering the Maus even with the Maus’ slow turret. Why? The Maus has a very quick turn in place, so even if the KV-2 started close and already off to the side, the Maus could still turn to meet the KV-2 and fire upon it.
bro. KV-2 is a heavy tank not a medium plus the speed one is inaccurate
Maus has 20.8 km/h
Kv-2 has 28 km/h, no shit that maus is 188 tons. Plus, @Cody_hun123 literally said that the kv-2 has bigger barrel size. Saying maus is stronger is accurate except the "best tank" ofc there's many german or other nation tanks better than that.
KV-2 isn't even a tank it's a howitzer lmfao
@@TokisakiKurumi_Sanindeed, it is a bunker buster like the Sturm Mörser
@@AAngelDustgaymer Yep Sturmmörser (Sturmtiger) isn't a tank too
We all know that the mouse is better
Nah
@@Dogeawviwi274 The KV-2, initially designed as a heavy artillery tank, was not intended for direct tank combat. In contrast, the German Maus tank was technologically advanced, boasting superior firepower and significantly enhanced armor protection.
the kv-2 have a 152 mm cannon the maus have a 128 mm and a 75 mm cannon so the kv-2 have bigger cannon
you forgot the speed part too, according to my research
Maus is 20.8 km/h
Kv-2 is 28 km/h
Kv-2 is 50 or 57 tons
Maus is 188 tons
Bigger isn't better
@@sergiokv5711that goes for both tanks, even tho the KV-2 is a bunker buster artillery piece
Still the KV-2 gun has too many drawbacks when it comes to fighting tanks, range, accuracy, reload time, etc. only thing it has is damage, but the Maus has 200+mm of armor almost everywhere so good luck. The 128mm was the best anti tank gun of ww2, yes it was kind of overkill but still, it could probably kill the KV-2 outside the 152mm range
@@sergiokv5711 + the kv-2 dont eat 1 liter oil in a min
These categories lack coherence and relevance. "Sovit" seems to be a misspelling of "Soviet," but it's significance regardless remains arbitrary. Mentioning a Porsche engine and labeling the tank as a "super tank" without substantiation only adds to the confusion. Terms like "Diesel fuel," "weakness," "second cannon," "medium," and "super tank" are arbitrarily included without proper context or comparative analysis.
These ambiguous categories don't contribute to assessing the vehicle's effectiveness accurately. In particular, the inclusion of a second cannon as a merit for the Maus is perplexing and indicative of a misunderstanding of tank design principles. Each category must provide clear criteria to evaluate the superiority of one tank over another.
Firstly, the criterion of diesel fuel is inadequately assessed. While diesel may offer advantages in certain contexts, its drawbacks must also be considered, precluding it from being a decisive factor. Similarly, terms like "weakness" and "medium" lack specificity and should not serve as criteria for comparison. The KV-2, for instance, is categorically a heavy tank, not medium as erroneously suggested.
Furthermore, the notion of "stronger" remains ambiguous and requires specification-whether referring to firepower, armor, or another attribute-to be relevant in a comparative analysis. As for labeling the Maus a "super tank," it is crucial to note that such classifications, if valid, necessitate an assessment of the inherent advantages and disadvantages specific to super heavy tanks.
Regarding the Maus's secondary cannon, while it provides backup capability, it compromises crew space, mechanical reliability, and adds unnecessary weight and logistical challenges. The allocation of points for secondary armament should rightfully favor the Maus, given the effectiveness and longevity of its Mg34 and auxiliary cannon.
The Maus's substantial weight, totaling 188 tons, primarily poses logistical challenges rather than tactical advantages. This weight not only limits transportability and cross-terrain mobility but also strains the vehicle's mechanical components and infrastructure, rendering it impractical for any combat scenarios.
Lastly, the notion of a "best tank" is subjective and lacks objective criteria for evaluation. Without defining what constitutes the "best" in concrete terms-such as absolute invulnerability, unmatched firepower, or unprecedented mobility-it remains an arbitrary judgment, unsuitable for objective comparison.
In conclusion, while the Maus may emerge as a preferred choice, the evaluation criteria must be substantiated and streamlined to avoid arbitrary judgments. Many of the current categories lack relevance and should be reassessed to provide a more informed comparison between competing vehicles.
Jeez, so many "experts" here.
KV-2 obviously more speed here, the cannon caliber is bigger, they can LITERALLY overpressure the Maus crew, or penetrate the turret crew (cheeks are weak spot of the maus.)
They could also trap shot it.
KV-2 wins, no-diff.
Your comment is quite amusing, but it seems there's some misinformation that needs addressing.
First, while you criticize others for acting like experts, your own assertions also carry a similar tone, which could be considered hypocritical.
While the KV-2 does indeed have a larger caliber and slightly more speed, its armor-piercing capability is inadequate against the Maus. The Maus's roof armor is exceptionally thick, even by heavy tank standards, making overpressure damage highly unlikely. Moreover, the KV-2's gun cannot penetrate the Maus's armor, even at its weak spots or through shot trapping.
The weak spots of the Maus, the cheeks of the turret, are vulnerable only to very powerful anti-tank weapons, which the KV-2 does not possess. During that era, very few, if any, tanks could penetrate the Maus's armor, often requiring specialized equipment or its own class of heavy tanks.
In a direct engagement, the Maus would overwhelmingly prevail. The only realistic threat to the Maus would be an intervention by a third party, such as air support, which could target it effectively.
Furthermore, Soviet tank crews were often less trained compared to their German counterparts, especially those operating a vehicle like the KV-2, which was primarily designed for bunker busting rather than tank combat. Soviet sights were notoriously inaccurate, and maintenance issues were common. In contrast, the Maus's crew would receive superior training and support due to the German military's practices at the time, and its targeting systems were far more reliable. Not saying the vehicle itself was more reliable as a whole, just the sights.
In conclusion, the KV-2 stands no chance against the Maus in a head-to-head confrontation. The notion that a KV-2 could penetrate 250mm of rolled, hardened steel is purely fictional.
@@thegamingrex5566 Hello, I have sincerely read your comment.
I was clearly annoyed at the creator and commentators, the creator stated that MAUS SOMEHOW has more speed than KV-2, then i thought "How does that even make A SENSE!?", Thats why i wrote this.
The trap shot and cheek part pen is possible, i already tested it out on the simulator, the maus had this little tank flaw which causes the turret crew be destroyed.
Yes, the battle is completely fictional, the air support would entirely destroy the maus, i do agree with this statement, neverless if the soviet crew were trained less, they could have chance to win, the battle depends on the mobilty of gunner and loader, the driver must be tricky against Maus/KV-2.
The maus' turret weights like 60-70 tons, which is why it can be outmaneuvered.
The winerate would 80% for KV-2 crew, while the Maus crew would have 20%.
Its kill or be killed.
@@Your_Local_J_fan Thank you for reading my comment! I put a lot of effort into it. I still don’t think the KV-2 could win by out maneuvering the Maus even with the Maus’ slow turret. Why? The Maus has a very quick turn in place, so even if the KV-2 started close and already off to the side, the Maus could still turn to meet the KV-2 and fire upon it.
@@thegamingrex5566 tbh the skills matter on the crew, i appreciate your comment.