"The Story Of The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte — Hitler’s" Topic
19 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleOn Memorial Day (U.S.), a reminder of the casualties of WWII.
Featured Workbench ArticleThe campaign in North Africa is one of combatpainter 's favorite historical WWII theaters to game and model.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 26 Nov 2018 3:43 p.m. PST |
…. 1,000 Ton Super Tank. "In the midst of World War II, Hitler pushed for the creation of one of the most powerful, and least practical, weapons of all time: the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte. The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte would have been the largest, heaviest tank ever created. Weighing 1,000 tons, five times the weight of the heaviest tank ever built, and measuring 115 feet long, the Ratte was a testament to overkill. The giant tank would have had twin-linked battleship cannons in a rotating turret mounted on it, that would shoot 280mm shells at their enemies, as well as numerous other smaller arms and anti-aircraft weapons. It would have had to have been manned by a 40 man crew and would have had a vehicle bay large enough to store a reconnaissance motorcycle squadron….." link Main page link
Amicalement Armand |
Legion 4 | 26 Nov 2018 3:47 p.m. PST |
I've often thought of getting one in 6mm from Shapeways ! |
deephorse | 26 Nov 2018 4:21 p.m. PST |
Were Tiger tanks really infamous? |
Lee494 | 26 Nov 2018 5:47 p.m. PST |
Running out of relevant topics are we?? Smile :)) |
Mark 1 | 26 Nov 2018 7:03 p.m. PST |
With its 300 ton armor that plated the entire tank in 10 inches of hardened steel, it would have been impervious to nearly all ground attacks. This is the recurring problem of mega-tanks. A 1,000 ton tank, and only 10 inches of armor? The Russians managed to put more than that on the front of the IS-7 heavy tank, and they actually BUILT a few of those (well, 3, but that qualifies as "a few", doesn't it?). So yeah, only 10 inches. Because 1,000 tons is not enough to put more armor if it has to be all around, and with a target that big, and that slow, you can't afford to skimp on the flanks to re-enforce the front. The 53-BP-540 HEAT round developed for the ML-20 gun of the ISU-152 was reputed to penetrate about 10 inches of armor. Now it's true that round was never fielded in action, but what takes more time: building, training, and fielding a 1,000 ton tracked battleship; or providing new ammo to existing units in the field? Tactics for heavy ISU formations emphasized ambushing with a full battery of guns (typically at least 5) simultaneously, to make up for their low rate of fire and poor precision accuracy. Now, with a target as big as a Ratte I can hardly imagine that accuracy is going to be much of a problem, and … well … low rate of fire is kind of relative as well, I would guess. I mean -- bother with loading time -- what was the time to TRAIN the guns on the Gneisenau? As the IJN learned at Guadalcanal, you just do not want your battleships to get into short-range duels with 6-inch gun cruisers. Battleships are too rare and expensive, and their big guns fire too slowly. It hardly matters how thick your belt armor is. And by day, there are always those pesky dive-bombers. I'm just imagining the glee of the first Petlyakov driver to spot a Ratte. With 4 x 250kg bombs each, I wonder how a Ratte would fair against a wing of Pe-2s, nevermind an entire assault bomber regiment (who would undoubtedly be sortied as soon as the beast was spotted). Makes a fun what-if, though. If you play Russians, that is. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
StarCruiser | 26 Nov 2018 7:12 p.m. PST |
Yep – something that big (and inherently slow), you don't even need dive-bombers to take it out. Send in some B-17's or Lancasters and BOOM! She was gone… |
Saber6 | 26 Nov 2018 9:00 p.m. PST |
I have 2 in 1/144. Close to 12 inches long |
Legion 4 | 27 Nov 2018 8:41 a.m. PST |
Yes, in reality it would be too big to maneuver, couldn't cross many bridges or softer ground, a maint nightmare, too slow and target practice for allied bombers, etc. … |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 27 Nov 2018 8:59 a.m. PST |
It was a silly idea then, and it still fuels the imaginations of those with less than spectacular genitals. How else o explain the obsession for mechas? |
Tango01 | 27 Nov 2018 11:21 a.m. PST |
|
Legion 4 | 27 Nov 2018 3:29 p.m. PST |
Very good point ! I think Mechs, Titans, 60ft Battle/Combat Walkers, etc., are really just plain dumb. None the less GW's updated Titan game seems to be selling quite well … So … |
Walking Sailor | 27 Nov 2018 3:41 p.m. PST |
Scroll to the bottom for your very own: link in 15mm. |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 27 Nov 2018 4:08 p.m. PST |
|
TMPWargamerabbit | 27 Nov 2018 10:17 p.m. PST |
Use my Landcruiser P.1000 Ratte 1/72 model to hold the game supplies and dice for convention games. Yes….. there is a 1/72 model made by ModelCollect. That and the extra weapons kit package to add to the basis model. Modelcollect UA72088 1/72 WWII GERMANY LANDCRUISER P.1000 RATTE Tank kit. And yes…. the model is huge. |
Patrick R | 28 Nov 2018 3:58 a.m. PST |
Picture a motorbike with square wheels or a pedal-powered Ford F-450 and people quickly notice the problem. They see the Ratte and figure "That could have worked, right ?" |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 28 Nov 2018 1:30 p.m. PST |
Sjg's Ogre proved it would, how much of a feasibility study do we need?. Let's sink lots of money into a new one to put on the border! Think of the savings on concrete! |
Zephyr1 | 28 Nov 2018 10:50 p.m. PST |
For large feasible vehicles, NASA has two (though they are unarmored & unarmed, but they can carry 11 million+ lbs, so modifications are possible, missile optional… ;-) science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/crawler.html |
Mark 1 | 29 Nov 2018 3:00 p.m. PST |
For large feasible vehicles, NASA has two (though they are unarmored & unarmed, but they can carry 11 million+ lbs, so modifications are possible, missile optional… Considering the mega-tank concept from the practicality viewpoint (rather than just "cool" vs. "silly" debate), I think there are ample demonstrations that it is possible to build a very large tracked something. The question is not can a 1,000 ton over-land vehicle be made to work, but rather is there any useful combat role for a 1,000 ton over-land vehicle? One factor that is apparent, at least to me, in the evidence of over-sized tanks, is that they never have armor that is noticeable thicker than smaller, tank-sized tanks. Look at the T-35 vs. it's contemporaries. Look at the T-100 or SMK. Look at the Char 2C. As the physical size of the vehicles grow, it becomes more necessary to armor every aspect. Mega-tanks would be expensive and few, and would be high-priority targets of any number of weapons on the battlefield. You can armor at tank based on % prioritization (ie: up-armor it where 60 or 70% of hits are expected). You will lose some tanks to hits on the lower-priority areas, but you will be operating platoons, companies, and battalions of them, and if you can shrug off 70% of the hits you are doing QUITE well. You can't take that approach with a mega-tank, as it must be expected to take hits from every angle and aspect, and even if only 30% of the hits penetrate your one mega-tank, it is still 100% lost. It will simply always be possible to put more armor on one aspect, than on all aspects. Creating a vehicle that must be armored to maximum potential on all aspects means a vehicle that will be under-armored on its primary threat facing vs. it's contemporaries. A Jagdtiger had almost as much frontal armor as the proposed Ratte. An IS-7 had more. A battalion of Jagdtigers or IS-7s would always be a more practical tool of battle than a single Ratte. Easier to transport, easier to supply, easier to train crews for, easier to conceal, and capable of more effective offensive or defensive combat. And they would also always cost substantially less. And by the way, a regiment of Panthers or T-44s, while not having as much frontal armor, would be even more practical. It's really only the emotional reactions of some people (whether modellers, gamers, or political leaders) that keep mega-tank concepts going. I don't think there is ever a use-case that makes them reasonable. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Legion 4 | 29 Nov 2018 3:33 p.m. PST |
I don't think there is ever a use-case that makes them reasonable. Totally agree … Mega-tanks, Mechs, Titans, Combat Walkers would be just very BIG targets. And their heavy weight would be a liability on most terrain. |
|