For those asking real world practical questions - about a cartoon based on "non-lethal" tank combat... often depicting tanks physically doing the absolutely impossible... and now you have an issue with the real world cargo capacity of the C-5 to airlift a tank that never actually became operational? But no problems with the fact that somehow a group of high school girls are going to operate a vehicle that the people who were building it never managed to master? Okey Dokey... LOL!
@@dracon2002 Intending absolutely no disrespect at all, I, personally, would refer to any weapon system, which only ever had a single mechanically functioning example, which was being developed during wartime, yet never made it into combat, as an operational prototype.... and in the case of the Maus... it's real world limitations require one to be very broad minded to equate "fully operational" with "functional in combat." Either way, this is all a make-believe scenario that from its most basic premise requires the suspension of disbelief, so people quibbling about whether one aircraft or another could airlift a Maus is IMO perhaps a little silly.
@@theblackbear211 Well, the second Maus prototype (marked as V2) was completed after installing it's turret with both guns and turret rotation systems, which made that tank fully operational and probably combat capable, but lack of resources and failures on the both fronts made Germans decide to blow up both prototypes (soviets used both wrecks to make one complete tank again and send it to Kubinka) rather than let it go fight. That's why i think we can call Maus V2 fully operational tank.
I had to fact check this and apparently the C-5's max cargo weight is 135 Tons and the Maus is a whopping 188 MF TONS!? oh yeah and the Maus would fall even faster because of how heavy it is and also crack the concrete
*until gangsta C5 Galaxy Lockheed starts to clanking or stressing the airframe of the plane and collapsed to crash and boom* i would recommended to use An-124 and 225 since the an-225 was destroyed in Ukraine by the Russians well 124 is the only hope
People here failing to understand that the MTOW of the C-5M, compared to its empty weight, means about 208 metric tons of deadweight can be carried. The Maus takes up 188 of those, leaving 20 tons for fuel. There you go. You can stop complaining about how the Maus is too heavy. It's remarkable what aircraft can theoretically do when underfueled. The main problem would actually be the structural integrity of the floor. However, we can set aside 10 of those remaining 20 tons for reinforcements of the floor, leaving 10 tons for fuel and bearing in mind that the C-5 can do mid-air refueling.
@@JavvyF61 the max take of weight for cargo in a C-5 Is 270,000 lbs however the weight of a mouse tank is 499,743 lbs. That means the mous is 299,743 lbs heavier than than the max weight of the plane. In other words that plane isn't going nowhere.
You have no clue how this works right? It is not dropped, it is basically pulled out of the cargo area and has a "drop" of a couple feet. There is not enough height to get top-heavy.
@@petrameyer1121 I know the Maus will break when falling, but this is clearly sarcasm, and why are u trying to find the truth, what do I get out of lying idiot
