The tank rat was possible

I saw an interesting post about a WWII monster tank.

The land cruiser P1000 "Ratte"

Armament:
2 * 280mm cannons
1 * cannon (caliber is not known to me) on the stern
8 * 20mm flak
4 * machine guns
Armor 150 mm to 360 mm
Weight: 1000 tons
Power 13,000 kw (from 8 motors)
Length 35m
Width 14m
Height 11m

The device looks awesome. Unfortunately I can't add any pictures from here, but it should be easy to find.

The tank only existed on the drawing board designed by Krupp in 1942 and was painted by Albert Speer in 1943. Apart from that, none of these tanks would have been really operational by 1945.

Was such a tank even realistic or useful? I mean with the weight it sinks everywhere. Not to mention the fuel consumption.
Already gave a thread:

http://www.whq-forum.de/invisionboard/inde...=26051&st=0

Theoretically already feasible, but still unsuitable on the battlefield. Something like this might have been built if WWII had never broken out. That would have become a pure weapon of peace because it is impressive as a mere exhibit.
Interesting thank you. I just leafed through the 3 large equipment pages and found nothing. Search function 4twin * gg *
There was also a project to get the Dora's 80cm cannon off the rails and onto the "street", called the iirc p1500
You mean this one. Or?

Panzerbaer
Wikilink
I think that such a tank would have been crazy. Even if you had had the time and resources, this monster would have been a magnet for enemy planes. I also wonder how they wanted to move the steel monster. You can't take the train because of its weight and dimensions (tunnel, etc.) and on the road? No no, no bridge would hold the weight. It would also take forever for the rat to reach its destination, and it could never keep up with the normal tanks. The thing would only have been suitable as a moral breaker.
Yes, I meant that
Imposing in any case!
However, a question as to whether it would have been crackable by LFz's ... you can't make any statements about the effectiveness of the flak. Or what would have been necessary to penetrate the (front?) Armor of 360mm, was there anything at all back then? Okay, with a little time, an anti rat cannon would have been made


How fast the part would have been you can only guess but with enough tanks of these models that would be unimportant .. you just push the front in front of you * gg * The normal tanks can hunt the fleeing units and then go into the " Sliding formation "return
Even the thickest battleship can be cracked and, as Bismarck and Co showed, few battleships are worse than none. The super tanks have always been an expression of madness and never a good concept for war. Already in the naval plan (Z) it would have made more sense to do without the ships to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and to have more submarines at the start of the war. In addition, planes and perhaps Aircraft carrier, but only after the fall of France.

The rat was therefore just as pointless as the mouse and lion. A tank must be able to break through quickly and also be strategically mobile. If it cannot be deployed by train, it is pointless, if it lags behind mechanized infantry, it is pointless, if it is a single target, it is pointless because the enemy concentrates forces on it and will destroy or paralyze it.
Well, first of all it was definitely not that heavily armored all around and then there was still something like the Tallboy
A direct hit and the P 1000 is history.

General Gauder
Think of the havoc the thing leaves while it is being laid. From food to the front, a snip of devastation. For any aircraft, the monster would be easy to find and fight just by its trace. And then we overrun it and remain behind the lines alone and thus there is a lot of time for the enemies to crack the thing. Well, Speer was an architect and therefore a practical man and painted it. OK then. Krupp probably just wanted to please Gröfaz and earned a lot of money for the nonsensical planning. Industrialists and bankers are gangsters.
We do not need to worry about the significance for this conflict, just the timing and the necessary material makes this tank useless for changing the known course of the war.

But you should look at the part together. Solo is all an easy target.

A bundling of troops leads to a weakening elsewhere ... And well, the good old Bismark is another topic (with nothing uninteresting) the legends range from ... to ... (self-immersion).

and if I have an "invincible" line (just think about the material impossible because you would have needed 100th P1000) what do I care about the speed? Of course I need air defense and smaller tanks + infantry to protect the part. A modern warship does not go to sea alone.
These mega tanks like the P 1000 Ratte or - even bigger - the P 1500 actually only reflect the irrationality of their time.
A military historian said that a more rational person than Hitler would have prematurely discontinued this program.
Something similar can be said about - to come to the Navy - the later drafts of the H-Class, which would probably not have been able to anchor in any German port.

@ Nordschlag2
Something like that is the French in 1940 with their few super tanks - what were they called? - happens. The train that transported them to the front (!) Was bombed by the Reichsluftwaffe and these things simply ran aground ...
I think such projects were the last twitch of a long outdated way of thinking. This was the case with the said H-Class, including the Yamato-Class, which was just being implemented, in contrast to the H-Class, and so it was with the Montana-Class. All canceled projects. The gigantonomy was also planned with tanks and everything was canceled again. Reality taught you better.
If you are interested in all the mega-projects, the book "My Tank is Fight" is a must buy because I like big tanks and I cannot lie.
For me the thing is nothing more than Hitler's fantasy incarnate.
Militarily completely useless and for Krupp a good excuse to collect coal from the state.
However, from a purely technical and scientific standpoint, it is very interesting.
So more of a technical gimmick to show what is technically possible.
Actually a nice exhibit for a world exhibition
@xena
I agree with you.
The Musashi-Class was ineffective, they probably shouldn't have been against that Bismarck- or the Iowa-Class can claim.
The P 1000 rat would have been just as inefficient. Even the mouse was actually only useful for defending important points.
QUOTE (xena @ May 5th 2009, 4:18 pm)
Think of the havoc the thing leaves while it is being laid. From food to the front, a snitch of devastation. The monster would be easy to find and fight for any aircraft just by its trace. And then we overrun it and remain behind the lines alone and thus there is a lot of time for the enemies to crack the thing. Well, Speer was an architect and thus a practical man and painted it. OK then. Krupp probably just wanted to please Gröfaz and earned a lot of money for the nonsensical planning. Industrialists and bankers are gangsters.


You can probably compare it to the laying of a bucket wheel excavator: Such an excavator weighs significantly more, is manoeuvrable and we probably all know what the laying looks like from the television.
You don't really need to say any more:

At the beginning of the 20th century, people had a lot of imaginations that only reappeared in computer games a hundred years later.
You shouldn't take tank development programs like the P1000 and P1500 too seriously. These programs were not seriously followed by anyone, they were pure gimmicks on the drawing board from the start. I doubt that there were any serious blueprints at all.
It was just a little gimmick.
QUOTE (Nobody is perfect @ May 5th 2009, 10:56 pm)
These programs were not seriously followed by anyone, they were pure gimmicks on the drawing board from the start.

Well, about the general idea of ​​the Land Battleship: In Great Britain armored vehicles of over 300 tons were initially pursued. After a demonstration of chain chassis and exploring their performance options, the whole thing was tipped and what we know today as a tank was developed.

@ Starscream:
The Char 2C were not destroyed by the Luftwaffe, that was propaganda that persists (especially in German sources). The railway line was destroyed a few kilometers before the train. After the train could not go any further towards the front, the tanks were provisionally blown up by the crew by detonating explosive devices directly in the tank's Mun bunker (except for # 99, where the explosive device failed). Three other tanks of the four remaining were also incapacitated, one was dismantled at the beginning of the war.
I have to think about the ZAR all the time now It was also a very strange project what the Russians were pursuing. Even if it looks more like a fairground.

/ Edit: Because of the Char 2C: Really impressive the part, until today I didn't even know that such a tank even existed. I can already imagine that he would have had a very harrowing effect on the German soldiers if he had come into combat.
IMHO you have to see P1000 as heavy mobile coastal artillery rather than a tank in the classic sense.

So there were corresponding plans from Krupp for heavy mobile coastal artillery systems with guns with a diameter of up to 300mm.


Kind regards
ironduke57
Mobile coastal guns are also complete nonsense. Because you can't bring them to every coast, you can only move them in one place. The ability to move eats up so much resources and energy that it is better to build 2 guns. Also easier to armor, concrete drum, done.

Complete nonsense like that.
QUOTE (Nordschlag2 @ May 6th 2009, 8:38 am)
I have to think about the ZAR all the time now It was also a very strange project what the Russians were pursuing. Even if it looks more like a fairground.

/ Edit: Because of the Char 2C: Really impressive the part, until today I didn't even know that such a tank even existed. I can already imagine that he would have had a very harrowing effect on the German soldiers if he had come into combat.


I didn't know him either:
Here you can find information.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_2C

He won't have been that great, after all, he was deliberately kept away from the front. Why do you need such a tank when it is hidden from the enemy?
QUOTE (Almeran @ May 6th 2009, 1:43 pm)


Was probably not so successful for the brevity of the campaign I mean, an enemy gets to know something like that. Certainly the Germans were aware of the tank and a relocation usually does not go unnoticed. If my enemy runs away from me with his super weapon, isn't there something fishy?
Well, that he would have been an easy victim of the Stukas or that the 8.8cm would have torn him to pieces quickly, but I mean the psychological effect. Because after all, these tanks warn very large and would certainly have caused fear in the German lines.

Because the mouse was often mentioned earlier, I also have to think of the Jagdtiger: It was more of a mobile bunker than anything else ...
All respect for 88 tanks that were in use:
It is not known that the front armor was ever penetrated by a shell !!
...... okay in the end it wasn't much use but almost all of them were destroyed

BTW:

What does it have to do with the 30 ° angle of incidence? In all of the information there is "penetration of x mm steel at distance y and an impact angle of 30 °"
Is 30 ° the most optimal angle at which the greatest penetration of the bullet can be expected? Normally that should be the case at 90 °, right? Or is it because of the beveling of the front armor that one assumes that 30 ° will be the approximate angle at which most projectiles will hit the target?
The optimal angle is 0 °. 90 ° are vertical from above.
the lower the angle at which the armor is placed, the "thicker" it is. In relation to the trajectory, if you imagine that the projectile comes from 0 °, you take a ruler, tilt the thing to 45 ° and 30 ° ...
QUOTE (skape @ May 6th 2009, 3:24 pm)
The optimal angle is 0 °. 90 ° are vertical from above.

A vertical impingement in relation to the plate, yes - although you have to reckon with different labeling systems. For example, the Americans specify a vertical impact as 90 ° (or 90/90 as elevation / lateral angle), while NATO has standardized it to 0 ° (or 0/0).
The more acute the angle, the longer the path of penetration through the plate (as noted, simple geometry), the greater the likelihood of the projectile sliding off, and the greater the likelihood that impact fuze will fail.
QUOTE (Redeagle @ May 6th, 2009, 1:30 pm)
QUOTE (Nordschlag2 @ May 6th 2009, 8:38 am)
I have to think about the ZAR all the time now It was also a very strange project what the Russians were pursuing. Even if it looks more like a fairground.

/ Edit: Because of the Char 2C: Really impressive the part, until today I didn't even know that such a tank even existed. I can already imagine that he would have had a very harrowing effect on the German soldiers if he had come into combat.


I didn't know him either:
Here you can find information.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_2C

He won't have been that great, after all, he was deliberately kept away from the front. Why do you need such a tank when it is hidden from the enemy?


The French strategy was largely a wait and see. A long war was expected, because you don't waste your strength right at the beginning. When the German attacker ran for the first time, it was too late.
You don't know the Char 2C? That's a knowledge gap
It wouldn't have done much if it had been used because it was already too old, too slow, too underarmed and too big a target.

As for the 30 °, this is a standard figure for calculating armor penetration. Standard are 30 ° and 60 °. Today the 60 ° are more interesting because the front armor is much more sloping than in WWII, when the 30 ° was more interesting. The Americans nowadays, at least in the literature, mostly stick to the NATO standard of 0 ° for perpendicular to the armor.
Oki Merci for the performances. So the angle specifications are as I suspected in the 2nd part in order to have reasonably realistic penetration values ​​available for use.
I just want to say that afterwards it is easy to laugh at technical undesirable developments or to show their uselessness. Before that, however, nobody knows exactly what is a failure and what is a good development and it is necessary to plan at least once in all directions, if not to build at all - only then can you evaluate what is better and what is worse.
Without dead ends and mistakes, there are no concepts for success.

Edit: As for the Char 2C, you have to measure it against WWI, since it was a development from 1917.
Yes, but the nonsense of a 1000t tank should be clear to anyone with a primitive knowledge of tactics, strategy and physics. Can you imagine what it takes to move such a monster? Keyword mining excavators! Are even heavier devices (about seven times as much), but also slower. At approx. 0.5 km / h they have 16.5 MW of externally supplied drive power. Who wants to bring a 1000t tank to cruising speed (40km / h)? Total nonsense!
Attention. With the technology at the time, it was probably not possible to build such a vehicle, but there is no physical limit to this.
There are enough vehicles in this weight class around today. Dump trucks like the T282B manage 64 km / h with 600 t and 3600 hp.
With a 20 MW engine, a 1000t tank also drives 70 km / h. Tactically, economically, etc., it doesn't have to make sense, but it is technically possible without further ado.
Heavy crawler cranes, which are also used in Germany and transported (dismantled) on public roads, weigh several thousand tons ...
The tank was not built either, but I think one can assume that the engineers have learned a lot through the thought experiments in the limit areas of what is feasible.

Edit: In addition, recipes for success are often the result of thinking contrary to the usual rules - what very few people know is that 90% of projects against the "mainstream" are actually nonsense and only 10% or less successful "strokes of genius".
QUOTE (Schwabo Elite @ May 7th 2009, 11:50 am)
At approx. 0.5 km / h they have 16.5 MW of externally supplied drive power. Who wants to bring a 1000t tank to cruising speed (40km / h)? Total nonsense!

We put in the thing let's say four LM2500 +, that is in the current version with suspension a mere 25 tons weight and a good 120 MW output.

The NASA crawler transporter brings it unloaded with an empty weight of 2,400 tons with 4.1 MW to 3.2 km / h.
QUOTE (Palatine @ May 7th 2009, 12:38 pm)
The tank was not built either, but I think one can assume that the engineers have learned a lot through the thought experiments in the limit areas of what is feasible.


That's right, I haven't seen it yet. But to what extent this (thought) model has (positively) influenced other projects, we will unfortunately never find out. It would be interesting anyway.
QUOTE (harmless @ May 7th 2009, 12:25 pm)
Attention. With the technology at the time, it was probably not possible to build such a vehicle, but there is no physical limit to this.
There are enough vehicles in this weight class around today. Dump trucks like the T282B manage 64 km / h with 600 t and 3600 hp.
With a 20 MW engine, a 1000t tank also drives 70 km / h. Tactically, economically, etc., it doesn't have to make sense, but it is technically possible without further ado.
Heavy crawler cranes, which are also used in Germany and transported (dismantled) on public roads, weigh several thousand tons ...


Such a dump truck, with its 2 axles, one of which is steered by the chassis, is significantly less critical than a tracked vehicle. In a tracked vehicle, extreme load peaks occur during steering movements.
QUOTE (xena @ May 6th 2009, 4:38 pm)
You don't know the Char 2C? That's a knowledge gap
It wouldn't have done much if it had been used because it was already too old, too slow, too underarmed and too big a target.

As for the 30 °, this is a standard figure for calculating armor penetration. Standard are 30 ° and 60 °. Today the 60 ° are more interesting because the front armor is much more sloping than in WWII, when the 30 ° was more interesting. The Americans nowadays, at least in the literature, mostly stick to the NATO standard of 0 ° for perpendicular to the armor.

So to most of what you wrote full agreement but the Char 2C was anything but underarmed with its 75th at the time of the French campaign. On the contrary, it was probably the most heavily armed tank of its time.

General Gauder
QUOTE (General Gauder @ May 7th 2009, 2:41 pm)
On the contrary, it was probably the most heavily armed tank of its time.

In the first World War? Sorry, but the 75mm cannon was the standard armament of French heavy in-house developments at the time (Schneider CA1, St. Chamond). The British (and Germans) bet on 57mm, the Italians on 65mm.

And at the time of the French campaign, the Pz IV, Renault Char B1, T-35 and KV-1 also had a say.
So WW II

PZ IV: 7.5 cm KwK 37 L / 24 -> not a really good weapon against tanks
Renault Char B1 -> 47 mm and short-barreled 75 mm howitzer that can only be adjusted in height
T-35 -> 2x 37/45 mm and once a 76.2 mm 27/32 not really strong
remains the KV 1 where I admit it was armed equally strong.

So replace ... probably the strongest ... with ... one of the strongest ...

The Char 2C had one of these as its main armament.

General Gauder
The St. Chamond, introduced five years before the Char 2C, used a 75mm QF (tir rapide) cannon which was an evolution of the same developer of the Mle in 1897; In 1917 it was replaced by the cheaper Standard-Mle 1897 (165 units with the St. Chamond TR 75mm, 235 units with the Mle 1897). The Char 2C took over the use of the Mle in 1897.

The St. Chamond was an absolutely shitty tank
And yes he already had this cannon, but I wasn't talking about the campaign in the west of 1917/18

General Gauder
The Char C2 was just a historical joke at the beginning of WWII.

He was well armed ... and poorly armored. But a nice big goal. He would have become a victim and not a perpetrator.

The French tanks were clearly superior to the German tanks on paper. Main drawback: Wrong (WWI) tactics, wrong and insufficient, out-of-date training of the crews, missing radio equipment, faulty because 2-man turrets were too small -> additional tasks and overloading of the commanders, etc.
Even so, some models were excellent. Char B1, the best tank of the time-> SOMUA S35 of the AMC35.
And the light models weren't any worse / more pointless than Panzerwagen I and II. And some of them weren't really bad.
Let's be honest, the Panzer III was already far too light and too weakly armed, with no potential to be upgraded, the Panzer IV, in turn, was an infantry support tank at that time. All the remaining German tank models were ... cute ...
The German tanks won the battles because of the better and more modern tactics, the excellent training of the crews, the presence of radios and excellent optical devices, throat microphones, an excellent internal communication system and the combined use of the weapon systems.
Even against Somua the battles were mostly won by Panzerwagen III or there was a draw. On paper, the Somua should have shot the Panzerkampfwagen III away.
But if I imagine what a Panther or even Tiger II would have done on the battlefield ...
The consideration of tigers and panthers is completely superfluous at this point in the war. We should rather look at the British tanks, as they were clearly superior to the Panzer III and the earlier Panzer IV version.
This is a simplified representation of our main content. To see the detailed full view with formatting and images, please click here.